Archive for the ‘low-performing schools’ Category

Happy Holidays

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

I’m relieved. It’s December and my students are doing well. We’ve just reviewed the major math concepts they’ve learned since September and they haven’t forgotten much. We’ve completed a non-fiction reading and writing unit on Fact and Opinion. I’ve learned that the difference between fact and opinion, which may be obvious to an adult, is colored by TV and what parents say. It will be long years of experience before fourth graders can grasp the concept. I say grade four is just the beginning to understand the core standard.

For instance, last week, Friday, December 9, 2011, I read an article that caught my attention: “Funding, not reform, upgrades schools” by David Sirota, a well-known columnist. Although he included many facts, a few of which were new to me, the article was on the Opinion page of the San Francisco Chronicle.

On International student Assessment exams American students in low-income public schools are among the high-achieving. So are public schools “in crisis” as is the opinion of many? Another fact: the opinion that teachers’ unions are destroying public schools doesn’t hold up when the high Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) proficiency-a number fact and No Child Left Behind goal-is found in unionized public schools.

In addition, Sirota directs the reader to a report written by Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff of Stanford University in July 2010. The abstract states, “both income inequality and income segregation in the United States grew substantially from 1970 to 2000. Using data from the 100 largest metropolitan areas, we investigate whether and how income inequality affects patterns of income segregation along three dimensions-the spatial segregation of poverty and affluence; race-specific patterns of income segregation; and the geographic scale of income segregation. We find a robust relationship between income inequality and income segregation, an effect that is larger for black families than it is for white families. In addition, income inequality affects income segregation primarily through its effect on the large-scale spatial segregation of affluence, rather than by affecting the spatial segregation of poverty or by altering small-scale patterns of income segregation.”

Another report issued by the United States Department of Education “More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools don’t Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds” November 30, 2011, shows that “high-poverty schools receive less than their fair share of state and local funding.”

Now, Sirota gives his opinion and guess what it is? That low-performing schools in low-income neighborhoods should get more money. But with the facts above, do I call it Opinion? I know what schools are like. Our school receives little Title I money, but I know teachers in schools that rely on those funds to cover tutors and extra personnel. Each time the budget is cut, another person leaves.

The question is will there ever be a funding policy, federal or local, that helps low-performing schools in poverty areas? It’s a good thought for the holidays when it is the opinion that Americans feel more generous.

Standing on the Corner

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Public school truancy begins a lot earlier than the public thinks. To overcome the barriers that make students opt to stand on the corner takes a lot of relentless effort.

Start with the small child who enters school unready, who moves from neighborhood to neighborhood, whose parent has no time for her. This is poverty–16% of the nation according to the latest Census Bureau supplementary data measures. Until hardship is overcome and families are stabilized, the school district that keeps accurate attendance data and employs personnel to assure a child’s on time daily attendance (home visits, clothes for children, doctor and dental appointments, family counseling services) provides the support.

If the student makes it through elementary school, middle school can be the truancy breaking point. On top of the problems that an elementary student faced, once an adolescent reaches puberty it takes tremendous strength to not be distracted by the desire to belong. Lack of tutors for difficult subjects and fewer counselors available to oversee student progress means attendance can drop again. It’s easier to stand on the corner than seek help.

The final hurdle is high school. Especially at schools in low-income neighborhoods, under-performing students have insufficient support to improve in high school, prevent moving one from one school to another, avoid homelessness and other family problems. It is easy to become the hidden student and finally the drop out. If the school district does not have budgeted funds to work with these “at risk” students, they disappear and become the unprepared jobless. See the data released Tuesday, November 15, 2011, from Stanford University in California that shows more proof of the demographics of low-income areas in large cities in the nation.

Is that what the United States wants?

Nowadays, the problem is not loss of manufacturing corporations in the U.S. The issue is production has improved with automated machines that need fewer humans to keep them going, i.e. fewer jobs. The people that keep their jobs have graduated from high school and have, at minimum, vocational technological training. An entire group of workers, aged 18-64, now jobless, were high school dropouts who didn’t even complete a General Education Development (GED) exam in order to receive a high school equivalency diploma.

Another large group of jobless workers has been caused by the housing market debacle which has led to the fall-off in construction. If the infrastructure jobs bill in Congress doesn’t pass, there will be another group that is under-educated and that can’t move into the high tech jobs that support the new manufacturing of the day.

