Wednesday
November 19, 2008
by desertjim
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act was premised on three goals. To focus on low-performing schools, to beef up the federal role in education and to promote teaching methods backed by “scientifically based research”. The centerpiece of the research-based approach was supposed to be Reading First. However, for at least two years, questions have been asked about an apparent push to adopt reading programs based on campaign contributions rather than on research. In 2006 the Inspector general found that states were pressured to approve materials from only a handful of preferred publishers including SRA/McGraw-Hill, whose CEO has been a major Republican fund-raiser.
In spring of this year, the Federal Department of Education released a report that indicated the reading comprehension of children participating in Reading First wasn’t growing as fast as that of children in a control group. Defenders of Reading First questioned the study’s methodology. Reid Lyon (former head the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human development) said that the report’s findings are, “Not a cause for ... political opportunism, but a cause for deliberation and careful consideration of all the possible explanations - ineffective treatment, poor implementation .. and many other factors.”
Well, the careful deliberation has taken place. The final report of the Reading First Impact Study, released today, shows no effect on reading comprehension in participating schools. The study gave reading proficiency tests to 30 to 40 thousand students, one-half of whom were in Reading First programs. The $6 billion spent on Reading First has helped more students to identify letters and words, but has not had an impact on reading comprehension among 1st, 2nd or 3rd graders. More time is spent on reading instruction in schools that received Reading First grants, but students are no more likely to become proficient readers.
Since NCLB was supposed to be based on research, the current Reading First program would seem to be a prime candidate for the ash heap. Perhaps a new iteration of the program could actually be based on science instead of cronyism, but that decision will rest with a new administration and a new Congress. I am not a reading teacher, so I cannot claim expertise in the field. Perhaps TEN readers who have experienced the effects of Reading First can react to the new study. What should be done to improve reading instruction for current 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders?
Labels:
Tuesday
November 18, 2008
by desertjim
The Chicago Sun Times recently reported that, while increasing numbers of Chicago students are meeting state standards, the standards are inflated and Chicago Public School kids are not grasping the complex skills they need. The Sun Times quotes a report from the Consortium on Chicago School Research that says the average eighth grader who easily passed the state math test later scored only a 17.5 on the ACT college entrance exam. That is far below Chicago’s districtwide goal of 20 (which would give a student a shot at a minimally competitive college).
There seems to be a disconnect between the state standards and national tests such as the ACT. Does teaching to the state tests result in students deficient in the analytical skills they will need to compete in college? An extensive analysis by the Harvard Civil Right Project of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) concluded that, “No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has not caused achievement to improve significantly, nor have gaps been narrowed”. A study by Policy Analysis for California Education shows similar results. Bruce Fuller (University of California at Berkley) said, “A lot of governors and a lot of state school chiefs have...claimed significant progress in terms of reading and math achievement, [but] in many cases...state officials seem to be exaggerating progress that has been made in children’s basic reading skills.”
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal says that, “NCLB is beyond uninformative, it is deceptive.” Referring to the same Harvard analysis mentioned above, the Journal says that NCLB has failed to raise test scores and instead pushes classrooms toward relentless drilling and holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented. This is occurring, according to the Journal, when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented.
A study that indicates an actual improvement in reading and math scores comes from the Center on Educational Policy (CEP). But according to the report’s authors, the results do not indicate cause and effect relationship between NCLB and the improved scores. CEP states, “It is impossible...to determine the extent to which these trends in test results have occurred because of NCLB.” The National Education Association in reporting on the study claims that any improvements in test scores may have come in spite of NCLB rather than because of it. We are all aware that districts are devoting more class time to reading and math and are even spending time teaching students how to take standardized tests at the expense of providing a more broad-based education.
If state test scores are going up, but students are less prepared for college at the end of high school, what is the benefit of the testing? If even the most favorable study can’t demonstrate that NCLB is successful, why should the law be continued?
Labels:
Tuesday
November 11, 2008
by desertjim
Now that Barack Obama is the President-Elect, I thought it would be a good time to look in more detail at his education policies.
The campaign website has considerable detail on the priorities of the incoming Obama administration. The three top education priorities are to reform No Child Left Behind (NCLB), invest in early childhood education and make college affordable for all Americans. NCLB reform will be based on the premise that, “Teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests.” A comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan is intended to assist states in moving toward voluntary, universal preschool. Finally, an Obama administration will push to create a college tuition tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition costs for public universities for students who agree to community service.
The President-Elect has promised to add $10B a year to federal preschool funding, recruit an army of new teachers, double federal funding for charter schools and find funding for the scholarships to those who agree to pursue careers in teaching. It is not clear at this time which of these education proposals will take priority. The massive federal budget deficits will certainly have an effect on any new spending for education. Some may be part of the overdue renewal of NCLB. Others, such as early childhood education may be introduced as separate bills.
The Wall Street Journal (which is no longer an unbiased source under Rupert Murdoch’s ownership) is reporting that the new president may put education on the back burner, due to the financial crisis he is inheriting. This opinion seems to be based wholly on an interview in October in which he listed education fifth in priority after the economy, energy independence, health-care overhaul and tax cuts for the middle class. I would argue that the economy, energy and tax cuts are all so intimately related that they count as one item and that education is absolutely necessary to creating a technologically able work force that will create and maintain energy independence.
Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan disagrees with the back burner assessment. Duncan said that education has been pivotal to Obama’s personal story and he predicted, “A very strong, aggressive and comprehensive strategy...this is something that is hugely important to him.” It will be important that the education community pay attention to what happens in the first 100 days of the Obama/Biden administration. The campaign emphasis on improved education must be continued and turned into actual legislation as soon as possible.
Labels:
Thursday
November 06, 2008
by desertjim
I spent Tuesday working as an election judge in southern New Mexico. I found out that I am really getting too old to work 14 hour days anymore. I also found out, however, how exhilarating it can be to see people cast their first votes. In the precinct I worked, over 45% had voted early or absentee. As a result, we had plenty of time to observe the 200 or so who came in to vote on election day.
Just like the rest of the nation, about one in 10 of our voters were new to the process. Many still showed their temporary voter registration cards. They had registered so recently that there hadn’t been time for the permanent cards to reach them. It was clear that they took their duty as voters seriously. Several came in with friends who had just voted at other precincts, or were going to vote at the next stop in their travels. (Friends make sure friends vote?) They had sample ballots in their hands and had obviously thought out their choices ahead of time. I noticed that they all took the time to vote on the state constitutional amendments and bond issues on the back of the ballot - something many of our older voters skipped.
