Posts from — June 2009

As a former school official, I read with interest today’s Supreme Court ruling on strip searches. But while many are heralding the decision as major, the facts say otherwise.

For years the standard for school officials has been to support reasonable suspicion for searches based on the need to protect students from harm. Strip searching a 13-year-old girl who may or may not have been sharing ibuprofen with fellow students certainly does not conjure up images of extensive risk to students.

Of course, the naysayers are already posturing that today’s ruling will simply lead more youngsters to hide drugs and drug paraphernalia in their inner clothing and underwear. And that action will only make it more difficult for school officials to enforce fundamental levels of discipline in the school setting.

But asking a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes in the presence of strange adults goes far beyond the enforcement of fundamental levels of discipline in the school setting. Therefore, based on today’s ruling, nothing has ultimately changed for school administrators moving forward.

The Ruling

In ruling that the school acted illegally, Justice David Souter offered the following assessment:

…. “there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear” …. and so therefore “we hold that the search did violate the Constitution.”

Pundits were quick to point out that the ruling speaks specifically to the drug involved, a painkiller. Clearly, the idea of a strip search for painkillers does seem to be a bit over the top. The Supreme Court agreed with that notion while still seemingly noting that schools could take such actions when more serious drugs or weapons were involved. Of course, critics will wonder aloud, which drugs would be needed for school officials to act in such a way.

In addition, the Court noted that there had to be some information that the drugs might have been concealed in the student’s underwear. In simplest terms, the concept of reasonable dictates that such an intrusive step must be warranted. Searching a backpack or a student’s jacket is one thing, moving to their inner person simply because you did not find what you were looking for is certainly a step that would not necessarily be deemed reasonable.

In other words, strip searching is incredibly far more intrusive than searching a backpack or coat. This line is so clear that many schools and entire states have banned such searches completely, insisting they are never reasonable in the school setting.

The Opposing View

Surprisingly, one Justice, Clarence Thomas, dissented making the ruling one short of unanimous. It seems that Justice Thomas saw the ruling as a deep intrusion into the administration of public schools. Instead, school administrators and teachers should be allowed to set and enforce rules that maintain order.

Critics pointed out that Justice Thomas essentially believes that students should not have any rights in school. Those same critics noted that a strip search is actually a tad beyond the routine business of school administration despite Thomas’ contention otherwise.

Still, Thomas asserted that a “search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.”

For Thomas, under such criteria, the search would be considered justified because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Redding had violated school rules. In this case, it would seem that the term reasonable, in Justice Thomas’ eyes, must only be applied minimally.

In his view, if there is reasonable suspicion that warrants a search, then any type of search should be permitted. Accordingly, providing students fundamental protection against excessive humiliation apparently is not part of Justice Thomas’ belief.

While Thomas seems lost on the distinction between painkillers and say a drug like crack cocaine, he does rightly note that parents do have the right to petition school boards regarding search policies. Ultimately, parents could take the step of approaching the school board so as to do what seven other states have done, outlaw such searches in their entirety.

Attentive Students

The real key aspect of the ruling is the impact it will have on student actions moving forward. Clearly, students now understand that they have been granted certain protections regarding searches and therefore can more safely carry contraband simply by placing it in their underwear.

That said, little has ultimately changed. School administrators must have reasonable suspicion to search a student and such suspicion also includes a reasonable assessment as how far to go with that search.

Lastly, one final, simple distinction is the school safety element. If weapons are involved, then administration is in a different position than when the matter involves drugs, especially when the issue involves misusing drugs that are legal.

It seems that everywhere we turn these days, higher education statistics get a tad uglier. A recent article promoting online education had this sad introduction:

Alarming statistics have been put forward showing the increased rate of college dropouts. Back in the 1960s college dropout rates were as low as one (1) in every five (5) students, this shifted to one (1) in every three (3) in the 1990s. Figures from the Department of Education for 2000 through 2008 show that 30% of students enrolled in schools leave in their first year and a shocking 50% never graduate.

We have spent countless words noting that higher education, often held up as an example to the world, actually may be the weakest strand of the educational process, K-16. Everything from their poor graduation rates to their ability to be relevant to today’s tech savvy world raises questions about America’s system of higher education.

At the same time, we have never extolled the common mantra that college is right for every student. We tend to side with Charles Murray and have indicated our lack of support for the notion of college for everyone.

Key Discussion Point Currently

None of this relates to the current educational discussion point that has become a fundamental focus of the Obama administration. Their push is entirely on student access by finding ways to help students address the staggering costs associated with higher education.

It is interesting to see this idea against the view expressed by some older Americans. They hold fast to the notion that college, unlike K-12 public education, should not simply be made available to anyone who wants it. They see this as just one more government entitlement, akin to welfare.

However, to get another viewpoint, we turn to Tolu Olorundawith who offers some very interesting thoughts in “When your college education is a bridge to nowhere.” She first notes renowned educators Henry Giroux and Susan Giroux tackled the notion as to why not all Black and Brown students see college as a “good thing.”