What the government can do right now is pass the jobs bill for three reasons. One, to give a wage to construction workers so that the poverty rate falls. Second, low-income families will have time to support the education of their children from pre-school onward. The school can only do so much to keep students in the classroom. Three, teachers will be rehired in the school to help students learn.

Finally, the four states that have just been notified that they received U.S. Department of Education waivers to redo their plans to turn around programs should stress the science, math, and technology curriculum to prepare students for the workplace.

Standing on the corner, waiting for a job, is not fun.

Is It Luck?

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

I have a student who reads well and is a math whiz, but can be hyper-focused on a book or a math concept that he finds intriguing. Sometimes during discussion time, he will focus on making origami birds, one after another, rather than participate. It’s a quiet activity but can be distracting as other kids at his table watch his progress instead of leaving him to himself. Other times, he uses his pencil like a tiny baton, twisting it back and forth like a drum major. It flicks the table and this time it’s a noisy distraction. His mother is one of my best classroom volunteers. She won’t tell him that he’s been diagnosed with ADHD, even though he has seen articles about the syndrome on television and has said, “Is that me?”

the pencil as distraction

the pencil as distraction

Was it luck that I didn’t blurt out in a conversation with the boy and his parent a comment about such symptoms? I know better than to offer a diagnosis, no matter how distressed the parent is. But just an offhand comment would have been unkind.

Compare my problem in a full classroom of smart children with the articles in the news about Tennessee and Memphis. The state was one of the first lucky grantees of Race to the Top funds to turn around low-performing schools. How can a state turn a piece of luck into the monstrosity that has become the model as depicted on TV and in the news? Speed seems to be the problem. For one, the state instituted a teacher evaluation system based on a single poor test, instead of spending the time to devise a good model for evaluation. Second, the changes were made top-down, not getting buy-in from the teachers or administrators affected before implementing change.

On top of that confusion, imagine re-playing the 70’s when white students left the Memphis schools for the suburbs to avoid integration. At that time the district had a half white and half black demographic, but all black schools on one side of town and all white on the opposite side of the city. Now it’s an issue of money-the inner city district is way down on its luck and the suburban county district is doing fine. A controversy over who gets how much lead to the merger of the districts. Good luck for the students in Memphis, but class and race challenges rise to the surface for the suburbs.

Reading about those shifts makes me wonder what’s going to happen to the children like my ADHD student who need support way down at the classroom level.

Will their luck depend on me as one of the teachers who keeps chugging along even in difficult circumstances? Leave it to the big guys to hash out the system? And hope that the big guys rise above race and class and use some research to guide decisions. Can we depend on such luck?

Charter Schools-Good, Bad, and Complicated

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

Charter schools. Two words with associations that twist and turn. Here’s another look.

Teachers unions are most often against the charter school concept because from its first implementation in the early 1980’s, one of the objectives was to get around the obdurate stance of unions about student and teacher time, tenure, and accountability. If you’ve ever read the history of a teacher’s status-put up and shut up– until the time unions became a force, you understand how the ability to join together was a surprising victory. And not one for teachers to give up.

On the other hand, think about the editorial “Lessons From New Orleans” in The New York Times, 10-17-2011. After Hurricane Katrina, the schools in New Orleans, Louisiana, with the state’s Recovery School District legislation, benefitted from the chance to set up schools with longer hours and days of school; reform the teacher cadre into a more capable group of instructors; and bring in programs that were completely different from a failing curriculum that left students far behind children in other parts of the country. Using a charter school formula allowed those changes to occur quickly.

The charter school model set up in New Orleans took the best of the charter school goals to reform a school district. Many school districts use various charter school models to help “at risk” students and the schools have begun to turn around. Some even with teacher’s union collaboration, in Los Angeles for example.

But, the vision behind many schools in the League of Charter Schools is not as laudatory as that of a failing district picking itself up and pursuing change. As has been outlined in other posts on this blog (9/9/09; 1/29/10; 6/23/10), a conservative group who doesn’t want teachers unions to bargain with school boards, who wish to set up an admissions model that drops students and doesn’t accept others, and who still want to get money from the public school district is often the cadre that promotes the model.