But the smiles were the thing that all the election workers and poll watchers commented on. When the ballot went into the box, and the counter showed that the vote was recorded, each new voter lit up and walked out with the smile of a kid with a new puppy at Christmas. There were even a couple of high-fives from the accompanying friends. It was a joy to behold.
I’ve been voting for a long time now. I never miss a chance to vote, whether it’s for school board members, city council or president of the United States. I consider it a duty and a privilege of my citizenship. Tuesday’s new voters reminded me and my fellow poll workers just how great it is to be able to cast our own ballots. I have a feeling that those young voters will continue to vote. They aren’t going to easily forget the feeling that accompanied participating in our democracy for the first time.
Labels:
Wednesday
October 29, 2008
by desertjim
In Tuesday’s post, I noted that both presidential candidates have spoken favorably of Teach For America as a way to increase the number of excellent teachers in the public schools. Veteran teachers are aware that the debate continues about the efficacy of staffing classrooms with such alternatively certified teachers. Despite the increasing number of alternative certification programs, support in the educational community it hardly uniform.
There are research studies that argue both for and against alternative certification. With only five weeks of training and no advanced degrees in education, Teach for America teachers would presumably be far less qualified than those coming out of tradtional teacher programs. Yet a 2005 study found that 74% of principals polled considered Teach for America teachers more effective than other beginning teachers. Of the principals surveyed, 95% reported that TFA members’ training is at least as good at the training of other beginning teachers.
Another study found that, despite early hopes, alternative routes do not add to the diversity of the teaching force. However, the same study concluded that alternative routes can be effective in recruiting teachers for subject areasof greatest need, such as mathematics and science (Shen, J. Alternative Certification: Math and Science Teachers, Educational Horizons 78 (1), 1999). The Golden Apple Teacher Education (GATE) program was one such program which brought science and math experts from industry into public school classrooms. GATE (cosponsored by the Golden Apple Foundation and Northwestern University) introduced alternative certification to Illinois.
The US Department of Education considers alternative certification of teachers to be a useful innovation (3)The Department’s web page says, “The rationale driving alternative route programs is that many excellent teacher candidates have made other life or career choices but would be open to becoming teachers if presented with the right offer.” The department recommends recruiting widely in industry but being very selective in admitting candidates into programs. Many existing programs now use the Haberman interview to select only those most likely to succeed in urban classrooms. (Haberman, Martin; Star Teachers of Children in Poverty, Kappa Delta Pi, 1995).
The next federal administration will have to address the need for more and more excellent teachers to staff public school classrooms. As educators, we need to consider what direction we think will acquire the best teachers possible.
Labels:
Tuesday
October 28, 2008
by desertjim
After almost two years of campaigning, we are now one week from the presidential election. I will not miss the TV ads, robo-calls, canvassers and mounds of election mailers. Living in the swing state of New Mexico means an even heavier dose of electioneering than I used to see in Illinois. Voting early did help reduce some of the campaign calls from individual candidates. All the new computer software allows campaigns to track voters and not waste time by calling those who already cast their ballots. (I did my part to cut down calls in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional district by volunteering to do that data entry for several local candidates.)
If you haven’t voted yet, here is a bit of information about the educational policies of the presidential candidates. The information is gleaned directly from the websites of Barack Obama and John McCain.
Senator McCain says that No Child Left Behind has focused our attention on the realities of how students perform against a common standard and that we can no longer accept low standards for some students and high standards for others. Senator Obama says the goal of the law was the right one, but unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation and shortcomings in the design of the law have limited its effectiveness. He says the law has failed to provide sufficient high-quality teachers and failed to support and pay those teachers.
Despite what I have heard from some educators, McCain does not seem to have a specific program for school vouchers. His website does say that, “If a school wil not change, the students should be able to change schools....parents shold be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them.” It is not stated whether that choice would include private and/or public schools. Obama intends to foster choice by doubling funding for the Federal Charter School Program to create more successful charter schools (which are part of the public school system). He would, however, require more accountability for charter schools and ask for a clear process to close down underperforming charter schools.
Obama hopes to attract more teachers by creating Teacher Service Scholarships that will pay for teacher education in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location. McCain believes that schools need to be freed up to compete for the most effective, character building teachers, hire them and reward them. Both candidates in interviews have expressed support for alternative routes to teaching such as Teach For America.
There are other positions given on the candidates’ websites linked above. If you are still undecided, check them out for yourself. Educated voters are the best hope of an effective democracy.
Labels:
Thursday
October 23, 2008
We are so proud and applaud our Golden Apple Fellow and colleague, Cheryl D. Watkins, principal of Pershing West Magnet Elementary School, for her selection as a National Educator Award recipient from the Milken Foundation.
Golden Apple’s relationship with this fine educator began in 1991 when she was nominated as a teacher of autistic children as Agassiz Elementary School and was named in the 6th cohort of Golden Apple Award winners. Cheryl has distinguished herself in the Golden Apple Academy ever since her inclusion. Cheryl serves as a Pre-K-3rd class representative on the Golden Apple Academy Committee. She has taught and mentored our prospective teachers through the Golden Apple Scholars of Illinois program. She has always been a vibrant and articulate advocate for children and represents Golden Apple’s interest and programs superbly. We hailed her appointment as principal of Pershing West and have joined in her pride at seeing her vision of excellent educational experiences for deserving children come through on Chicago’s south side.
The Milken Award was presented to Cheryl by Lowell Milken, chairman of the Milken Foundation and creator of the Milken Family Awards. He explained the rational behind the award, “I believe that teachers and principals have the most important jobs in the country. Research confirms that the most important school-related factor in student achievement is the quality of teachers and principals.”
Cheryl received the award at an assembly she had been asked to organize at Pershing West Magnet School. The assembly was ostensibly called to hear accolades from Chicago Public School CEO Arne Duncan for the school’s outstanding educational achievements. Her obvious pleasure at the description of the school’s success was replaced by disbelief and tears of joy as she was announced as a recipient of the $25,000 Milken Educator Award.
Golden Apple prides itself at being far before the curve in recognizing educators of uncommon talent and promise. We cheer that the outer world is now growing in recognition of the talent and passion of this extraordinary teacher and leader who so ably represents the mission and spirit of our organization.
