Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform August 24, 2015

Are charter schools working in New Orleans?

Doesn’t seem like its been 10 years, but Hurricane Katrina changed the landscape and lives of so many when it made landfall in New Orleans a short decade ago.

When talking about Katrina, it’s nearly impossible to do so without nuance. To be singular when mentioning a storm that caused over 7,000 teachers to lose their jobs and the creation of an all charter school system in New Orleans is almost dangerous.

But focusing on one issue may not be.

Education in New Orleans isn’t what it used to be pre-Katrina. Thousands of teachers who helped lead the former school system were let go after the storm. They were, as described by Salon.com, the backbone of the city’s middle class.

Now that the school choice movement has completely enveloped New Orleans, the leaders of it are attempting to tout how successful its been. They celebrate higher test scores and stricter disciplinary measures.

It is a model that many are attempting to sell across the country.

Yet we’re still left to wonder how well it’s actually working.

Salon.com has a piece that delves into the waters of the new New Orleans educational system. While slanted, it still gives great depth into what students, parents, and leaders are going through in an effort to create more change or at least sustain what’s been created.

From the looks of it, the Recovery School District that is laced with charter schools are ostensibly autonomous. Each school is led by the theory of singular creation but ultimately falls under the dressing of formality.

A strong emphasis on test scores is made for each school, and if one or a few schools start to lag behind, they face being consolidated under the wing of another, more successful school.

It’s also worth noting that most of the city’s educational leaders are white. Prior to the storm, the leadership closely represented the make-up of the community and students.

New Orleans is 65% black.

Whether it is a production of the storm due to displacement or a planned theory, the city has certainly taken on a different hue and form since Katrina.

Nuance deserves a place when speaking about New Orleans pre and post Katrina. And the city’s educational system most definitely should be talked about in layers.

Still–recognizing how damaging, or may successful, school choice has been for one area doesn’t mean the carbon copy of it may work for the next region.

Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Policy & Reform, Teachers August 22, 2015

6 Ways Teachers can Foster Cultural Awareness in the Classroom

A multicultural society is best served by a culturally responsive curriculum. Schools that acknowledge the diversity of their student population understand the importance of promoting cultural awareness. Teachers who are interested in fostering a cultural awareness in their classroom should actively demonstrate to their students that they genuinely care about their cultural, emotional, and intellectual needs. To this end, there are several strategies that you can use to build trusting relationships with diverse students. To incorporate cultural awareness into your classroom curriculum, you should:

1. Express interest in the ethnic background of your students. Encourage your students to research and share information about their ethnic background as a means of fostering a trusting relationship with fellow classmates. Analyze and celebrate differences in traditions, beliefs, and social behaviors. It is of note that this task helps European-American students realize that their beliefs and traditions constitute a culture as well, which is a necessary breakthrough in the development of a truly culturally responsive classroom. Also, take the time to learn the proper pronunciation of student names and express interest in the etymology of interesting and diverse names.

2. Redirect your role in the classroom from instructor to facilitator. Another important requirement for creating a nurturing environment for students is reducing the power differential between the instructor and students. Students in an authoritarian classroom may sometimes display negative behaviors as a result of a perceived sense of social injustice; in the culturally diverse classroom, the teacher thus acts more like a facilitator than an instructor. Providing students with questionnaires about what they find to be interesting or important provides them with a measure of power over what they get to learn and provides them with greater intrinsic motivation and connectedness to the material. Allowing students to bring in their own reading material and present it to the class provides them with an opportunity to both interact with and share stories, thoughts, and ideas that are important to their cultural and social perspective.

3. Maintain a strict level of sensitivity to language concerns. In traditional classrooms, students who are not native English speakers often feel marginalized, lost, and pressured into discarding their original language in favor of English. In a culturally responsive classroom, diversity of language is celebrated and the level of instructional materials provided to non-native speakers are tailored to their level of English fluency. Accompanying materials should be provided in the student’s primary language and the student should be encouraged to master English.

4. Maintain high expectations for student performance. Given that culturally responsive instruction is a student-centered philosophy, it should come as no surprise that expectations for achievement are determined and assigned individually for each student. Students don’t receive lavish praise for simple tasks but do receive praise in proportion to their accomplishments. If a student is not completing her work, then one should engage the student positively and help guide the student toward explaining how to complete the initial steps that need to be done to complete a given assignment or task.

