Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Check out the 5 Steps One School Takes to Transform Dropouts into Graduates

When you think about credit-recovery programs, you likely think of truant or at-risk students. These students, who need a push to catch up after falling behind, are getting lost in the shuffle, leading to lower overall graduation rates in high schools across the country. But with a well-structured academic support system combined with credit-recovery options, district leaders at Lawrence County Community Unit School District experienced a 9% increase in graduation rates.

Now here’s a typical story from Lawrence County CUSD. The only thing between Joe (a senior whose name has been changed) and his hard-earned high school diploma was one English final. Thinking he could breeze by, Joe failed the test, meaning that walking the stage to collect his diploma with the rest of his class was no longer a reality. After a series of meetings with the school’s guidance counselor and the principal, the team created a credit recovery plan. Joe was given three days to complete an entire semester’s work. Two all-night study sessions, three long days in the computer lab, and a passing grade got him a diploma—and the overwhelming feeling of success earned through determination.

Joe was lucky. He had a second chance, something many students don’t ever get. The reputation and perceived expense of credit-recovery and second-chance programs has caused schools across the country to quietly cut these programs, leaving students to find their own options. The truth is, not every student who could benefit from credit recovery or alternative options is an at-risk student. Many are special ed, are working to get ahead of the curve, or graduate on time with the rest of their class.

Lawrence County CUSD started its Second Chance Program about 13 years ago to help the group of nonconforming, at-risk students gain diploma status. Students would leave the traditional classroom setting to receive extra time and help from a specialized teacher. Within eight years, the school’s graduation rates increased dramatically.

But in 2012, funding for Lawrence County’s Second Chance Program was cut, leaving at-risk students to struggle through courses in the traditional classroom setting. Graduation rates quickly dropped to less than 70%. Two years later, the Second Chance Program was revived with a new look, a new name, and a new online component allowing for even more flexibility. Since its resurgence, graduation rates have increased from 70% to 79%. This school year, administrators at Lawrence County CUSD hope to reach their goal of an 85% graduation rate.

Here are the steps Lawrence County CUSD are taking today to dramatically increase their graduation rates after they restarted their Second Chance program.

1. Students get special attention. At Lawrence County CUSD, teacher Barbara Fabyan has her own school within a school classroom at the high school where students needing extra academic support can come during the school day. It’s an environment that removes students from their regular classrooms, so they’re able to concentrate on their schoolwork without distraction. At any given time, she may have a 9th-grade student with an IEP needing special assistance on a project or another student who is at risk of dropping out and without determination may miss the deadline to graduate with the rest of his or her class.

2. Technology is used to make individualized instruction easier. While dozens of students come into her class strictly to recover failed credits, “Odysseyware, the customizable online curriculum program and credit recovery software we use, allows me to restructure entire courses or individual topics and assessments to best fit the student’s needs,” Fabyan said.

Fabyan’s classroom also serves as an alternative for students wishing to work at a faster pace. For example, one of her students had knee surgery and couldn’t participate in gym class. Instead, she worked through an online curriculum provider to earn a year’s worth of history credits in one semester.
Online options give students the freedom to work at their own pace while sticking with Illinois State Standards. Lawrence County offers a blended learning option which, based on the increase in graduation rates, has proven successful for students so far.

3. Fabyan uses a “tough love” approach to teaching in the credit-recovery classroom. “Making mistakes is part of learning,” she said. “When students come in, they know it’s their last chance to complete the work and make it to graduation. Some students have dug themselves a deep hole with truancy and behavioral issues, and they know my classroom is the only place they can go to dig themselves out. It’s a wake-up call.”

4. Students develop an unshakeable belief in themselves. When students enter Fabyan’s classroom, they often have negative thoughts about specific classes, teachers, and school in general—prejudices that hold them back from success. Her mission is to break down the walls of what “school” is and show students success is possible, but it won’t come easy. With the support from her fellow teachers and administration, Fabyan and her students are constantly empowered to beat the odds and push through adversity. It’s the encouragement that keeps the program alive, allows students to reach their goals using whatever means it takes.

5. Students actually get to explore their interests in school. According to the Center for Public Education, 47% of high school dropouts cite “uninteresting classes” as the major reason for leaving, and 35% say “failing in school” was a major factor in dropping out. With the virtual labs, videos, audio, and games that they get from an online curriculum, students are pleasantly surprised, then challenged and engaged.

“My students realize the traditional courses they were taking may have been easier compared to Odysseyware,” said Fabyan. “Students that used to be failing are excelling with more difficult content. They realize they really have to work hard to pass. It’s more challenging, but in a way they are more engaged in the content and actually learning.”
She notes many students saying, “I really feel like I’m learning something,” and, “If I had this online option for more of my courses I would know more, and wouldn’t have fallen behind in the first place.”