Labels:
Tuesday
October 21, 2008
by desertjim
Chicago Public Schools (CPS) may soon be asking 6th, 7th and 8th grade teachers to gain certificate endorsements indicating that they are highly qualified to teach their specific subjects. According to the Chicago Tribune there may be as many as 5,000 middle-school teachers effected by the new plan. While it is probable that some of the 5,000 middle-school teachers already have the necessary college credits and will therefore meet the new standard, the plan will require many teachers to take additional college courses in math, science or English.
In 2002, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 31% of elementary science teachers and 57% of high school science teachers lack a major or certification in their fields. At Loyola University in Chicago, a science education major requires 21 semester hours of science courses in addition to the 42 semester hours of education courses. The Illinois State Board of Education will currently endorse middle school teachers as “highly qualified” if they hold the proper certification and have passed the elementary/middle grades test or the relevant content area test. Teachers can also be highly qualified if they have completed coursework equivalent to a major, have earned a master’s degree in their field or have achieved National Board certification.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act does not actually require that middle-school teachers have college majors in their fields. “No Child Left Behind does not require current teachers to return to school or get a degree in every subject they teach to demonstrate that they are highly qualified. The law allows [states] to provide an alternate method… for experienced teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency that recognizes, among other things, the experience, expertise and professional training garnered over time in the profession.” (4)
I understand why CPS would like to have teachers endorsed as “highly qualified”. It’s one more pressure exerted on public education systems by NCLB. Its good that the district is willing to provide grants and interest free loans to pay for the necessary college credit. Nonetheless, college courses are not the only route to better teaching. If NCLB allows for alternative routes to such qualification, shouldn’t they also be explored? Is requiring overworked teachers to go back to university the best way to improve the teaching staff?
Labels:
Friday
October 17, 2008
By Jeff Berger-White
For the last two years, I have taught Tony Kushner’s Angels in America. It is a complex and sophisticated drama, strange, harrowing, funny, and political. It is subtitled “A Gay Fantasia on National Themes,” and it chronicles several gay men during the first horrifying wave of the AIDS crisis in the mid 80s. Although I had some anxiety about teaching it, the one hundred students who studied the play with me made it a wonderful experience. What made it a difficult experience was that last year, I was attacked by a group from outside the school district called the North Shore Student Advocacy Group, who accused me of teaching to the “activist homosexual agenda.” Although the school Board, administration, student body, and parents at Deerfield High School supported my efforts, the attacks via e-mail, post, and in the news media were nerve-wracking and a distraction.
There’s a seemingly simple moment near the beginning of The Tempest, when Miranda asks her father whether it was a gift or a burden that has brought them to this island: “What foul play had we, that we came from thence? /Or blessed was’t we did?” Prospero answers, “Both, both, my girl,” and in that incredibly compressed line, Shakespeare teaches us how to read him, and literature. For literature lives in paradox, and often aims to show how both sides of a character or an issue can be true. “It was like so, but wasn’t,” begins Richard Powers’s Galatea 2.2, echoing the tag-line of Persian fables. One of my primary aims as a teacher is to help move students away from simple and easy answers, away from either-or thinking, and toward an approach that is both-and. This is hard, but striving toward that kind of complexity can make us more flexible and agile thinkers—which is not at all the same thing as being easily plied or soft. James Wood says that “[l]iterature makes us better noticers of life; we get to practice on life itself; which in turn makes us better readers of detail in literature; which in turn makes us better readers of life. And so on and on.” Wood writes here about the art of careful observation, of close reading. As a corollary, I’d add that the study of nuanced, paradoxical characters—and texts—helps us see better our complexity, and that in life.
I’ve never believed that literature should be a pawn, a tool to help advance some social or political agenda. That seems to me wrongheaded. Setting up curriculum this way traps students into thinking simply and reductively—or defensively. Or worse, they shut down completely because they see the way the deck has been stacked, and who wants to wager on a hand when the dealer always hits twenty-one? Designing curriculum with a right set of answers to the problems a text raises does little to engender deep contemplation or genuine change. Our first obligation should be to find works of literature we believe will challenge our students intellectually. It’s foolish to put first in an English classroom any social agenda. When we make a work about a single thing—race, gender, sexuality, politics—it hurts our students and devalues the literature. When we simplify something complex and sophisticated into a message that could be placed on a pamphlet or a placard or even in an op-ed column, we trap our students into believing there are a very limited set of responses. We must ground the discussion in the building blocks of literature—language, style, structure, voice, character, and theme. Naturally, and necessarily I think, our conversations should spill over into the issues a work raises for us—individually and collectively—and how our sense of those issues helps us see meaning, relevance, and value in that particular work. But we cannot put those concerns first, nor can we divorce them from the work itself. In the end, I want my courses to be transformative for my students (and for myself, too), but how students grow intellectually, emotionally, or morally can’t be prescriptive. A deep and thorough understanding of literature almost necessarily evokes empathy, and empathy is the beginning of adulthood, and a lot more, or so I would like to believe. I want my courses to be transformative for my students (and for myself, too), but how students grow intellectually, emotionally, or morally can’t be prescriptive.
I would not have taught Angels if I didn’t think it was a transcendent work of art. The play about something specific, a group of young gay men battling AIDS, but it also speaks the universal language of the heart. This seems to me true of all great works: they are simultaneously grounded in something highly particular, and yet they become something that transcends time and place. My students came to talk about the play as a tale of struggle, illness, love, and forgiveness, and our discussions were as rich and as memorable as any I can remember. It was a challenge for me to stay calm in the face of dozens and dozens of nasty e-mails, but seeing the way my students handled the material with maturity and grace made it wholly worthwhile.
Labels:
Tuesday
October 14, 2008
by desertjim
At the top of Illinois ballots this November will be a proposal to call a constitutional convention. The current 40 year-old State constitution contains a provision to ask the voters of every generation whether they want to request or refuse such a convention. If the voters agree, the legislature will set a framework to allow for restructuring, rewriting and revising the entire current document.
Former state comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, former governor Jim Edgar, the AFL-CIO, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Manufacturers Association and the Farm Bureau are all opposed to calling a convention. Lieutenant governor Pat Quinn, Cook County assessor James Houlihan and state representative John Fritchey are among the more vocal supporters.
The Illinois Education Association (IEA) has come out strongly against such a convention. The IEA fears that protection for public pensions could be undermined by revisions to the 1970 document. The current constitution guarantees that a public pension “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” According to the IEA. that means the security of ALL public pensions including the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), State Universities Retirement System (SURS) and the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) could be at risk at a Con-Con if delegates removed or modified that language. The constitution protects pension benefits that have already been earned, but lawmakers can change future benefits.
