put kids first

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

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

 By Matthew Lynch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining sexual harassment

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

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

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

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

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Equity, Matthew Lynch

Technology and Mentorship: Addressing the Problem of Urban Students

Students in urban schools tend to have stereotypes attached to them. Rather than see these students as individual learners, many urban kids and their schools are often thrown into the “lost cause” category. Problems like deteriorating buildings and overcrowding often become too overwhelming for reformers.

In a 2009 article in the Harvard Political Review, writers Tiffany Wen and Jyoti Jasrasaria discuss the “myths of urban education.” The article points out that many people are quick to label urban schools as lost causes without actually investigating individual issues or how they can be resolved. The authors also shed light on the juxtaposition of the basic American ideal that anyone from anywhere can make it big with some hard work and the reality of urban schools. If urban students are truly not at a disadvantage, per the American dream, then why do they graduate from high school at a rate of nearly 20 percent lower than their suburban counterparts?

Overcrowding as enemy

In an Education Week guest blog post, urban music teacher Mike Albertson said that “overcrowded classrooms are one of the most common qualities of urban schools.”

He went on to say that the students themselves are not the actual problem in urban schools but that the overcrowded conditions are to blame for many perceived behavior issues and academic disengagement. More likely, it is a combination of high student-to-teacher ratios and behavior problems.

Studies have found a correlation between overcrowding and lower math and reading scores. Teachers also cite overcrowding as a definite contributor to student behavior problems. Too many kids in classrooms means too little individual instruction. It also means that academic time is spent dealing with issues that distract from education. Overcrowding is only one problem that contributes to urban student disadvantages but one that deserves the spotlight.

Bridging the Urban-Suburban Gap

As with all aspects of K-12 improvement, finding the answers to higher achievement for urban students is a complicated process. I believe that technology can work to teacher and student advantages though. The implications of mobile technology in K-12 classrooms are still being realized but one thing is certain: more individualized learning is now possible. In cases where overcrowding is detrimental to learning experiences, mobile technology can serve as a placeholder teacher in terms of directing students and keeping them engaged in learning when the physical teacher is unavailable.

More student guidance is also necessary. Statistics tell us that not only do urban students more often come from tumultuous home lives, but they are often punished more harshly for the same infractions than suburban peers. Over 68 percent of all incarcerated adult American men do not have a high school diploma.

Removal from school, while potentially the easiest short term solution, feeds the school-to-prison cycle that is built primarily in urban schools. Mentorship programs would go a long way toward directing urban students toward higher academic engagement and graduation rates. Many colleges have implemented mentorship programs for at-risk students, like first-generation college students, so why can’t K-12 schools do the same?

With budget cuts a perennial complaint, though, more money for K-12 mentorship initiatives is unlikely. The bottom line is that urban students need more individual attention in order for their academic outlooks to improve. Technology has the potential to reach a wider number of students but the human connection is what will have a lasting positive impact on urban students.

What is the key to urban school improvement?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

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

New Models and Trends in Resource Allocation

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Creating and Sustaining Educational Change 101

Edpolicy, edreform, school reform, put kids first,

When considering school reform, it may be advantageous for administrators to think of their schools as businesses. If the structure of the school were to reflect the business model, we would work from the assumption that students in the school system are customers, schools are the businesses, teachers are the employees/supervisors, and the administrators are the CEO’s.

In any business, the customers needs always come first. The reputation for customer service is the best advertising a business can receive. Keeping this savvy business strategy in mind, the business of the school should be to create learning opportunities that lead to greater academic achievement. If educators make lessons fun while adhering to the curriculum, the graduation rate will increase dramatically. If children feel safe and entertained, they will want to come to school. It is the educator’s task to make sure students learn to love to learn, while it is the administration’s task to support their efforts.

