Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Waivers, Blueprints and Reform: The Future of Educational Policy

Kids are taught from infancy that every person is special – that each child has his or her own talents and strengths to bring the world. Yet K-12 education policies tell a very different story by implementing blanket assessments and declarations that do not take the individuality of learning into account. How can today’s students be expected to recognize their strengths when they are all treated as one collective group by educators and policy makers?

Reforming NCLB. The Obama administration has made it perfectly clear that plans to redesign the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act because it has “reinforced the wrong behaviors in attempting to strengthen public education.” The current version of the law, No Child Left Behind, is already five years past its reauthorization date and the Obama camp believes that the “pass-fail, one-size-fits-all” mandates deter full learning potentials by punishing students and schools that miss their goals. Any spirited argument of NCLB has those who enthusiastically agree, or vehemently disagree, with the President. What is not up for debate is that NCLB is outdated and does not adequately meet the needs of the American K-12 student population.

In 2010, the administration proposed a Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that addressed the problems with NCLB and also made recommendations for closing the achievement gap. There has been no official move by Congress to modify and authorize NCLB, so the administration has moved forward with a system of granting waivers to states, and even individual districts, that can come up with a better plan for addressing their own weaknesses in teaching and learning outcomes. NCLB has provisions that allow exactly what the President and his education advisors have done in the way of waivers, making it possible for schools to take control of their learning experiences to meet the needs of their unique student bodies.

A look at NCLB waivers. In 2011, President Obama said that his administration would grant NCLB waivers to specific states that provided rigorous plans to benefit K-12 learning in their communities. As of last week, all but nine U.S. states have been approved for these waivers, along with the District of Columbia and some districts in California. Many of the districts that have been approved for ESEA flexibility have a heightened teacher evaluation system in place that is meant to override Obama’s goal of 100 percent student proficiency in math and reading by 2014.

Just this month eight individual California school districts were granted waivers with the idea that each one would create customized plans that take local influences into account. The eight districts banded together when the state of California decided against requesting ESEA flexibility for this school year. Each NCLB waiver is different. For example, the Colorado Department of Education was approved for a waiver of the 14-day notice requirement to inform parents of public school choice in 2009, while in the same year Hawaii was given a one-year waiver of the requirement to spend 20 percent of its fiscal yearly spending on choice-related transportation.

In the Colorado waiver documentation, the state agreed to still provide public school choice notices to improvement districts. In Hawaii’s application, the governing educational bodies of the state agreed to use the funds released by the waiver to fund specific student needs based on data. In all of the waiver requests, states were required to carefully craft their requests and provide a reasonable alternative. The idea of individual states and districts asking for control over their student directives when it comes to achievement is a smart one that makes up for some of the flaws of NCLB. Every student population is different so one federal mandate regarding assessment can never work for every district, school or student. Even with the NCLB waivers, individual K-12 students are grouped together but at least the waiver makes specificity of assessment and teaching a little bit more possible.

Future of educational policy. Waivers are a step in the right direction when it comes to policy reform simply because they give states and districts a voice in the teaching, learning and assessments processes. Even a complete overhaul of NCLB would mean applying monotonous standards to a diverse K-12 student population, assuming that it included federal mandates again. Giving more power to individual districts, right down to specific schools, is really the right way to address the needs of custom student bodies. But would accountability suffer if there were less demands from the top?

What should be included in educational policy reform to truly benefit the next generation of K-12 students?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Year-Round Schooling

Top 3 Reasons the US Should Switch to Year-Round Schooling

The traditional school year, with roughly three months of vacation days every summer, was first implemented when America was an agricultural society. Learning to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic in classrooms was simply not as important as keeping up family farms and building the nation. The summer months were needed exclusively for farm work.

Since then, we have completely changed as a nation—today, the majority of U.S. K-12 students aren’t spending summers off tilling fields or harvesting crops. However, the idea of summers off from school is alive and well. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research finds that the average American student receives 13 weeks off of school each calendar year – with 10 or 11 of those coming consecutively during the summer. Barely any other countries have more than seven weeks off in a school calendar. Only around 10 percent of U.S. schools currently use a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks inserted throughout the year.