Quinn has argued against the interpretation that public employees could lose their pensions. He said, “The federal constitution precludes that, its fearmongering.” The federal Constitution prohibits states from any action that would impair the enforcement of contracts and currently pension obligations are defined as contractual under the Illinois constitution. There is federal case law that would protect anyone with a current Illinois state pension. This, of course, does not speak to the future of Illinois teachers, professors, and state and municipal employees. Since pension obligations are a huge part of the state budget, it seems possible that delegates to a con-con could choose to remove future contractual obligations.
With three weeks to go until election day, and with early voting already started in Illinois, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of clarity on this issue. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of contract law could explain this to me.
Labels:
Tuesday
October 07, 2008
by Cheryl Chapman and Sonya Collins
On September 30, 2008 we both attended the House Education Committee budget hearing in South Holland. Among the people offering testimony to the committee were people from A+ Illinois, the Illinois PTA; The Illinois Education Association; Ralph Martire; Voices for Illinois Children students, school teachers, staff and administrators, and members of the general public. A solid majority of the speakers made the case that our Illinois schools are underfunded at the foundation level. They further stated that the inequities between schools are unethical. The current property tax funding system may keep education under local control, but it insures that a child’s zip code determines the quality of the that child’s schools.
Sonya spoke to the hearing about her own experiences with the inequities in school funding. She pointed out that she was a product of the CPS system, a graduate of the University of Chicago, Concordia University and now a doctorate student at Roosevelt University. She described to the panel how two summers ago she held back tears as she walked into the computer lab of a high school in Naperville, Illinois. There for professional development, she was amazed by the seemingly unlimited resources available to students there. She was also hurt to realize that Illinois schools are still separate and unequal!
We all know that property in poor and middle income areas cannot generate enough revenue to fund education. Likewise the state’s over-reliance on property taxes is what has caused this great inequality in school funding. The State must provide more money for school funding. The national average is for states to cover 50% of education costs. Currently, Illinois provides just 32%. Even though the government can provide some funding, it is clear that we must increase the state’s portion to at least 50% to try and reduce the disparities between poor and wealthy areas and bring the school funding formula closer to the national average. A state-wide tax reform is necessary to reform school funding—we cannot continue to rely on the local tax base. Likewise we need to increase income tax rates for individuals, corporations and expand the state sales tax base. Doing so could generate almost 9 billion dollars in new revenue. Surely if Henry Paulson can request and practically demand 700 billion dollars to bailout Wall Street, we can work together to supply the monies necessary to provide all children with an adequate education.
It was pointed out to the Committee that research shows the correlations between student achievement and school funding. Sonya specifically asked the Committee to tell the 3100 students in her Dolton school district that the quality of their education won’t continue to be determined by the wealth of the community where they live and that Illinois politicians understand that they must overcome enormous odds to obtain an education. She prevailed upon the legislators to not fear about their re-election chances because SB2288 increases taxes. According to a poll by Associated Press, 61% of Illinois voters will support a tax increase that improves education.
Golden Apple along with National Louis University co-sponsored community forums on education funding one year ago, and each year we hope that “this will be the year!” So far, that year has never arrived. Many people spoke in favor of Senate Bill 2288. All of the speakers were well-received by the committee, and they promised to educate their fellow House members. Hopefully more of us in the TEN community will continue to inform ourselves and people in our educational communities about the very important issue of educational funding, especially the most-echoed issue of the evening: How do we move forward?
Labels:
Monday
October 06, 2008
by desertjim
Last Friday, the Chicago Public Schools released the results attained by city high school juniors on the Prairie State Achievement Exams (PSAE). The scores dropped for the third year in a row. City officials immediately dismissed this year’s results. Chicago Schools CEO Arne Duncan said, “This is screwy, It’s impossible to be down.”
Duncan blamed the results on a decision to weigh the second day of testing lower than the first day, which is devoted to the ACT. CPS juniors did better on four of six tests taken over two days, but the district’s overall pass rate went down. This may not be “screwy”, but it certainly gives support to Duncan’s claim that changing the way the test was scored may well be a factor in the results. Changing test grading methods can have serious effects on the results. This August, the Chicago Tribune reported that over one million of Illinois’s elementary exams had to be regraded due to problems with the protocols being used.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education law requires that high stakes testing such as the PSAE be used to hold schools accountable. Matt Vanover, a spokesman for the State Board of Education, said federal officials reviewed the new scoring and found it to be comparable to that of previous years. Nonetheless, In a letter to CPS principals district officials cautioned against comparisons to previous results, citing changes in the scoring. The CPS administration found 32 high schools for which the reading scores on the PSAE went up on both days of the test, but the overall reported reading scores went down. In math, 19 schools went up on both days, but down overall in math.
As educators, we know that ranking schools only on the basis of high stakes standardized tests is not a good idea. We know that the tests have always varied from state to state, which creates scores that cannot be compared. The tests are given to different groups of students each year, so the scores for this year’s class of juniors are not really telling us anything about their growth as individuals or as a class. Now, we find that the tests aren’t even being consistently scored from year to year.
PSAE scores have serious ramifications for Illinois schools. Failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress on the exams has consequences. If the scoring protocols can be changed, as they clearly were this year, how is any of this information supposed to be of use? Can “accountability” have any meaning when the test results are so easily called into question? What can be done to ensure that scoring is consistent from year to year? Does a system which selects a single group of students and tracks growth from year to year hold more promise? If public schools must demonstrate that children are learning, what type of demonstration might actually be useful?
Labels:
Thursday
October 02, 2008
by Laura Couchman
The Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) is the leading Turnaround school management organization working to transform the lowest-performing Chicago Public Schools. Our mission is to select visionary leaders with exceptional management and instructional leadership skills to join a team that is making a significant impact in public education.
Currently, we are seeking experienced elementary principals for three Chicago Public schools located on Chicago’s West and South sides. Principal positions will be staffed full time beginning in early January 2009 to plan for the opening of Turnaround schools in Fall 2009.
AUSL will select principals who have effectively advocated, nurtured and sustained a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and professional growth of staff. Each possesses competencies which are critical to succeed in a turnaround school: orientation toward results, action, impact and influence; development of high performing teams; strategic planning and problem solving skills for immediate success; and the confidence to lead in a challenging situation while believing in the ability to effect change.