The most critical question administrators must confront is: where do we begin? Beginning reform by tackling several goals at once is noble, but not recommended. When trying to start reform in a complex environment such as a school, administrators need to focus on one task at a time. When making decisions, the administration needs to be sure to complete all steps of the reform in sequential order, using a strategic way of thinking.

In some cases goals can be independently accomplished. Departments will be able to achieve short-term goals while accomplishing the larger goals. In education, the improvements that matter the most are those that directly concern children. In order to create the necessary improvements, school districts must be reformed in ways that will sustain change. The ability of a school district to sustain reform should be of the utmost importance to the superintendent and the board of education.

Three conditions must be present in order to sustain reform. First, administrators must come to an agreement concerning the issues that have made it necessary for school reform to take place. They must be open and honest and refrain from blaming others for the issues that exist. All individuals directly and indirectly involved in the school reform must share a common vision.

Administrators should try to come to a consensus regarding the purpose of education and the roles of the faculty and staff.  They also need to agree on the rules and guidelines that will support the implementation of the reform, while respecting cultural beliefs of the faculty, staff, and students. Finally, administrators must communicate the current issues of the school and the vision for the future to stakeholders. Those who support and participate in reform need a clear vision of the common goal. Administrators must paint a reform picture that alleviates fears, and entice all to buy into the vision.

Communication is the key to running and sustaining a successful school when creating concrete reform. All participants and key administrators must agree to communicate with each other their understanding of the school reform, including their concerns. The administrators and participants must have a shared understanding of the issues the district faces, as they must learn to articulate, analyze, and explain the issues in a similar way.

There needs to be a common vision concerning students, schools, and the allocation of resources. Administrators must also anticipate new trends and issues preventing reform. Once the obstacles have been identified, it is the duty of the administrator to articulate these trends and issues to the powers that be, i.e., superintendents and school board members. Finally, the most important communication between administrators and staff is how to create reform that provides a quality education for all students.

Communication must also take place among the school district, superintendents, and the board of education in an intentional and ongoing manner. They must continuously reflect in an open and honest way on the effectiveness of the reform, and successfully communicate between departments in the case of promotions, retirements, or sudden resignation.

When creating school reform, administrators should consider communicating with community members. Community members and parents have a lot to contribute when it comes to school reform and they should be encouraged and allowed to do so. Parents and educators undoubtedly have a genuine concern for the needs of students. Why not place the important decisions concerning our students in the hands of the people that have the children’s best interests at heart?

Administrators should also consider teachers as a major part of school reform. Reform is considered a success or a failure based on the students’ performance, but teacher performance is inextricably linked to student performance. Through positive teacher-student relationships, genuine learning can take place in the classroom. Teachers know their students and the educational practices that work best in their classroom.

In schools across the nation, the people in the best positions to create positive outcomes have little to no control over the changes that are made and how they are implemented. Too often, the most critical decisions concerning the educational system are made by people without the capacity to understand the inner workings of the individual school and what it takes to ensure no child is left behind.

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

3 Ways to End Anti-Gay Bullying

With the Supreme Court’s decision this year to recognize same-sex marriage and promote marriage equality, it is clear that attitudes toward individuals who are LGBT are changing. However, anti-gay bullying is still an issue today, and is a major concern especially with cyber-bullying on the rise.

Furthermore, biased and homophobic comments are rampant in many schools, with a staggering 90 percent of LGBT students experiencing verbal harassment related to their sexual orientation.

Regardless of a teacher’s personal ideology, as educators we are bound to uphold a code of tolerance and acceptance. Here are three ways to ensure that LGBT students feel safer and more accepted at school:

  1. Disallow discrimination based on sexual orientation. The National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development have all passed resolutions asking their members and all school districts to step forward to improve the educational experiences of LGBT students. These resolutions call for providing a safe environment, support groups, and counseling options for LGBT students and by employing anti-harassment rules and practices.  In nine states, the state government has instituted legislation prohibiting the harassment and discrimination of LGBT students. We need to continue this trend until every state has these rules in place, in every district and school – no exceptions.
  2. Expand “inclusion” policies.  There are some schools in which LGBT students are accepted and accommodated.   Same-sex couples are invited to school dances and there are unisex washrooms for transgender students.  School districts in some states include LGBT students in non-discrimination policies with the goal of making schools safe places for all students, parents, faculty and staff.  However, there are also states where it is illegal to even utter the word homosexual and in which the word homosexual (or lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) can only be portrayed in a negative light within the classroom.  This makes it difficult for teachers to teach about sexual orientation diversity or to make their classrooms and school environment safe and accepting of LGBT students.  Regardless of location, teachers can explain to students that they don’t have to agree it is okay to be gay or lesbian, but they do have to agree that it is not okay to discriminate against them.
  3. Promote LGBT student groups.  It is important that all students, regardless of who they are or their sexual orientation, have a safe environment in which to learn and grow as an individual.  Gay and lesbian organizations have been at the forefront of trying to create safe and accepting environments for LGBT students.  Students have also taken up the cause and student groups have begun springing up in schools all over the country.  There are currently approximately 4,000 Gay-Straight Alliance Groups registered with the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  These groups are alliances between straight and LGBT. They work together to support each other and promote education as a means for ending homophobia.

By schools taking the reins on this issue, real change will eventually be realized.

What are you suggestions on how we can improve the school environment for LGBT students?

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

Education: “The saddest thing in life is wasted talent” (from A Bronx Tale)

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding a 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.**

Public schools are engaged in underachieving and under-educating. Low goals are set but rarely reached.

Commentary from Bruce Deitrick Price

When you talk about wasted talent, people immediately think of an individual wasting his or her talent. It’s always a sad story but an individual story. A person makes bad decisions. Little by little that person is on a road where he will not be able to develop his talents to the fullest.

But what about a society where children have their talents wasted for them? Not by a lobotomy or by drugs. No, their talents are squandered by systematic planning and careful effort. The technical name for this is social engineering. A more popular name is “deliberate dumbing down.” Savor that melancholy phrase. And now let us ask, but how could it happen? Here’s the general blueprint:

If the kids can run a 100-yard dash, you make them walk. If they can dance all day, you make them sit in a chair. If they can learn a new language every year, you don’t teach new languages. If they can learn to read and enjoy books, you don’t teach them to read or you give them books you know they will hate. If they like math, you find ways that are difficult and cumbersome, until finally they can no longer learn to do math. In short, you use methods that don’t work. That’s how you give every child a handicap, a limp, a disability, something that will keep them from reaching their potential.

Public schools in America have been skilled at this for decades. That’s why the 1983 Nation at Risk report  could conclude that our public schools are so bad they must have been designed by a hostile foreign power. Very hostile.

When you look at the resulting mediocrity, and the counterproductive approaches used to achieve this decline, you start thinking about what might have been. You realize you are looking at a landscape full of waste and sadness. You think of Bruegel’s panoramic vistas of dying and destruction. In some of those famous pictures, everyone is  visibly wasting away, if not already carved up. Or you think of broken and blasted terrain like the battlefields of World War I, where all the soldiers seem to be walking wounded. Everywhere there is a sense of defeat.

Don’t you imagine exactly such images when you read that “Nearly Half Of Detroit’s Adults Are Functionally Illiterate”?

But now we’ve stepping on the gas. The Common Core has ratcheted the whole process to a new level. Many children start their school years unhappy and never recover. They come home each day depressed or anxious. They mutilate themselves. They fall sleep crying at night. They have nightmares. According to one of the century’s most memorable headlines, “Little kids cry and pee their pants.” (See short video for why this is happening.)

Louis CK famously summed up the insanity: “My kids used to love math. Now it makes them cry.”

(Quick memo to our obtuse Education Establishment: school should be fun; you’ll get better results that way.)

