In thirty-four months since January 21, 2009, thought in the education world has changed dramatically.
For instance, San Francisco Unified has become a field test district with a 3-year grant from S.D. Bechtel Foundation to try out Common Core Math Standards agreed to by 45 states in the U.S. (See “New take on math-will it add up?” by Jill Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 2011). The common core standards were developed from the haphazard standards of 50 individual states, revised and aligned with the guidance of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the oversight of the National Governors’ Association. To be sure, the standards can’t be mistaken for a takeover by the federal government.
Data driven analysis of student and school improvement has been adopted by many states. The talk is about how to evaluate teacher and school progress-not whether to evaluate. To the consternation of many, Oakland Public Schools in California, troubled for years, is planning to shut five schools in its effort to improve finances and the achievement of its students. On the other hand, legislation set in California to allow parent choice to get rid of staff, move to another school, or set up a charter school is coming about in low-income Compton USD.
And not least, the offer by the U.S. Department of Education to look at state plans to improve schools is an effort to provide a realistic chance to see student achievement mandated by No Child Left Behind. The adequate yearly progress (AYP) benchmarks, long seen as unlikely for every child to reach, can now be modified-not to fall back into the easy rut, but to set flexible and achievable goals.
Two news stories about four and five year olds beginning school should make anyone with interest in the world of education sit up and pay attention. We are seeing movement for policies endorsed by the federal government to expand Early Childhood Education.
This school year in California, the date by which a child may enter kindergarten has changed. September 1 is the cut-off date. It reduces the number of very young boys and girls who are asked to settle into the social and academic activities of the ten month kindergarten year. The expectation is that a child’s chronological age will more closely match his/her readiness to learn. In addition, the number of children held out of kindergarten by parents will be reduced, a controversial choice outlined in “Delay Kindergarten at Your Child’s Peril” by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt In The New York Times, September 25, 2011..
Still, it will be to no child’s advantage if funding for Head Start is pulled out from under a wonderful program that most middle-class children have available to them from private sources. In the desire to cut the federal debt, conservative Congress members have proposed such short-sighted ideas. Especially in the current economy, poor children are the most vulnerable group in America. In 2010, 30+% of children 0-5 years old lived in families with income below the poverty line.
Now why would anyone think it was a bargain to cut funding that would leave those children behind in readiness skills to which other kindergarten children have access? And which leads to less likelihood of proficiency in the reading, language, math, science and history common core standards expected of every child in the United States by the time they graduate high school?