With the US lagging behind countries such as Korea in terms of academic performance, it may be time to consider drastic changes to our public school system. Year-round schooling might just be a solution—and surprisingly, it could even be one that students will enjoy. Here’s why:

  1. Students will actually remember what they learn.

Year-round schooling means that students do not fall victim to the “summer slide,” or the well-documented phenomenon where students unlearn some of the knowledge they worked so hard to attain when too much consecutive time is taken off from school.

A study released in 2007 by The Ohio State University found that there are really no differences in learning between students who attend school year round and those who are on a traditional schedule. However, the National Summer Learning Association often cites decades of research that shows that it can take anywhere from 8 to 13 weeks at the beginning of every school year for teachers to get their students back up to speed and ready to learn the new grade’s material.

Either way, when it comes to learning and retention, students who attend year-round schools have nothing to lose and much to gain.

  1. It’s an easy way to bridge the achievement gap.

Minority students, students who speak English as a second language, economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities are the most affected by the summer fallback. Studies have found that disadvantaged students lose about 27 percent more of their learning gains in the summer months than their peers.

If that is not enough to affirm the need for year-round schooling for minorities, researcher Daniel O’Brien concluded that minority students progress their learning proficiency the fastest during the school year when compared to white and economically advantaged students.

Furthermore, Anna Habash of Education Trust, a nonprofit that works with schools to better serve their student populations, says that for minorities, a year-round school schedule does more than help academically. In an interview with Education News, Habash said that schools with high numbers of poverty and minority students benefit greatly from year-round schooling because it keep students “on task” and leads to more “meaningful instruction” when there are not a lot of academically sound options at home.

Minorities also drop out of high school at rates that are higher than their white counterparts. According to Jessica Washington of Politic365, the solution is year-round schooling. She reports that the national dropout rate is 5 percent, while the dropout rate for year-round school students is just 2 percent. These dropout statistics are not broken down by racial or socioeconomic backgrounds, but if the overall dropout rate is lower for year-round schools, it is likely that the minority dropout rates in this model are also lower. The reasons why dropout rates are lower in year-round setups are easy to deduce: students have less time to adjust to time off from school, and in the case of high schoolers, they have less time to work.

While this inability for teenagers to work and make money in the summer has been cited as a pitfall of year-round schooling, the disadvantages of this are short-lived. High school graduates earn $11,000 more per year than those with a G.E.D. or less, and that number rises to $36,000 more with a bachelor’s degree. Giving up a few summers of minimum wage work in exchange for the higher lifetime earnings a high school diploma affords is a small price to pay.

  1. Students will actually like school.

Students will do more than just learn better in a year-round school.

Teachers and students experience a closer relationship in year-round schools than they do in traditional, shorter-calendar-year schools. In the absence of any long-term break from school, students do not feel detached from the school environment.

The experience of immersion in learning offered by year-round schools, with more time spent in classrooms, proves to be beneficial to many students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in particular, including those for whom English is a second language. Many second language learners who have difficulty mastering English benefit from the opportunity to immerse themselves in English during intersession classes. They also develop better relationships with other students.

Results from research studies show that students in year-round schools are more self-confident, have a higher self-concept, have fewer inhibitions, and feel positive about their schooling experience.

But what about down time? Don’t children need time to just “be kids”?

Some childhood development experts believe that for younger students, time off in the summer months is vital to healthy development. They believe that kids are not designed to spend so much of their time inside classroom walls and that the warmer, pleasant weather of the summer provides a perfect opportunity to get outside and experience childhood. The problem with this argument, of course, is that most children are no longer spending their summers frolicking in fields of flowers or running around their neighborhoods, hanging out with other kids.