Robin Eubanks maintains a website called Invisible Serf’s Collar where she  argues that slavery is the insistent motif  throughout public education.  Children have metal collars around their necks. Perhaps you can’t see them. But you will notice that the children are becoming intellectual cripples. One blog post, several months back, was titled “Censorship Before the Fact: Prescribing What the Child Does and Believes Invisibly.”

Well, isn’t that the whole essence of slavery, that humans are not allowed to have a life of their own or thoughts of their own?

Look what we are losing. Americans once prided themselves on their freedom to choose, to develop in different directions. The schools were supposed to enable that individuality. But John Dewey, starting 100 years ago, crusaded against individuality. He wanted all the little children to be similar, even interchangeable.  The school’s real job is to hammer down the differences, and extinguish the individual sparks.

Naturally there is a great deal of waste. That’s Dewey’s goal, whether he wants to admit it or not. Imagine millions of children all of whom will be 25% or 50% less than they could be. Try to add up all that loss, in the child’s life and society’s life.

That’s not to say there is suffering. If a person is brought up in the twilight, they do not miss bright days. They have never seen them. No, the children are just slowly squeezed and shaped to fit a smaller mold.

Behold the mediocrity and unnecessary failure, all created by policies instituted by our Education Establishment. You have to be impressed by how  implacable they are. People all over America are lamenting the crazy homework that children bring home. The kids are crying  and the mothers are upset. Does the Education Establishment apologize? Does Bill Gates say he’s sorry for causing all this pain? Does Jeb Bush back away from Common Core? No, they just make excuses and keep on grinding down the public.

The saddest thing in life is wasted talent. Our K-12 schools are full of it.

Only one policy can save us. We must try to raise every child as high as each child can be raised. Forget Dewey. Don’t be fooled by so-called “social justice”  as that is often merely code for leveling.

We can do so much better. Kids have to master the 3 R’s and then they can learn geography, history, science, the arts, and whatever else you want.  This is precisely what everyone has been doing around the planet for thousands of years. It’s not rocket science. You want rocket science? That would be the weird, perverse voodoo that our Education Establishment uses to slow everything down.

As noted, we can easily do much better. The question really is, how long will Americans put up with the current nonsense?

———————

Bruce Deitrick Price explains educational theories and methods on his site Improve-Education.org. For tips on initiating reform, see his: The Bill of Rights for Students 2015.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, list, Matthew Lynch

3 Challenges and Rewards of Educating Undocumented Students in America

Immigration reform has been a hot button issue in the United States for decades. Earlier this year, the Obama administration, along with members of the Republican Party, outlined a plan for comprehensive immigration reform. When they sit down to work out the details, it is critical that higher education finds its way to the center of the discussion. A college education is a virtual prerequisite for securing the American dream and currently it is an option that is off the table for more than one million undocumented students.

Let’s have a look at some of the challenges (and triumphs) that come with educating undocumented immigrants in America.

1. $761 million. That’s the amount that the surge of undocumented immigrants was projected to cost the US in 2014. The estimation from the Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report on the 37,000 illegal immigrant minors after analyzing data from the Department of Health and Human Services and education funding formulas in all fifty states.

The majority of student immigrants came to the US from Central America.

While some aren’t thrilled about the additional costs of teaching the immigrants, immigrants’ rights groups say that it’s a small price to pay to help these children in need.

Jorge Baron of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Projects said, “We’re one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We should be able to handle this if we focus our energy and some resources and we make sure that kids are treated well, and treated the way we, in America believe kids should be treated.”

The battle of education funding is one that never ceases. The recent recession zapped available dollars; most states in the US are still spending less per student than they did six years ago in 2008. The addition of so many immigrants has spread the education money even more thin — but is the cost worth it?

2. Obama has worked to protect the interests of undocumented K-12 school students in America. The Obama administration has strengthened its stance on protecting public schools students who are undocumented immigrants. The policy includes guidelines on appropriate and inappropriate enrollment practices and they take the place of similar wording from 2011. The administration says that the reason for the enhanced language is due to 17 filed complaints on school enrollment policies in school districts in New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and even Washington D.C.