That sort of realization makes students sprint to the end and get their diplomas. By the time at-risk students have their certificate in hand, they’ve learned a lot more than the Common Core. They’ve mastered the art of overcoming challenges and are part of changing the reputation of students using credit recovery. And now, because of the great success of the Second Chance Program, classroom teachers all over Lawrence County CUSD are using Odysseyware to better align their lessons with CCSS and engage students in a typical classroom setting.
If you are an educator in a school struggling with graduation rates, what are some steps you are taking to improve them? Feel free to leave a comment.

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

Year-Round Schooling: Why it’s Time to Change

When public schools first started popping up in the U.S., they were considered secondary to other hands-on pursuits. Learning to read, write and perform basic arithmetic in classrooms was not equal to or greater than the actual work of building the nation and keeping up family farms.

Even when a basic public school education became a relative priority, the school calendar revolved around agriculture – a necessity of the American way of life. Three months off in the summer months was not mandated because students needed “down time” or free creative play or time to decompress from the pressures of their studies. Those months off were full of even more work, and little free time, and plenty of hard work for the sake of the family and the nation.

Though family farms as a whole have become an antiquated piece of American history, the idea of summers off from school is still 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 June, July and August (approximately) – while barely any other countries have more than seven weeks off in a school calendar. Around 10 percent of U.S. schools have transitioned to a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks inserted throughout the year but the majority of schools in the U.S. still follow a summers-off schedule.

But why? There is no perilous economic reason that keeping children in school during the summer would be detrimental, and there is no medical reason that three consecutive months during the center of the calendar year are necessary for the healthy development of children. The reason the school year remains in a summers-off state is simple: it is easier than changing it. That mentality begins with teachers in the classroom and escalates to educational policymakers. Changing the ways things have always been, even if there is some pretty solid evidence that it would improve things, is too cumbersome – so why bother?

Why Teachers Don’t Want Year-Round Schooling

One of the first issues educators raise when the idea of year-round schooling arises is getting rid of summers off. Theoretically if nothing about the school calendar changed except the timing of the days off, teachers and administrators would still have the same amount of time off but it would be spread out over 12 months more evenly. Most educators will admit that they enjoy having at least three consecutive months each year to themselves, without the demands of being around children for seven hours every day and spending their evenings deep in grading or lesson planning. Many teachers take advantage of the time off to seek out other avenues of employment, to supplement their annual incomes. It’s doubtful that these teachers would be able to find the same level of employment during one or two week breaks scattered throughout the year, and it’s hard to say if those shorter spurts would allow enough time to for the mental decompression teachers need to perform their important jobs to the best of their abilities.

I believe that the benefit to teachers of year-round schooling would far outweigh these inconveniences, though. The pressure to have high-performing students is the bane of every teacher’s existence and research shows that too much time off from the school routine can actually undo the hard work teachers put in to their students. In fact, many teachers report that the first two to three months of each school year are spent teaching remedial skills from the previous grade – wasting even more of the time that should go into original learning.

What do you say teachers? Are your misgivings about year-round school based on personal reasons, or out of concern for your students?

photo credit: Old Shoe Woman via photopin cc

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

5 States That Have Had Issues with Common Core

Developed by state governors, Common Core Standards are about creating a baseline of knowledge and skills that translates across all states in the nation. One way that equity of education can be assured is through federally-encouraged programs like Common Core Standards.

Despite its noble and auspicious goal, Common Core has drawn criticism throughout the country for various reasons, angering parents, educators, and politicians nationwide. Here are just a few of the many states that have struggled with the Common Core standards:

  1. Indiana

Indiana was the first state to walk away from Common Core requirements.

In a statement, Gov. Pence said that he believed the students in the state were best served through standards developed at a state or local level. Common Core was developed by the National Governors Association and Indiana adopted the standards in 2010 under then-governor Tony Bennett, also a Republican.

This move drove a few teachers to come out publicly against the change.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, math teacher Joel Gramelspacher called Gov. Pence’s move “slapdash” and said that the quick turnaround for new standards would cause anxiety in teachers and would not serve students well. As teachers spent the past few years redrafting lesson plans and adapting their own mindsets to the new standards, and dropping Common Core meant that they had to change course, and quickly.

  1. Louisiana

Louisiana’s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, who helped develop the PARCC tests, has spoken out publicly against the tests and Common Core standards in general.

“We support higher standards and rigor in the classroom, but every day, concern among parents is growing over Common Core,” Jindal stated.

Jindal’s attempts to drop Common Core requirements in Louisiana have not gone smoothly. He has battled with the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), which wanted to keep the standards. In response, Jindal reduced the spending threshold on a variety of school supply necessities, including computers. The BESE voted to hire outside lawyers to sort out the mess that is Common Core versus state-created standards and assessments.

Those are not the only battles Jindal has fought against Common Core proponents. He has also been sued. A black education group, the Black Alliance for Education (BAEO), funded parents and teachers in a lawsuit against Jindal. The BAEO supported the standards and believed all children deserved access to high-quality education.