A recent Harvard University study found that school-age children tend to gain weight at a faster pace during the summer months than during the school year. Children today spend more time in sedentary activities like watching television or using mobile devices instead of playing outside or participating in active pursuits. Not only must K-12 students relearn the academic items, but they must also shift their mentalities from less-active, sedentary ones to sharp, alert learning models.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that by the time children graduate from high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in classrooms. What’s more – children who watch an excessive amount of television generally have lower grades in school, read fewer books and have more health problems. While some children visit summer camps, or attend child care when school is out, others stay at home, inside, with not much else to do than watch TV or play games on electronic devices. This is especially true for kids who are middle-school age or higher and are able to stay home alone when parents work. The “down time” of the summer months is really just empty time, often void of anything academically or developmentally advantageous.

As the US establishes itself as a knowledge and innovation-based economy, the usefulness of a traditional school year diminishes. There are many reasons changing from our traditional school year to year-round schooling makes sense. As with any adjustments, making the switch would not be easy. However, with all its advantages, it is certainly worth considering.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Study: Retention rates dropping dramatically

The rates of retention, or “holding back” students, has dropped drastically since 1995, according to a new study from the American Educational Research Association. From 1995 to 2005, grade retention was at 3 percent but has dropped to just 1.5 percent between 2005 and 2010. Though the study reveals numbers it does not present a definitive answer as to “why” these retention numbers are dropping, and so significantly.

What makes the numbers even more interesting is the fact that since the early 1990s, the idea of “social promotion” (or allowing kids to go to the next grade even if they were not up to par academically) has been shunned among educators. As a result, retention should be going up, not down — but there are some realities that come into play that may not be evident in the cut-and-dry data of this report.

For one thing, school districts that may have started to hold back more students in the early 1990s, for example, may have soon seen how expensive that tactic actually was and may have unofficially reversed those policies. Perhaps that’s a cynical look but as someone who has taught in a public school system with many at-risk students, I can see it happening.

There could also be a more positive reason why these numbers are dropping and it could relate to earlier detection of academic issues — and earlier confrontation of those problems. Instead of waiting until the end of the year to have a child repeat a grade, schools are targeting students during the year with customized learning plans and programs to meet their weaknesses in the moment.

The drop in retention rates is likely a combination of both things and likely a few others thrown in there. It will be interesting to see how these retention numbers fare in the coming years as Common Core and PARCC testing is implemented throughout the country.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

4 Reasons We Should Stop “Waiting for Superman”

Recently I viewed the documentary, Waiting for Superman, for the umpteenth time, and I noted that almost 5 years after the film’s September 24, 2010 U. S. premiere, the American educational system is still not living up to its potential. Sure, education reform was the phrase on the tip of everyone’s tongue, but after a year most of the fervor and commitment to educational change that was initially exhibited has all but subsided.

It’s time to recommit to the change that the documentary called for. Here are four reasons we should all stop “waiting for Superman”—and, together, make positive steps toward a better educational system in America.

  1. We are falling behind academically, despite spending lots of money on our pupils.

The comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is still falling behind academically. The cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are many our school systems of such a low caliber, and further falling behind?

  1. Everyone in the United States could benefit from an improved educational system—not just students from low-income backgrounds.

Statistics and common sense born of observation tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman put it, “the dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.” Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvement is being made to the system itself.

Of course everyone wants to improve America’s education system. They just do not seem to know how, or they can’t agree on how to do it.

  1. Education is not viewed as a top priority in the United States.

The American public must believe that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. It is understandable that, in today’s economy, people are primarily concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although important to most, can hold a low priority in the mind of the average American, who is mostly concerned with keeping a roof over their head. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough in an economy such as ours, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the local (and global) marketplace. The education system is where people turn to acquire these skills.

  1. The demand for highly skilled workers is growing.

Furthermore, enhanced skills and technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle towards sustaining a dynamic 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler — in fact, it is just the opposite. Along the same lines, workers down the road will need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. If American students and workers find themselves in an educational system that cannot fulfill these necessary, required functions because it is sub-par, not only will these individuals and their families find little success in an economy that has left them behind; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.

How do we fix this?

Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teacher’s unions, placing the blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. Nevertheless, the film shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools; the sadness of the lottery system; and the general hopelessness that some express about our educational system and its future.

One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This scene shows, in a metaphorical sense, that while our students seem to have confidence, many do not have the skills to actually succeed.