Click here for more information about AUSL. To apply, send cover letter and resume to the AUSL job site or by fax to 773-283-0903.
Deadline to Apply: November 1, 2008
Labels:
Monday
September 29, 2008
by desertjim
Big city school districts are having a hard time holding on to their superintendents. A recent Associated Press article specifically mentions turnover in the top spots in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri and Miami-Dade County, Florida. In some cases the tenure of the superintendent is short indeed. St. Louis is looking for the eighth person to fill the spot in five years. The superintendent in Atlanta, Georgia has been there nine years, but before her arrival the district went through five superintendents in ten years.
It’s not just big cities that have a problem retaining superintendents. Here in Las Cruces, New Mexico, a city of about 85,000, there have been three superintendents since 2005. Various studies done a few years back showed that average tenure for superintendents nationwide ranged from three to seven years. Chicago Public Schools have done pretty well in comparison. Paul Vallas was the chief operating officer for six years and Arne Duncan has now been on the job for seven.
There are a couple of problems with such continuous turnover at the top. One is financial. In many cases school boards end up paying ineffective superintendents to go away. Contract buyouts (euphemized as severance packages) are common. In Texas, for example, $2.4 million has been spent in the last 3 years to buy out the contracts of 20 or so superintendents. Such buyouts clearly have an effect on school district budgets.
The second problem is the lack of continuity in program. A new superintendent brings new priorities and expectations. Just as the teachers and school administrators have adjusted to one set of criteria, there is change at the top and the criteria change. I was lucky to spend most of my classroom career in a district with long-term superintendents. However, there was a four year period in the middle of that time in which we had three changes at the top. The constantly changing orders from the district offices disrupted schedules, teaching staff and the education of our students.
The AP article cited above indicates that part of the problem may be the difficulty in meeting today’s higher demands. Diana Bourisaw, who left the St. Louis superintendency after two years is quoted saying, “School boards like to hire someone to come in and rescue the district, and one person can’t do that.”
As a teacher, I wanted stability in management. I wonder how such constant flux at the top is affecting current classrooms. Have you experienced such turnover at the top? If so, has it affected your classroom?
Labels:
Thursday
September 25, 2008
by Maureen Kelleher
There’s much fuss these days from the corporate world to Congress about America’s declining numbers of engineers, scientists and mathematicians. Grant money is flowing for Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (STEM) education both at the K-12 and higher education levels.
One interesting sidelight in this story is the rise of STEM beyond the classroom: in after-school programs, summer camps and informal, community-based workshops. Last week, Project Exploration http://www.projectexploration.org and the Coalition for Science After School cohosted the first national conference on science and technology in out-of-school time here in Chicago.
The 250 attendees expressed energy and enthusiasm for their new and rapidly developing field, which sits at the intersection of two hot educational trends: STEM and learning in out-of-school time.
Yet I walked away somewhat unsure of the relation they could or should develop with schools and classroom teachers. “Our relevancy to formal education should be strengthened,” said keynote speaker Eric Jolly of the Science Museum of Minnesota . But how?
Clearly conference presenters didn’t want their programs to look like classrooms, often for good reason. Being outside the formal classroom offers advantages: more time to do labs and observations, a focus on personal relationships and youth development, an ability to focus activity on student interests rather than on a state-mandated curriculum, just to name a few. Yet many participants also acknowledged they want to do a better job of helping students understand the science behind all those fun projects.
I met exactly one person with a foot inside and outside the classroom door: Linda Marten of Chicago’s Foreman High School, who teaches biology and runs their two-year-old science37 apprenticeship program. Though Marten is delighted to have a way to give students real lab exposure, it’s been a challenge to teach school all day and then run a program afterwards for three hours twice a week. (Last year it was three times a week until she could recruit some colleagues to get involved.)
I left this conference with more questions than answers. Where are kids getting hooked on science, inside or outside the classroom? Should we just make school look more like good out-of-school time programs, and if so, how could we do that given the testing and curricular pressures teachers face? Should the classroom and after-school be separate in terms of personnel but mutually beneficial by giving students hands-on experience relevant to content learning?
Closer to the ground, I met many good-hearted staff from local museums, but can’t say I’ve always seen clear connections between what they do and what goes on in schools or after-school in hard-to-serve neighborhoods. How helpful are Chicago’s museums in supporting classroom science teaching? How much of a role do they really take in reaching the hardest-to-reach young people outside of school time?
Labels:
Tuesday
September 23, 2008
by desertjim
A recent piece in the Chicago Tribune profiled a young teacher returning to her second year of teaching. The article addresses the trials and tribulations of a first year teacher and the improved techniques developed by the second year. It also mentions that 31% of new Illinois teachers leave the profession before getting to their fifth year in the classroom. That sounds like a terrible attrition rate, until you discover that nationwide one-third of new teachers leave within three years and 46 percent are gone within five years.
The cost of such attrition is very high. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) estimates that there is an average turnover cost of over $56,000 for each teacher who leaves and is replaced by a new hire. ACORN’s figures come from a study done in Texas but their assumption is that Chicago Public Schools would absorb similar losses for each new teacher that decides to call it quits. Nationwide, a recent report finds that teacher turnover costs US school systems over $7 billion a year. Clearly something needs to be done to help new teachers stay in the classroom beyond their first few years. If the monetary loss is not enough, there is the simple fact that experience counts, and our students suffer if there are fewer experienced teachers in the classrooms.
Studies have been done to determine what causes the high turnover rate. A National Center for Education Statistics survey found that 64% left for jobs where they had more professional autonomy. The survey also found widespread problems with workloads and general working conditions. Anecdotal evidence cites administrative inflexibility and high levels of bureaucracy as reasons for leaving teaching. A survey in Arizona found that time, teacher empowerment, school leadership, professional development and facilities and resources all entered into the decision to stay in teaching or leave the profession.
What can be done to curb teacher turnover? Have you been involved in effective programs that keep teachers in their classrooms? What can other teachers do to help new teachers become long-term members of the school community?
Labels:
Saturday
September 20, 2008
by desertjim
The time may have come in which teaching is recognized for the service it provides to the nation. In recent speeches and interviews both presidential candidates have cited teaching as an example of the kind of community or national service that they support. Senator Obama recently spoke of his plan to help universities partner with school districts to provide stronger field experiences for prospective teachers who agree to serve in high-need schools. He stressed the need for math and science teachers in particular. Senator McCain, meanwhile, stressed his own community-service plan that would use Americorps and Senior Corps volunteer to help address high dropout rates in some high school by serving as tutors and mentors. McCain also spoke highly of Teach For America as, “probably one of the lead organizations in America today.”
