Teachers

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What You Need to Know as an Educator: Understanding the Impact of Educational Governance at the State Level

Are you aware of the governing educational structure of your state? Many components of this structure are affected by regulations while still enabling academic freedoms. In this article the basic state structure of K-12 school systems in the United States will be observed.

The educational system in the United States can best be described as extensive (due to the large size of the country), decentralized (determined by the individual states or even, at times, local areas), and diverse (the children to be educated come from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds). In 2007–2008, approximately 49 million children were enrolled in K–12 schools, while 6.9 million teachers worked in the nation’s 99,000 public elementary, middle, and secondary schools.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individual states control over education within their boundaries, and many state constitutions state that all children have a right to minimally adequate education or include similarly worded clauses. States have the right to determine policy, to set curriculum, and to decide how to spend the majority of funds allocated to education. Furthermore, states are responsible for setting the minimum requirements that a student needs to meet in order to graduate high school. Slightly more than half of the states (26) require students to complete state-regulated exit exams, although these may not be considered particularly rigorous because they contain knowledge and skill levels comparable to proficiency at the eighth- or ninth-grade levels. Finally, states are ultimately responsible for the selection and the evaluation of educational personnel. Chief educational officers or state commissioners of education may be appointed or elected. When elected by the voting public, the chief educational officer is wholly responsible to the public for his or her decisions and policies.

The governance structure can vary from state to state; the governor is typically the head of education, although the members of the state legislature are equally as powerful when it comes to setting statewide policies and regulations. Many states have a state board of education (SBE), which is either appointed, elected, or a combination of both, with some members appointed and others elected. Certain other states, such as New Mexico, Minnesota, and Oregon, have alternate bodies. Check the National Association of State Boards of Education Web site to see what entity exists in your state. Many states have a chief state school officer, who is directly responsible to the SBE and normally serves as the head of a state department of education. At the local level, school districts are governed by school boards. School board members may be elected or appointed. School boards are normally responsible for hiring a school district superintendent, who is responsible for implementing educational policies at the local level. The superintendent is also responsible for managing principals and schools located within the district. Principals are the onsite authority for education in their buildings. Teachers are directly responsible to principals.

Since each state has some leniency with the governance structure it is important to understand your individual school system. Know thing proper protocol will enable you to stay involved and in communication with your local district leaders and provide the appropriate method for addressing concerning about your school system.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Teachers

Can Superstar Teachers Save Failing Schools?

By Matthew Lynch

An interesting phenomenon in many public, private and charter schools is the adoption of accountability standards that read more like a white paper on business efficiency than suggestions for actually teaching human beings. The problem with these standards, of course, is that with stringent, subjective targets for learning, schools are able to “game” the system to make it work in their favor. In other words, these schools are looking for ways to meet a specific, narrow goal – think of it like a salesperson closing a deal – and then they are rewarded for that piece of shallow success.

The flip side of this is that the schools that do not manage to meet these standards are then punished, in true NCLB style, even if the details of their teaching methods actually have some merit. Teachers and administrators at schools that are deemed “failures” or even just mediocre by the established system then must bow to the pressure in order to stay relevant and away from the target range when it comes to adding “competitive” school choices.  This is the most unattractive face of school reform.

Whose fault is it?

So, are the teachers to blame?  I think it is unfair to count on, or to blame, teachers solely for the performance of their students. Yes, they play a role in shaping the young minds in their classrooms and yes, they should be held accountable for that. It seems to me that the root of issues in classrooms that tend to cause the most problems for students (like poverty and ill-equipped or uninvolved parents) should be the target of any true reform. Teachers come and go, moving from school to school or on to different careers. Strong programs that address equality in education and focus on social issues at the root of learning challenges are what will truly make an impact on what students learn and retain, and whether those students succeed.

But what about the “superstar teachers”?  You are probably familiar with the concept, particularly since it is perpetuated in popular culture through movies like the classic Edward James Olmos film “Stand and Deliver” and 2012’s “Won’t Back Down.” The idea is that with the right teacher – a committed, bright, in-tune, talented teacher – P-12 problems like the achievement gap and high dropout rates will cease to exist. If only every student had a standout teacher like the ones portrayed in these shows, the very P-12 system as we know it would be transformed for the better.