A year later, Waiting for Superman still serves as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been. The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet many appear to simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.”

America needs to view this film as a public call to action, where each of us is summoned to be a Superman (or Superwoman, as the case may be), or at least to lend a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, we should strive towards getting every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system, and to work together to fix them.

What is most important is that we understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and strictly forbid placing blame — which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children. Collectively, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our education system.

The future must be planned for; now. It certainly will not be an overnight process. However, by taking positive, productive steps, one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years. If we simply work together, we can restore the U.S. educational system to its former preeminence, and give our children the bright futures they deserve in our great country and aboard. We must become the Super-citizens that we have been waiting for.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Physical Fitness, Policy & Reform

Health Education Provides Mixed Messages

Is it possible that America’s schools are responsible for most of the country’s health problems?

Yes, these institutions of education–from the K-12 staples to universities, colleges, and trade schools–are preoccupied with messages of health, knowledge and success. But as every parent can attest, children are particularly attuned to the gap between word and deed.

In schools, millions of kids are peppered with advice about eating fruits and veggies, getting enough sleep, and avoiding the ubiquitous junk food. Then they are shuffled through cash-strapped cafeterias relying on deep fryers and sugary, fattening condiments to make frozen convenience foods palatable; athletic programs conspire with snack food retailers, gaining equipment in exchange for brand messaging and vending machines in the hallways. The nutritional guidelines individuals and institutions are supposed to follow end up being just that: guidelines, loose to the point of irrelevance.

The nutritional contradiction plaguing the nation’s schools is well known. But the mixed messages go further than diet, and set a destructive pattern that plays out over a lifetime.

School is Practice for an Unhealthy Life

Schools are the first place many children learn to sacrifice sleep. It is a conventional source of bragging rights, shared among the athletic and the poindextrous alike. Hours of rest and recovery, sacrificed in the name of study and scholarship or rehearsal and training, are exchanged as though they constitute accomplishment in and of themselves. And as common as the willfully sleepless trend is among students of all ages, it is also a quintessential element in the story of the starving artist, tortured genius, or serial entrepreneur. Again, experts can warn against the dangers of sleeplessness or critique the claims, but the cultural norm and social pressure is to treat sleep as expendable.

Never mind that fitness is the key to performance in academic endeavors as well as athletics; deprivation of sleep and a diet hinged on cost and convenience make for a more compelling personal narrative. America is obsessed with underdogs, and so has crafted a culture where we all set ourselves up for failure by neglecting the pillars of our personal health.

Poor diet and sleep habits, of course, correlate with one another: weight loss without proper sleep is nearly impossible, and poor diet can contribute to insomnia. This is well known. Also broadly understood is that the triad of diet, sleep, and exercise is implicated in virtually all of the leading causes of death and chronic illness in the United States.

Poor Young Bodies, Poor Young Minds

It is not a particularly long or winding road, therefore, from the habits of study, socialization, and personal neglect students learn to adopt in school, and the leading public health crises in the world today. And although our culture has done its level best to segregate mental health from physical wellness, the connection is clear: when our bodies fall into disrepair, our minds are likely close behind, if not leading the decline.

Schools are a training ground for lifestyle: extracurriculars go a long way in identity formation, and habits developed early on only become harder to change later. The neuroplasticity of young children in the K-12 years means it is the most critical time of all in terms of setting precedents of health. It is one thing for career-minded adults to sacrifice health and happiness in pursuit of security or advancement, but ingraining those choices as a matter of status and routine in school dooms children to duplicate that pattern in their own adult lives.

Teachers, parents, professionals, and celebrities are all setting the same example, and students are nothing if not impressionable.

They Have to Learn It Somewhere

Learning has a tendency to happen in spite of instruction, as well as in its absence. The passive instruction that drives students to skimp on sleep and compromise heavily on diet is an early life experience that will stick with them like an addiction well into adulthood.