Obama, in response to questions on the Teach For America website stated that his proposed Service Scholarship program would prioritize the recruitment of of high quality math and science teachers and focus on successful teaching and effective [school] leadership. McCain’s responses supported programs such as charter schools that allow the recruitment and hiring of teaching staffs whose skills reflect the mission and goals of the organization rather than, “State or district imposed management interference such as tenure laws.” Both want to see the brightest graduates in all fields of study brought into teaching. A greater national stress on the recruitment of teachers seems to be in the cards regardless of the outcome of the election in November.
Not everyone is waiting for the next national administration to put a new program in place. In Illinois, the governor recently signed into law the Golden Apple Illinois Future Teacher Corps Partnership. The law will create a consolidated program that will assist prospective teachers who will teach in hard-to-staff schools throughout the state. This consolidation of the Golden Apple Scholars program and the Illinois Future Teachers Corps will result in scholarships for up to 200 future teachers a year (3). The scholarship students will be required to pursue teaching degrees in Illinois universities and pledge to teach in needy schools. In another attempt to attract people to teaching, Illinois and other states have created alternative certification routes for adults with degrees in other fields to gain teacher certification. The Golden Apple Foundation is proud to have been instrumental in creating the first alternative certifcation program in Illinois.
Now that the presidential candidates have put teaching front and center as a form of national service perhaps we can attract more of the best and the brightest to the profession. I guess the question we need to ask is which of these methods will be most effective in improving public education. Are all these approaches likely to be equally as effective? Should we be hoping for increased volunteerism, as advocated by McCain, student loan forgiveness and scholarships as advocated by Obama or alternative certification routes for adults?
Labels:
Wednesday
September 17, 2008
from Cheryl Chapman
The Illinois House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee has scheduled five hearings for late September and early October to consider ideas on school-funding reforms.. All are welcome to attend, and Voices strongly encourages Illinoisans to use these opportunities to demand changes that can improve learning for all children—particularly those whose opportunities are lagging the most. The hearings are scheduled for:
Oak Park: Sept. 18, 1 p.m., Oak Park Village Hall, 123 Madison St.
South Holland: Sept. 30, 6 p.m., Thornwood High School, 17101 S. Park Ave.
Chicago: Oct. 2, 6 p.m., Loyola University, 6525 N. Sheridan Road
Lincolnwood: Oct. 6, 7 p.m., Lincolnwood City Hall, 6900 N. Lincoln Ave.
Springfield: Oct. 9, 1 p.m., State Capitol, 2nd and Monroe Streets
Committee Chairman and state Rep. Mike Smith of Canton called for the hearings last month, prompted by the efforts of Chicago Sen. James Meeks and other African-American legislators to highlight gross funding inequities among Illinois schools. To try to reduce such unfairness, Meeks and some fellow lawmakers called, in part, for the elimination of property taxes as a source of school revenues. “Fairness is a fundamental concept we teach our children. We should apply that lesson in every aspect of public policy—particularly our aim to offer every child a high-quality education, a goal we clearly are not fulfilling today,” said Jerry Stermer, president of Voices for Illinois Children.
However, elimination of property taxes from the school formula could remove some important stability from Illinois’ education funding base, Voices believes. Stermer said a key to improving funding fairness is to focus on greatly increasing the state’s investments, in order to lift-up poorly supported schools and to bolster research-proven strategies to raise the quality of children’s education. This approach would allow Illinois to maintain the stability of property taxes as a revenue source while appropriately shifting more responsibility to state funding sources.
“The improvement of children’s learning hinges upon caring adults coming together with more ideas, more creativity and more commitment,” Stermer added, applauding the work of Meeks, Smith and other education leaders to focus more attention on this issue of critical importance to Illinois’ future.
Stermer plans to address the South Holland hearing, and other members of the A+ Illinois campaign—seeking reform of schools’ funding and quality and the state’s revenue system—will speak at several of the forums.
Labels:
Monday
September 15, 2008
by desertjim
Once again the National Student/Parent Mock Election (NMSPME) is providing free curriculum materials to schools who want to bring current events to their classrooms. This year their national mock election day is October 30, 2008. In 2004, over four million students, parents and teachers participated in their national presidential mock election.
The people who run the NMSPME feel that their process can turn the sense of powerlessness that keeps young Americans and their parents from going to the polls into a sense of the power of participation in our democracy. That may be wishful thinking. However, the United States does have one of the lowest percentages of voter participation in any of the world’s democracies. Perhaps allowing your students to be part of a nationwide straw poll will instill the habit of voting in them.
I realize that it is necessary for teachers to keep their personal politics out of the classroom. I admit that, when I taught US History, I did expand on the one page textbook summary on the union movement. That may be considered a political decision on my part, but I figured the textbook authors had already made a different political decision by pretty much ignoring the struggles of working people. I never did tell students who I was voting for though, and we did have mock elections in presidential years. I think it is possible to teach the political process without pushing your personal political beliefs. This would certainly seem to be a good year to do so.
I would be interested in knowing how many TEN readers are going to be using this year’s election as a teaching tool. Even if you are not going to use the NSPME mterials, are you going to have students express their presidential preference? Are you going to have student debates on the campaign issues? How much class time will you devote to the ongoing civic event that surrounds us in this presidential election year?
Labels:
Friday
September 12, 2008
by desertjim
On September 11, 2008, the Chicago Tribune headlined an article “Earn an A? Here’s $50.” The article went on to describe a pilot program which will pay up to 5000 freshmen for earning good grades. The Harvard designed program will measure students every five weeks in math, English, social studies, science and PE. Earning money on a graduated scale from $50 for an A to $20 for a C, a straight A student can earn up to $4000 in the first two years of high school (one half of the money will be held back until graduation).
Chicago Public School chief executive Arne Duncan is in favor of the program, “...I’m trying to level the playing field. This is the kind of incentive that middle-class families have had for decades.” Critics call it a bribe. Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College says, It’s a terrible idea because you are getting people to do things for wrong reasons.” The idea is based on the fact that adults who do well at work expect raises. For employees, higher pay is an incentive to work harder. Why shouldn’t the same thing apply to students?