I do believe in the power of teachers, both positive and negative, on their students. I train educators for a living and have written books about following “the calling” to become a teacher. I do think that teachers make a difference – but I cannot put all of my faith in these “superstar teachers” to reform the education system the way that is truly needed.

For one thing, the schools that desperately need some sort of superstar saviors are often unable to attract them. In a study on urban schools and poverty released by the National Center for Education Statistics, urban administrators said that they had difficulty attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. This observation, coupled with the fact that schools with higher percentages of students living in poverty had less resources available for teaching, is a recipe for disaster when it comes to counting on these “superstars” to close the achievement gap, lift standardized test scores and increase graduation rates. These urban schools are the very places that need all of those factors to happen to improve student achievement and the long-term overall quality of life in those communities. So if the answer falls solely on strong teachers, these places are in a lot of trouble.

What do you think?  Are teachers the answer to fixing the problem with many of the attempts at school reform, or does the problem run much deeper?

 

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

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

Why more K-12 schools should teach the Arabic language

By Kelly Doffing

From improving memory to increasing global understanding, the benefits of learning a foreign language are abundant. As globalization continues and we progress toward a more connected global community, the importance of learning a second language is not only beneficial, but also essential. The U.S. Census reports that only 21 percent of Americans speak a language other than English (at home), yet 75 percent of the world’s population does not have a basic understanding of English.

It is imperative that students be given the opportunity to study a second language in order to ensure that the next generation is equipped to be global citizens who are able to cross geographic and cultural boundaries to solve global problems.

Why we need more Arabic in K-12 classrooms

According to Ethnologue.com, Arabic is the fifth most spoken language in the world and, despite a growing importance of the Middle East in international affairs, there is a shortage of qualified Arabic-language educators in the United States. So, what are schools in the United States doing to further the study and teaching of Arabic?

Qatar Foundation International (QFI) is a U.S.-based not-for-profit dedicated to connecting cultures and advancing global citizenship through education. QFI conducted a survey of school administrators of Arabic-language programs to look at the various challenges, benefits, and logistics of offering Arabic. Between December 2012 and October 2013, the Arabic Language and Culture Program of Qatar Foundation International conducted a phone survey of 201 U.S. K-12 public and public charter schools that teach Arabic. Of the 106 responses, 84 schools self reported that they currently offer Arabic classes.

The survey revealed three key takeaways for current Arabic-language programs as well as for schools considering the implementation of such programs:

  • The teacher is critical for the success of the Arabic program. Schools rely on teachers to recruit students to learn Arabic and to conduct outreach events. Schools cited finding a quality teacher and recruiting and retaining students as two of the biggest challenges for offering Arabic. Consequently, twenty-four percent of schools that discontinued their Arabic programs did so because the teacher left or retired. One schools administrator advised, “Getting the correct teacher is the most important aspect [of the Arabic program]; you can do many things like market the program or recruit, but if you don’t have a solid teacher, the program will die.” The field of K-12 Arabic needs more highly trained, certified teachers who are passionate about working with children. Programs such as Teacher Fellowships to fund Arabic teacher study and certification, grants to current teachers for classroom needs and professional development, awards to celebrate excellence, and partnerships with leaders in foreign language education can all serve to increase the number and quality of qualified K-12 Arabic teachers, provide ongoing teacher training to those teachers already in the profession, and support classroom needs and innovation.
  • There is an urgent need for high-quality curricula, resources, and materials appropriate for use at the K-12 level. Many current textbooks are intended for university, private, or international students and do not meet national or state standards. Administrators noted that schools offering Arabic are “on the cutting edge,” so teachers have to learn to develop their own curricula. Most teachers develop their curricula by combining material from different textbooks, online resources, other teachers, and their own self-developed materials. The dissemination of standards-based curricula through teacher-to-teacher sharing websites, such as the QFI-supported Al-Masdar, can help Arabic teachers to identify effective student engagement techniques and ensure quality content.
  •  Getting buy-in from the community and administration is essential. The survey found that 68 percent of Arabic programs are less than five years old. Without local support, Arabic programs cannot get off the ground or become sustainable. Schools that are looking to start programs must first engage with local communities and communicate with parents, encourage students, and gain acceptance from the stakeholders. Schools choose to offer Arabic language for students’ benefit, pointing to the fact that the U.S. government has identified Arabic as a critical language of strategic value. Administrators say that their Arabic programs aim to increase cultural understanding and open up opportunities for students. For these schools, there are resources available – including videos such as “The Benefits of Learning Arabic,” which consists of interviews with multiple administrators, teachers, and students to show how learning Arabic benefits students and the global community.