Another group sued Jindal, citing that he lacked the authority to withdraw his state from the Common Core national academic standards.

Stephen H. Kupperman, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs said, “We think the governor has overstepped his bounds and doesn’t have any right to do this. We don’t want to hold the children of the state hostage to somebody’s ambitions.”

  1. Oklahoma

Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill to repeal the Common Core education standards in 2014, ridding Oklahoma schools of the new math and English guidelines that were set to go into effect the coming school year.

The bill was passed in the House and Senate the final day of the 2014 session and required the state to return to previous standards that were used prior to 2010 and encourages new ones to be developed by 2016.

The Common Core standards were adopted in 2010 in Oklahoma and also adopted by over 40 states, but the concern was that the standards represent a federal takeover of education. Gov. Fallin worked hard to mollify these concerns back in December — even signing an executive order that states Oklahoma will be responsible for deciding how to implement the standards – but opposition continued to grow.

The business community actually supports more rigorous standards with the intent to better prepare students for life after high school in college or the workforce.

The Oklahoma Academic Standards, which are aligned with Common Core standards in math and English, were to be reflected in tests administered to students’ during the next school year.  State education officials say that over 60 percent of the school districts in the state have already aligned the curriculum with the new standards.

  1. California

Some parent groups in California have urged schools to keep the old key elements of math in place instead of adhering to the new Common Core method of teaching the subject.

Parents rebelled out of fear that their children would not get to take calculus, a subject they believe is key in competition for college admission.

Math educators who back the new Common Core standards insist they provide a needed grounding in math concepts compared with the approach of old math that has led to U.S. students’ poor performance in global math tests and the countrywide phobia of the subject. Common Core organizes math topics into related groups, similar to math teachers in high-performing countries. It focuses on problem-solving skill, not memorization.

Those who back the new standards warn against dividing students into different tracks in middle school.

But many high-performing districts retain the fast pace of old math instruction while adopting the new standards. Saratoga, Cupertino, Pleasanton, and Palo Alto schools pride themselves on high test scores, but maintain some accelerated math tracks in middle school. Those paths put students on track to take calculus in high school.

  1. Tennessee

Two Republican senators filed legislation to repeal common core in Tennessee and create a new panel to recommend different standards for public schools.

The new standards, which have phased into Tennessee classrooms for the past four years, must be in place when K-12 public students enter schools in the 2016-17 school year.

The move to repeal Common Core is designed to guarantee Tennessee students continue to learn and improve by applying the highest standards and wielding state control over education.

The bill cancels the current memorandum of understanding with the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers or Common Core standards for English, Language Arts and Math. Both groups were involved in the push for Common Core standards.

In 2014, Common Core critics demanded a delay in the state’s testing based on the new standards after conservative grounds charged Common Core was the work of President Obama and amounted to a federal effort to take over education.

The standards were developed and underway long before Obama became president, but the administration embraced the standards intended to put states on the same page with respect to what students should know in English and math.

Inequality of resources and opportunities for American K-12 children runs rampant and affects every member of society. When children are not given basic access to the same education as their peers, the country cannot progress the way it should.  This was what Common Core was meant to address. But are these standards really the best way to create a better standard of education in the U.S.?

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

The Five Attributes of Successful Schools

Students across the globe need effective schools. While the American school system as a whole may be falling behind international standards, there are still some schools that stand out.

Sure, the context of schooling will impact attributes that contribute to effectiveness in specific schools. But at the same time, there are attributes that contribute to effectiveness across schooling contexts. If we understand the attributes of effectiveness, we can observe which attributes exist at successful schools.

There are five common attributes that make up an effective school.

  1. Leadership

The first attribute is quality leadership. Students perform better when the principal and school board members provide strong leadership. Effective leaders are visible, can successfully convey the school’s goals and visions, collaborate with teachers to enhance their skills, and are involved in the discovery of and solutions to problems.

  1. High Expectations

The second attribute is having high expectations of students as well as teachers. High expectations of students have repeatedly been shown to have a positive impact on student performance. Students are somewhat dependent on the expectations placed on them during this period of their lives, as they are still shaping their personal sense of ability and esteem. Teachers who are expected to teach at high levels of effectiveness can reach the level of expectations, particularly when teacher evaluations and professional development are geared toward improving instructional quality.

  1. Ongoing Evaluation

The third attribute of a successful school is the ongoing screening of student performance and development. Schools should use assessment data to compare their students with others from across the country. Effective use of assessment data allows schools to identify problematic areas of learning at the classroom and school levels, so that teachers can generate solutions to address the problems.

  1. Goals and Direction

The fourth attribute of a successful school is the existence of goals and direction, According to research, the successful school principal actively constructs goals and then effectively communicates them to appropriate individuals (e.g., students, teachers, and the community at large). School principals must also be open and willing to incorporate innovation into goals for school processes and practices. So it’s important to invite input from all stakeholders in the process of developing school goals. Student performance has been shown to improve in schools where the entire school community works toward goals that are communicated and shared among all in the learning environment.