5. Incorporate methods for self-testing. Another potent method for helping students become active participants in learning is to reframe the concept of testing. While testing is usually associated with grades (and therefore stress) in traditional classrooms, in a culturally responsive classroom frequent non-graded tests can be used to provide progress checks and ensure that students don’t fall behind on required material. Teaching students to self-test while learning new information will help them better remember and use what they’ve learned in class and will help them realize on their own when they need to study a topic in greater depth.

6. Maintain an “inclusive” curriculum that remains respectful of differences. A culturally responsive curriculum is both inclusive in that it ensures that all students are included within all aspects of the school and it acknowledges the unique differences students may possess. A culturally responsive curriculum also encourages teachers’ understanding and recognition of each student’s non-school cultural life and background, and provides a means for them to incorporate this information into the curriculum, thus promoting inclusion.

Schools have the responsibility to teach all students how to synthesize cultural differences into their knowledge base, in order to facilitate students’ personal and professional success in a diverse world. A culturally responsive curriculum helps students from a minority ethnic/racial background develop a sense of identity as individuals, as well as proudly identify with their particular culture group. Teachers can play a big role in helping these students succeed through the establishment of culturally responsive classrooms.

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers August 19, 2015

4 States that Want to Change How Much Teachers Are Paid

The amount teachers are paid has been the subject of some controversy. Yet with U.S. teachers spending more time in the classroom than other teachers worldwide, most teachers know that the money is hard-earned.

Indeed, despite the long hours, teachers in American aren’t compensated well, explains OECD director of education and skills Andreas Schleicher. The pay, compared to other countries, is competitive in the US; however, it lags behind that of other American workers with college educations.

The OECD report shows American teachers see smaller salary increases than their foreign counterparts; in the most recent year surveyed, the average teacher with 15 years of experience saw a salary increase of 32.6 percent. The US average was just 26.6 percent.

Because of this, it is not surprising that there are efforts around the country meant to change how much teachers earn. Let’s look at four states that have tried to reform teachers’ paychecks.

Florida: Florida lawmaker Senator Darren Soto introduced a bill that would raise the minimum salary for teachers to $50,000 a year.

The Florida Teacher Fair Pay Act, or Senate Bill 280, calls for the Legislature to fund the Florida Education Finance Program in a manner that guarantees the $50,000 minimum starting salary for teachers with union representation.

In addition, the bill would prevent school districts from setting their own lower salary, and would leave base pay negotiation with teachers unions to be decided upon by each individual district. Teachers’ salaries would also require adjustment each year after based on inflation from the year prior.

Soto hopes to help teachers after hearing from many who are threatening to walk away from their careers in the Sunshine State unless something changes. He believes that the minimum starting salary for teachers will help.

A study obtained last month ranked Florida’s Orange County teachers as some of the lowest-paid in the country. The starting salary in Orange County is around $38,000.

“Even if we don’t get to the $50,000 mark, this is part of a larger debate of getting teacher salaries up from where they are now,” said Soto.

North Carolina: According to the National Education Association’s ranking from 2012-2013, the average North Carolina teacher salary is around $46,000, 46^thin the U.S. The nation’s average salary is over $55,000.

Events were held earlier this week in Asheville, Waynesville and Black Mountain to emphasize the push for higher pay for the states teachers.

North Carolina lawmakers are discussing a pay raise for teachers, but the proposals vary and if approved, will result in some changes for teachers beyond just an increase in their paycheck. The A.N.C. Senate proposal states that teacher’s assistants would be cut, yet tenure would remain. The House version would keep teachers assistants, but give the teachers a smaller raise.

Gerrick Brenner of Progress North Carolina, one of the groups involved in the Aim Higher Now petition says advocates aren’t seeking the pay raise in a single year, but instead over the next four or five years.

Parent Misty Miller attended the event on Monday. She says, “I came out today to support our teachers. I would like to see our teachers be treated as professionals.”

Colorado: Not all proposed solutions seem to work for the benefit of the teachers. For example, leaders from the teacher’s union asked the Colorado Department of Education to review an evaluation system, also called CITE, that ties teacher pay raises to evaluations conducted by school principals. The teacher evaluation plan designed by the Douglas County School District in Colorado was found to comply with state law, according to the state’s Department of Education.

Under the educator effectiveness law, SB 191, school districts were granted the option of creating their own teacher evaluation system as long as it adheres to state guidelines. This was the first state review of a teacher evaluation system developed by a school district.

The review that approved the system did find that the district may not have effectively communicated to teachers information about other district-initiated reviews that occur when an initial review seems to be an outlier. The state suggested including that information in the evaluation guide and on the website to ensure the teachers are well informed.

It’s essential to find a measuring system to ensure that these individualized ways of evaluating teachers doesn’t harm the school quality and penalize teachers.

Ohio: In another effort that may not be entirely beneficial to teachers, the Reynoldsburg school board in Ohio wants to change the way the district pays its teachers through eliminations of scheduled raises and the health insurance plan.

Instead teachers would receive increases in pay based on the ratings they receive in the state’s new evaluation system. If their schools perform well on state report cards and they perform work above and beyond classroom duties, they would also be eligible for bonuses. The district would provide the teachers with an undisclosed amount of money to buy their own insurance instead of being offered health-insurance coverage.

The school wants to revere good teaching by paying higher salaries and distributing bonuses to teachers. If teachers don’t attain a rating of excellence, the goal is to encourage rapid improvement.

The state’s new teacher-evaluation system would put the highest rating teachers up for a 4 percent raise, skilled teachers would get a 2 percent raise and developing teachers would earn a 1 percent raise. Teachers in the lowest category would not receive an increase in pay.

In addition, teachers who work in schools with a composite grade of an A on the state report card would receive a bonus of $500, and those in schools with a B would receive $250.

The school board’s plan would also allow teachers to apply for a $30,000 “fellowship award” if the performance of their students exceeds expectations and the teacher has taken on additional district responsibilities rendered high in value.

The current teachers’ pact expires July 31.

I like that Reynoldsburg wants to reward its teachers with solid pay increases and eligibility for bonuses. However, I do fear that some high quality, hardworking teachers may receive low evaluations despite their dedication.

Respect for teachers is an important metric for the strength of a school system on a national scale. Paying our teachers well is one way to demonstrate respect for teachers and their profession.

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform August 8, 2015

Adopting a New Paradigm in K-12 Education

Substantial educational change will never occur until we as a country decide that enough is enough and make a commitment to change, no matter what it takes. When America realizes all children deserve a stellar education regardless of who their parents are, what their socioeconomic status is, or where they happen to live, we will be able to reform our education system. The American K-12 education treats minority students in under performing urban environments like collateral damage.

The disheartening reality is that America has billions of dollars to fight a two-front war, but cannot or will not properly educate its children. If a hostile country attacked the U. S., it would take less than 24 hours for American troops to be mobilized into battle. However, we seem unable to mobilize a sea of educated teachers and administrators to wage war against academic mediocrity, which is a bigger threat to our national security than Iran or North Korea.

The structure of schools in the U.S. is no longer able to meet the educational needs of children today. No longer are the poor restricted to the prospect of becoming manual laborers in a local factory or simply entering just another blue-collar job. Nor are the benefits of education confined to the elite in society. Times have changed and it would only be natural to expect that the demands on our education system have changed as well. No longer can we rest assured that the best and brightest members of our society will educate our children.

Educational change will never occur if school systems are expected to implement change on their own. State and federal governments need to oversee changes to ensure that local school districts are held accountable for needed changes. School administrators often seem to buy in when educational reform is suggested, but somehow genuine change in education is rarely implemented.

Over the last century, many reform movements have come and gone, but in the end it seems there have been no substantial changes. Some might even believe the American educational system is now worse off than ever. From Bush’s No Child Left Behind to Obama’s Race to the Top, presidents have shown an inability to tackle the real issues of education reform. Reform is primarily used as campaign rhetoric, and when it comes time to take real action, the politicians simply unveil a grandiose plan with all the bells and whistles amounting to a dog and pony show.

America’s schools were originally intended to ensure that all citizens were literate. The founding purpose for American schools has long been obsolete, and Americans must have the courage to realize that in order for us to remain a world power, we must institute change. The risks have never been greater; the future of our country and its children is at stake. Americans cannot continue to allow the educational system to operate in its current state. While there is no magic formula or configuration to solve the problems our schools face, we must engender change, and we must do it now!

On the surface, the concept of sustaining school reform is an oxymoron, simply because change is inevitable. In many ways, what is needed is sustainable change! In other words, schools must change to meet the current needs of children and youth in order to support their development into contributing and productive adults. As the needs of our society shifts, our education system must adapt to ensure that it prepares an educated populous to meet society’s needs.

Education reform is possible, but it depends on what the nation is willing to do to achieve its educational goals. Will America develop and pass effective educational legislation aimed at creating viable solutions to the problem at hand? Or will America continue to develop legislation, such as No Child Left Behind, that operates under the fallacy that 100% of our students will be proficient in their core subjects by 2014? The bar for education should be set higher, but there has to be exceptions and differentiated goals in order to effectively accommodate all the differences among teachers, students, administrators, and school cultures.

Our youngsters are the future of this great country, and our educators must do their part to help put America back on top as a major world power in both economics and education. Lasting and beneficial change in our schools will require hard work from a committed group of stakeholders — teachers, administrators, parents, policymakers, and community members alike. Ultimately, it is the children who matter most. At the end of the day, they are the reasons why we must champion the work of public education and adopt a new paradigm.

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform July 23, 2015

The Ultimate Demise of Common Core – Part III: The Logistics

From an idealogical perspective, the differences that divide Americans are also what make the nation unique and great. When it comes to education, however, there seems to be a competing theory that differences should be dismissed in favor of finding a standardized way to teach all K-12 students. Time and again when it comes to national policy on education, stringent sets of benchmarks are consistently put in place that are accompanied with funding incentives. The latest example of this one-size-fits-all approach to education policy is Common Core standards and the testing that goes with them.

This week I’ve already written about the way politics and parents will contribute to the end of days for Common Core and today I’d like to add in exactly how the logistics will too.

American students really are multi-faceted.

It seems everywhere you look, we celebrate diversity in this country. From skin color, to language spoken, to sexual preferences, the national message seems to be “Be you. Whatever that looks like.” Except when it comes to measuring a “good” education. It’s widely accepted that students learn in different ways and customized learning initiatives are a trend fueled by in-classroom technology. HOW students learn is varied, but WHAT they are learning is somehow expected to fall into some neat, standardized package. Laying down countrywide rules of sorts for learning, and attaching those to funding, is an easy way to check off boxes on a spreadsheet but not an effective way to teach each student exactly what he or she needs to know based on career paths, interests and life circumstances.

Regionalisms exist.

It’s true that the world is becoming smaller and that the differences that once divided K-12 students by geography are shrinking. Still, there are some learning standards that just make more sense in one area over another. The benefits of learning a foreign language should be shared on a national level, but the specifics of those benchmarks should be considered. A state like Arizona or Texas, for example, with a high percentage of Spanish-speakers could benefit from more curriculum customized to that population, and in a much more effective way than a state like Iowa or Maine. Common Core is not a curriculum set, of course, but I use the language example as a way to show the difference between students and how where they live really does impact what they really should know. Industry specific learning is also a consideration when it comes to what should be taught more heavily, not as a way to pigeon-hole students but as a way to set them up for the best chance at career success. Considerations for subject areas that have been weak in a particular region should also be thought about and given priority.

There is not one model student.

The idea that all U.S. K-12 students should know exactly the same things, and graduate from high school with the same shared learning experiences is flawed. Of course no one expects any two students to be identical in their learning outcomes, but the implication of Common Core standards are that there should be a cookie-cutter which every district and every teacher uses. Such an educational model goes against every other American ideal – like innovation, creativity and individuality – yet is prevalent throughout the public school system. If there were one leading flaw in Common Core requirements, it would be this: it allows no wiggle room for letting students be the people they were meant to be.

If you could pinpoint the crux of the problem with Common Core standards and implementation, what would it be?

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform July 13, 2015

5 Advancements in Special Education You Should Know About

It is estimated that over 6.5 million children in the U.S. have disabilities. Meeting the needs of these students poses special challenges. This is one area of education that is a priority for many people and entities. In this article, I will talk about five advancements and findings that are specifically related to special education in this country.

Special education preschoolers learn better in mainstream settings.

A study from Ohio State University found that preschoolers categorized as having special needs or disabilities learned more with at least some time in mainstream classrooms than outside of it.

“We found that children with disabilities get a big boost in their language scores over the course of a year when they can interact with other children who have good language skills,” said the study’s co-author and a teaching professor, Laura Justice.

To reach these conclusions, 670 preschool children enrolled in 83 different programs were observed and analyzed. Of those numbers, half had a disability. Classrooms with a combination of special education and mainstream students, as well as classrooms with 100 percent special education students were studied and compared.

In the classrooms where special education students were placed among more highly-skilled peers, language scores were 40 percent higher at the end of the preschool year than those in special-needs only classrooms. The study also found that the mainstream students were not negatively impacted by the presence of special needs students, and showed the same levels of improvements as previous classes with no special needs students.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, about half of the nation’s special needs preschoolers are in classrooms with higher-skilled peers, but as this study points out, all preschoolers could benefit from the inclusion.

D.C. has worked to change special education in their schools.

In 2014, the District of Columbia Council moved forward with three bills to revamp special education in the city. The bills will work together to provide more information for parents of special needs students and to speed up the process of receiving services.

Most significantly, the legislation would reduce the amount of maximum time between a referral and when an evaluation must take place from 120 days to 60 days. The 120-day mandate is the longest in the nation.

Early intervention programs would also receive extra support and resources, and the transition to adulthood classes will begin at the age of 14 instead of the previous 16. Parents would also receive more rights as a result of the bills, with the ability to be allowed to observe current or future classrooms of their children.

Charter schools would also be encouraged to develop special-needs programs with a new preference in enrollment lotteries for students that a have a disability that their school specializes in addressing.

In D.C., over 13,000 students are classified as having disabilities that impact their studies, and only one in five are proficient in reading (only one in four are proficient in math).

Bethune-Cookman University aims to create more special education teachers.

Bethune-Cookman University in Daytona Beach, Florida received a $1.25 million grant from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services through the U.S. Department of Education that will be used to launch a program called Project Child. The initiative aims to graduate 70 master level special education teachers through a fully online program to meet the growing demand for these educators.

The Council for Exceptional Children reports that there are 49 states, including Florida, with a shortage of teachers in classrooms where there are 6 million children or youth with disabilities.

According to The Daytona Beach News-Journal online, Willis Walter, dean of the school’s college of education said, “There is a critical shortage throughout the nation. And one of the ways that we’re hoping to assist with that battle is giving more students an incentive to go into the field.”

The U.S. Department of Education has raised the bar in measuring special education benchmarks.

Factors like state graduation rates and test scores will now be considered more heavily when determining which states are helping, and what states are failing, their special education students.

States that are unable to meet the new benchmarks set forth for three years or more could face losing some of their special education funding.

How difficult will it be for states to achieve the benchmarks when it comes to special education students? To put it in perspective, 41 states met the requirements of the old system. Under the new requirements, only 18 states meet the standards.

In speaking about the reason for this shift in policy, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan implied that by setting a higher bar for special education achievements, students will benefit.

“We know that when students with disabilities are held to high expectations and have access to the general curriculum in the regular classroom, they excel. We must be honest about student performance, so that we can give all students the supports and services they need to succeed,” he said.

The mayor of New York vowed to fix the special education reimbursement program.

Mayor Bill de Blasio assured state lawmakers that his administration would streamline the process of applying for and receiving aid for families with special education students who chose private school programs. Though NYC public schools do offer special education programs, some families feel that the specific disabilities and skill levels cannot be met through the public school offerings.

The mayor’s verbal commitment came just shy of the State Assembly nearly passing a law that would force de Blasio to change the system in favor of families with special education needs. The bill already passed the State Senate. Among other things, the legislation would put an end to the annual review process that forces families to re-enter their information and paperwork for reimbursement.

New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who spoke directly to de Blasio, says that the Assembly will pass the bill if the NYC administration falls short of its promises on the matter.

The latest bill came after a string of others with similar intent over the past three years — none of which have passed. Among the opponents to the removal of the annual review process was the New York State School Boards Association that argued that the yearly requirement is necessary since children’s needs change over time. In addition to special education families, New York City’s Orthodox Jewish Community supports easier reimbursement for private and religious school tuition for the special education students that need it.

I think that any reimbursement program outside the public school system that uses tax dollars should be subject to scrutiny, but it seems the families of special education students are facing unfair treatment. I hope that de Blasio is able to live up to his promises regarding the streamlining of this process.

I am excited to see all the efforts to improve special education in our country — special education is a necessary component of education.

Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform July 11, 2015

2 Sex Ed Approaches—Which One Works Better?

Abstinence-only sex education

When I first saw the headline, I thought it was too ironic to be true: Texas school teaching abstinence-only sex ed suffers chlamydia outbreak.

I would’ve probably even laughed if I hadn’t realized quickly that it was not only true, but that it meant dozens of kids now had to deal with the discomfort and potential long-term harm of a sexually transmitted disease. These are kids that were clearly not practicing abstinence and were ill-prepared for real-life sexual encounters. It isn’t the fault of these kids, either.

It is irresponsible of school systems to teach abstinence-only sexual education and it should be illegal in public schools.

Should abstinence be taught as the only sure way to avoid things like unplanned pregnancies and STDs? Of course it should because it IS the only absolute way. But that abstinence extends beyond basic sexual intercourse. Students need to understand exactly all the ways they can be harmed by unprotected sex and then given the power to protect themselves.

The argument that parents should be the only ones to talk to their kids about sexual options just doesn’t cut it because it is elitist. It only works for students whose parents have the time or concern to actually sit down with their kids and have that talk. It leaves out the many students whose parents won’t actually have this talk with their kids or the ones who will preach abstinence-only. Schools have the responsibility to educate to their best of their abilities, and let’s face it: abstinence-only sex ed fails that mantra miserably.

Starting early

Talking about sex to a classroom full of five-year-old kids is likely to make some teachers and parents uncomfortable. But that is the approach that the Netherlands is taking and it is working.

According to studies by the Word Health Organization and the World Bank by way of pbs.org, the dutch have “one of the lowest” teen pregnancy rates in the word and “nine out of ten Dutch adolescents used contraceptives the first time” they chose to have sex.

While kindergarten may seem too early for sex ed in America, starting early has its merits.

A sex education program called “Get Real: Comprehensive Sex Education that Works” targeted at middle schoolers (6th – 8th grade) reports success at reducing the amount of sexually active teens who take the course. More than 150 schools have implemented the program in Texas, Rhode Island, New York and Massachusetts.

The program focuses on accurate medical information regarding sexuality, and is designed to work in conjunction with parents as the main front for talking honestly with their kids about sexual activity. It is not an abstinence-only program, but does provide advice on encouraging kids to say “no” to sex.

According to the program site, 15 percent less girls and 16 percent less boys who take “Get Real” classes engage in sexual activity, compared with their peers. The numbers are even more impactful because the program is targeted at middle schools where students are at a higher risk for engaging in sexual activity.

A study released by New York University’s Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health and Planned Parenthood found that by the time children reached age 21, only 1 in 5 parents had a discussion with their kids about birth control, saying “no” to sex and where to go for sexual health information.

The survey also found that nearly one-third of parents have never talked with their kids about where to go for reproductive health care.

Programs like “Get Real” are a necessity in our K-12 schools, and definitely by the middle school age. Waiting until high school means that kids have had several years of exposure to misinformation, and may already been sexually active. Age-appropriate, heath-based sex education is the right way to go — and I hope that “Get Real” spreads to more schools.

Abstinence-only education has not helped in lowering America’s teen pregnancy rate or reign in the growth of STDs among teenagers. Continuing the closed minded approach about sexual education works to the detriment of our students and we will continue to reap the benefits of the bad educational decisions we’ve made, which may be an increase rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Further, young men and women should have access to questions that pertain to reproductive systems but don’t directly mention sex. Topics like cancers and ovarian cysts and more should be discussed when students are still young enough to feel empowered with the knowledge.

What do you think? Should public schools be required to teach safe sex practices? How early do you think sex ed should be taught?

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform July 9, 2015

Study: Smoking less dangerous than no education

Studies are a dime a dozen these days, but there are still plenty that force you to pay attention.

Take a Washington Post story that talks about a new study published in PLOS ONE, a journal from the Public Library of Science.

According to the Post’s review of the study, “more than 145,000 deaths could have been prevented in 2010 if adults who did not finish high school had earned a GED or high school diploma – comparable to the mortality rates of smoking.”

That’s staggering considering smoking and education aren’t necessarily congruent.

For decades Americans have been warned about the horrors of smoking because of the adverse effects that it has on one’s health. While having an education has always been synonymous with success, not sure if anyone, or any study for that matter, has ever gone this far to connect poor health, or death related to poor health, to lacking a proper education.

The study, according to the Post, doesn’t directly correlate poor education with death. Rather it counts death as “an estimate of education’s impact on mortality, and do not indicate direct causality.”

While this study doesn’t directly state that failure to attain an education will result in death, it does portend that death is a consequence of one’s failure to gain an education. Make sense?

This type of information is multi-faceted because of how far it stretches. Personal responsibility plays a role; the government has an act in this play; the private sector and many other areas are also complicit.

How we move along with the information posted from this story will be interesting as well. Because, maybe more than anything, this shows just how stark the consequences are for our society if we fail to properly educate our children.

The results may be death.

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Policy & Reform June 20, 2015

Punishable by Death: The Quest for Literacy

The concept of basic literacy is taken for granted across much of the civilized world today — but there are still corners of the world where the simple ability to read and write are reserved only for an elite few. Most recently, young girls and women in such countries as Pakistan and Afghanistan have been killed, shot and threatened for simply seeking, or supporting, literacy rights.

Restricting the right to education is not a new concept, and has been used by groups in power for centuries. The Catholic Church prevented the Bible itself from being translated into the tongues of the common people for centuries, and celebrated mass in Latin only until the Reformation.

This was a deliberate effort on the part of the Catholic Rulers to prevent the education of the common folk since they could not read the Bible for themselves and were forced to depend on the clergy to provide instruction for their daily lives. An uneducated populace is easily ruled.

This is also what prompted James Madison to write centuries later: “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Of course, in the newly formed United States, the same form of control and persecution existed. Many states had specific laws prohibiting the education of “persons of color.” The state of Georgia penal code read:

“Punishment for teaching slaves or free persons of color to read. — If any slave, Negro, or free person of color, or any white person, shall teach any other slave, Negro, or free person of color, to read or write either written or printed characters, the said free person of color or slave shall be punished by fine and whipping, or fine or whipping, at the discretion of the court.”

Across the water in the British Isles, the English passed injunctions against the teaching of children by those of the Roman Catholic faith, mandating that all Irish children must be taught in English-sponsored schools by Anglican teachers, in order to convert the youth of Ireland away from “the popish faith” and make them more amenable to Protestant rule.

As late as 1825, the Protestant hierarchy petitioned the King, saying:

“amongst the ways to convert and civilise the Deluded People, the most necessary have always been thought to be that a sufficient number of English Protestant Schools be erected, wherein the Children of the Irish Natives should be instructed in the English Tongue and in the Fundamental Principles of the True Religion.”

In every case of education prohibition, the end goal was to repress a certain demographic, preventing them from becoming literate and gaining the potential to throw off oppression. Today, the primary groups of people being denied the opportunity to obtain education are female, and the perpetrators in most cases are patriarchal religious leaders. To such leaders, educated women are a threat. Preventing them from learning to read or write also prevents them from becoming independent, and maintains the status quo.

On July 4, 2012, an activist named Farida Afridi was shot and killed at the age of 25. Farida promoted women’s rights and education in Pakistan. On Oct. 9, 2012, a young teenaged girl named Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head on a bus, for daring to attend school in the same country. Another Pakistani girl, Hina Khan, has since received death threats for attending school and speaking out for education rights.

In Afghanistan, female children attending the Zabuli Education Center (the only girls’ school for miles around) must wait until the school administrators test the well water for poison before getting a drink. Another school located in Kabul was targeted with over 100 hand grenades, and girls in the city have been sprayed with acid.

Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African countries, do not depend solely on government support for the non-education of women; in many areas the prevailing religion dictates that women remain secluded, illiterate and firmly subjugated. Organizations aimed at improving female education must battle not only government interference but religion driven political organizations, like the Taliban.

According to policy brief titled “Empowering Women, Developing Society: Female Education in the Middle East and North Africa“:

As female education rises, fertility, population growth, and infant and child mortality fall and family health improves.
increases in girls’ secondary school enrollment are associated with increases in women’s
participation in the labor force and their contributions to household and national income.
Women’s increased earning capacity, in turn, has a positive effect on child nutrition.
Children — especially daughters — of educated mothers are more likely to be enrolled in school and to have higher levels of educational attainment.
Educated women are more politically active and better informed about their legal rights and how to exercise them.

Access to education and literacy rights continue to be a matter of concern across the globe, as non-compliant countries continue to use non-education as a tool to subjugate large percentages of the population. Breaking this trend is the fastest and most effective way to raise up not only the groups targeted by such restrictions, but to improve the economy and health of the geographical regions thus affected.

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform June 4, 2015

Why The U.S. Education System is Failing: Part I

Once upon a time, enthusiasts designed a formal education system to meet the economic demands of the industrial revolution. Fast forward to today and, with the current global economic climate, it seems apparent that the now established education system is unable to meet the needs of our hyper-connected society – a society that is in a constant state of evolution. This blog series aims to examine the problems preventing the U.S. education system from regaining its former preeminence. I would love to hear your reactions to each piece. Without further ado, let’s begin.

Lack of parental involvement. Of all the things out of the control of teachers, this one is perhaps the most frustrating. Time spent in the classroom is simply not enough for teachers to instruct every student, to teach them what they need to know. There must, inevitably, be some interaction outside school hours. Of course, students at a socio-economic disadvantage often struggle in school, particularly if parents lack higher levels of education. But students from middle and upper class families aren’t off the hook, either. The demands of careers and an over-dependence on schools put higher-class kids at risk too when it comes to the lack of parental involvement in academics.

School closures. It’s been a rough year for public schools. Many have found themselve on the chopping block quite literally. Parents, students and communities as a whole feel targeted, even if school board members are quick to blame unbiased numbers. There is no concrete way to declare a winner in these cases, either.There is no formula for determining right or wrong. There are times when a school closing is simply inevitable but communities should first look for other solutions. Instead of shuttering underutilized public schools – icons of the community – districts should consider other neighborhood uses. Maybe a community center. Maybe adult education classes. Maybe a cooperation agreement with a local college that opens up the building for paid courses. Maybe even a health center, or location for other district office space. Closing public schools should not be a short-sighted procedure. The decision should look beyond immediacy, and 10-year plans. The decision should focus on the only investment that really matters: a quality public education for all our nation’s children.

Overcrowding. The smaller the class, the better the individual student experience. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 14 percent of U.S. schools exceed capacity. At a time where children need more attention than ever to succeed, overcrowded classrooms are making it even tougher to learn and tougher still for teachers to be effective.

Screen culture. I am an advocate for technology in the classroom. I think that by ignoring the educational opportunities that technology has afforded us puts kids at a disadvantage. That being said, screen culture overall has made the jobs of teachers much more difficult. Education has become synonymous with entertainment in many ways. Parents are quick to download educational games as soon as kids have the dexterity to operate a touch screen, and with the best of intentions. The quick-hit way that children are learning academics before and during their K-12 careers makes it even more difficult for teachers to keep up in the classroom setting, particularly since each student’s knowledge base and technological savvy varies.

Lack of diversity in gifted education. The “talented and gifted” label is one bestowed upon the brightest and most advanced students. Beginning in early elementary grades, TAG programs separate student peers for the sake of individualized learning initiatives. Though the ideology is sound, the practice of it is often a monotone, unattractive look at contemporary American public schools. District schools need to find ways to better recognize different types of learning talent and look beyond the typical “gifted” student model. The national push to make talented and gifted programs better mirror the contemporary and ever-evolving student body is a step in the right direction. Real change happens on a smaller scale though – in individual districts, schools and TAG programs. That progress must start with understanding of the makeup of a particular student body and include innovative ways to include all students in TAG learning initiatives.

Well that is the end of part of on my series. Stay tuned for par II and remember to comment.