school reform

3 Unusual Statistics about the U.S. Educational System

As a former public school educator, and someone who watches public school policy closely, I believe the K-12 system here in America is on its way up. I see improvements as schools raise accountability standards, offer more social services, and focus more intently on high school graduation and college prep. Our schools are better preparing students academically and for productive lives.

But it is not that simple. The statistics and research I’ve reviewed over the past few years show mixed results when it comes to the educational system. I will discuss three unusual—even contradictory—facts in this article.

  1. Parents with children in the public school system are happy with the education system…but the general public is not.

Nearly half of American adults are pleased with the operation of the K-12 public school system in the nation. A recently released Gallup poll finds that 48 percent of Americans say they are “somewhat” or “completely” satisfied with the public K-12 system in the U.S. The poll has been conducted since 1999 and that highest satisfaction rating in this category was 53 percent in 2004.

Respondents with children who are actually in the public school system currently showed higher levels of satisfaction (57 percent) with the system than adults as a collective group. Parents who answered how satisfied they were with just their oldest child’s education were at almost 75 percent.

The fact that many parents in the poll responded positively to public schools and members of the general public responded negatively was labeled an “optimism gap” by the Gallup poll staff.

The results of this poll tell me two things: One, American confidence in the public school system has a ways to go to reassure the general population that it is doing its job; and two, that those who actually interact with the public schools are less influenced by things like news stories when it comes to shaping their personal opinions.

  1. 80 percent of students are graduating high school…yet less than half of these students are ready for what’s next.

The U.S. Education Department reports that the high school graduation rate is at an all-time high at 80 percent.  Four out of five students are successful in studies completion and graduate within four years. While these statistics sound like a reason for a standing ovation, they are overshadowed by the crisis that is sweeping the United States. While 80 percent of high school seniors receive a diploma, less than half of those are able to proficiently read or complete math problems.

The problem is that students are being passed on to the next grade when they should be held back, and then they are unable to complete grade-level work and keep up with their classmates.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the largest standardized test administered in the United States, reports that fewer than 40 percent of graduating seniors have mastered reading and math and are poorly equipped for college and real world life.  These students who are passed to the next grade are at a serious disadvantage and have an increased chance of falling behind and dropping out of college.

  1. We spend trillions of dollars on education…but we have not seen any improvement in public schools since 2009.

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.

 

The Future of K-12 Assessment

Many educators view standardized testing as a necessary evil of the improvement process. More cynical educators view it as a completely useless process that is never a true indicator of what students actually know. Proponents of K-12 assessments say that without them, there is no adequate way to enforce educator accountability.

Love it or hate it, K-12 standardized testing is not going away. It is just changing.

The No Child Left Behind Act uses standardized testing results to determine progress and outline areas for improvement in K-12 schools. This standards-based approach to education reform has often been attacked for its disconnection with what kids should really know and what they are simply required to regurgitate for the sake of a test.

The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education released a report in March that outlined steps needed to make K-12 assessments vehicles “providing timely and valuable information” to both students and educators. Among the recommendations made by the 30-member commission was a permanent council to evaluate standardized testing be created. The report also calls for a 10-year research study intended to strengthen “the capacity of the U.S. assessment enterprise.” The Gordon Commission Report admits that the assessments of the future are not yet in existence but that their creation needs to begin now.

Commission chairman Dr. Edmund W. Gordon said:

“Technologies have empowered individuals in multiple ways — enabling them to express themselves, gather information easily, make informed choices, and organize themselves into networks for a variety of purposes. New assessments — both external and internal to classroom use — must fit into this landscape of the future.”

Based on the report, and what we know as educators, what do future standardized tests need to include to be successful in an increasingly digital classroom?

  • More assessment of HOW to obtain knowledge. Dr. Gordon touched on this point when he mentioned access to information and networking. There is more information available than can ever possibly be processed, so the way that this and future generations of students make informed decisions matters more than ever. Assessments of the future will need to ask more questions about the how of knowledge and not just focus on the what.
  • Higher levels of digital access. All facets of education are being impacted by the rapid evolution of technology and assessments are not immune. Not only should educators be able to tap into digital resources for assessment preparation, but students should be able to take assessments using the technology that makes them most comfortable. Filling in bubbles with number two pencils needs to become an assessment relic, replaced by convenient, streamlined technology options.
  • More critical thinking options. This goes hand-in-hand with how to obtain knowledge, but takes it a step further. Everyone can agree that applied knowledge is crucial to the learning process so standardized tests need to do better when measuring it. Every child needs to be able to articulate what he or she knows, not just repeat it.

