Uncategorized

The practice of placing students in talented and gifted programs is viewed by some as being inherently unfair. After all, who determines what is considered “gifted” in the first place? Some studies have even found that gifted programs favor white students and that Black and Latino students are constantly overlooked. These claims are generally backed up with statistics that show an overwhelming proportion of white students in talented programs and under representation from other demographics.

I’ve written before about the New York Times findings at Public School 163 where one-third of the talented and gifted students are black or Hispanic combined but only 18 percent of the regular student population is white. Teachers there admit that the requirements to enter the program are parent-centric which tends to favor white families in that district. Outright admittance of discrimination is missing from the teacher reasoning, as expected, but the numbers seem to imply it.

But what about districts with obvious discriminatory practices in place? Take Illinois School District U-46, for example. In this particular district, over 40 percent of the student population is Latino but only 2 percent of the gifted program is from this demographic. In July, a federal district court judge found that the school system had discriminated against its gifted Latino students by placing them in a program separate from white peers. The judge also ruled that the policies in place to identify gifted students had a “disparate impact” on the Latino school population. The lawsuit was spearheaded by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

In this particular case the Latino students who were placed in separate gifted programs had English as a second language, or were bilingual at least. The language barrier appears to be the excuse used by district leaders for separating Latino students from their white counterparts. Is knowledge of the English language a prerequisite for academic success though? As the world becomes less segmented, particularly when it comes to communication, is it fair to separate our student populations based on their native language?

It all makes me wonder if language has become the new source of segregation. Just as the ruling of Brown vs. The Board of Education found that “separate is… unequal” when it comes to skin color – is the same true of language preferences?

I also wonder how much discrimination is masked by the language excuse. It is taboo to demonstrate the belief that a particular race or ethnicity is inferior but there is often an audience for those who believe English is the superior language. In other words, it is okay to discriminate against fellow citizens if a core American value – like a unified language – is the reasoning. This Illinois case is indicative of what might be found in any school district in an area where Latino students are prevalent and it represents a subtle acceptance of racism if it goes against mainstream behavior.

I think that the judge in the Illinois case got it absolutely right. Separating these Latino students when it came to gifted programs was unfair and certainly sent the wrong message to the students at the school. I also think that these underhanded discriminatory practices exist in other subtle ways whether it involves gifted programs, retention and social promotion, or any other subjective decision making in the nation’s K-12 classrooms. Language preference is just a new twist on an old tale of discrimination in our schools and for all students to have equal opportunities, this point needs to be recognized and eliminated.

What do you think? Is language the new form of segregation in K-12 classrooms?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 reality is often a monotone, unattractive look at contemporary American public schools.

Earlier this year the New York Times visited Public School 163 located on the Upper West Side of the city to take a look at the disparities caused by the talented and gifted program there. This is what it looked like: a bunch of white kids on the “gifted” side of the school, and mainly children of color on the general or special education side. Teachers interviewed for the story admitted that it looked bad but did not seem to have a way to solve the problem. Just under a third of the talented students at P.S. 163 are identified as black or Hispanic – combined. Only 18 percent of the students in the average-student classes are white. Though unintentional, a modern-day segregation is taking place at New York City’s P.S. 163 and in other district schools across the country that employ talented and gifted programs.

Clearly white children are not always more gifted, so the selection process and operational procedures for such programs must be flawed. Education experts have long said that white, middle-to-high class students are at an advantage when it comes to standardized testing. Is the same true for talented and gifted programs? In both cases, the actual academics are not in question, but rather the methods of delivering learning and analyzing student performance are challenged.

Many TAG programs start around second or third grade. Though these students are old enough to read and write, the intricacies of an application for a TAG program are certainly the responsibility of parents. For working class parents, time is of a premium and even a one-page talented and gifted program application may rank low on a family priority list. To other parents that lack a college education, or even a high school diploma, the application process may seem foreign, uncomfortable and even cryptic. I use this example of the application process to highlight a larger point: the lack of minority students in talented and gifted programs oftentimes reflects poor communication between the parent and the school district. Better guidance for parents regarding the application process and program expectations can lead to more diversity in student representation in TAG initiatives. Parental comprehension is not a given thing; guidance through these programs for the benefit of the students is the responsibility of program administrators.