We can’t take for granted that posters promoting apples and carrots will enter student minds by osmosis and ingrain a strong sense of what food is supposed to be–especially in the face of a contradictory message about what food is, presented by cafeterias, vending machines, and student dependence on energy drinks to survive the school day.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Avoiding School Reform Roadblocks

When initiating reform, an action plan must be developed before the school can determine how the reform will be carried out and how it will be measured. Too often, administrators become anxious and feel the need to change the reform before any data has been collected. More patience is warranted because if a plan is not working, it can be amended. The school team, which consists of educators, administrators, and other stakeholders, must make the necessary amendments without hindering reform efforts. Creating too many changes within one reform plan would be counterproductive and frustrating for all parties involved.

Many new administrators enter the field hell-bent on making a name for themselves and refusing to live in the shadows of their predecessor. Often, they feel as though their only choice is to go in a totally different direction, making the previous reform null and void. This situation creates frustration among the surviving faculty and staff. New administrators often make changes before they fully think about the consequences or repercussions of their actions. Perfectly competent adults massage their egos instead of thinking about what is in the best interests of the school and the children.

It is counterproductive to start one reform and then decide to start another several months later. Once a reform has been implemented, all parties involved must show fidelity to it until there is concrete data or evidence that indicates that it is ineffective. Reform is about creating an environment in which students are the priority and we as their teachers assist them in starting and finishing their journey to becoming educated citizens.

It is hard for many administrators and educators to grasp the fact that frustrations may worsen as the reform is being implemented. Often, issues arise because people do not welcome change. Some educators need to see that change is for the better before they completely support the reform. Once the rebellion to change has subsided and the reform has been implemented correctly, the waiting game begins. During this time, educators and administrators must go about the business of collecting data for analysis. The findings will give them a clear indication of whether or not the reform has served its intended purpose. If students are not progressing under the implemented reform, then it may not be fulfilling the needs of the students or faculty.

Strategic planning and the implementation of school reform sometimes require schools to absorb temporary setbacks in order to reap the benefits of long-term gains. Student progress might dip for a month or two before teachers and administrators see a significant gain in student learning and performance. Teachers and administrators need to allow change to take place and not panic when instant changes are not apparent. In many school reform efforts, educators and administrators must understand that policies and practices that met the needs of the past, do not necessarily address current needs or the needs of the future. They must realize that in order to obtain a great future you must let go of a great past.

Some administrators fall into the trap of emulating model schools. Model schools can be found in every major city, but when trying to recreate their success, many schools fail to achieve the same results. Trying to recreate another school’s success is potentially dangerous, even when schools share similar characteristics. This is because, regardless of the similarities, every district is unique. Often, after a large amount of time, energy, and money has been spent, the school declares the plan a failure and has nothing to show for the efforts.

Strategic planning, which is widely used in the educational arena, can assist districts in setting goals and implementing school reform. You would be hard pressed to find a school district that does not have one or more strategic plans awaiting execution. Strategic plans are a district’s consistent road map, even in the face of adversity. In the end, a strategic plan that reflects the culture and needs of each individual school is a better route than attempts to replicate the success another school.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

The calamity of the disappearing school libraries

Debra Kachel, Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

From coast to coast, elementary and high school libraries are being neglected, defunded, repurposed, abandoned and closed.

The kindest thing that can be said about this is that it’s curious; the more accurate explanation is that it’s just wrong and very foolish.

A 2011 survey conducted with my graduate students of 25 separate statewide studies shows that students who attend schools with libraries that are staffed by certified librarians score better on reading and writing tests than students in schools without library services. And it is lower-income students who benefit the most.

This clear empirical evidence has had little impact on budget cutters, however. They act – mistakenly – as though there is no link between libraries and educational achievement.

Here are the numbers and the arguments to which they need to pay attention.

A dramatic decline in school libraries and librarians

The number of school libraries in New York City has dropped from nearly 1,500 in 2005 to around 700 in 2014.

Over a recent five-year period, 43% of school librarian positions in the Houston Independent School District evaporated.

Ohio has lost more than 700 school library positions over a decade.

California has hemorrhaged school librarians to the point where it now has the worst ratio – 1-to-7,000 librarians-to-students – of any state in the nation.