Assessments in K-12 learning are sure to change in the next five years, and beyond, in order to adapt to changing classrooms. There will never be a perfect formula for assessment, but educators should never tire trying to make standardized testing as applicable and helpful as possible.

What changes would you like to see in K-12 assessments?

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

Superstar Teachers – The Super Cure for Closing the Achievement Gap?

As I wrote on Wednesday, I’ve spent some time lately combing through the pages of Diane Ravitch’s book The Death and Life of the Great American School. As a public school reformer myself, I appreciate her informed, unique look at the state of the P-12 system in the U.S. Considered a liberal early in her career, she was initially a supporter of reform issues considered “conservative” today like the No Child Left Behind Act and the establishment of public charter schools. She has since returned to her roots, at least enough to call herself an Independent, and attacked some of the most popular theories for reform.

I talked about the way that schools of all types (traditional public, private and charters) game the system when it comes to accountability standards in my last post – a myth that on the surface may look like learning is truly being achieved based on predetermined standards and practices like teaching to the test. Today I want to look at another myth of the contemporary P-12 system that Ravitch also dispels in her book: the myth of the Superstar Teacher.

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 like Ravitch, 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.

I also 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.

What are your thoughts on the roles of teachers? Are there enough “superstars” to transform the system?

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

3 Issues that are hurting the American Educational System

Here are some facts you may find alarming: according to data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the performance of American students as compared to their international equivalents is mediocre at best. PISA is an international study that evaluates education systems worldwide every three years. This involves testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in more than 70 participating countries/economies.

Scores from the 2009 PISA assessment reveal the U.S. performs about average in reading and science and below average in math. Some of the top performers on the PISA evaluation were Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Finland, Shanghai in China, Singapore and Canada. Out of 34 participating countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. These statistics are staggering.

From overcrowded schools to lack of parental involvement, there are many obvious problems within the education system that immediately come to mind when thinking of how to improve education in America. But some issues fly under the radar. Here are just three of those factors that, when addressed, could make the US more competitive on a global scale:

  1. The amount of time students spend in school

Let’s look at where American schools rank right now when it comes to days in school versus time off. Thirty states require schools to have a 180-day calendar, two ask for more than 181 school days and the rest ask for between 171 and 179 days on the official school calendar each year. Minnesota is the only state in the nation that has no minimum requirement for number of days students are in the classroom (though the state averages 175 school days). This means that in states with the lowest day requirements, students are out of school for more days than they are in it (as many as 194 days per year), a number that contrasts greatly with other developed nations.
Korea has the highest required number of school days, at 225, followed by Japan at 223 and China at 221. Canadian requirements are close to the U.S., at 188 days, and England is at 190 days. When all developed nations are considered, the international average for days in school is 193 – a full two weeks+ higher than most of the U.S.

But are all these days considered equal?

How long are the school days in places like Korea, China and England? It varies, but it is not uncommon for Korean high school students to spend 16 hours each school day in classrooms. That is more than twice the amount of time that American students spend at school, and perhaps a bit too extreme. Yet Korean students consistently rank at the top of developed nations when it comes to subjects like math and science, vastly outpacing U.S. students. By contrast, in England school-aged children spend 6.5 to 7 hours at school – the equivalent of American students (but, remember, they spend more days in the classroom).

President Obama is in favor of more time in the classroom.

In 2009, he stated that the amount of time students currently spend in school places us at a competitive disadvantage. “Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.”

Predictably those comments have received some pushback in the years since, both from parents who believe their children are already under too much pressure at school and need every single day off they are allotted, and from teachers unions who want to know how educators will be properly accommodated for the extra time spent in classroom instruction. The idea of adding more time to student school calendars is an unpopular one – but I’m not sure that is reason enough to rule it out.

  1. The lack of respect we have for the teaching profession.

According to the Pew Research Center, Americans have a declining interest in education. Not surprisingly, the economy, job creation and terrorism are the public’s top three priorities, and there’s no question each would have grave consequences if not addressed. These topics should certainly be focal points of interest. However, some of these priorities are related to or even dependent on the quality of education in this country.