Based on this logic, district officials in Dallas, Texas started paying students for scoring well on Advanced Placement tests in 1996. Similar programs exist in Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut and Virginia. In New York city, more than $500,000 has been doled out in two years . The New York city program involved fourth and seventh grade students in 60 public schools for one school year. The program, designed by Harvard economist Roland Fryer was intended to, “Figure out a way to make school tangible for kids, to come up with short-term rewards that will be in their long-term best interests.” In Albuquerque, NM, students at a charter school can earn up to $300 a year for good attendance. In Santa Ana, CA and Baltimore, MD, students can earn money for doing well on standardized tests.
Janet Bodnar in Kiplinger’s Personal Finance questions whether such programs can actually improve learning.She points out that, “High achieving students will get good grades anyway, so you’re wasting your money. Kids who are underacheivers fail because they’re inconsistent [according to child psychologist Sylvia Rimm] so if they slip and get a poor grade, they figure they’re not going to get the reward and give up.” Bodnar feels that learning is a sign of a child’s natural growth and development. Since we don’t pay kids for learning to tie their shoes or ride a bike, we shouldn’t pay them for learning to read.
The little bit of research that exists was all done on earlier programs. It seems to show that, despite short-term gain, pay for grades may be detrimental in the long-term. Earlier programs showed decreased student motivation once the incentives were removed. Nonetheless, the people supporting the current programs feel that once students actually get good grades in order to earn money, they will realize their own abilities and know that they can be successful in school.
But the question is still open - is pay for grades a way to create more successful students?
Labels:
Monday
September 08, 2008
by desertjim
Current figures indicate that 75% of 13 to 17 year olds in the United States have cell phones. Wireless companies are now working to have the same percentage of 8 to 12 year olds enter the ranks of the electronically connected. Even my 10 year old grand-daughter carries her very own cell phone in her backpack (restricted by her parents to calling 911, her paretns at work and home). More of our students have cell phones than have computer access. At the college level Abilene Christian University will hand out iPhones to two-thirds of this year’s entering class of freshmen . Students and instructors are expected to use the devices in class to take attendance, get virtual handouts and brainstorm ideas.
There is no question that cell phones are already distractions in classrooms at all levels. Text-messaging makes it possible for students to exchange answers during exams. The ability of the phones to serve as game platforms goes way beyond the old-fashioned problem of a couple of kids playing “dots” or tic-tac-toe in the back of the room. My physics teacher son-in-law and his colleagues have discussed buying a cell phone blocker and moving it randomly from classroom to classroom. (Alas, the current devices are still a bit too large to place inobtrusively on a restaurant table.)
As cell phone technology becomes more and more ubiquitous, schools will have to adjust their rules to keep pace. Many already have. I am curious to know what our readers’ schools have done to keep the presence of cell phones and their abilities to serve as cameras, games or text-messagers from disrupting or distracting from classroom activities. Is anyone else adopting the Abilene Christian University model and trying to co-opt the technology into becoming a teaching tool?
Labels:
Friday
September 05, 2008
by Cheryl Chapman
On Oct. 6th, 2007, A+ Illinois, National Louis University, and the Golden Apple Foundation co-sponsored a forum on school funding. The panel was moderated by Cornelia Grumman, Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. Members included Chicago City Clerk Miguel Del Valle, Mr. Ralph Martire, Executive Director of the bi-partisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, Illinois Representative Kathy Ryg, national school finance expert Dr. Allan Odden, St. Charles SD 303 Superintendent Dr. Donald Schlomann, and Wisconsin Senator Luther Olsen.
Several questions came out of the discussion. Forum attendees wanted to know why taxpayers in wealthy suburbs should spend far less of a percentage of their personal property taxes than taxpayers in less wealthy suburbs, yet their teachers earn more money and their students have smaller class sizes. They wondered why students in schools with average to above-average funding have special classes like art, music, and p.e. taught on a regular basis by a specialist, not a classroom teacher, while children in many schools throughout the state get no “specials” at all, or must chose only one. Finally, they asked why many districts apply for a yearly waiver of the state’s requirement that children have a daily p.e. class? Why do some districts not even offer recess?
What became clear during this forum was that Illinois school children deserve better. In fact, they deserve funding reform of a nature that will really help them. The answer to all the questions was the same. Inequitable state funding!
One year later, nothing has changed:
Fact: Illinois has the 5th largest economy of any state.
Fact: Illinois total state AND local tax burden, as a percentage of personal income, ranks only 48th in the nation, and we have by far, the lowest tax burden in the Midwest.
Fact: Illinois ranks only 42nd in spending among the states.
A major factor in the problem of funding inequity is that there is also inequity in the state and local tax burden as a percentage of income. For you math teachers out there, and everyone else as well, the inequity is presented here in detail:
If you count sales tax, excise tax, property tax, income tax, total this up and
subtract the federal offset, you will find that the lowest 20% of Illinois taxpayers (earning less than $16,000 per year on average) shoulder nearly 13% of the tax burden. The second 20% (average income is $22,600) shoulders 11%, the middle 20% ($38,500) has a 10%, the fourth 20% (teachers? Average salary here is $61,100) makes up 9.2% of the burden, the next 15% (people making over $101,400 per year) pay 7.7%, the next 4% (income over $200,600) pay 6.3%, and the top 1% only use up 4.4% of their income on taxes. So, the poorest pay the highest percentage and the richest pay the least.
The above statistics explain why, in a state in which the decline in personal income is the second worst in the nation, where manufacturing jobs are down by almost 25%, where over 27% of the state population is either uninsured or on Medicaid, where the gap in hourly wages between Whites and Hispanics has grown by 23.9% since 1980 and the gap between Whites and African Americans has grown 162.3% since 1980, nobody wants to raise taxes! And this is why our state legislature can’t get itself together to do what is necessary for our schools, in spite of the fact that we live in the 5th largest economy in the nation and that we rank only 42nd in spending among the states. Our antiquated tax structure just doesn’t work for us anymore.
Here in Illinois, a group called EFAB decides what our “foundation level” for core educational funding should be. This group did some research and somehow figured out how much money it would take for 2/3 of Illinois students to pass the state tests. 2/3? Why not 100%? Well, they funded the “foundation level” at 51% of the level they’d chosen, and guess what? 51% of Illinois students meet state standards. Apparently, you get what you pay for. What is needed in Illinois is a major tax reform.