  1. Secure and Organized

The fifth and final attribute of a successful school is the extent to which the school is secure and organized. For maximum learning to occur, students need to feel secure. Respect is a quality that is promoted and is a fundamental aspect of an effective and safe school. Successful schools also have a number of trained staff and programs, such as social workers, who work with difficult or troubled students before situations get out of hand.

Apart from the five attributes of a successful school already mentioned, the size of the school seems to be an attribute in the school’s effectiveness. Research has found that the smaller the school, the better students perform, especially in the case of older students. This is the rationale behind the concept of schools-within-schools. Students in smaller learning environments feel more connected to their peers and teachers, pass classes more often, and are more likely to go to college. Schools-within-schools involve creative use of the same teaching workforce to provide additional opportunities for learning for smaller groups of students or specialized teaching to students who require extra attention.

This environment could be created in the form of divided streams for mathematics education. Students who want to pursue studies in the humanities would need a mathematical education grounded in statistics and graphical representation, because this focus will be more relevant and prevalent during their postsecondary education career.

Students who intend to pursue a career in engineering or applied physics, for example, would have completely different needs, such as a greater focus on calculus and highly theoretical mathematical concepts like number theory. Creating schools-within-schools for these students would have lasting and measurable benefits for them, as well as benefits for the teacher, who could teach smaller groups of students and offer greater individual attention to student queries and difficulties.

A number of school districts view preschool education as an attribute that will influence overall effectiveness across all schools located within the district. Evidence suggests that children with preschool experiences fare better academically and socially as they enter kindergarten and beyond. Experiences in literacy and numeracy among early learners not only prepare preschoolers for a kindergarten curriculum that has heightened expectations of prior knowledge, but also help identify early learners who need additional support to ensure they have positive learning experiences later.

Additional attributes that influence effective schools include time to learn, teacher quality, and parental trust. Research supports the view that the more time a student spends learning, and the more efficiently that time is used, the higher their achievement. Schools that find creative ways to extend learning time will likely be more effective. Furthermore, schools with high-quality teachers also tend to be more effective.

Schools able to hire teachers from high-quality teacher education programs are more likely to be effective. But school effectiveness can also be influenced by the frequency, relevancy, and quality of the teacher professional development offered by the school or school district. Teachers who haven’t had the opportunity to attend prestigious teacher education colleges still have several opportunities to develop after embarking on their professional career. Support for these initiatives at a school or school district level tends to improve overall teacher quality, regardless of their college of origin.

Trust and parental participation are also features of a successful school. Trust between all parties of the school community is vital for enhancing the school’s effectiveness because it supports the prospect that parents and teachers believe in each other’s motives and actions. Parental participation is also important because it sends the message to
students that the adults in their lives—both teachers and parents—believe
in the importance of education and are willing to make time to support
students’ educational experiences and efforts.

How well does your school embody the five attributes of a successful school?

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

Check out the 5 Steps One School Takes to Transform Dropouts into Graduates

When you think about credit-recovery programs, you likely think of truant or at-risk students. These students, who need a push to catch up after falling behind, are getting lost in the shuffle, leading to lower overall graduation rates in high schools across the country. But with a well-structured academic support system combined with credit-recovery options, district leaders at Lawrence County Community Unit School District experienced a 9% increase in graduation rates.

Now here’s a typical story from Lawrence County CUSD. The only thing between Joe (a senior whose name has been changed) and his hard-earned high school diploma was one English final. Thinking he could breeze by, Joe failed the test, meaning that walking the stage to collect his diploma with the rest of his class was no longer a reality. After a series of meetings with the school’s guidance counselor and the principal, the team created a credit recovery plan. Joe was given three days to complete an entire semester’s work. Two all-night study sessions, three long days in the computer lab, and a passing grade got him a diploma—and the overwhelming feeling of success earned through determination.

Joe was lucky. He had a second chance, something many students don’t ever get. The reputation and perceived expense of credit-recovery and second-chance programs has caused schools across the country to quietly cut these programs, leaving students to find their own options. The truth is, not every student who could benefit from credit recovery or alternative options is an at-risk student. Many are special ed, are working to get ahead of the curve, or graduate on time with the rest of their class.

Lawrence County CUSD started its Second Chance Program about 13 years ago to help the group of nonconforming, at-risk students gain diploma status. Students would leave the traditional classroom setting to receive extra time and help from a specialized teacher. Within eight years, the school’s graduation rates increased dramatically.

But in 2012, funding for Lawrence County’s Second Chance Program was cut, leaving at-risk students to struggle through courses in the traditional classroom setting. Graduation rates quickly dropped to less than 70%. Two years later, the Second Chance Program was revived with a new look, a new name, and a new online component allowing for even more flexibility. Since its resurgence, graduation rates have increased from 70% to 79%. This school year, administrators at Lawrence County CUSD hope to reach their goal of an 85% graduation rate.

Here are the steps Lawrence County CUSD are taking today to dramatically increase their graduation rates after they restarted their Second Chance program.

1. Students get special attention. At Lawrence County CUSD, teacher Barbara Fabyan has her own school within a school classroom at the high school where students needing extra academic support can come during the school day. It’s an environment that removes students from their regular classrooms, so they’re able to concentrate on their schoolwork without distraction. At any given time, she may have a 9th-grade student with an IEP needing special assistance on a project or another student who is at risk of dropping out and without determination may miss the deadline to graduate with the rest of his or her class.

2. Technology is used to make individualized instruction easier. While dozens of students come into her class strictly to recover failed credits, “Odysseyware, the customizable online curriculum program and credit recovery software we use, allows me to restructure entire courses or individual topics and assessments to best fit the student’s needs,” Fabyan said.

Fabyan’s classroom also serves as an alternative for students wishing to work at a faster pace. For example, one of her students had knee surgery and couldn’t participate in gym class. Instead, she worked through an online curriculum provider to earn a year’s worth of history credits in one semester.
Online options give students the freedom to work at their own pace while sticking with Illinois State Standards. Lawrence County offers a blended learning option which, based on the increase in graduation rates, has proven successful for students so far.

3. Fabyan uses a “tough love” approach to teaching in the credit-recovery classroom. “Making mistakes is part of learning,” she said. “When students come in, they know it’s their last chance to complete the work and make it to graduation. Some students have dug themselves a deep hole with truancy and behavioral issues, and they know my classroom is the only place they can go to dig themselves out. It’s a wake-up call.”

4. Students develop an unshakeable belief in themselves. When students enter Fabyan’s classroom, they often have negative thoughts about specific classes, teachers, and school in general—prejudices that hold them back from success. Her mission is to break down the walls of what “school” is and show students success is possible, but it won’t come easy. With the support from her fellow teachers and administration, Fabyan and her students are constantly empowered to beat the odds and push through adversity. It’s the encouragement that keeps the program alive, allows students to reach their goals using whatever means it takes.

5. Students actually get to explore their interests in school. According to the Center for Public Education, 47% of high school dropouts cite “uninteresting classes” as the major reason for leaving, and 35% say “failing in school” was a major factor in dropping out. With the virtual labs, videos, audio, and games that they get from an online curriculum, students are pleasantly surprised, then challenged and engaged.

“My students realize the traditional courses they were taking may have been easier compared to Odysseyware,” said Fabyan. “Students that used to be failing are excelling with more difficult content. They realize they really have to work hard to pass. It’s more challenging, but in a way they are more engaged in the content and actually learning.”
She notes many students saying, “I really feel like I’m learning something,” and, “If I had this online option for more of my courses I would know more, and wouldn’t have fallen behind in the first place.”

That sort of realization makes students sprint to the end and get their diplomas. By the time at-risk students have their certificate in hand, they’ve learned a lot more than the Common Core. They’ve mastered the art of overcoming challenges and are part of changing the reputation of students using credit recovery. And now, because of the great success of the Second Chance Program, classroom teachers all over Lawrence County CUSD are using Odysseyware to better align their lessons with CCSS and engage students in a typical classroom setting.
If you are an educator in a school struggling with graduation rates, what are some steps you are taking to improve them? Feel free to leave a comment.

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

Students and Free Speech: What is a School’s Responsibility?  

 By Matthew Lynch

Apart from the Fourth Amendment, the most important amendment pertaining to student rights is the first one.  The Free Speech Clause prohibits any new law that might curb students’ freedom of speech. While the Bill of Rights have been around for quite some time, the first high-profile case involving students’ rights when it comes to free speech erupted in 1969 in the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District case.

It involved the sensitive issue of the conflict in Vietnam.  Certain students decided to put forth their objections to the war by wearing black armbands.  This apparently was not received well by school authorities, and they decided to take the strict action of suspending any student who wore a black armband.  The case made it to the Supreme Court and the school district was ruled against. It was a groundbreaking ruling, and the school’s stand was criticized outright.

The Court did make some concessions when it comes to what schools can and cannot allow when it comes to free speech, citing that the right to free speech could be exercised, as long as it did not disrupt the educational process in any way.  Any protest or activity that interfered with normal school activities, or disrupted the peace of the school, even in the slightest manner, can be curbed lawfully.

Since that ruling, there have been other cases to hit the courts where students claimed infringement on their right to free speech in school settings. In the 1988 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlemier case for instance, the court ruled that school administrators have every right to control and check the content published in school sponsored newspapers and magazines. The justification given was that these form a part of the curriculum and everything that could possibly influence students deserves to be scrutinized by school authorities.

The case involved a newspaper published by the journalism class at Missouri’s Hazelwood High School.  The articles published discussed issues such as divorce and pregnancy; content school authorities determined was inappropriate for high school students. Authorities also feared that the fictitious names used in the articles were not enough to guard the privacy of the students whose opinions were published, and lives discussed in the newspaper.  However, the students who were involved thought differently, and believed that the discussion of such topics was appropriate for students of their age. The students did not win this particular free speech fight.

So how should schools proceed when it comes to free speech rights?

While the First Amendment without a doubt endows students with freedom of speech, this does not mean that they can behave in any manner they please.  It is very much within the jurisdiction of the school authorities to prevent or prohibit students from indulging in certain activities that may potentially pose a threat to a school environment conducive to learning.

Take the Tinker case. The school was denied the right to prevent students from wearing black armbands as a mark of their protest, but at the same time, they were free to suspend or take suitable punitive action against students who acted in a manner that disturbed the positive learning atmosphere.  If a student was caught indulging in activities such as igniting political commotion or voicing his or her opinions in a manner that disrupted teaching and learning, he or she could justly be suspended by the school and the law made every provision for that to occur.

Similar decisions were made in the case of the Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser in 1986, and the Jones v. State case in 2002.  The former dealt with the court upholding the suspension of a student who delivered a nominating speech that involved comments of a sexual nature about a fellow student.  Similarly, in the latter case, the court took the clear stance that students’ use of fighting words and threats was prohibited in schools.  The category included racial epithets, lewd and offensive speech, immature conduct or true threats that could possibly lead to harming another person.

Exercising free speech is not just limited to student behavior. It in fact extends to the realms of student newspapers, plays and literature.  While students do enjoy their due rights, teachers have some control.  The following falls within the school’s authority when it comes to curbing freedom of expression that may be disruptive to the learning environment:

  • Teachers or school authorities are required to collect concrete proof against students indulging in indecent speech, potential disruption or other unacceptable activities before taking action against them.
  • Students must be provided with due process when any sort of punishment is involved.
  • The banning of indecent, inappropriate and unacceptable material is acceptable by the school in cases where it contradicts the mission of the school.
  • School authorities have the final word on deciding the time and place of the distribution of certain materials.
  • The school newspaper must be run subject to legally defensible guidelines.
  • The nature of the school newspaper must be decided beforehand.  If it is decided to be an open forum rather than a curriculum-based letter, the students ought to be provided with due rights to express their opinions.
  • A well-established procedure for reviewing newspaper submissions ought to exist to make the process smoother.

In the end, schools must decide what parts of free speech are inalienable rights of the American K-12 experience, and which things are detrimental to the learning experience for all. It’s a fine line but one that is a privilege to even deal with in our democracy.

What “free speech” actions do you feel are inappropriate for K-12 students?

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

These 3 Stats Will Show You How Americans View Education Right Now

The numbers are in. Many Americans no longer view college as ‘very important’ according to the first part of the 46th annual PDK-Gallup poll.

Here are a few of those numbers, explained:

  1. According to the poll, only 44 percent of Americans cite college education as ‘very important’; a number is down from 75 percent just four years ago. A larger percentage of Americans now view education as ‘fairly important.’
  2. The number of parents who said it was somewhat or very likely that they would be able to pay for college for their oldest child is down to 69 percent from 77 percent in 2010.
  3. As a whole, Americans are doubtful about students’ career readiness; just 13 percent said a high school graduate is ready. Thirty-seven percent of Americans agree that college grads are ready for the work world.

Americans believe that the most important factor in helping a high school student eventually get a good job is learning skills such as dependability, persistence, and teamwork.

The second part of the poll, released this week found that a majority of public school parents want selective teacher training programs and that they believe new teachers should work for a minimum of one year with a certified teacher prior to manning their own class.

The feud of Common Core continues; the majority of Americans oppose the Common Core State Standards and the Teach for American program embraced by the Obama administration. Over half of Americans said that the curriculum used in their community’s schools needs altered.

I find the results to the poll really interesting. It’s unfortunate that so many Americans don’t view college as ‘very important.’ The declining belief in the importance of college is really disheartening and I hope we can find a way to turn these numbers around and encourage more students to pursue higher education.

What do you think about these new views? Should students see college as more important than they do now? I would appreciate hearing from you in the comments.

 

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

Private Schools and the Law: Tips for Private School Administrators

Note: The following guest post was by Anthony Ashton, litigation partner at the law firm of DLA Piper LLP (US) in the Baltimore office. He conducts annual trainings for educators and administrations and regularly advises them on legal matters. He has served on the Boards of multiple schools, and is a former teacher and guidance counselor. Contact information: [email protected]

Whether the job title is Principal, Headmaster, Head of School, or Dean, the top administrator of a private primary or secondary school is effectively the CEO of a company. CEOs of most successful companies are aware of the laws that apply to their businesses, and budget annually for legal services. A smart CEO regularly consults with the company’s in-house general counsel or what is effectively outside general counsel. Even small private schools typically have multimillion dollar annual budgets. Despite this, many schools have exactly $0 built into their budgets for legal services. Because numerous and varied laws apply to, and have the potential for devastating effects on schools, presumably, this missing budgetary item is due to a failure to appreciate the need for, and usefulness of, competent legal advice, rather than apathy for the law. This article will explain why best practices include annual training for faculty, staff, and administration on key legal topics, and regular access to legal advice.

At its core, education is a service industry. Unlike other service companies, schools have two subsets of clientele, parents and students, who have divergent legal obligations, legal rights, and legal standards of behavior. For example, although they are not the recipients of the services provided by schools, parents are contractually obligated to pay tuition. Despite the fact that students have no obligation to pay tuition, schools owe a legal duty to students to ensure students’ safety while on school grounds or at school-related activities.

Tip One: Annual Risk Management Training

A school can breach this duty by failing to protect a student from harm caused by school employees, fellow students, and even the student herself. Although the law requires adults to protect themselves by acting as reasonably prudent persons, children are required only to act as reasonable persons of their age would act. In short, children are allowed to behave as children. This lowered standard of care also applies to how children interact with one another. It is incumbent upon school personnel to act in a manner that reduces the risk to students and, in turn, the school’s potential liability. Consequently, risk management training should be a part of school personnel’s annual training, and should occur as close as possible to the beginning of each school year. Assuming a school has an attorney on retainer, this should be included in the legal services provided. The adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is especially true in the school setting. It is easy to criticize actions after an injury or complaint from a parent. The goal is to avoid such injuries and complaints. Training faculty, staff, and administrators to conduct a risk/benefit analysis (consider the best and worst probable outcomes) before each interaction with children provides great protection for the students and, as a result, the institution.

Tip Two: Annual Training Regarding State Reporting Obligations

Because many states have reporting obligations related to suspected child abuse and neglect, a school may breach the legal duty to a student by failing to protect a student from harm that takes place outside of school and unrelated to school activities. Reporting obligations may require school personnel to report suspected abuse from parents or other household members. In short, the school may be obligated to protect a member of one group of its clientele from a member of the other group of its clientele. Reporting suspected abuse may result in embarrassment to, and anger from, the person ultimately responsible for paying tuition and determining whether the student remains enrolled at the school. Thus, there is an inherent conflict of interest. The law, however, does not care about this conflict. Next, there may be reluctance to report because abuse subjectively may be associated with lower income, less educated families, rather than the population served by the school. The law, however, does not care about the socio-economic background of the child or suspected abuser. A firm understanding of the legal reporting obligations is a must, and training on this topic should take place annually.

Tip Three: Have a Copy of Child Custody and Visitation Court Orders

Schools also may be drawn into disputes between feuding parents. Divorced or divorcing parents may argue as to who is permitted to perform child pick-ups, agree to fieldtrips, or make other educational decisions. As a consequence, the school may be caught in the middle of two members of one group of clientele. It is important that schools: (1) know whether there is a court order regarding custody and visitation; and (2) be able to understand the legalities of any such order. Again, the best practice would be to have an outside counsel on retainer to explain the implications of these court orders. Court orders will typically set forth if one parent has primary custody or the parents have shared custody, who may make educational decisions, who is responsible for paying tuition, etc. By being able to knowledgably refer to a court order, school personnel potentially can avoid being intimidated by parents seeking to take actions contrary to the court order. A typical example of such an action involves Parent A attempting to deny Parent B visitation or custody rights because Parent B is delinquent in spousal or child support. Parent A may instruct the school not to allow Parent B to pick up the child from school. The school, however, has no authority to stop a parent from acting in accordance with a court order.

Tip Four: Annual Sexual Harassment Training

As with all service industry companies, schools are labor intensive. Accordingly, sexual harassment training for all employees related to how they interact with each other should take place on an annual basis. In addition, each school should have a written policy addressing the protocol for reporting, investigating, and handling allegations of harassment. In recent years, the media and, consequently, the public at large has become enthralled with student-teacher sex scandals. Accordingly, there should be annual training related to inappropriate interaction with students. Training should include guidelines regarding dealings with students in person, via telecommunications devices, and social networks. School personnel should avoid being placed in any situation where they have to deny wrongdoing, and explain their actions. School personnel must be hyper-vigilant in ensuring, not only that there is no improper interaction, but that there is not even the appearance of such. The cardinal rule should be: “perception is just as important as reality”.

 

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

From Sexting to Bra Snapping: How to Protect K-12 Students against Sexual Harassment

A study entitled Hostile Hallways, conducted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) revealed that as many as 82 percent of the students in America admitted to being subjected to some form of sexual harassment during their schooling years. Most cases involved student-to-student harassment, as opposed to teacher-to-student harassment.

Females were in a worse position, with 1 in every 4 girls reporting that she had faced sexual harassment; with boys, it was 1 in 10 cases.  The nature of harassment inflicted on female students ranged from being made the victim of sexual jokes, to unwanted physical attention, to being subject to attempts to lift skirts or snap bras. For male students (although many of these issues were applicable to female students as well), the spreading of sexual rumors and challenging other boys’ sexual orientation was a common form of sexual harassment.  Lunchrooms, hallways, school buses and playgrounds were the hot spots for these forms of harassment.  Since the study was conducted and its results made public in 1993, schools have made serious efforts to curb this menace that may have once been viewed as simply “kids being kids.”

Defining sexual harassment

Deciding what falls under the label of sexual harassment and what doesn’t is very subjective.  The actual definition of sexual harassment reads “unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior which interferes with your life.”  This wording lends itself to some interpretation and ambiguity in terms of schools’ responses. A six-year old boy was suspended for sexual harassment in North Carolina 1996 for kissing female classmate on the cheek. On the other hand, there are serious cases such as Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education where a fellow student of a fifth grader started groping her to “get in bed with her.” The school failed to take any action against him despite repeated complaints from parents.  Quite understandably, putting cases of alleged sexual harassment into clear-cut categories is not possible.

Today, sexual harassment between students is even more widespread because of the viral nature of the internet and sexting. A photo that a young man sends his latest crush can quickly become fodder for a school-wide joke when it appears on a social media account or is texted to a large group of other students. It is also much harder for students to get away from harassment because their school lives follow them more closely than ever outside classroom hours, due to technology. It is also difficult to know where a school’s jurisdiction ends when it comes to harassment between students that takes place outside of school hours.

The problem of sexual harassment in schools is persistent.  Schools can act more responsibly on the issue by formulating proper and specific sexual harassment policies and providing special training programs for teachers, students and other administrative staff.  Seeking the support of parents is also beneficial. The challenges around implementing sexual harassment policies are made even more difficult because students shy away from reporting incidents, for fear of suffering additional consequences or being ridiculed.  The solution is to create a safe environment in the school so that such instances of harassments simply do not take place and the students feel secure, although this is often easier said than done.

Parents – at the ones who are actively involved in the lives of their students – can also take a stand by teaching their children to avoid sexual objectification and joking of all types. It will take a large cultural push to really implement change but the next generation of K-12 students deserves a harassment-free experience.

How do you think we can reach students with a no-sexual harassment message?

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

New Models and Trends in Resource Allocation

Many investigators have requested new methods to determine spending to gain a better understanding of priorities, organizational investments, proposed strategies, and to measure the distribution of resources . Completely new expenditure models have been pioneered by manufacturing theorists, including activity and program-based costs, which help form fiscal data to make it easier to compare to strategic decision-making. In education, several reports have demanded new methods of expense record-keeping as a way to modify district strategy; mostly to verify the real expenses involved in individual schools, programs, or services.

Though the models demonstrate some differences regarding the terms of the categories used, all of them propose assigning a larger percentage of costs to specific types of students and schools. For those interested in resource data in relation to the context of educating students, it makes sense to review central and indirect costs associated with joint district resources, as well as resources that are typically school-based. Less important costs are associated with district leadership, other operations, and non-educational services like transportation, food services, school facilities, and maintenance systems.

Reforms related to accountability have placed a focus on performance inequalities between white students and students from minority group backgrounds, and also between students having needs that result from disability, poverty, or limitation in English proficiency. Many policymakers stress that the first stage in tackling these achievement gaps is to align fiscal policy with student needs. But as policymakers change their established funding formulas to fulfill the needs of different students, they do so without evidence. In the first instance, there is little explanation of the way resources are currently allotted to different subgroups.

Basically, for a state policymaker attempting to allocate funds to particular student types, no baseline data exists on current expenditure to each type of student within their own districts, or schools within other districts. School districts in most states do not fully track costs by student type or to the school level. Even where these data are tracked, they are not published for policymakers trying to pin answers down.

There is also difficulty in accessing comparisons from other states regarding spending. Accurate ways of defining or reporting expenses influenced by student needs are not available, which makes it impossible to compare data between states. Furthermore, policymakers have not determined how to flow funds from one level of government to the next. For example, funds may be designated by the federal government for students living in poverty, with the goal of enhancing resources at schools having high concentrations of poverty.

However, by the time funds are dispersed through state and local streams, they may not reach their intended target. Finally, only limited documentation exists on different decisions for assigning funds, and the way those decisions relate to policy goals. Allocations meant for students with limited English proficiency (LEP) might be realized as a fixed dollar amount per LEP student, reimbursements for spending on bilingual education services, distribution of staff full-time equivalents (FTEs) to high-needs schools, or as funds for other areas. Research has not yet described the ways these different decisions influence either what is finally spent per pupil, or how efficiently that funding reaches the intended students. It is obvious that a more efficient system is needed for tracking funds after they reach their intended destination. With thorough record keeping and well-defined guidelines for how money should be spent, this murky territory will become much clearer.

 

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

 

  • no reactions
0
Share