For example, Bullis Charter School is located in Los Altos, California, a small, affluent, and supportive community with high-achieving students. The charter began at a time when the school population took a nose-dive and an elementary school had to be closed. Choosing the smallest school in the most affluent area of Los Altos Hills set up a huge confrontation.

Eventually, parents from the closed school applied to the district with a plan for a school at the closed site to be modeled on the charter school premise. The whole idea for the charter was to avoid sending children down the hill to school. After much controversy, the plan was denied and the parents went to the county Board of Education and got approval. The district, however, would not allow the school to form on the closed property and finally gave the coalition some property on a middle school site in the middle of Los Altos. Since then, the site in Los Altos Hills has re-opened as the school-age population rose again.

Just recently the County Board of Education, now with a different set of members with different views on the charter school, had another confrontation about an extension of the charter for an additional five years. The county board members brought up the issues of diversity, outreach, and an unaccountable charter school board, but voted to approve the extension without asking for changes.

The school has set up a different curriculum which the charter school community thinks is more suited to the students, all high-achieving. In fact, there is plenty of room for these students in the regular public schools which all have programs for exceptionally high-achieving students.

In New Orleans and other cities where charter schools are set up to provide an opportunity for low-income neighborhoods to reform when the public school district can’t or won’t, who would be against that attempt? If the charter is designed to use public taxes to provide a closed system for the chosen few, even the original charter school developers might conclude it’s a complicated plan to get away from a public school.

ESEA Revision! Teacher Evaluation?

Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

Good news! The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has finally released its draft of a bill filled with revisions to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2002. The House Education Committee version, as stated in a previous post, is being negotiated piecemeal in hopes there will be no revision until after 2012.

The Senate legislation may pass, not only because Congress has been chastised for taking 4-5 years to make revisions. The bill takes into account the propositions made by the Obama Administration in 2009, the NCLB waivers by “executive authority” authorized by the U.S. Department of Education in September 2011, and it closely aligns with GOP proposals. Bipartisan legislation!

The main aspects to look over closely are standards, school improvement, and accountability.

preparing students to be college or career ready

preparing students to be college or career ready

We’ve heard for a long time that standards for student achievement must assure college or career readiness. But each state’s standards do not have to be aligned with the Common Core Standards, although all but six states have agreed to those standards. Also, English language Learners must have a set of standards which assure readiness to graduate.

As for accountability, the major change is that there are no longer hard and fast targets for achievement in reading and math. The states are accountable for “continuous growth.” Who keeps tabs on the growth for each state?

With growth in mind, school improvement for schools in each state must include intensive intervention for the 5% lowest-performing schools. Schools with the largest achievement gap between aggregates of the student population must implement practices to reduce the gap. Again, what entity will oversee these changes?

Critics point out that in the revisions the state determines the method for measuring the impact of programs. In the old NCLB that was the problem! The language was too vague to assure high standards for the measures used to assess student achievement. Without clear achievement targets, poor and minority students will be ignored.

The Senate draft and the House attempt does address the teacher accountability controversy, but leaves much up to the state. Each state must have four ratings for teachers and student achievement must be a factor. But, for example, how is student achievement and teacher evaluation to be made for subjects and grades not tested?

It appears that states and school districts are left to design and implement a plan. New reports to share best practices for teacher evaluation appear monthly. One of the latest is a report Peer Review: Getting Serious About Teacher Support and Evaluation by Julia E. Koppich and Daniel Humphrey. The report describes two exemplary Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) programs in California:  Poway School District near San Diego and San Juan School District near Sacramento.

Briefly, the program is geared to new teachers and experienced teachers who need to improve their instruction and classroom management. Consulting teachers take a year away from the classroom and provide well-designed accountability plans and intensive support to improve teaching. A governance board made up of administration and the teacher’s union has proven to work well to support the program, in spite of tough decisions about employment. It was apparent to the report writers that increased pressure to do better with less money was the critical factor, given that trained consulting teachers provide the most important role in the success of the program.

Back again to the same concern repeated many times. Where’s the money? This school year 37 states have cut funding for education. The American Jobs Act did not pass in the Senate as this post is being written. Since the Senate Education Committee seems to be doing some bipartisan work, maybe they will be the instigators of some spending on teachers. And police and the men and women who put out fires– before Congress lets the schools burn.