In referencing the new parts of the policy, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said “Our message is simple: Let all children living in your district enroll in school.”

The guidelines are just a small piece of a larger push for immigration reform from the Obama Administration, which is hoping to put enough pressure on Senators that some action for larger immigration reform is taken before summer recess that starts in August.

In 2011, Obama showed his support for immigrants and their right to education when he enacted the Dream Act that halted deportations of students and in some cases, their families. While the student portion of this legislation got a lot of attention, it also took a closer look at avoiding deportations of low-priority immigrant without criminal records.

3. Children of immigrants get the short end of the stick as far as higher education is concerned. In a conversation I had with Luis G. Pedraja, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Antioch University in Los Angeles, he that not allowing the children of illegal immigrants access to higher education has some far-reaching impacts.

“Children of illegal immigrants face limited prospects, greater financial burdens, a lack of support networks, and fear. While some states allow undocumented students to attend state institutions, pay in-state tuition, or provide some level of state financial aid, many states bar them from even enrolling. In addition, they cannot receive federal financial aid, loans, or work-study money. Because of their status, most of them will not find substantial employment that will allow them to pay tuition. Unless they receive scholarships, the majority of private universities will be out of reach. The few who do attend colleges most likely will have to work several low paying jobs to cover living expenses and tuition while they attend classes, often preventing them from full-time studies. In addition, they must cope with the constant fear of deportation for them and their families,” he said.

I believe that educating immigrants is something the US should do with their heads held high. These young students crossed the border to our country and giving them the gift of education is our responsibility. These unaccompanied minors are worth investing in; the face of America is changing and the radical transformation is largely due to immigrants. Educating today’s school-age immigrants and giving them access to higher education means better workers in the future – these educated students will positively impact the wealth of this country.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch

The Global Race for Online Learning: How Does America Compare?

The potential for K-12 online learning in the U.S. is still being realized. It seems that every year the amount of K-12 students taking courses online grows exponentially, fueled by a trickle-down effect from college offerings and the rise of Massive Open Online Courses. Consider these statistics:

  • Over 1.8 million K-12 students took distance-learning courses during the 2009 – 2010 school year.
  • 275,000 K-12 students were enrolled full-time in online schools during the 2011 – 2012 school year.
  • Five states (Florida, Michigan, Idaho, Virginia and Alabama) require high school students to take at least one online course in order to graduate.
  • 450 percent – that is the rise in students enrolled full-time in online public schools since 2006.
  • 31 states had fully online school options in 2012, up from only 18 in 2007.

It seems that the tip of the iceberg has not even been chipped when it comes to online K-12 learning in the U.S. But how do we measure up to other countries? The short answer is that the U.S. is the leader in online learning due in part to our widespread access to broadband internet and how common it is in households and schools. Other nations are racing to catch up though. Take a look at some of the efforts being made to improve online learning across the globe:

England. Last month, plans were announced to offer Massive Open Online Courses at 23 British universities, opening up free educational options for millions. Future Learn is intended to provide educational opportunities to citizens that may not have access to a brick and mortar college or university or lack the funds for the courses. It is unclear whether these classes will be available for credit at the participating institutions, but certificates of completion will be made available. The technology used to develop this program will certainly influence future K-12 initiatives and also school many parents on the benefits of learning remotely.

China. If you want to know what industries are on the rise in China, just follow the money trail. In 2012, only six reported investments in K-12 online learning were reported. Through July of this year, that number was already up to 22. American companies like Coursera already have a presence in Chinese online learning but more home-grown companies, like Huijang and 91Waijiao, are entering the market. Expect to see an explosion of elementary and secondary learning in China over the next five years.