As reported by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that if the U.S. could boost its average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years, it could lead to a gain of $41 trillion for the U.S. economy over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. Therein lies the solution to every major problem facing the American people — including the economy, job creation and terrorism awareness.

Based on research provided by Dr. Steven Paine, a nationally renowned American educator, the OECD has offered a number of simple and practical lessons to the United States. According to Paine, money is not the answer to boosting our country’s international educational status, nor will it bring about a greater classroom experience. In studying the world’s highest achievers — Finland, Singapore and Ontario, Canada — Paine suggests our lack of respect for teachers is the nation’s number one enemy of education.

Paine stated in his report to the OECD, “In Finland, it is a tremendous honor to be a teacher, and teachers are afforded a status comparable to what doctors, lawyers and other highly regarded professionals enjoy in the U.S.” The report also suggested the teaching profession in Singapore “is competitive and highly selective, [a country] that works hard to build its own sense of professional conduct and meet high standards for skills development.” The study of Ontario revealed similar findings.

Paine continued, “OECD countries that have been most successful in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so by offering teachers real career prospects and more responsibility as professionals — encouraging them to become leaders of educational reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just deliverers of the curriculum.”

  1. A lack of regard for arts education

According to First Lady Michelle Obama, an estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure. In schools such as the New York City public schools, a significant percentage of schools have no arts teachers.

The arts may not be considered as important as math and science, but it is still very important for student engagement and learning. A school in the lowest income district in all of New York participated in a four-year arts integration program that took students from basically no arts learning to multi-faceted lesson plans with arts inclusion. The results? An 8 percent improvement in Language Arts scores, 9 percent improvement in math scores and less absenteeism.

Can you think of any other little-known factors that might have an impact on the U.S. educational system?

 

4 Factors to Consider about Teaching Jobs and School Reform

School reform is never easy. When sweeping changes are decided upon and implemented, everyone must fully participate in order for students to benefit from the changes and certainly not to suffer during the transition. Part of providing that stability for students is through a strong front of teachers that remain at the school during the sometimes turbulent reform process.

Here are a few things to think about when evaluating school reform:

  1. Reform just isn’t possible without a united front of educators and administrators. A shared vision is challenging to create and maintain without stable leadership, and a supportive culture from the staff.  It is a simple fact of life that high staff turnover can create instability and have a negative impact on efforts to establish a consistent learning environment for students. High staff turnover is also quite costly, particularly when the recruitment of teachers, and then the training of new teachers in the intricacies of the reform effort are considered.
  2. More effort and support needs to be given to the recruitment process for teachers at the outset as schools and districts initiate reform efforts. Hiring teachers who “fit” reform goals will likely reduce teacher attrition.  Still, more support needs to be available for new teachers. Even teachers who ostensibly have the skills and attitudes that align with reform goals will need mentoring and other supports as they begin their jobs. Every attempt must be made to reduce the debilitating rate of turnover.
  3. Most efforts now are centered on how to make the most of current funding and utilizing money effectively in order to maximize the positive impact of reforms, rather than how to access untapped resources. Despite the dearth of new money, it is possible to free up cash through alternative means of spending. An extreme proposal to accomplish this is to reduce staffing to the absolute minimum. For example, a school with 500 students would have 20 teachers and 1 principal. Approximately $1 million could become available, depending on how many education specialists (regular and categorical) and instructional aides worked within the school. This is radical option, and there are other, less extreme ways to change the way money is spent, to include increasing class sizes, spending less on upgrading technology, and eliminating some programs.
  4. Sometimes, spending money on non-essential areas does support school reform efforts. Prioritizing what money is spent on does not automatically mean cutting all non-academic projects. What gets cut will depend on the goals of individual schools. This should be a workable situation, as long as the school is still accountable to the state and the district for shifts in expenditures. An understanding that cutting teaching jobs can actually be detrimental to reform is important though, instead of just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper.

What do you think? Is an austerity approach (trying to have as few teachers as possible) better than one that places a higher importance on the teachers than on the budget?

