Posts Tagged ‘low-income’

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.

Bright days go dark for school finance in Colorado

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

Schools open early in Colorado.  In many districts, teachers start back the second week of August and kids arrive the 3rd week.  This year, in many districts, teachers arrived as they usually do to set up their classrooms, but they didn’t get paid.  No money.

This is the irony of working as a teacher in today’s environment in Colorado, where the spending-cuts Tea Party has many forceful adherents.

Fewer days, fewer hours for kids and teachers

Jefferson County (Jeffco) teachers  on the west side of the Denver metro area will take a 3 percent pay cut in 2011-12, based on five furlough days.  Three furlough days will occur out of professional development time, and two will occur around school holidays when students will also get an extra day off.

At a time when many students need to be in school more hours and/or more days, districts across Colorado are cutting both.

State’s largest district sees $100 million cut from budget over 4 years

Jefferson County’s general fund budget has declined by $60 million since its high point in 2009-10, just before revenue for the state budget contracted.  Another $70 million will likely go away through 2013-14.  At this point there’s no telling when the down trend will turn around, and even when it does, it’s likely to take years just to get back to ‘09-10 levels.

State continues to throw mandates at districts with no money

Despite the budget cutting at districts, the state continues to mandate work and other requirements.  Senate Bill 10-191 is an example.  This bill states that school districts will provide performance evaluations to all teachers annually, and to new and probationary teachers two to three times a year.

This state mandate is a good idea.  Teachers should be regularly and systematically evaluated.  However, management staffing to do these evaluations is lacking. Most management to staff ratios in business hit around 1 manager for 10 people or fewer.  The district’s staffing ratio is more like 1 principal to 20 or 30 staff at elementary school, and much higher at high schools.

The district has yet to figure out how to conduct on-site teacher observations, interviews, and written appraisals without adding substantially more administrators, at a time when citizens complain about the “excessive” dollars used to pay management staff.

Students’ needs are great as ever

At the same time, student needs haven’t declined.  The district has done some heavy lifting to raise test scores.  It has succeeded.  Compared to state data, the district has improved its test results on students meeting or exceeding proficiency in 17 categories on state exams, as opposed to 12 for the state.  As important, Jeffco continues to compete successfully with other metro area districts, even though it has experienced an increase from 20% to 30% of children considered low income, often with learning difficulties that need attention.

Money questions haunt districts

How much longer can a district with 81,000 students continue to march forward when money and related resources are marching backward?  Will today’s kindergarten class, graduates of 2024, receive the quality education they need and deserve because of declining revenues in 2011-12?

Will Colorado be able to build a strong economic base for today’s and tomorrow’s workers based on a weak public education foundation?  It’s usually a bright time when schools open their doors and windows in Colorado, but now, in 2011, the blinds are down, the hallways are dark, and too many doors for too many children are closing.

How They Do It

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Argument after argument is tossed back and forth at conferences, in the newspapers and magazines about low-income, high ethnic population public schools that aren’t making it.

Then, lo and behold, three more great public schools and school districts pop up in the news.  In April 2010 at the National Association of School Boards convention in Chicago, Illinois, a presentation was made by Matteson School District (SD 162) near Chicago with 7 Pre-K to 8 schools. Three-fourths or more African-American students, second language, reduced price or free lunch, are all part of the list that indicates poor performance.

But, no, the district has won awards for meeting and exceeding proficiency on the state exams that are the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) benchmarks of success.

Not only Matteson public school district, but Marshall Elementary in budget deficit San Francisco, California, and Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, have overcome the odds.  Comparable schools-low-income neighborhoods, high number of minority students, second language issues.  How does it happen?

When reading the articles, it makes sense.  The factors that education studies have said make good schools were gripped by each school and the school district.  And it was done before the state superintendent or government came down with hands on hips, insisting on change.

Although specific programs may differ, four main traits identify the success of these schools.

* The school board, district superintendent, and principal have high expectations to do all possible to help students learn.  They have developed a long-range plan and stuck to it.  The faculty and staff are informed collaborators in the decisions to reach the achievement goals for the district and school.  The school community celebrates success.

* All members of the school community focus on providing the strategies to improve student achievement.  Teachers employ continuous assessment using multiple data sources which are analyzed and evaluated to improve instruction.  Teachers are given time outside of teaching for analysis and talk about how to improve instruction.  In addition, even with tight, tight budgets, resources are found to include speech therapists, nurses, tutors, social workers, and most important aggressive staff development.

*Parents are included in the school community.  For instance, at Marshall Elementary, the principal has hired a parent liaison who works on attendance, nutrition, transience-whatever impedes student success.  At PS 172 money was found for a dental hygienist who has dealt with the poor health issues that impede speech and energy to learn. At all schools, Matteson School district has trained parents to use the website in order to be knowledgeable about the programs going on at the schools.  Parent-school participation is encouraged at all schools.

* These good public schools report that art and music instruction has not been abandoned in order to improve test scores. Instead, the day is structured to use support staff during class time to reach the students with special needs. More than one teacher may be working with a group in the classroom. You can imagine that students are intent on learning, not “zoning out.” Money for after-school and Saturday instruction has been authorized.

Here’s the follow-up question. How was money found for the extra resources? So far we know only that principals scrounged for the funds and didn’t give up.

To ask about the report on Matteson School District (SD 162) in Illinois contact Dr. Blondean Y. Davis, Superintendent.  The article on PS 172 (aka Beacon School of Excellence) is found in The New York Times, April 26, 2010, “Poor Families, Rich Test Scores: A School Defies Odds” by Sharon Otterman.  Marshal  Elementary School’s story is found in the San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 2010, “U.S. tapping school’s recipe for success” by Jill Tucker.