“Since their appearance in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, American colleges followed the traditions established by Oxford, Cambridge, and the continental universities in the preparation of their overwhelmingly white male student body for law, ministry, medicine, and politics.” [Giroux, Henry; Giroux, Susan. Take Back Higher Education: Race, Youth, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Post-Civil Rights Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 (1st ed.), p. 144.]

Obama Is Right

Olorundawith moves on to then quote the work of Andy Kroll. His piece on Alternet, “A Crisis of Affordability: How Our Public Colleges Are Turning into Gated Communities for the Wealthy” directly tackles the Obama notion, the need for greater affordability.

In addressing the growing disparities in college affordability for Black and Brown students, Kroll contends that the recent spike in college costs nationally has been done precisely to ensure that the white male of affluence becomes the only group able to attend institutions of higher learning. Olorundawith summarizes Kroll thus:

Big businesses, Andy argues, have no problem aiding and abetting the rich in reaching their goals of transforming Colleges into educational “gated communities”–reserved only for the privileged, elite, and powerful.

In his piece, Kroll does offer some incredible statistics from “The Education Trust” related to college affordability for those most in need of support.

In the past several decades, the cost of higher education has climbed at an astounding pace — faster than the Consumer Price Index, faster even than the cost of medical care. Over the past 30 years, the average cost of college tuition, fees, and room and board has increased nearly 100%, from $7,857 in 1977-1978 to $15,665 in 2007-2008 (in constant 2006-2007 dollars). Median household income, on the other hand, has risen a mere 18% over that same period, from about $42,500 to just over $50,000. College costs, in other words, have gone up at more than five times the rate of incomes.

… state flagship universities and a group of other major research universities spent $257 million in 2003 on financial aid for students from families earning more than $100,000 a year. Those same universities spent only $171 million on aid to students from families who made less than $20,000 a year. Similarly, between 1995 and 2003, according to the report, grant aid from the same public universities to students from families making $80,000 or more increased 533%, while grant aid to families making less than $40,000 increased only 120%.

Simply to ensure that a child attends a four-year public university, a family in the country’s lowest-income bracket now has to pay, on average, 55% of total income (up from 39% in 2000); for a middle-income family, the average is 25% (up from 18% in 2000); and for an upper-income family, 9% (up from 7%), according to “Measuring Up 2008: The National Report Card on Higher Education” by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Not a Ticket, Just a Chance

It is important to realize that a college education is not going to be the answer for everyone. Even Olorundawith notes that in tougher economic times, that degree may not mean a whole lot irrespective of color:

Of course, in any dialogue concerning the merits and benefits of a College degree, the impact of the current economic crisis must be addressed. With unemployment skyrocketing in communities of color, students with Bachelor’s can often be found working shifts at Burger King, with those earning their Master’s managing at McDonald’s, and even Ph.D.s confirming your Papa John’s Pineapple Pizza order.

But if education is considered the great equalizer and a college degree is generally deemed a strong positive step towards a more viable job future, the opportunity should be available for every one who wants it and is willing to put in the time and effort.

While we are not so inclined to support the conspiracy theory postulated by Kroll, we do believe it is essential for America to begin reducing its incredible economic stratification. And one aspect towards shrinking the gap between the haves and the have nots is to ensure that college is not available solely to those of means.

Current data indicates that one of every four high school students fails to graduate within the standard four-year secondary-school span.

Today there is great debate as to why the drop out rate is so significant. Many elementary folks insist that schools at the upper grade levels tend to put curriculum ahead of students. In contrast, folks at the secondary level insist that students all too often arrive at high school without the requisite skills needed to handle more challenging academic materials.

In a recent Associated Press piece that discussed this issue, Lynne Strathman, director of Lydia Urban Academy in Rockford, Ill., was quoted as offering one of the most troubling assessments imaginable. Strathman indicated that for many students the final year of school where a significant majority of students felt successful was in fourth grade.

Yes, fourth grade.

School Not the Solution

In fact, regardless of when students chose to drop out, the consensus is that the drop out group gave up on school long ago. Simply stated, for this segment of the population, school is the biggest problem they face in life.

Facing a number of potential issues, everything from learning disabilities to mental and physical health problems, the potential drop-out crowd soon learns that school has little to offer them. The suggestion that schools might not be responsive to students with learning disabilities certainly would rankle those who work in special education.

But the fact is that these children all too often grow frustrated when they cannot match the success level of their peers. Soon, as they begin to understand that their lower achievement level falls far short of their peers, these lower achievers begin to demonstrate behavioral issues.

It is easy to understand why. Rather than have people think of them as stupid or lazy or incapable, these children realize the only way to save face is to act out. They can then hide behind their behaviors, their actions more palatable to them then being seen as deeply academically-challenged.

Their inability to match the performance of their peers also soon leads to another major problem, truancy. Here again, the basic premise is the same. Who wants to spend time in a setting where they feel unsuccessful?

Meanwhile, the recent push to raise standards has only exacerbated the problem. Schools all across America have been identified as failing schools simply by virtue of the substandard performance of their special education students.

Add to the fact that those students who represent America’s ELL group, those for whom English is not their native language, and the percentage of drop outs from the group that struggles to learn is extremely alarming.