Garden-Based Learning: A Return to Simpler Food in K-12 Schools

The idea that nutrition and educational performance are directly related is nothing new. Free school breakfast and lunch programs are often credited with higher levels of student achievement in the schools where they exist. Non-profit children’s hunger programs intended to feed at-risk students on the weekends are sprouting up all across the country. There is a connection between what a child eats and how that child performs academically.

This idea extends beyond simply filling a child’s belly though. An understanding of food and its role in lifelong physical and psychological health is also important because it addresses more than the immediate. Quality of life and longevity are impacted by food lifestyle and healthy eating habits that are formed early in life. In a culture where children grow up with a skewed concept of where food originates, it is up to schools to step in and provide guidance. With very limited resources for academic basics, though, how can schools find the time, money and expertise to root students in smart food knowledge?

One way is to have actual gardens on school property, however small. The Center for Nutrition in Schools at UC Davis found that garden-based learning does more than just improve nutrition knowledge. Students who participate in garden programs on school grounds have higher overall academic achievement and experience elevated self-esteem and social skills. These findings show that getting out of manufactured classroom and  setting/digging into the dirt makes quite the positive impact on K-12 students. The benefits of gardening extend beyond the fruit in hand.

Many schools that have embraced student-led gardening programs rely on inspired parents to run them though. The award-winning gardening program at Surfside Elementary on Florida’s Space Coast is the personal project of school mom Erika Maier who admits to spending about 25 hours or more every week on holistic food initiatives. Teachers who can tear themselves away from teaching FCAT requirements for a half hour each week are able to take their kids outside to get dirty planting their own food in the ground. When the plants reach fruition, the kids help harvest and eat them.

The School Garden Project of Lane County, Oregon boasts 30 gardens at K-12 schools in five districts. Over 800 students are taught to “create, sustain and use onsite gardens” every year.” By simply showing the basics of food growing, students have an informed approach to eating without an official lesson in “healthy eating.” For many K-12 students, working in a school garden is the first time they are making a real-life connection between the items they see in the grocery store and their original location.

Organizations like the Edible Schoolyard promote the principle that food is an “academic subject” and that it is the responsibility of schools to develop sustainable farms with whatever resources they have available. Those crops should then be used in school lunches and classroom celebrations. The theory is that students who are empowered to grow their own food will then be more connected to what they eat and have the ability to make smarter choices.

These fringe movements are becoming increasingly main stream. Though not a mandated portion of K-12 curriculum, a cultural return to proactive approaches to good health – like smart eating habits – is evident. The more educational technology improves, the bigger the need for garden-based learning and other back to basics programs. Like so many other facets of happy, healthy living, K-12 students need the knowledge to make informed choices.

But do schools have the resources to be part of the movement, or will they need to rely on volunteers to make it happen?

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

Has education failed at “no bullying” programs?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest column by Judith A. Yates

On September 5, 2015, a 14-year-old high school girl stood before bullies and drove a kitchen knife into her own heart to fall dead at her tormentor’s feet. The little girl’s name is Sherokee Harriman. Some of her peers and family members report Sherokee was, in part, hopeless due to the school district’s lack of protection from these bullies. The bullying has not stopped as people (her peers suspect students) are now destroying the memorial placed, where Sherokee fell, in a La Vergne, Tennessee Public Park.

“Even in death,” says one student, “they disrespect her.” Her mother demands an answer: “Why do they continue to try to hurt her?” Has the education system’s “No Bullying” programs failed these kids?

According to the Suicide Prevention & Resource Center, suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people ages 12–18. Other factors are contributed to suicide, yet “Bullying is associated with increases in suicide risk in young people who are victims of bullying (and) increases depression and other problems associated with suicide.” This encompasses both the bullies and the children being bullied. (SEE CITE 1, below, for source)

Friends, classmates, and students in other schools, who knew Sherokee Harriman personally or marginally, report there are in-house programs to report bullying at all their schools. They also explain why so many students do not trust the programs. “They (the administration) don’t do anything” when bullying is reported and “if you report, then you are (called) a snitch (by other students),” creating more problems for the victim, the students who want to report, and the program. “So, it’s not worth it” one student says blatantly. Sherokee’s parents call the “Zero Tolerance for Bullying” program in their child’s school district “a joke;” her mother assisted Sherokee in completing multiple “Bully Reports” in both junior high and high school, supporting her with long talks, and trying to follow up. The last time they completed a report, it never went through the system because Sherokee was in her grave.

