Category — Equal Opportunity

Over the past few days we have focused a great deal on technology, particularly the possibilities of technology to enhance teaching and learning. As we ponder the potential, it is important to recognize that many educators view all these new gadgets very negatively. In fact, many see them as nothing more than a giant nuisance.

Technology - UGHHH!
In a recent New York Times article, Samuel Freedman shares the following story:

Halfway through the semester in his market research course at Roanoke College last fall, only moments after announcing a policy of zero tolerance for cellphone use in the classroom, Prof. Ali Nazemi heard a telltale ring. Then he spotted a young man named Neil Noland fumbling with his phone, trying to turn it off before being caught.

“Neil, can I see that phone?” Professor Nazemi said, more in a command than a question. The student surrendered it. Professor Nazemi opened his briefcase, produced a hammer and proceeded to smash the offending device. Throughout the classroom, student faces went ashen.

Let’s be clear about another thing. The episode in his classroom had been plotted and scripted ahead of time, with Neil Noland part of the charade all along. The phone was an extra of his mother’s, its service contract long expired.

Freedman finishes with his final point regarding Professor Nazemi.

At age 55, Professor Nazemi stands on the far shore of a new sort of generational divide between teacher and student. This one separates those who want to use technology to grow smarter from those who want to use it to get dumber.

Blurring the Lines Between Work and Play
The critical issue with technology is that it truly blurs the lines between work and play. That same laptop computer that enhances a students ability to write a paper can also be used to text message a friend. As we stated yesterday, giving students a Kindle with a copy of the “Tale of Two Cities” can transform the educational approach used by the teacher regarding the classic Dickens tale. However, when the teachers shifts direction to suggest students head to the Internet to research some critical historical information regarding the action just read, the students can just easily procrastinate by visiting the local sports page or stopping off at a social networking site such as Facebook.

While many students would insist they are simply multitasking, we turn once again to the good phone-smashing professor who offers up: “Multitasking is good, but I want them to do more tasking in my class.

No matter what anyone offers up, technology is not the answer for our educational ills. First and foremost teachers must navigate through the minefield that technology creates.

They must understand that todays students are truly interested in technology and that the gadgets can in fact make learning far more interesting and actually easier. At the same time teachers must understand the fundamental nature of teenagers is to move to recreational activities and away from work whenever the possibility exists. Heck, that descriptor fits many adults I know as well.

Skilled Teachers and Engagement
Ultimately there is no substitute for engagement. Within the classroom, the truly special teachers create very high on task rates. These teachers understand the intellectual and emotional development of the age group they teach and adjust their lessons so as to enhance the curiosity of the students in their respective classroom.

They also have taken the time to get to know each individual student and what makes that child tick. Creating student engagement is where the skill and technical expertise of the teacher comes into play.

Within that classroom, there are now powerful new tools to enhance teaching and learning. But simply possessing technology without educational expertise pretty much guarantees the technology will be a nuisance.

And there in lies the real challenge, developing the skills of classroom teachers. Of course, some would add that a little special effect action like that of our good professor might help students be reminded as to the need to remain on task.

But I would not suggest using a hammer at the K-12 level.

The $399 promotion that allows a person to purchase a $188 computer and donate a second to a child in a developing country has been extended until the end of the year. The “Give One, Get One” is the brainchild of Nicholas Negroponte and is part of the nonprofit effort called the “One Laptop Per Child Program” from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The original concept of designing a $100 laptop failed to meet the price mark so the donation concept became a way for a child in such countries as Rwanda, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Haiti and Mongolia to receive such a device free.

The laptop has a user interface designed specifically for children, features built-in wireless capability, and can be recharged by hand with a pulley or a crank.

If you are looking for a chance to help shape the future of American Education then you are encouraged to participate in the annual Speak Up 2007 survey administered by Project Tomorrow (formerly known as NetDay). Everyone, students, parents, teachers, and even K-12 administrators are invited to take part in the annual survey that seeks to determine what is necessary to give American children a top-notch, 21st-century education.

Project Tomorrow
Project Tomorrow is a national nonprofit group with a goal towards improving science, math, and technology education. The Speak Up survey gives all stakeholders a chance to add to the ongoing discussion about technology’s role in the curriculum.

Julie Evans, chief executive of Project Tomorrow offers up the following comments about how the survey results may potentially impact the future educational landscape.