Canada. In 2011, enrollment in distance education courses for children in Canada was only around 4.2 percent for the total student population. That number is rising though, despite highly-publicized criticism from teacher’s unions. An initiative in Nova Scotia seeks to nearly triple the number of students enrolled in online learning programs and Ontario is trying to centralize its online learning efforts to provide something similar to interdistrict learning in the U.S. Nine of the ten Canadian provinces have K-12 distance education programs run by the government.

K-12 online learning is certainly on the rise across the globe and as it increases in popularity, the U.S. may face competition when it comes to digital access for child learners. In a perfect world the strides being made in other countries will all benefit each other either directly or indirectly through competition. None of the technology matters, of course, unless student achievement improves and that is true in all nations. I’m interested to see how the global race for more K-12 online learning options impacts the well-established trend in the U.S. and how our students are affected.

What worldwide trends in K-12 online learning have you noticed?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

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

High School Dropout Rate: Solutions for Success

This week I’ve been blogging about the bleak numbers that surround the national high school dropout rate and examining more closely the underlying causes. Many of society’s other problems – like unemployment, poverty and overcrowded prisons – can all be linked back to the individual decision to quit high school. It seems that this one factor is an indicator of other difficulties throughout the dropout’s life and it has a negative impact on society as a whole.

If we know that earning a high school diploma is the first step to a better life then that is a starting point for focus. So what can be done to increase the percentage of high school graduates?

Involvement from the business community

The economic impact of high school dropouts cannot be denied. As I mentioned Wednesday, the nation as a whole will miss out on an estimated $154 billion in income over the lifetimes of the dropouts from the Class of 2011. From a business perspective, this is a missed opportunity. There is money to be made and an economic boost is possible – but only if these students stick around long enough to obtain a high school diploma, and potentially seek out college opportunities. Georgia is a great example of a state that has taken advantage of the business community to help improve graduation rates. Areas like Atlanta Metro have some of the strongest business leaders in the nation, and school officials have begun to call on them for guidance and funding when it comes to improving graduation rates.

The report Building a Grad Nation 2012 found that between 2002 and 2010, Georgia showed high school graduation rate improvement from 61 to 68 percent, in part because of involvement from the business community. In that eight-year span, the number of “dropout factories” (schools with 60 percent or lower graduation rates) fell from 1,634 to 1,550. Making graduation numbers an issue of economic stability, and having backup from business leaders, is just one step toward reducing dropout numbers.

Further support outside the classroom

As discussed already, risk factors for dropouts include coming from low-income or single-parent families. Teachers simply cannot address the academic and emotional needs of every student within normal class time, so programs need to be in place for students who are at risk for dropping out. A pilot program in San Antonio called Communities in Schools has set out to accomplish this through offering on-campus counseling services for students on the fence about dropping out. The program offers a listening ear for whatever the students may need to talk about, from lack of food or anxiety about family financial woes. Of the students in the program in the 2012 – 2013 school year, 97 percent obtained a high school diploma instead of dropping out. While students can certainly talk about their studies, the main point of the program is not academic. It is simply a support system to encourage students who may be facing life obstacles to keep pushing forward to finish high school. These programs are often what students need to feel accountability toward the community as a whole and also worthiness for a high school diploma.

Earlier education for all

Much of the attack on the dropout rate happens when teens are already at a crossroads. In truth, the learning and social experiences they have from birth influence their attitudes about education, society and their own lives. Perhaps the dip in dropout rates in the past four decades hinges on another statistic: from 1980 to 2000, the number of four-year-old children in the U.S. enrolled in preschool programs rose from half to over two-thirds. Pre-K learning is only an academic right (free of charge) in 40 states and in 2012, total funding for these programs was slashed by $548 million. Instead of putting money where it belongs – upfront, at the beginning of a K-12 career – lawmakers could be contributing to a higher dropout rate, and economic cost, in future decades. It’s time to stop making the high school dropout issue something that is confronted in the moment; prevention, as early as pre-K learning, is a long-term solution.

What do you think? What is the solution to the high school dropout crisis?

  • no reactions
0
Share