These are opinions of a handful of students from classrooms across the U.S. and anguished parents, but one student in fear of the school hallways and one parent let down by the education system is too many. Despite all of the “No Bully Zone” and other similar programs, the system appears to be failing students who feel unsafe in the school … and students who are bullies. Why?

One of the suspected barriers in preventing the success of “Stop Bullying” school programs is lack of funding. In 2013, the United States public school system reported an outstanding debt of $415,238,582.00 (For some information on this report see below link labeled CITE 2). The funding to create and keep school programs may look impossible with a school system that scrambles to afford basic supplies while meeting all budget demands. “We have to pay for so much classroom supplies,” says one Nashville, Tennessee high school teacher. “How are they going to find money to keep a new program running?”

Another suspected barrier is what teachers can do versus what the system demands. In 2001, “Secretary of Education Arne Duncan … reported 82 percent of U.S. schools may be failing by 2013” explains researcher / author Ron Berler. “… On paper, idealistically, No Child Left Behind was a wonderful thought, but it wasn’t put out there with any practical thought … (education needs to) reduce and adjust the amount of standardized testing” (source see CITE 3 below). It appears learning now focuses on tests; the system seems more concerned with teaching to a standard rather than combining compassion, education, and social etiquette.

How does the education system create “Stop Bullying” programs that meet faculty, students, and parents’ goals for a safe school environment while fitting the budget, with a place in the overall curriculum? The effort cannot be deemed impossible or useless to try.

It is far too late for students like Sherokee Harriman and the kids who bullied her; who, somewhere, all became lost in the mix of programs, budget demands, and education system requirements. They slipped through those cracks to fall dead in the grass, to face potential criminal charges at the age of 14, and to trash a child’s memorial.

The Society for the Prevention of Suicide offers free information for educators. It includes education, books, training, and provides a free toolkit. Learn more here:
http://www.sptsusa.org/educators/

SOURCES;

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/Suicide_Bullying_Issue_Brief.pdf

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/11/why-excessive-standardized-testing-is-causing-american-schools-to-fail

____

Judith A. Yates is currently completing a PhD in Criminal Justice. She has taught at several schools, within the field of law enforcement; has worked as trainer, attended classes across the country, and has been a mentor in several programs. Her website can be found at judithayates.com.

5 Steps to Data-Based School Reform—the Common Sense Way

Are you interested in reforming a school or a district? Let’s go back to basics.

The first step to positive K-12 reform within a school or a district is to find a starting point. Often, data sets are used to determine this. This is great, but what if I told you there was another way? One that could capture the whole picture just a little bit better than data alone?

Here’s how successful school districts can improve with both data and common sense observations:

1. Develop an evaluation plan. This is to measure how effective a reform effort is.
Create performance goals. These goals will come in handy once it’s time to see how well your school or district is doing with the new changes.

2. Evaluate the pros and cons of instructional programs. School reformers need to do this regularly. You also need to realize that standardized tests should only make up a piece of the assessment puzzle, not the entirety. Continuously monitoring the progress the school’s student body makes will allow your task force to make changes to the reform plan when it’s necessary.

3. Put in some checks and balances. Make sure a variety of reformers are making the important decisions.
For instance, superintendents are responsible for making sure that creating and sustaining improvements is done in a way that meets students’ needs. The team leader’s job is to ensure teachers have all of the tools needed to help their students excel in class.

4. Keep everyone accountable. This is something that districts all over the country acknowledge as the key to improving schools. Everyone is expected to perform. To make sure this happens, the school district needs to provide staff and faculty members with high-quality professional development.

5. Keep an eye on your restructuring efforts. Your team should have useful data meant to track progress toward the goals set in step 1. Now it’s time to decide who will collect, analyze, and interpret that data. The best way to avoid bias is to hire an outside consultant—your team will receive more objective feedback about your reform efforts.

On a limited budget? Don’t worry—evaluating the results in-house is still a highly desirable option.

After analyzing the data, your team can then use the results to determine how effective the reform was.

What happens if the reform fails? Don’t worry. School restructuring is a long-term process. Simply build upon the small successes and learn from mistakes. Your team can then come up with new solutions, or fix the old solution to better suit the school’s needs.

If you want permanent improvement, reform has to occur continuously. Even the best schools need to continue to work on their restructuring process.