If we did have equitable educational funding in our state, we could be assured that all Illinois students would have the chance to get a quality education and Illinois teachers’ pay scales and per pupil spending would be more equitable as well. In addition, industry would be attracted to Illinois and jobs would be plentiful because we would have enough educated citizens to fill their demanding positions.
In the face of these facts and these challenges, you as a teacher can set your own goals. Become active in a group that is trying to do something about this! See what your teachers’ union is doing. Spread the word – tell your students’ parents and your fellow teachers. Get excited! Get involved. Visit websites to see about current legislation and write to and visit your state senators and representatives. You can write to the U.S. senators and reps as well. I don’t know how many times I have written to Sen. Obama and Sen. Durbin telling them that the ESEA/NCLB act should not fail schools, they should fail entire states!!! Like ours!!! For not coming up with enough money to educate our kids!!! If important legislation is coming up, share it in your weekly newsletter home, and encourage your friends to join you in writing to your senators. Join groups like A+ Illinois, the League of Women Voters, Voices for Illinois Children, Better Funding for Better Schools, and pay attention to groups like the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. Join with other Apples in working for reform. When tax reform questions come up, pay attention, and let people know what you think! And if you are retired like I am, take a school day, and go knock on A+ Illinois’s door – they will be happy to have you!
Labels:
Monday
September 01, 2008
by desertjim
This weekend newspapers across the country published a column by Ann Doss Helms of the Charlotte Observer about the continuing growth in the number of public schools with same-sex classes. There are increasing numbers of schools that separate girls and boys from middle school through high school.
Public school single-sex education seems to have begun in California. Governor Pete Wilson started a program in 1996 to create single-sex public schools in an attempt to duplicate the success of expensive private school programs. Six pairs of schools were created, but all but one pair had failed and closed by 2001. A Ford Foundation study proclaimed the effort largely a failure. The progam’s lack of success was blamed on badly designed programs, inadequate training in gender issues for staff and insufficient funding.
The failure of California’s experiment notwithstanding, there are now hundreds of gender-specific programs in public schools.Only six years ago there were about a dozen single gender programs in the public schools. Estimates now range from 360 to 450 schools offering gender-specific classes. In a few cases, entire schools are now single gender. The current growth spurt in such programs began with a 2001 amendment legalizing single-sex education in contradiction to the original Title IX that required equal education for both genders.
In South Carolina, David Chadwell is the nations first state official in charge of single-sex education programs. He says that single-gender classes work best if they are optional, if teachers are well trained and if parents buy in. He also says that the teachers’ ability shapes the results.
Not everyone sees the single-gender classes as improvement. Last fall the American Civil Liberies Union threatened to sue the Cleveland school district saying the district’s five new single gender schools were discriminatory and that separate is not equal in education. The ACLU suggested the district would be better off recruiting “culturally competent” teachers, increasing teacher pay, improving school administration and making the curriculum more challenging. The National Organization of Women has also maintained that same-sex schooling would diminish the affects of Title IX.
Does the hope that single-sex classes for adolescents will reduce distractions and address different learning styles offer sufficient inducement to continue to expand such programs? I would be interested in hearing from teachers who have worked in such programs on the pros and cons of eparating students by gender.
Labels:
Friday
August 22, 2008
by desertjim
In 1991, Jonathan Kozol published Savage Inequalities decrying the horrible inequities in school funding between rich suburban school districts and poorer urban and rural districts. Lucy Klocksin addressed the issue in her post on TEN last month. Seventeen years after Kozol’s book, the issue has reached the boiling point in Illinois.
State Senator James Meeks (Chicago-Democrat) has been urging students in his district to skip the first day of school in protest to the unequal funding. Meeks even suggests the Chicago students use the time to apply for admission at New Trier High School in Winnetka. He points out that this year, Chicago schools will spend $10,409 on each child, while New Trier will have $16,856 available for each student. Despite some local support for the boycott, Mayor Daley and the Baptist Ministers Conference of Chicago and Vicinity want students to attend school starting the first day of class (September 2, this year) and not waste a day of their education.
A different approach to the problem has been put forward by the Chicago Urban League. The League is suing the State of Illinois to force the state to alter the education funding system.Currently, Illinois ranks 49th of the 50 states in the state-contributed portion of school funding. 62% of school funding in Illinois comes from local sources. (Nationally the rate is 50%). Affluent communities can fund their schools much more easily than poor ones. The per-pupil funding ranges from $23,000 down to districts that can only afford $6,000.
The Urban League suit argues that, “The disparities in funding discriminate against black and Hispanic children. Schools in poorer minority communities - such as Chicago - receive funding at a dramatically lower rate than affluent white scool districts”
Inequities in school funding are not limited to Illinois (although the ranking as 49th out of 50 should wake up some state legislators). It is long past time that we seriously consider what is best for our children, and whose responsibility it is to pay for public education.
Labels:
Monday
August 18, 2008
by desertjim
Last week’s TIME magazine (August 23, 2008, page 69) had an interesting article about schools adopting four-day weeks in order to save energy on bus routes, air-conditioning and other costs. I didn’t think too much about it because the laws in Illinois require a minimum number of school days, so such a four-day plan is impossible for most of the readers of this blog.
Today, the Associated Press published an article which expands on the effects that high energy prices are having on schools all over the country. It’s not just school bus fuel that is impacting school costs. Electricity for air conditioning, heating oil, even delivery costs for cafeteria food are going up along with diesel fuel for the buses.
Schools in 17 states have gone to the four-day week. In most cases, this means each school day is longer. We all know the attention span of our students and may well question the usefulness of longer school days. Some schools are adjusting to the shorter school week by cutting electives, thus increasing the percentage of the day spent on reading and writing and test preparation that had already gone up under No Child Left Behind. Needless to say, field trips are disappearing from the curriculum in most locales.
Parents are finding the costs of school supplies and back-to-school clothes has also increased. For some families, this means cutting back on purchases or accepting the idea of increasing credit card debt. Increased costs for school lunches may well lead to a lot more kids brown-bagging it for lunch. (I can actually see some benefits in that - while I was still teaching, I always liked the lunches I packed better than the cafeteria food).
As the school year begins, all of our schools will see long-lasting financial effects from the current energy crunch. How the schools deal with these fiscal problems will certainly affect what happens in the classroom. Will suburban and rural districts have to rethink their bus routes as fuel costs continue to increase? Are longer days really going to result in more learning each day? Will cutting electives to save time result in schools becoming deadly dull test preparation academies? What will your school and district do in response to higher energy costs?
Labels:
