In a move that may possibly alter how state legislatures do business, the Hamilton County Department of Education has filed a lawsuitagainst the state for breaching “its duty under the Tennessee Constitution to provide a system of free public education for the children of this state.”
The basis of the lawsuit is that the state has failed its students by failing to properly fund the state’s Basic Education program. According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the suit claims that the state “pays only for 10 months of teachers’ 12 months of insurance.”
But that funding shortage for teacher pay and benefits is around $600 million by way of Nooga.com.
The state’s legislature did recently sign off on the governor’s budget, which included about $175 million for teacher pay and benefits for 2015-16.
Still–seems to be too little, too late.
The attorney representing Hamilton County is attemptingto get the judge presiding over the case to give the lawsuit class-action status as more school districts are set to join the lawsuit.
Of course this lawsuit hits at those who run politics in the state of Tennessee. In essence, state lawmakers in charge of funneling money towards public education have choked it off for one reason or another.
Lack of revenue, a need to increase taxes, diverted funding to other places, and etc., may all represents reasons why the state’s public education system has been under-funded. This suit aims to hold the state accountable and to give students a fair shake.
For what it’s worth, funding public education is a struggle for many politicians. Specifically in Tennessee, politicians have a constitutional mandate to capitalize the state’s basic education program, but higher education cuts into that funding since it is technically funded voluntarily.
This will, at the very least, force lawmakers to focus on how BEP is funded. Either that or it will start a war between public education officials and state senators and representatives. If so, students will be caught in the middle.
Hopefully this may all be avoided and a compromise reached. Funding public education is essential to the success of any state as the students being taught today are those participating in the state’s future workforce.
**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**
A guest post by Bruce Deitrick Price
Automaticity means that you recognize something instantly. You see a neighbor’s dog and in a split-second you say, “Bucky!” That’s automaticity.
Curiously enough, the Education Establishment thinks that automaticity is sometimes evil, sometimes ideal. This strange paradox reveals a great deal about the intellectual chaos and corruption in our K-12 system.
This paradox is even more extreme and perverse than you may at first imagine. When automaticity is helpful, our experts say it’s bad. When automaticity is destructive, our experts say it’s good. That’s what ideology and secret agenda have done to the field of education.
Historically, children were expected to learn simple addition problems and the multiplication tables. You knew automatically that 7 times 8 is 56. You knew that 7+12 is 19. With just a small amount of such information, a person can readily solve the common math that we encounter in everyday situations. Remarkably, all the so-called “reform” programs of the last 60 years specifically crusaded against this capability. New Math, circa 1965, emphasized all sorts of high-falutin activities (Boolean algebra, statistics, algebraic matrices) but denigrated any tendency toward memorizing arithmetic facts so you would have them as standard intellectual equipment.
Reform Math circa 1985, specifically forbade children to learn basic math facts. An early reliance on calculators was encouraged! Then we come to Common Core Math, which brags that children will engage in higher-level thinking and creative problem-solving but doesn’t want them to know the multiplication tables. The pattern is relentless. Automaticity, with regard to numbers and doing arithmetic, is constantly denigrated.
Clearly, everything that was ordinary and desirable in all cultures for thousands of years has been deemed unacceptable by our Education Establishment. If you look at only this part of the story, you know that these people have a perverse love for whatever is inefficient. Why? Most likely, they are addicted to collectivist thinking. The worst possible outcome for these people (people like Bill Ayers) is that some children master math quickly and sprint ahead of their classmates. So our progressives use any trick to block that possibility. Leveling is the goal. Ergo, no automaticity in math classrooms.
Now let’s look at a situation where automaticity can be destructive. That’s the process of learning to read. Public schools for 80 years have ordered children to seek automaticity in the memorization of sight-words. The essence of Whole Word reading instruction is that children are told to memorize entire words as graphic units. This fundamentally absurd approach has a dozen different names (sight-words, high frequency words, Dolch words, look-say; don’t be confused by the interchangeable aliases). The basic idea is that children look at a word (for example xgfh) and they memorize it as a design. You might object that xgfhis not a real word. But a first-grade child would not know that or guess that. All the designs look the same to children (that is, they look bizarre and unfriendly just as xgfh now looks to you).
Children DO need to memorize the smallest units with automaticity, that is, the individual letters. Then they need to memorize the sounds represented by these letters with automaticity. That is the correct way to proceed (it’s known as phonics). But this approach is precisely forbidden in our elementary schools. Instead the children are told to memorize larger, more complex units than the brain can easily handle, i.e., whole words such as xgfh.
Please note, for the brain any memorization is essentially the same task. You look at an airplane in the sky and you say that’s a 757. You look at a coin and you know it’s a nickel. No big deal, especially in the case of arithmetic where there are only so many scores of helpful facts. On the other hand, memorizing many hundreds of sight-words is extremely difficult.
The more objects there are and the more similar they are, the more quickly the project becomes hopeless. Imagine somebody put together a collection of 100 coins from around the world, all of them more or less silvery and all of them the size of our nickel and dime. Naming these coins with automaticity would be very similar to naming English sight-words with automaticity. Now imagine the teacher says you have to move up to 300, and then 500. That’s what learning to read with sight-words is like for kids in elementary school. A nightmare. Not only is automaticity virtually impossible to achieve, but trying to do so is destructive to the child’s mind. The brain is asked to switch back and forth from phonetic reading to sight-word reading—two completely different mental operations.
The bottom line here is that our elite educators are social engineers with ideological goals. They want an undifferentiated society. They don’t want educational excellence. So they pick the worst ways to do everything.
If a child needs automaticity to be good at arithmetic, our commissars will forbid automaticity.
If automaticity with sight-words is the worst thing that could happen to a child, the same commissars will demand automaticity.
Anybody even a bit fond of common sense has to be appalled by this. Anyone who has a heart has to be appalled by this.
We have millions of high school graduates arriving in college who’ve never been asked to memorize much of anything— arithmetic, science, history, geography, dates, presidents—becausememorization is bad. The Education Establishment will tell you that there’s nothing more evil than rote memorization. They will tell you that again and again.
Meanwhile, these same students starting in K will berequired to memorize sight-words. So we have a wonderfully screwed up society now where many people don’t know much of anything, and one main thing they don’t know is how to read.
With regard to Common Core, there is a lot of new verbiage and jargon, but this massive retooling of American public schools seems to have accommodated all the worst things from the past. The Education Establishment insists that this is a wonderful new reform. That’s what they always say.
—-
Bruce Deitrick Price explains education theories and methods on his siteImprove-Education.org
It’s estimated that in the next decade the number of computer science jobs in the U.S. will outnumber qualified people by 1 million. That’s 1 million jobs for the taking that Americans will miss out on because of inadequate skill sets. Despite this, only 10 percent of K-12 classrooms have computer science programs. So what gives?
The Problem
Traditional subjects like English and math receive a lot of play time in K-12 classrooms and they are considered “building blocks” for other subjects, like computer science. So when a high school senior decides to seek out a college degree in English, or mathematics, he or she has a general idea of what to expect in the classes that follow. The same can be said for arts-based topics, like the visual arts or music. Feasibly a young person accepted to college for those topics has had several years of training in it and plans to build on that base knowledge.
The same is not necessarily true for computer science majors. If only 10 percent of schools are teaching computer science courses (and we don’t know how extensive those programs may be), then it’s a safe bet that many of the kids entering those college classes have no idea what to expect. Or even worse – young people who may show promise in computer science never realize their potential because there is never a primer class to alert them to it. Despite its prevalence in the “real world,” computer science classes on K-12 campuses are not much changed from a decade or two ago.
There is also the slow nature in which K-12 schools, especially public ones, adopt new technologies. Classroom computers are nothing new but the science behind today’s careers is constantly evolving. It is difficult for classrooms to find the resources to keep up with the changing face of computer science. In some cases, by the time a particular technology is obtained or curriculum purchased, it is already on its way out the door as being considered cutting-edge. It can feel overwhelming, and frustrating, and this red tape keeps technology from reaching students’ hands in a reasonable time frame.
The Solutions
To meet the computer science job demand, K-12 schools will need help from outside partners. This could come in the form of area businesses willing to donate needed technology to make more classes happen or curriculum partnerships with groups like Code in the Schools. If every computer science classroom tries to re-invent the wheel, a lot of time and resources are wasted. So asking for help is the first step.
There also needs to be a larger focus on computer science at a younger age. This does not just mean computers and mobile devices available in K-12 classrooms but should include lessons on the “how” of the technology. The site Code.org has basic coding activities for children as young as Kindergarten – so teachers should be taking advantage of these resources. Waiting until middle or high school is simply too long to wait to spark an interest in K-12 students in computer science.
Finally, special attention should be paid to getting young women interested in computer science learning. Research tells us that girls are just as adept as boys at learning STEM topics, computer science included, but their interest tends to drop off in late elementary or middle school. Knowing this, educators should make sure girls are exposed to the same computer science learning as boys and encouraged through organizations like Girls Who Code. It may still take a generation to get to the point where young women feel completely comfortable seeking out computer science opportunities, so in the meantime support systems need to be there.
What solutions would you suggest for the lack of computer science in K-12 classrooms?
In 1965, just 11% of jobs required post-secondary training, but by 2020, 65% of U.S. jobs will require post-secondary training. That’s according to the Committee for Economic Development that has put together a video series on how high academic standards positively impact the economy. The video below talks about how high educational standards are important for all workers — from entry level to upper management. Take a look:
In order to accommodate the need for these post-secondary educated workers, P-12 schools must have rigorous and effective academics in place like the Common Core benchmarks. I’ve always said that our public schools should be the great equalizer when it comes to giving all of our kids the American Dream. These classrooms SHOULD provide access to the same educational opportunities, no matter what the color of the child’s skin or how much money that child’s parents earn. That’s the ideal but it’s far from reality.
Implementing Common Core Standards is one way to improve the equality of quality education in our K-12 classrooms. States are still free to create the curriculum that makes the most sense for their students, but the basic agreement on what kids should learn, and when, should have some national guidance. We also know that to accommodate the rising demand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math jobs, strong STEM learning initiatives must be in place in our classrooms. We owe it to this generation of students to equip them with what they will need to succeed academically and economically and Common Core Standards are designed to do just that.
Successful school systems share a number of common traits. These include: effective administrative leadership, safe learning environments, strong family and community partnerships, opportunities for increased time on task, incorporation of instructional best practices, interventions for underperforming students, continuous assessment of student achievement, and lofty expectations for all students. These successful schools exist in a number of different school environments. Schools should keep these traits in mind as they begin the school reform process.
Steps to a district level reform team
When attempting school reform, the school must first assemble the district restructuring team. Groups no larger than seven usually work best. The team can be made up of a variety of district personnel and staff. Restructuring teams normally consist of a school board member, the superintendent and assistant superintendents, principals, teachers, and other pertinent individuals.
Once the team is created, efforts must be made to assess the district’s capacity for implementing and sustaining school reform. The team must ask itself whether the district has all of the resources needed to implement and sustain a successful school reform. In extreme cases, when the district feels it is unable to coordinate its own reform effort, the team might want to consider allowing the state department of education to oversee the reform process.
Another option for schools that feel they are lacking in the area of certified and experienced reform personnel is to hire an educational consulting firm. There are many well-qualified firms that will be able to either work in conjunction with a restructuring team or oversee the process themselves. Note, however, that this can turn into an enormous job with an enormous price tag. It will require resisting the urge to compromise on any phase of the restructuring process.
The consulting team or team leader must be committed to finding and implementing innovative strategies that have the potential to effectively produce educational change. Assembling a top-notch team is simply not enough however. All of the major administrators, including the superintendent and school board, must fully support the decisions of the district restructuring team.
Remember that parents, community leaders, and policymakers must be included in the school reform process. Many parents are involved in their students’ educational plans and simply want to be informed of any changes. The reform task force will need to decide if parents and community leaders should be included as formal members of the districts restructuring team, or to simply illicit their advice and expertise as needed. When making decisions concerning what individuals will populate the task force, remember to include members have the expertise to be taken seriously within the district.
Extra reform committee considerations
Prepared agendas are essential for smooth meetings and excellent communication among the team. Preparing agendas are the team leader’s responsibilities. The leader of the task force must remain patient, but a sense of urgency must be the catalyst of all meetings. Outside consultants could be considered, but are not necessary for the success of the reform. Since the team will be made up primarily of school district personnel and various other community members and parents, having an outsider on the team will give the team valuable expertise, in addition to an objective lens with which to gauge progress.
It will be helpful to determine what viable options of reform the team is able to utilize. If the reform is district-wide, each school will need to analyze its individual needs and the options available. A district-wide plan must be developed, while bearing in mind that each school will need to modify the plan based on the needs of the students. Once the system of reform is created and approved by all team members, the plan will need to be approved by the superintendent before it is presented to the school board. The same rules apply whether reform is needed by one school or by all the schools in the district.
A concern, alluded to in above comments, is the need to assess the district’s capacity for implementing and sustaining educational reform. To appropriately assess the abilities of the district or school, the leader will need to complete an inventory of the qualifications and areas of expertise the team members have. If the inventory concludes that the district or school does not have the capacity to implement or sustain the plan for reform, state takeover may be the only option.
It’s important for reform teams to work together to effect positive change – but it doesn’t happen overnight. Careful planning must be part of the plan and input from several sources for the best results to take place.
Education may very well be the single most important ingredient in allowing a person to achieve success in life. The ascendancy of each individual defines the prosperity of our society; school reform is the backbone of a continuously developing education system. As G. K. Chesterton once said, “Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another.” Education is a continuous process of converting information into knowledge that can help students develop and explore further information.
In order to learn, a student must take new information and process it in a way that relates it to what is already known, and in the process form a newer, deeper understanding of the material. Just as learning involves changing one’s understanding of concepts and ideas over time, social phenomena such as education must also be subjected to ongoing scrutiny, evaluation, and change. It is necessary to recheck policies and practices upon which education systems are based, and continually strive to make improvements.
Constantly improving
The Japanese have a philosophy of continuous quality improvement called “kaizen,” which they apply to many areas of their life. Kaizen is the idea that one does not need to wait for something to be broken in order to fix it. Rather, one should always look for opportunities to improve upon current processes, making things incrementally better as time passes. This drive for continuous improvement should apply to our educational system; we need to constantly be striving to make things better, reevaluating how we do things, looking at the results we are achieving, and taking steps to improve things incrementally.
In the same way that kaizen theory speaks to improving life in general, we should apply the same principles to U.S. K-12 education. We must consider ways in which our educational system can and should grow, change, and continuously improve in ways to best serve our children. In order for the United States to continue to progress toward a knowledge-based society, it is necessary to reform and streamline our education system to enable the development and assimilation of information as knowledge. Our schools are the primary institutions to facilitate transference and conversion of information into students’ knowledge base. It is our duty to keep a watchful eye on the schooling processes, and to change educational policies and practices to ensure improvement.
Reform, or consistent improvements?
Over the past century, many reforms have taken place throughout the U.S., and on a continuing basis. Despite the constant need for change, very few, if any, of these reforms really made their way to the school level. Most of the initiatives that led to reform originated from dynamic leaders who were capable of implementing these changes in an extraordinary fashion, despite the presence of various radicals in strong opposition to these changes. However, as soon as the leaders moved on to their next challenge, these radical individuals returned to their old ways. The reform was diminished, and eventually there remained no trace of it.
Study after study has shown that the American educational system is not just in need of regular, continuous quality improvement. Something very different is needed since the system is in a state of fundamental disrepair. Our children are performing poorly compared to other developed countries. Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are performing even worse.
Whether you believe that continuous improvement is good for our educational system or not, what is certain is that our educational system needs to change. Rather than always calling for radical reform when the numbers don’t work in our favor, always striving for improvement and never letting our classrooms become comfortable is a better route to K-12 success.
In my last post, I talked about the ways that students are impacted when they are on a year-round school schedule, instead of having traditional summers off. Today, I want to look at another group impacted by a break from the typical summer-break school calendar: teachers. Does a lack of a season of rejuvenation for educators lead to burnout in the classrooms – and how is pay impacted? Let’s take a look at these, and other implications, of year-round academic calendars and teachers. In this article, we will discuss how year-round schools affect teachers.
No Summers Off
Every job comes with its share of headaches and at one point or another, employees in all industries claim that they are “burned out.” Teaching is unique when it comes to burn out, though, because an unmotivated, exhausted teacher has a direct effect on the young people in his or her classroom. Summers off has long been the light at the end of the tunnel for teachers, particularly in urban areas with higher discipline problems and overcrowded classrooms. In a year-round setting, lengthy breaks are gone, replaced with shorter, more frequent ones instead. Though the loss of those summer months may at first seem like a drawback, many teachers end up liking greater frequency in time off. With shorter, more concentrated spurts of instruction, teachers can exert more energy and face the daily struggles with the hope that there will be relief soon. There is still as much time off, but it is more evenly distributed.
More Red Tape
Teachers who work at multi-track year-round schools, or schools that rotate student schedules so time off is staggered and the school is always open, have more work to do. Part of the financial allure of a multi-track schedule is that a school is always at full capacity which means that teachers share classrooms. “Roving” teachers have to live from carts or temporary storage in some cases in order to make their classrooms accommodating to other teachers. There are also cases where a teacher may not get the allotted time off because he or she is changing a grade level or subject and there is no time off between tracks.
Single-track setups feasibly have less of the issues of multi-track schools but there are still some conflicts, particularly if the teachers are parents too. If their children go to a traditional schedule school, their breaks may not line up and could lead to childcare issues.
Paychecks
In most scenarios, teachers make the same amount of money in their districts whether they work at a year-round or traditional school, though the pay schedules may differ. Teachers who made extra money teaching summer school still have that option in year-round districts that offer remedial courses during break periods. Where some teachers see the biggest economic cut when they teach year-round is in the three months of summer that other teachers often seek out part-time or seasonal work.
Based on the type of work, this could mean a loss of income in the thousands every year. For teachers satisfied with holding down just one job and paycheck, a year-round schedule may not have any economic impact on their families at all.
Research has not found any large negative effects on teachers who teach on year-round schedules instead of traditional ones. Like any profession, the preferable schedule depends on the individual. For veteran teachers who have been teaching in a traditional setup for years, a switch to year-round schooling may be more jarring than a newly-licensed teacher. Overall, though, the job and time off are comparable – just different.
What pitfalls do you think teachers on year-round schedules face?