Parents are not the source of all the blame, however, when it comes to skewed numbers in talented and gifted programs. District schools need to find ways to better recognize different types of learning talent and look beyond the typical “gifted” student model. The CEC-TAG Diversity Award is a good example of thinking outside the box on minority inclusion in gifted programming. Established in 2010, the recognition goes to schools that look for innovative ways to include under-represented groups (read: blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans) in advanced K-12 programs. In addition, winning schools must be Title I certified. This national push to make talented and gifted programs better mirror the contemporary and ever-evolving student body as a whole 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.

Note: Today’s op ed comes to you courtesy of George M. Johnson, an advocate for change in Higher Education.  He is the Former Director of Student Accounts at Virginia Union University and counsels students properly preparing for college.  He has been published in HBCUDigest.com and blogs at iamgmjohnson.com.  Follow him on twitter @iamgmjohnson

Yesterday, a tweet from @Med_School12 took Social Media by storm that stated “A 4.0 at a HBCU is not equivalent to a 4.0 at a rigorous PWI.  Sorry, but it’s the truth”.  Immediately twitter swarmed this tweet as the thousands of retweets with comments ranged from a question mark to all out fury.  I too, took my frustrations out tweeting how my multiple degrees from HBCU’s have in no way made me less that of a person who received their degrees from a PWI.  After the initial shock and awe of the situation, I decided to sit down, gather my thoughts, and really think about what she actually wrote.

The tweet, although less than 140 characters is much layered in contradiction and furthermore should have been sold as her opinion not truth.

Issue 1: What differs a PWI from a Rigorous PWI

At first read, the tweet all but diminishes the worth of attending an HBCU in comparison to going to a PWI.  But upon further analysis, she actually does compliment and offend all in the same sentence.  Based on her teeth, she agrees that a 4.0 at an HBCU is equivalent or better than that of one from a normal PWI, just not a rigorous PWI.  So the true question that needs to be answered is “what is a rigorous PWI”.  Is it a top 20 ranked college? Is it a private school as opposed to a public school?  Is it based on the college’s endowment?  Either way, the determination of what makes one college rigorous compared to another is purely subjective to the student that attends.  Some students probably thought Harvard was easy as compared to those who may have struggled at Rutger’s.  There is no true way of determining the “rigors” of one college over another.

Issue 2: Is the statement based on where you were educated or where you teach?

This is one I had to think about.  Let’s say the PWI is made up of 5 professors that all were educated at HBCU’s.  The school they are being compared to is an HBCU that is made up of 5 professors that were all taught at PWI’s.  There is probably no need to go any further as you can probably see where I am going with this.  The statement does not take into account the people that are actually doing the instruction.  Based on the statement, your professors could have come from community college and HBCU’s, but as long as they are “worthy” enough to teach at a “rigorous” PWI, the learning will be greater.  But if you attend an HBCU with all professors with Harvard Education, your learning will not be equivalent because the perception of the HBCU as a whole is less than the standard.  The patriarchy and privilege in that statement alone is disappointing.

Issue 3: The final issue, which was also my initial reply, “whose truth”? 

In this age of social media, people are very quick to make accusations, assumptions, opinions, and poorly executed statements and claim that they are truth as if some actual research had been done.  Her claiming that the PWI she is attending is rigorous for her is “her truth”.  This should not be generalized and projected on others as a factual statement about the university that she attends.  My truth is that I have never attended a PWI, and any statement made about the rigors of one would solely be my opinion.  And to play devil’s advocate, there are many people whose truth is that they attended a PWI and an HBCU and found the HBCU to be more rigorous than the PWI.  That statement vice versa is someone else’s truth.

Living in the age of social media can be quite fun and intriguing, but it can also be dangerous when we begin spreading our truth’s as facts and making them the beliefs of others.  Rather than arguing if a 4.0 at an HBCU is equivalent to that of a 4.0 at a PWI, we should be praising and commending anyone that receives a 4.0 at any institution of Higher Education.  For that takes “rigorous” work.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress has some shocking news: since 2009, there has been no improvement in math and reading performance among our nation’s high school seniors.  Despite the trillions of dollars we have hurdled into our schools, our students aren’t better off in those subjects.

How can that be? It seems to me that the problem lies in that we simply teach to the test.  We train thousands of students to learn a few of the “core” subjects so they score well on tests – but that doesn’t really make the students better educated. Higher test scores in any subject does not mean these young adults are smarter. Think about the utterly essential part of success: learning how to write well.  This is a prime example of a subject that no multiple-choice test can measure.

To really learn, students must have the thirst to drink from the fountain of knowledge.  They must feel compelled to understand problems and have the urge to find the solution, even if that means they answer incorrectly.  Yes, the core subjects are important for students to learn – but let’s not forget about literature, music and the arts – and the other subjects that help teach students to explore.

What the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress tells us is alarming. How have ten years passed, and these trillions of dollars not rendered any improvement in math and reading performance among high school seniors?

There are some schools out there that are taking a better approach at teaching today’s diverse student population but so much more needs to be done. What public education needs is the ability to implement more practical models of teaching to guide students instead of following master plans devised to ensure students test well.

There are a lot of metrics in place that gauge the effectiveness of P-12 schooling in the U.S. and shine a particularly bright light on public schools, particularly when they are failing students. Dropout rates are just one of the factors taken into account when these numbers are calculated and tend to weigh heavily on the schools and districts who have low percentages. The same does not seem to be true once the high school years pass though. Compared to P-12 institutions, colleges and universities seemingly get a pass when it comes to college dropout rates – perhaps because in the past, higher education was considered more of a privilege and less of a right. A college dropout was simply walking away from the assumed higher quality of life that came with the degree, but still had opportunity to excel without it.

That’s not the case anymore. As of 2013, 17.5 million students were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.  More than ever, colleges and universities have a responsibility to not simply admit students, but ensure they are guided properly to graduation. In other words, institutions of higher education should not be able to just take their student’s money and say “good luck.” They should provide the tools necessary for students to successfully achieve a college education and anticipate the issues that could prevent that.

Authors Ben Miller and Phuong Ly discussed the issue of the U.S. colleges with the worst graduation rates in their book College Dropout Factories. Within the pages, the authors encouraged educators at all levels to acknowledge that colleges and universities should share responsibility for successful or failing graduation rates, and that the institutions with the worst rates should be shut down. Perhaps the most terrifying suggestion in the book (for colleges and universities) was that public institutions with low graduation rates would be subjected to reduced state funding.

The book was written based on findings from Washington Monthly that ranked the U.S. schools with the lowest six-year graduation rates among colleges and universities, including public ones like the University of the District of Columbia (8%), Haskell Indian Nations University (9%), Oglala Lakota College (11%), Texas Southern University (13%) and Chicago State University (13%). These stats were published in 2010 so they are not the most current available but a quick scan of the University of the District Columbia’s official page shows graduation rate numbers through the end of the 2003 – 2004 school year. The past nine years are nowhere to be found. The school boasts 51.2 percent underrepresented minorities in the study body, including 47 percent that are Black – but what good are those numbers if these students are not actually benefitting from their time in college because they receive no degree?

In the case of Chicago State University, the latest statistics show some improvement from the 2010 ones. The six-year graduation rate is up to 21 percent – but the transfer-out rate is nearly 30 percent. The school has 92 percent underrepresented minorities that attend – 86 percent who are black and 70 percent who are female – but again, what good does any of that do if these traditionally disadvantaged students are not graduating?

In all cases of college dropout factories, the P-12 institutions chalk up a victory on their end. They graduated the students and also saw them accepted into a college. What happens after that is between the students and their higher education choices.

This, to me, is a problem. The accountability for student success extends beyond the years that they are in P-12 classrooms. Graduation from high school, and acceptance into college, should never be the final goal of P-12 educators. That is not a victory. That is only halftime.

As far as the colleges and universities are concerned, higher accountability should be demanded from educators, students, parents and really any Americans that want the best economy and highest-educated population. Public institutions, in particular, should be subject to restructuring or take over if dropout rates are too high. The lack of delivery on the college degree dream at many of these schools is appalling, frankly, and has gone on long enough.