“National and state leaders look for the Speak Up data each year to gain insight from education stakeholders about how to fix America’s education system in order to ensure our continued global competitiveness. The survey is an avenue for everyone—students, parents, teachers, and school administrators—to participate in this national conversation. At the same time, we also provide participating schools and districts with their own Speak Up data to inform and impact local policies, programs, and budgeting and purchasing decisions.”

All schools, public or private, in the United States and Canada are invited to participate. The survey will keep individual responses confidential, focusing only on the trends provided. One new aspect to the survey is the addition of questions for school and district leaders, including principals, district administrators, and school board members. Many of the new questions focus on the use of Web 2.0 tools such as MySpace in school; so-called “21st-century skills” such as critical thinking and learning a second language; the value of video games, cell phones, MP3 players, and other portable computing devices in education; and school design for the 21st-century learner.

Survey Results
Quantitative survey results will be made available to all participating schools and school districts free of charge. National findings will be released through a variety of venues including a congressional briefing in Washington, D.C.

Speak Up 2007 is sponsored by CDW-G, SMART Technologies, PASCO Scientific, Futurekids, and KI Education. It also is supported through a network of more than 100 nonprofit education, business, and community partners, including the State Educational Technology Directors Association, the Consortium for School Networking, and the National School Boards Association.

The online survey can be accessed any time until Dec. 15.

You had to love the first line in the STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE.

The report cards are out and for once it’s not the students who were sweating.

Utilizing a complex set of measurements, the first ever set of progress report cards on New York City schools were made public. All 1,224 schools citywide were evaluated. The results indicated that 279 (23 percent) earned As; 461 (38 percent) got Bs; 312 (25 percent) scored Cs; 99 (8 percent) landed Ds, and 50 (4 percent) received an F. The numerical scores reprotedly ranged franging -.45 to 104.4.

Utilizing a Former System
While most of education is attempting to get into the standards era and away from the sorting criteria of letter grades, the city has taken a page out of the old school formula to sort its schools. The grades are based on a complex set of factors that include academic achievement, progress of students and the results of surveys taken by parents, students, and teachers last spring.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered the following: “Is this a wake-up call for the people who work there? You betcha.”

Yet it is interesting to see why ranking schools is so challenging. P.S. 35, Sunnyside, one of those schools receiving a grade of F, is a school with a very good reputation that was apparently victimized by its own prior successes. For example, in 2006, the school could boast that 96 percent of its third-graders read at or above grade level. However, when tested as fourth graders, the number fell to 84 percent. With 55 percent of the ranking criteria based on year-to-year progress the school was rated very negatively because of that drop.

There are three concepts of note. One, the score of 84 percent is still considered very good (in fact it likely tops many other schools with better letter grades than P.S. 35). Second, there is no mention of any changes within the students, was it truly the exact same set of students tested or were there any transfers in or out? Third, if there were no changes, we have to suspect that Mayor Bloomberg had in mind that people begin to question the competency of the fourth grade teachers at P.S. 35.

Despite situations such as these, schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein was very supportive of the concept, stating that the new reports will serve as a tool to identify which schools need to do more to excel. Said Klein, “Schools can’t improve without first knowing exactly what they’re doing well and what’s not working,” Klein said in a statement.

Scores Account for Socioeconomic Status
Theoretically, the scores are compared to peer schools of similar socioeconomic status and therefore schools are not penalized by that element. Ironically, schools that received A’s will be eligible for additional funding. Those receiving Ds and Fs are required to submit “action plans” addressing specific steps they will take to address performance issues.

Whenever someone starts to talk about the impacts of illegal immigration I think of the impact it had on one school superintendent, David Verducci.

It could have been my name that people remember, but I was fortunate. During my initial meeting with the Director of the English as a Second Language program in my new district, she informed me of the 1982 ruling that gave school age children, illegal immigrants or not, the right to attend a public school.

Evidently, Mr. Verducci was not as fortunate.

Bars Illegal Immigrants From School
The story of David Verducci, the Superintendent in Fairview, New Jersey, is the tale of a man who believed as a public official that he should seek to enforce the law. Mr. Verducci soon learned that even though he was the CEO of his school district and charged with balancing the school budget, he was not able to restrict students from attending his schools even if they were known to be illegal immigrants.

The story dates back 2002 when David Verducci learned that three of the students at his school were present due to the fact their parents were in this country illegally. Upon learning of the situation, he barred the children from attending school.

No Support for His Actions
He was immediately vilified in the press for his stance and he soon learned that as a school official he was actually not legally able to enforce the immigration law. In fact, all of the forces of government went to work to help the illegal aliens get back into school. The lawyer for the family, Louis Zayas, informed the court that “the immigrant status of the parents is entirely irrelevant; the law of the land says that children still have the right to a public education as long as they live in Fairview.”