Not Just Ability

Though the vast majority of drop outs fit a “learning-challenged” label, according to the AP folks there is also a large segment of students from affluent, educated families that fall by the wayside. While the immediate response is to blame the student for lack of effort, it turns out that many of the drop outs from this group suffer from issues other than those related to academic ability.

Instead, they come from families where chaos is the norm and divorce common place. Often times, there are alcohol or drug related issues that begin within the family then travel on to the students themselves.

Ironically, for many of the more intellectual, the same school setting that is proving too taxing for one segment of learners is simply too easy for another group. Here boredom prevails and very quickly school becomes essentially irrelevant.

Need for Alternatives

We have noted many times that our current one-size-fits-all approach to education is detrimental to children as a whole. We have indicated the need for nonacademic paths for those who struggle with the traditional school approach that teaches primarily through reading and writing.

It also means providing students adequate mental health services. Often times, in tough budget cycles, this is the first level of support to be cut. And today we are facing some of our toughest budget cycles ever.

Ultimately, we can only hope the recent revelations that children start to see school as a problem as early as elementary school might lead to a reconsideration of our current approach to education. It is high time we took the drop out issue seriously enough to begin developing school programs that truly seek to address the needs of our kids.

It represents one of the Globe’s most e-mailed stories. Jonah Lehrer has the audacity to suggest that city living can actually damage your brain.

While he does offers some concrete steps to combat the issue, we could not help but think about the ramifications of the assertions for urban children and the schools they attend.

Interesting Notion

Lehrer offers one of the longstanding assertions of society, that city life “has always been an engine of intellectual life, from the 18th-century coffeehouses of London … to the Left Bank bars of modern Paris. Without the metropolis, we might not have had the great art of Shakespeare or James Joyce; even Einstein was inspired by commuter trains.”

But of late, scientists have begun examining how city life affects the brain of the average citizen living within the city itself. The results according to Lehrer “are chastening.”

He goes on to note that “just being in an urban environment … impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street,” he writes of the latest research, “the brain is less able to hold things in memory, and suffers from reduced self-control.”

In addition to the noise and the bustle, the city fails to deliver one of the brain’s most beneficial elements, the force of nature upon cognitive development. We have traded quiet, wide-open spaces for crowded concrete jungles. Instead of mother nature and its ability to soothe, we are “surrounded by taxis, traffic, and millions of strangers.”

The research comes forward at a critical time in world history. According to Lehrer, the majority of people across the world now live in cities.

Recent Study

Central to Lehrer’s notion is the result of a study published last month involving some young adults. Outfitted with GPS receivers, undergraduates at the University of Michigan, were asked to take a walk. Some were tasked with taking a leisurely stroll within an arboretum. The others were tasked with walking around the streets of bustling Ann Arbor.

Later the two groups were given a battery of psychological tests. Not too surprisingly, the people who had spent time walking the hectic city streets were in a more negative mood. But more importantly, they scored significantly lower on a test of attention and working memory.

According to the study, “just glancing at a photograph of urban scenes” can lead to measurable impairments. The conclusion is that we are hard-wired to be wary of danger, a trait that we have been handed by our ancestors.

And according to the latest research, the danger that currently lurks in many urban areas has most of our brain power focused on being ready for potential threats. Add in the over-stimulation that is embedded in the urban setting and it is easy to see why urbanites’ brain power is consumed by tasks that consumes much of the their intellectual processing power.

Urban Design

The notion that natural settings require less cognitive effort has even been assigned a name, attention restoration theory, or ART. Developed by Stephen Kaplan, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, one central notion is that human attention is a scarce resource. Essentially each of us has within us only so much attentiveness without some action that restores our capacity to pay further attention.

Given our desire to improve inner city schools and the performance of the students attending those schools, this news represents an important element to consider. In fact, it is an element seldom considered within the complex equation that represents the cognitive development of urban children.

Certainly, urban school design should take into account this new research. If the mind needs nature, then urban schools must be designed in a way that contrasts vividly with the crowded concrete jungle that currently forms a child’s home environment.

Of course, the notion demands a rethinking of the construction of the very neighborhoods these kids grow up in as well. The need for tree-lined streets and parks is critical.

Yet, city life apparently offers other elements that cannot be offset simply by incorporating a few more trees or green space. Because our inner city streets offer everything from caramel lattes to iPods, self-control is tested regularly.

Resisting those temptations taxes our brain and further reduces our ability to be attentive. Therefore, the city “subverts our ability to resist temptation even as it surrounds us with it.”

Taking Learning for Granted

With each new brain study it is clear that we still know very little about the various impacts of our society on enhancing learning in children. All too often the focus is simply upon the role of the school to overcome societal issues.

Studies clearly indicate that growing up in poverty has an enormous impact on the cognitive development of children. Now we can add to that the simple notion that living in heavily populated urban area is also a hindrance to the development of our youngest learners.

Unfortunately, these varied issues are simply not being addressed in a cohesive manner. And while everyone focuses on the schools and the teachers delivering instruction within their buildings, perhaps these external issues are at the heart of the problem.

That would certainly explain why the intense school reform efforts over the last couple of decades have produced such limited results.