What do you think an accountability system for colleges should look like when it comes to dropout rates?

Question: One of my colleagues had to take a leave of absence because of stress related issues. Basically, she burned out. I am a new teacher and I don’t want the same thing to happen to me. How does teacher burnout effect the education system, and how can we ameliorate it? Dwayne J

Answer: Dwayne, as you know, teachers have strong commitments to their work. Most of them feel passionately about teaching, and see it as a “calling.” The emotions that teachers undergo include love for (most) students, hate for the paperwork, the feeling of excitement when they see a student finally understand a concept, etc. Then there’s the dread of filling out report cards, the feeling of burn-out in December, and the nervous feeling associated with the first day of school every year. These emotions affect teachers across the board, without regard to experience.

Burnout refers to extreme stress experienced by those who work in intense occupations, especially in offering services that are subject to chronic tension levels. It usually means the inability to function fully in one’s job due to the prolonged stress related to these jobs. Stress and burnout are linked closely to an individual’s state of mind. Burnout is three-dimensional and includes feelings of emotional exhaustion or tiredness; teacher “depersonalization,”  in which they develop a negative and distrustful attitude towards their students, parents, and their colleagues; and a reduced sense of accomplishment and self-esteem.

It also brings about other negative effects, such as increased absenteeism, decline in classroom performance, and poor interpersonal relationships with colleagues and students. Burned-out teachers are usually less sympathetic toward the problems of students, and are less committed to their jobs. They develop lower tolerance for classroom disruptions, are less prepared for class, and are generally less productive. As a result, burned-out teachers can have a negative influence on the morale of new teachers.

Burned-out teachers are more narrow-minded about their practices, and resistant to changes in those practices. They resort to blaming others for low achievement or failure. If schools are to succeed at providing students with an effective, relevant education, teacher’s emotions must not be ignored.  Teachers need to feel validated in their work so that they can continue educating our youth to the best of their ability.

Empowering leadership behavior includes encouraging of self-reward systems, self-leadership, opportunity awareness, participation in goal setting, and independent behavior by followers and group members. In other words, it’s all about helping followers take ownership of their positions, toward the greater good of the organization. And, as studies have shown, the effects are often positive and far-reaching

Empowering leaders, through positive emotional support and encouragement, increases  motivation and confidence among subordinates as they set out to accomplish their individual and organizational goals. Therefore, empowering leadership can be quite useful, particularly as a behavioral tactic for entrepreneurs, who must gain commitment from those they work with in order to compete against bigger, more established, and resource-rich enterprises.

Additionally, empowering leadership behavior in entrepreneurs is crucial in dynamic environments. Entrepreneurs attempting to lead their ventures toward higher growth while operating in ever-changing conditions can benefit from adopting an  empowering leadership style. It is an effective way to distribute leadership throughout the management team. This enhances the shaping of emerging strategy, which harnesses the individual talents of each team member that are most relevant to the current situation.

However, there are some negative effects that come with empowering leadership, which are often left out of leadership literature. One of the disadvantages of empowering diverse teams is that it can be counterproductive. Empowering leadership can cause incompatibility among certain innovative enterprises.

In addition, empowered management teams tend to seek out too much information before making decisions. They may also attempt to follow too many opportunities, without refining a single business concept to establish a solid basis in the market. These challenges more often occur in experienced firms with diverse top management teams.

Diverse teams can be quite effective at considering multiple alternatives and making sense of challenging situations, but they are much slower to reach agreement on decisions. Different perspectives within top management teams can produce conflict, slowing the decision-making process.

We can conclude that empowering management teams can provide greater opportunity for conflicts to emerge. Conflicts among team members are likely to be particularly damaging to ventures operating in dynamic environments, where decision-making must be speedy in order to take advantage of the brief windows of opportunity . Entrepreneurs should be cautious about when and where to empower their management teams.

In fast-changing environments, empowerment reduces the new enterprise’s performance, causing the relationship between the  management team’s diversity and the new venture’s performance to become increasingly negative. In more stable industry environments, this kind of empowerment leadership behavior is more likely to have a positive effect on the performance of new ventures with non-uniform top management teams . This is because the information available is clearer and there is more time available for planning.

Stable environments allow the empowered top management teams to spend more time considering what alternative strategies are available, and exploring the potential for various innovative activities, since total agreement is not urgent. As a result, there is generally less conflict within empowered diverse teams operating in stable environments.

School leaders seeking effectiveness should learn from entrepreneurs, and particularly those from start-ups in fast-moving industries, which tend to be highly creative. They should strive to create environments in which positive ideas are encouraged, and in which there is ample opportunity for those ideas to be put in place.

This month marks 60 years since the landmark desegregation ruling Brown v. the Board of Education and though times have certainly changed, true equality has not been completely achieved — far from it. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA analyzed data from the school’s Education Department to determine that segregation has actually been on the rise since 1990. Overall, black students are more segregated than they were in 1970. The percentage of black students who go to schools with predominantly white students was only 23 percent in 2011, down from 44 percent at its near-equality point in 1988.

It is not just black students who are experiencing segmentation in public schools. Latino students are more likely to attend schools with other students in their demographic than black students are to go to school with their racial peers.

The placement of students is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to inequalities though. Minority students, even as young as preschool, are suspended at larger rates than their white counterparts. Minorities are also at a disadvantage when it comes to advanced science and math courses being offered at their schools, putting them behind the economic curve.

The bottom line is that even though the Brown v. the Board of Education ruling DID break down barriers, it could only go so far. The rest is up to society when it comes to actually doing the right thing and seeking out equal educational opportunities for all students. The hope is that in another 60 years, the achievement gap will be even smaller, and that segregation will be a word in history books alone.

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

Earlier this month California became the seventh state to adopt a new brand set of K-12 science outlines, dubbed Next Generation Science Standards, or NGSS. The “real world” approach to science mastery focuses on engineering, problem solving, modeling, and cause and effect experiments. Other states that are on-board with the science outlines are Maryland, Nevada, Kentucky, Kansas, Rhode Island and Vermont. The term “science standards” sounds like a positive one as far as learning is concerned, but do schools need really need another tier of learning accountability – and will students really benefi

What are Next Generation Science Standards?

Over the past year and a half, NGSS have been developed by education experts in several states. They are not an official part of the new Common Core standards but are meant to layer on top of the standards in place for stronger science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) outcomes. These standards are intended to teach the overlapping nature of science subjects, rather than to present lessons in topic isolation. In states like California, the value of a strong STEM foundation is critical to individual and state success. Over the past decade, STEM jobs have grown at a rate three times faster than other industries. By equipping K-12 students with better STEM knowledge, the long-term economic outlook will improve.

Why are NGSS controversial?

A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute reveals a flaw in the enthusiasm for NGSS. The Common Core math standards and NGSS outlines do not align. The authors of the math review from the Institute say that while there are many strengths on the math side, there are also “a distressing number of weaknesses.” These include science expectations that have math components that are not grade-appropriate, according to an Education Week post by Erik Robelen,

Other critics believe the standards are actually subpar when compared to current state standards. There is also concern that implementing a one-size-fits-all approach to science neglects individual learning initiatives and also regional needs when it comes to science education. Some critics also believe there is a lack of computer learning in the standards which is a disservice to students with how rapidly science technology is changing.

The verdict?

Applying any cookie-cutter standards to any K-12 topic certainly comes with its share of potential problems, as NGSS critics have pointed out. Still, shining the focus on real world STEM learning in real-world settings is necessary to fully equip the present and future workforce. American students also need the extra focus in areas of math and science where they fall behind their peers in other developed nations.

Science, math and engineering topics are also less likely to be discovered by students, in the way that many find a love for reading or music, without some guidance from educators. Let’s face it – science and math are less romantic than other topics and so the “aha” factor takes some navigation. Once students have experienced a science spark of interest, they are more likely to maintain it, particularly if they can see the real-world ramifications.

Like other curriculum standards, NGSS need some tweaking to best impact K-12 learners. The foundation is there though and that is a step in the right STEM direction. The NGSS are a building block of a much larger cultural shift that needs to happen where science and math are concerned. Empowering students with better conceptualization of science in everyday living is necessary for career success and progression as a nation.

Do you like the Next Generation Science Standards? Will students ultimately benefit from these areas of focus?