And, finally, in my own home state of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia provides a dramatic story. In 1991, there were 176 certified librarians in Philadelphia public schools. Today there are 10. It appears that 206 out of 218 classroom buildings in the school district of Philadelphia have no librarian. Two hundred Philadelphia schools do not have a functional library book collection. A majority lack the technology to access necessary e-resources. And 85% of these children come from homes in poverty.

Proven impact

This is happening despite the fact that we know school libraries are highly effective.

A 2011 study using data from the National Center for Education Statistics revealed that “..states that gained librarians from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009 — such as New Jersey, Tennessee and Wyoming — showed significantly greater improvements in fourth grade reading scores than states that lost librarians, like Arizona, Massachusetts, and Michigan.”

So why, in the face of readily available evidence, are so many budget cutters targeting school libraries?

A vulnerable institution

One reason they cut is because they can.

For example, look at my state of Pennsylvania, where schools are not required to have libraries. Prisons must have them. Barber and cosmetology schools must have them. They are compulsory in nursing programs. But in public schools they are optional.

Why are budget cuts targeting school libraries?
W&M Swem Library, CC BY-NC-ND

Or consider the city of Houston, Texas, where decisions on school staffing for certain positions, including certified librarians, are left to the discretion of school principals. It is not alone in that.

Also at work in the minds of budget cutters may be the hoary falsehood that the internet has made the need for libraries obsolete.

But those who think that the internet replaces a library must think it is okay to use WebMD instead of going to a doctor.

Librarians teach information literacy – how to separate the useful from the less useful, the credible from the inaccurate, and how to navigate the internet safely.

Capitol Hill to the rescue?

There is some hope, however, and it comes from legislation unanimously passed on July 8 by the US Senate.

In a bipartisan amendment – sponsored by Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) – to Senate Bill 1177 that reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind (renaming it the ESEA), school districts would be authorized to use federal funds “…to develop and foster effective school library programs…programs with certified school librarians at their core.”

The Pennsylvania School Librarians Association and the Pennsylvania PTA, who have been active on this issue, lobbied both of their state’s senators aggressively. But presumably party pressure played a factor, as 100% of the senators voted unanimously for the amendment.

However, in the narrowly passed reauthorization of its version of ESEA (the Student Success Act), the House of Representatives included no language about school libraries or librarians.

When the Senate finishes its deliberations and (presumably) passes S1177, a conference committee will need to meld the House and Senate versions together.

Will the language supporting school libraries and librarians survive this process?

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said that “In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education.”

The research is clear. School librarians are an integral part of a world-class, 21st-century education.

Congress needs to step up

It is time for a rethinking and redirection of federal policy in education. Former President George W Bush and President Barack Obama have called education the civil rights issue of our time.

However, allowing each state and each school district to decide how funds should be expended to educate students and provide library services has brought about huge inequities particularly in impoverished communities with resource-starved schools.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the now 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) pumped millions of dollars into building school library collections for school students. Since then, only a few competitive grant programs have been available from the federal level to fund any improvements to school library programs.

With the defunding of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program in 2011, today there are no federal programs for school library funding. Clearly, the states, taking the lead from the feds, continue to ignore the funding of school libraries.

Yet, until now, federal education policy and legislation have neglected to support the role of school librarians. That needs to change. We need a national agenda and our elected officials to take a stand and ensure equity of library services and certified school librarians to teach the next generation to find and apply information to solve problems, think critically, and develop innovations.

Until such time, we shortchange our students and our future.

The Conversation

Debra Kachel, Professor of School Library and Information Technologies Program, Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Top 4 Group Influences in Public Education Part III: Businesses

There are many external influences that impact public education. In this series the top four will be reviewed including the influence of professional education organizations, the involvement of parents, the businesses, and the federal government and court systems. For this part the influence of businesses will be discussed to reveal their direct impact on public education.

Since the 1980s, large corporations have formed the vanguard in improving public education, a movement stemming ostensibly from a concern that schools are not graduating students with the skills and knowledge necessary to be effective members of the workforce. This has led to the formation of more than 100,000 business/educational partnerships since 1983, with companies becoming both the strongest supporters and the greatest critics of the educational system. The CEOs of several large corporations, including the giants IBM, Apple, and Coca-Cola, have advocated for educational improvement at the highest levels of government and since the early 1980s have donated millions of dollars to revamp public education.

The Business Roundtable is one example of the corporate world’s attempts to reform education. The Roundtable is an association of CEOs from several major companies who advocate improvements in education that will raise the standards, skills, and knowledge of basic education, to ensure that education will meet the requirements of the burgeoning workforce.

Some have criticized businesses’ intrusion into education, fearing that schools and students may be intentionally molded to meet certain business requirements, while being subjected to the unbridled influence of corporate advertising. Business leaders refute these claims, stating that they are compelled to spend billions of dollars annually on remedial education for their workers, in order to bring their workforce up to standard and to maintain their competitive edge in the world’s markets. They argue that channeling funds into the education system may lessen the need for corrective education later in life. Some opponents of businesses’ involvement in schools point out that the purchasing power of school-age children, estimated to be in the range of $500 billion per year, is the incentive that drives businesses to approach schools by offering gifts of products or services to teachers and students. Others are opposed to the exclusive contracts that some companies, such as Pepsi or Coca-Cola, impose on schools. To receive extra funds from the business provider, schools agree to sell the businesses’ product exclusively, which in effect promotes brand loyalty in young consumers.

Businesses have also influenced education by promoting the privatization of public schools, whereby certain schools are no longer administered by the local school board but are under the management of private enterprise. Some school districts have hired companies, such as Edison Schools or Sylvan Learning, Inc., to administer schools, with the expectation that student grades will improve on assessment measures. Some claim that private corporations can more efficiently and effectively manage school administration, at a lower cost. Opponents of this design, most notably teacher’s associations, claim that the welfare of students, often evidenced by the hiring of inexperienced or nonlicensed teachers, may be secondary to the company’s desire to make a profit. In reality, the privatization movement has led to smaller teacher–student ratios and to greater access to various materials and devices, although definitive results about improvement in academic achievement remain unproven.
Businesses influence what occurs in the classroom, in ways that are, at times, less than subtle. The role of businesses in education should never be underestimated. Just as education is important to the local community, businesses near the school district are also beneficial to the success of students and community. Businesses are only one type of influence, hence continue to read about the top four influences on public education.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Top 4 Group Influences in Public Education Part IV: Federal Government & Federal Courts

There are many external influences that impact public education. In this series the top four groups will be reviewed including the influence of professional education organizations, the involvement of parents, the businesses, and the federal government and court systems. For this part the influence of the federal government and federal courts will be discussed to reveal their impact on public education.

Even though the federal government has no direct control over education, federal authority does have a far-reaching influence over educational matters. Laws passed at the federal level impact schools and their administration. Also, federal courts make rulings that necessitate change in education on multiple levels, while the U.S. Department of Education leaves an indelible mark on the educational system.

The federal government’s interest in education shifts depending on the politics of the political party in power. Traditionally, Republican administrations seek to withdraw federal influence from education, leaving education as a matter for individual states to address. Democrats, on the other hand, generally tend to be more interested in improving the state of education across the country.

Many court decisions have shaped education nationwide, affecting the responsibilities and accountability of school officers in areas as diverse as desegregation, school finance, prayer in the schools, and the rights of individual students. Some oppose the federal court’s involvement in what they consider to be a state matter, whereas others feel that the involvement in education at the federal level ensures that education is brought into alignment with the principles of democracy, guaranteeing that education is truly accessible to everyone.

The influence of the federal government and federal courts are beneficial to understand when reviewing external groups that impact public education. Make sure you are aware of the changes in these groups because they can impact your school district. Remember this is only one type of influence, therefore continue to read about the top four influences on public education.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Hidden Issues in Educational Funding: Understanding the Controversy of Ethnicity and Inequality in School Systems

Educational funding is necessary for the development of any school including the availability of resources for students and teachers. However, do some school receive more funding than others? If so, who and what determines which schools are adequately funded? This articles answers both questions and discusses the controversy of issues within educational funding that are steered due to ethnicity in school systems resulting in what appears to be inequality.

Minority groups tend to live in poverty in proportions that exceed their representation in society.
Communities of specific racial minorities tend to be areas with a lower tax base. In poorer communities, a lower tax base results in less funding for the schools in those areas.

Running schools costs money. Paying teachers and the school staff; purchasing textbooks, equipment, and computers; and the upkeep of buildings and school grounds all need to be paid for. Because wealthier communities generally have more funds, it makes sense that their schools have a funding advantage. The question then becomes, where does that leave schools attended by racial minorities who live in poverty?

The inaccessibility to resources by specific groups is tantamount to social and economic injustice. One of the most fundamental bases for these injustices also appears to be ethnicity. Social injustices against ethnic minority groups continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Some laws and policies, unfortunately, continue to encourage advantages of particular ethnic groups and disadvantages for others. While universal declarations of human rights were designed to protect the rights of all human beings and limit oppression, oppression by ethnicity and class continue to permeate American culture.

While the federal government contributes relatively little to the schools, more and more state generated revenues are being directed toward these schools. In some states, the state government contributes as little as 20% to schools in local communities, and in others, the state contributes as much as 80%. This can still leave a wide gap between funding for schools in the poorer communities, versus funding for schools in wealthier communities.

Is this method of financing schools discriminatory? Many think so, including the California
Supreme Court, who ruled in the case of Serrano v. Priest in 1971 that a system of financing a school that is based on the wealth of the community is discriminatory and violates the state constitution. It might be fair to say that it violates the U.S. Constitution by denying children equal access to education, but not everyone feels this way. In fact, in the 1973 Texas case of the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the ruling was five to four that disproportionate school financing based on discrepancies in property taxes could not be challenged. Justice Lewis Powell was instrumental in this ruling, providing the following arguments: as long as everyone is getting a basic education, the differences are not unfair; whether or not the amount of money affects the quality of education is not clear; and education is not a right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Those who have disagreed with Powell suggested that despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the educational rights of children, the constitutions of most states do. At this point, educational rights are not an issue likely to get voters’ attention, however, due to the fact that a majority of voters are Americans of European descent and are generally wealthier individuals whose children have access to the best schools. As a result, school quality often differs, even within the same metropolitan area, and between cities and suburbs.

It has been pointed out that equalization of per-student spending is only a part of a total solution for ensuring quality schools for all children, particularly when the amount of money available for all the schools has decreased. This may be the case, but in many states there is obvious bias. Consider the state of Connecticut, which is near the top of the list in the amount of money spent on students. In the 1990s, the average amount spent across the state on books and other learning materials was $147.68 per student. In Hartford, however, where the student population was more than 92% minority, the funding for instructional materials was $77 per student. This was a mere 52% of the state average. A clear message was sent that these students were not as important as other students in the state.

It’s not uncommon for parents and educators to seek political allies on school boards and legislative support to ensure that better funding for schools is found and delivered. Parents and educators often look for adequacy in school funding rather than equality in school funding.
Basically, they want each school to receive the minimum level of funding that is adequate to fully meet the needs of students. This adequate amount was defined in New Jersey as the average amount spent on education by the 130 wealthiest districts in the state. Once school funding in New Jersey was adjusted based on adequacy, and extra funds were added to schools in poorer areas, the results were perceptible. Younger children gained access to high-quality prekindergarten and kindergarten programs, and the gap between math and language arts test scores of urban and suburban students decreased by 50%. New Jersey also has the highest high school graduation rate in the country, and this distinction includes students from minority groups. The difference this funding has made is certainly measurable.

Although more work needs to be done in the area of school funding, the New Jersey example provides a model for states interested in using funds directed toward education to ensure quality educational experiences for all students. A possible next area of focus is not the amount of money spent, but how that money is being spent, with a focus on ensuring it is applied in ways that will create programs that benefit all students.

In closing, do believe that educational funding has hidden issues of inequality when it comes to providing funding? What can you do as an individual to rectify this problem in your jurisdiction?

  • no reactions
0
Share