Is a long-lasting school reform that changes the lifeblood of the school possible? Yes, of course. It may not be easy, but with a tremendous effort, the proper use of resources, and the expertise of professionals, school reform can be wildly successful.

You may have noticed that I do not focus on data in this article. Does that mean it’s not important? No, of course it doesn’t! However, there is a lot more that goes into the bigger picture of smart school reform. Districts should recognize that and work towards solutions that not only make sense on paper, but also in real life.

Is data important? What role do you think it plays in school reform efforts? Don’t forget to leave a comment.

New Models and Trends in Resource Allocation

Many investigators have requested new methods to determine expenditures as a means for better understanding priorities, organizational investments, proposed strategies, and as a tool to quantify the deployment of resources across subunits. Completely new expenditure models have been pioneered by manufacturing theorists that include costs that are activity and program-based, and which assist in forming fiscal data to further broaden its comparability to strategic decision-making. In education, several reports have demanded new methods of expenditure recordkeeping as a means to modify district strategy; mostly toward ensuring the real expenditure involved in individual schools, programs, or services is duly identified.

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 having an interest in resource data in relation to the context of educating students, it makes sense to review central and indirect costs that are associated with joint district resources, as well as resources that are typically school-based. Costs that have less relevance are associated with district leadership, other operations, and services of a non-educational category: e.g., transportation, food services, school facilities, and maintenance systems.

Reforms relating to accountability have placed a focus not only on performance inequalities between white students and students from minority group backgrounds, but also between students having differing determinable 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 refurbish 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 aligned to different subgroups.

Basically, for a state policymaker attempting to assign an allocation to particular student types, no baseline data exist on current expenditure in regard to each type of student within their own districts or other 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 accessible from published works for policymakers attempting to pin answers down.

Equally challenging is the difficulty in accessing comparisons from other states regarding spending. Accurate ways of defining or reporting expenditures influenced by student needs are not available, which makes it impossible to compare data between states.  Furthermore, policymakers have not yet 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 expenditures at schools having high concentrations of poverty.

However, by the time funds are dispersed through state and local allocation streams, they may not reach their intended target. Finally, only limited documentation exists on different decisions for structuring assigned allocations and the way those decisions relate to policy aims. Put in other terms, allocations meant for students having limited English proficiency (LEP) might be realized as a fixed dollar amount per LEP student, reimbursements for the spending on bilingual education services, apportionment of staff full-time equivalents (FTEs) to high-needs schools, or as funds for other areas. Research has not yet delineated the ways these different decisions influence either what is finally spent per pupil or how efficiently that funding reaches the intended students.

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

Ask An Expert: Closing the Achievement Gap

Question: Dr. Lynch, what are your thoughts on the achievement gap? What do we need to do to close it? Lisa K.

Answer: Thanks for your question Lisa. I have researched the achievement gap for over 9 years and this is what I have learned. Our political leaders have finally begun to recognize the importance of education to the survival of individuals and societies in the 21st century. The other aspect of this conversation is all too familiar: while our children do learn, not all of them are learning as much or as well as they should to meet the demands of the new century.

In the United States, there are low levels of achievement among students from low-income backgrounds and students of color. This is in contrast to the fact that students in educationally supportive states and those from advantaged backgrounds easily rival students from across the world. To put this into context, nine year-olds from White, advantaged backgrounds read as well as thirteen-year-old Black and Hispanic students. In addition, even though funding has increased, it has done so unequally and the achievement gap has grown.

Typically, schools that serve a large number of “minority” students face big issues, which put them at a disadvantage when compared to other schools. They have to deal with lower budgets, larger classes, and often less qualified teachers and school leaders. The effect of this has been to create an “educational debt” that negatively affects the students in these communities. Major efforts are needed to address this issue. Recruiting great teachers is important, but it is not the whole answer. Systemic elements are needed to support the work of talented educators. It is not the people who are at fault: it is the system that needs an overhaul.

As Ted Sizer once put it, “The people are better than the system.” We have come a long way in understanding how to create more effective school leaders and build a national commitment to educational leadership. However, we are not there yet. We need leadership to forge all of the various elements of school reform today into well-functioning systems that make sense for those working hard to achieve results for students. If this is accomplished, we will begin to close the achievement gap.

 

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