The survey revealed that the number of Arabic programs has dramatically increased over the past 15 years. School administrators reported that as a result of their Arabic programs, students demonstrated increased global understanding and excitement for the language. Many administrators commented on the opportunities the program opened up for students, the school, and the community. One administrator noted, “It is a feather in our cap to have an Arabic program, especially since we are the only high school in the district to offer the language.” Another remarked that the most rewarding aspect of their Arabic program was, “to see kids who would have not normally pursued something different because… it’s from a different part of the world. Then they explore it and get excited by the language and learn about the similarities and universal truths that they share with Arabs.”

For more information – such as what administrators noted as the most rewarding aspects of Arabic programs and advice from administrators about Arabic-language programs – read QFI’s full report.

___________________

Kelly Doffing is a Program Officer with the Arabic Language and Culture Program at Qatar Foundation International. She holds a Master’s degree in Arabic from the University of Maryland, College Park and completed the Graduate Arabic Flagship Program. She has worked as an Arabic teacher, administrator, and translator in the United States and Egypt. Her interests include expanding opportunities for Arabic learning and improving the quality of Arabic language instruction.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Teachers

What You Need to Know as an Educator: How to Deal with a Difficult Principal

As a teacher you may find it very difficult to work with your principal. Therefore this article provides tips for surviving the work place as you continue to invest in the lives of students.

Being a teacher was hands down one of the most difficult things that I have ever done in my life. It was also, however, the most rewarding. I had excellent relationships with my colleagues and my building principals, who served as a support system during times of uncertainty and difficulty. I hope that you will have a similar experience, but I also want you to be prepared if you do not.

Your school principal serves as an immediate supervisor and has direct authority over the day-to-day management of the school. A principal can be an invaluable ally in your pursuit to educate students or can be a nuisance and make your life a living hell. Here are some strategies that you can use to deal with a difficult principal.

  1. Take steps to open the lines of communication, and build a healthy reciprocal relationship with your principal. There is nothing wrong with appeasing your principal, and even “kissing up.” Your objective is to coexist with him or her and be the best teacher that you can be. Document every interaction between you and your building principal. If there is a problem down the line, you will have a detailed record of your interactions. Also, if your colleagues witnessed important interactions between you and your principal, be sure to record their names and other pertinent information.
  2. If you feel as though your principal is bullying or persecuting you, try to stay calm and remain professional. Give the principal the benefit of the doubt at first, but if he or she crosses the line, it may be time to seek help. This is especially true if you feel that you have done all that you can to solve the problem.
  3. If you do decide to seek outside help or advice, your union representative will be your first line of defense. The representative will inform you of your rights and help you devise a plan for dealing with the situation. If your principal is exhibiting bullying behaviors toward you, odds are that he or she has also bullied others. There is a possibility that your union representative has fielded complaints about this principal in the past.

If the problem does not subside with time, I would either transfer to another school in the district or simply leave. If you are not satisfied with this course of action, perhaps you should report the principal’s actions to someone further up the chain of command, but make sure you have done your part by having a heart-to-heart with your principal. Remember, it’s not your fault, and everyone, even principals, must face the consequences of their actions.

We would like to think that principals are all altruistic people who treat everyone fairly and have our best interests at heart, but in the end they are human just like us. I have seen strong relationships between teachers and principals devolve into toxic ones within the blink of an eye. The funny thing is that it was usually over some petty matter or a product of miscommunication.

There may come a time when you have to deal with a difficult principal, and I just want you to be prepared. If you implement these strategies, you should have no problem standing up for yourself. Remember why you love to teach and use these tips to deal with your principal.

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

What You Need to Know About the Conditions of Local Funding

It is important for educators and parents/guardians to understand the funding conditions of their local school district(s) because each condition impacts the amount and continual financial support provided to each school. In this blog the details of local funding conditions will be observed in order to bring awareness for the type of education your students may be receiving within their school.

Many states label schools under their jurisdiction and allot either descriptors or grades to them. Thus, schools can be characterized as “Excellent,” “Above Average,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Unacceptable,” receive a letter grade such as “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” or “F,” or be labeled using other types of systems. To meet its responsibility for openness and transparency, the state has an obligation to publish all such designations, whether in local or statewide news sources.

Schools that consistently receive poor or failing grades can be taken over by the state department of education. In some instances, state control of schools results in dismissal or reassignment of both administrators and teachers. Clearly, teachers are being held directly accountable for the achievement (or nonachievement) of the students in their charge. Student performance is looked at as a reflection of both the teacher’s and the school’s effectiveness. When choosing a school for their child, parents can use the schools’ designation (e.g., “Excellent” or “Fair”) as part of their decision. The potential enrollment of schools is impacted by the publication of the schools’ grade, and school funding can also be affected because enrollment is one of the measures used to determine the funds a school can receive.

Differences in the amount of money for education gained through property taxes mean the difference between getting a good education that enables students to become productive members of society and failing to do so. For parents and teachers alike, this can be a source of frustration. Teachers sometimes can’t obtain required materials, have to teach in buildings where the environmental conditions are not conducive to learning, and have to deal with social issues that are more prevalent in less-affluent areas, such as crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and the presence of gangs.

On the other hand, it can be very difficult to redistribute and reallocate funds for education, because wealthier areas may not be happy with their funds being taken away from their schools to finance schools in poorer districts. This approach has been termed the Robin Hood effect, where money is taken from wealthier areas and reallocated for spending in poorer areas of the state. The objective is to allow all students to receive the same access to education, thereby bringing about equity in the education received by all students in the state. This does not, however, always have the desired effect.

Redistribution of funds from wealthier areas may, for various reasons, cause a decline in the quality of education, teaching, or access to resources in the wealthier areas without bringing about a similar increase in the same factors at the recipient school in the poorer area. This creates an overall decrease in the quality of education offered to all students in the district. Several states, including Arizona and New Mexico, have a system in which all taxes go into a central fund and are then reallocated according to a complex “equalization formula.”

Some groups argue that instead of focusing on educational equity, districts and local administration should be focusing on educational adequacy. Unfortunately, adequacy is a term that is ill-defined because there are no prescribed criteria to define how you determine whether or not education is adequate. It could mean that you expect that all high school graduates are capable of attending university-level instruction, whether they choose to or not.

It could also mean that you expect that high school graduates are competent in handling life outside of the school environment, which may not focus on higher education at all. Alternatively, it could simply mean that all students are required to pass all standardized, state-level testing requirements, without placing any focus on future objectives. It is unlikely that, without a clear definition of educational adequacy, any further remediation of funding disparities between wealthy and poorer areas will lead to a solution that is beneficial to all.

It’s essential that schools adapt within a fast-changing economy, but our system still arranges funding in an inequitable manner. Those realities severely limit our educational system’s ability to effectively and accountably use resources in planned ways. Critics of increased spending on education routinely highlight nationwide cases of misspending of major increases in funding that provided little or no positive outcomes for student learning. Without adjustments in the distribution of resources, their use, and accountability, Americans may end up with a more expensive, though not necessarily more efficient, public education system.

Our children require and deserve a proper education, and we must strive to provide them with the type of education that they deserve. The money available for schools must be used in the most effective manner possible. And most important, we must understand the deficiencies in our educational funding system and strictly forbid placing blame—which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children.

Funding is crucial for the support, survival, and overall level of success for school districts. Therefore take time to review your jurisdiction and the functionality of funding.

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

Understanding State Funding: 4 Types of School Financing Systems

Educators can argue that the funding within education determines student success, staff morale, and the overall functionality of school system. The importance of understanding all types of funding is crucial to your development as an Educator, parent/guardian, and student. In this blog, state funding will be addressed and aid in creating a better understanding of school financing systems.

States generally use one of four types of school financing systems to provide districts with state funds: foundation, general aid, flat rate/local effort equalization, and full state funding. When using the foundation financing system, states set a desired (guaranteed) per-pupil amount they wish to see spent on students’ education in the state (e.g., at $12,000 per pupil). States then make up the difference between the amount generated by districts’ local taxes and the state-guaranteed per-pupil amount.

General aid is a foundation approach using three separate calculations to establish the amount districts receive from the state. When determining state aid to districts, states consider the guaranteed minimum per pupil and calculations of the percentage of district resources below or above the guaranteed minimum.

The flat rate/local effort equalization financing system is based on a quantifiable unit of need, such as a district’s average daily attendance or total school enrollment, and on districts’ property tax rates to determine state aid. Schools are fully funded in Hawaii and Vermont, with no consideration of local taxes.

Two other states have rather unique ways of providing state funds to local school districts. In Pennsylvania, school districts receive a percentage of state funds based on the amount a district needs to address key educational principles established by the state. Wisconsin uses a guaranteed tax base system, where all districts, regardless of their level of wealth, have the same tax rate. As a result, Wisconsin raises the same amount allocated per pupil from a combination of state and local sources.

Tax sources of funding are equally diverse and vary according to states. The three main tax sources providing input to education are income tax, sales tax, and property taxes. Income taxation, however, is generally enacted at a federal rather than at a state level, with much federal education aid originating from income taxes. Taxes levied on corporations are also included in income tax, although the rate of taxation differs among states. Sales tax is generated based on the sale of goods or commodities, which is paid by the person buying the goods. A special type of tax, excise tax, is levied on items that are considered undesirable for consumption, or that consumers are encouraged to spend less on, including cigarettes, gasoline, and liquor. Sales and income taxes make up approximately two thirds of all monies channeled into education, while the income derived from excise taxes makes up the remaining third.

Currently, lotteries are being marketed as a novel way of paying for public education. But in many cases, education actually ends up getting the short end of the stick. Instead of using lottery funds as additional funding for schools, state governments use these monies to cover the education budget and spend the monies that would be traditionally earmarked for education on other issues. In short, public school budgets have not received any additional funding as a result of lotteries. In the end, it’s true that billions of dollars pour into the U.S. education system, but not in the manner that we have been led to believe.

Property taxation is the most important source of revenue-generating taxation at a local level. Approximately half of the revenue generated from property tax is allocated for education. The exact amount of revenue generated from property taxes varies from region to region, due to differences in property tax rates that are based not only on the perceived value of the property but also on the amount/percentage that a constituency is willing to charge its homeowners as tax.

The school district tax rate is determined by calculating the total assessed valuation of the district, which refers to the amount of money required to be generated divided by the local tax base. The school district tax rate, however, is subject to a legal maximum, which may not be exceeded. The school district tax is added to the tax rates of other services (including fire relief, ambulance, or police services) and is described as a percentage or “millage,” where one mill is equal to one tenth of a percent. Thus, a tax rate expressed as 312 mills is equivalent to 31.2%.

During the late 1960s and in the 1970s, property values and taxation increased far more rapidly than other forms of wealth, resulting in mass dissatisfaction with the rate of property taxation. This gradually led to various legal reforms regarding the taxation of property, which again varied between individual states. In 1993, Michigan decided to replace school funds generated from local property taxes with state-generated funds. The state increased both sales tax and taxes on luxury items such as cigarettes, reallocating funds to its poorer districts, and ensuring a more equitable education for all children in the state. Other states have followed suit and have come to rely less on property taxes as a funding base for their educational systems.

In some instances, wealthier school districts have reacted to the redistribution of educational funding by actively setting out to ensure that their schools are not endangered or placed on a fiscal par with less economically fortunate areas. The Parent Teacher Association (PTA), which can receive state and national funds, and Parent Teacher Organizations (PTOs), which cannot, work with local businesses to ensure that funds other than those generated and allocated by the state are available to their schools. Parent groups conduct fundraisers and seek monies from private foundations. Some parent groups have sought legal support to ensure adequate funding for their schools. These advocates want to ensure that all schools have a base minimum amount of money on which to operate their programs and services.

The allocation of funds for education is determined by the governor and can vary greatly from state to state. The authorities must determine how available funds will be divided among all educational entities in the state. States typically funnel education funds to school districts through state departments of education. Schools may receive funds based on any or all of the following: enrollment, educational programs, or the types of activities they offer students.

Furthermore, some funds are designated for specific purposes: some can only be used for technology; others are solely for textbooks or school supplies. Thus, some schools may have a pool of money allocated to one resource, while sorely needing another. This can have a direct impact on you as a teacher. For example, you may need art supplies for your third-grade class, but because no money is specifically allocated for this purchase, you may have to be creative in how you provision your art program. You may have to consider approaching local businesses for donations of money or supplies. You may also have to sharpen your grant-writing skills and apply to both corporations and foundations for that much-needed extra cash.

Take the time to review your school’s financing system and how state funding may be creating a greater impact that is unaware to you. If your school is lacking in areas that are effecting student success consider researching the suggestions made in this blog such as submitting grants for additional funding.

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

Ask An Expert: Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools

Question: I recently moved from New Jersey to a small town in Louisiana. To my amazement and horror, my children’s elementary school still uses corporal punishment. Fortunately, it is an opt in system, but if parents do not consent to its use, their children are automatically suspended, whether it is in school or at home. What does research say about the effects of corporal punishment? What can we do to end this deplorable practice? Marcia E.

Answer: First of all, thank you for your question. It’s difficult to believe in this day and age that we still have some schools around the nation that are using corporal punishment as a form of discipline. At this point, there are only 19 states that now allow corporal punishment, which is allowing the school to use physical punishment on a child. Such punishment usually includes a spanking of some kind, typically done with a wooden paddle. Although not allowed in the majority of states, it is reported that there are over 200,000 children who are victims of it each year around the country. It’s difficult to imagine that so many children are going home throughout the school year with welts, bruises, and broken vessels, as punishment for something they did in school.

Spankings themselves, as well as corporal punishment, are controversial topics at best. There is a lot of evidence and research that has pointed to the fact that spanking as a form of punishment, at any age, can be problematic. We as a society need to be aware of this research, especially when it comes to it still being allowed in the schools of 19 of our states. Here’s some of the most troubling aspects of corporal punishment in schools:

• Research indicates that children who are disciplined with spanking go on to have more mental illness as adults. Spanking has been linked to children becoming adults who not only have mental health issues, but also experience more depression, and have problems with substance abuse.
• Spanking children is also believed to make them become adults who are more aggressive, antisocial, and who go on to abuse their own spouse and children.
• As a nation, we are concerned with our high school drop out rates. This makes me wonder how many adults would want to continue showing up at their jobs if they knew they would be paddled if they didn’t perform their jobs correctly. Perhaps if students were not being paddled, they may hang in there a while longer and take to their studies a little better.

Corporal punishment may be under attack, but until we outlaw it from every state in the country, we will have the problems associated with it each year. And those problems, as we have discussed, are far reaching and long lasting. They impact us as a society long after the child has completed their schooling.

While the Supreme Court allows corporal punishment in whatever states and school districts have it legally on the books, this is a matter of ethics. We as a nation need to do what is right by the next generation. By the looks of it, if corporal punishment continues in the 19 states it is currently allowed in, we will be raising a lot of children who may go on to have mental illnesses, be more aggressive, abuse their spouses, and have addiction problems.

Once they are adults, society can point the finger at them and say that it’s their own fault, and they have created the problems in their life by the choices they have made. But if we can agree that the writing is on the wall, and the potential long term impact is there, then we may need to start pointing a few fingers at the schools, as they are using a form of punishment that experts agree goes on to create more unwanted behavior.

Now is the time for parents around the nation, especially those who live in states where corporal punishment is still allowed, to take a stand. It’s time that we focus on more peaceful and less harmful ways to teach the children of the nation right from wrong. Getting rid of the paddles in the schools of this nation is a great place to start.

 

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

Examining The Federal Government’s Role in Educational Reform

In the decades of attempted educational reform, the U.S. government has been the biggest player. Following the Nation at Risk report the federal government became more focused on the achievement of all students in the nation’s schools.

In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act passed with the goal of supporting states’ efforts to develop curriculum standards that would outline what students should know and be able to do, as well as state and district efforts to improve student achievement along the standards. The act did not stop at standards-based education. It included goals focused on safe schools, parental involvement, and teacher development, all of which ostensibly influence student achievement. And it also addressed goals for education from early childhood to adulthood. Goals 2000 included the following:

  • All children in America will start school ready to learn.
  • The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.
  • All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging 
subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation’s modern economy.
  • U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
  • Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  • Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
  • The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.
  • Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.

The NCLB of 2001 built on goals outlined in Goals 2000, and in many ways NCLB amplified and extended goals that originally appeared in Goals 2000.

NCLB is the leading federal legislation governing K–12 schooling. Its introduction meant that the federal government took a greater role in education in the United States. A major objective of NCLB was to decrease the achievement gap between students with low scores and those with high scores. Schools and districts not reaching stated annual progress toward the goal of removing the achievement gap would be penalized.

NCLB has divided opinion. It has been positively recognized for requiring a disaggregated format for student performance reports, enabling evaluation of the performance of different groups of students. This has particularly benefited disadvantaged students, whose performance was often overlooked in the past. However, as you’ll see in the following section, NCLB also has many detractors.
Reforming NCLB

Many have called for reform of NCLB itself. Suggested changes include removing the 2013–2014 target years for eliminating the achievement gap among different groups of children, because educators and policy makers alike believe the target year is unrealistic. Critics state that NCLB places too much emphasis on standardized testing and too little on the education of individual students. They also suggest that using standardized tests as the only measure of progress has led to instruction more aligned with students’ performing well on tests rather than learning a broad array of topics. Critics suggest that student growth should be a measure of the difference between students’ performance level at the beginning of the year and their performance level at the end of the year, rather than an arbitrary expectation for annual performance. And critics recommend expanding the measures used to determine student performance, so that standardized tests are not the only measures used.

The funding arrangements for NCLB are also the subject of discontent, with suggestions that much more funding is required to achieve the stated objectives. Under NCLB, states are responsible for the type and level of assessments given to students. Critics have suggested that variations across states in terms of levels of performance proficiencies makes it next to impossible to accurately compare performance across states. The focus on testing only mathematics and reading has also come under scrutiny, with suggestions that knowledge and skills in other subjects should be assessed as well.

NCLB requires states to staff their public schools with “highly qualified teachers.” This provision of NCLB can be viewed as a successful school reform measure, because research has shown that excellent teachers have a positive impact on student achievement. The provision seeks to ensure that students are taught well-prepared and highly qualified staff—teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it.

Although not explicitly required by NCLB, gaining National Board Certification is one way to become a highly qualified teacher. National Board Certification is an advanced teaching credential that is offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. It supplements, but does not supplant, a state teacher license. National Board Certification is achieved on successful completion of an optional assessment initiative intended to identify effective and accomplished teachers who meet high standards based on what teachers should know and be able to do.

National Board Certification is available nationwide for most pre-K–12 teachers and has been a positive school reform measure since its inception. Whatever your thoughts on educational reform, National Board Certification is a powerful tool to have in your toolbox to help you be an effective educator and voice for change.

  • no reactions
0
Share