N.J. assistant education commissioner Judith Weiss also asserted that “the superintendent is not supposed to ask about the immigrant status of the family.”

Soon, in fact every layer of government backed the illegal aliens. Again, according to Weiss, “so long as the parents…can document that they reside in the district, they’re entitled to enroll in the schools – period.”

The students were readmitted to much fan fare by the news media.

The INS View
As for the status of those in the country illegally, according to the Eastern Regional Office spokeswoman Amy Otten of the INS: “We cannot admit people on non-immigrant visas into the country to attend a public elementary or secondary school. But in this particular case, they’re already here. The INS doesn’t deal with who is admitted to public…schools.”

As people consider the costs associated with schooling as well as the illegal immigration issue in America, it is important that everyone be aware of the Verducci story.

The issue of illegal immigration continues to be an important one for most Americans even if Congress and the President seem unwilling to move forward to create a bipartisan solution to the issue. While the anger mounts among many Republicans and Democrats alike, it is interesting to see just some of the impact of illegal immigration as it pertains to America’s schools.

According to a FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) “Breaking the Piggy Bank” report:

The calculation of the number of children of illegal aliens in the K-12 public school system indicates that more than 15 percent of California’s students are children of illegal aliens, as are more than ten percent of the students in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Texas. More than five percent of the students are the children of illegal aliens in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington.

And as for the costs:

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.

And a 2003 FAIR report, “No Room to Learn: Immigration and School Overcrowding,” provides estimates that immigration in total will account for 96 percent of the increase in the school-age population in the United States over the next 50 years with as much as 50% of that growth due to illegal aliens.

Tomorrow: The tale of School Superintendent David Verducci and his attempt to tackle the problem in New Jersey.

We have written a great deal in recent weeks about the issue of school dropouts. We spent time discussing the horrific situation in California as well as the current plan to address the problem in Los Angeles. We wrote about the recent Johns Hopkins research labeling numerous schools as dropout factories.

So it was with great interest we read about the push from across the pond to deal with the same problem. The going term for those not in school in Europe is a NEET, or a person “Not Engaged in Education, Employment or Training.” For the first time in at least a generation of students, the U.K. has raised the age for leaving education in an effort to crackdown on the growing number of NEETs.

Under the new Education & Skills Bill, every teenager must either be in school (public school or college) or be receiving on-the-job training until they have reached their 18th birthday. Under the new legislation, authorities can now fine truanting teenagers £50 or can assess a new “attendance order” to force the teenagers back to school. Any teenager who fails to meet that order could then be hauled into court and fined up to £200.

Under the new law, all teenagers will be entitled to an apprenticeship, all with the goal of reducing the number of so-called “NEET’s.” The age for leaving school is to be raised to 18 in 2013.

Yesterday I noted the recent op ed piece of Dan Brown in which he told the tale of three students being ill-served by NCLB. Today we take a further look at the research regarding the situation involving Eddie.

Eddie has attendance issues with school as well as poor test scores. The result, according to Brown, Eddie is entering his fourth year in fourth grade.

Yes his fourth year in fourth grade.

NCLB Punishes Schools for Student Failures
The No Child Left Behind Act hovers like a black cloud over the situation involving Eddie. Designed to punish those institutions that are unable to move their student populations to prescribed achievement levels, NCLB has caused schools to once again enter into the practice of retention when it comes to those students who are unable to demonstrate mastery of the appropriate grade level standards. Retention, the formal term for what the public calls “staying back,” has been popular at various times in education, even though virtually all research indicates that the practice has proven unsuccessful.

The negative impacts of retention have been noted in numerous studies. Among the findings of various researchers, retained students have higher dropout rates, increased behavior problems, greater absenteeism, and lowered self-esteem. In addition, most research has shown that kids that have been held back do not do any better academically after having been held back.

According to educational researcher Linda Darling-Hammond, the reasons for the failure of retention to improve student learning are two fold. First, retained students often receive the same instructional approach that they received the first time, an approach that didn’t work the first time through that grade. Second, most retained students begin to get discouraged with school and eventually give up on themselves as learners.

Keeping Student’s Back - Back in Vogue
Retention most often occurs in large urban school districts though some states are now utilizing the practice as well. Chicago and Baltimore, for example have been using retention for the last several years while Florida is using the practice at certain grade level thresholds. For example, in that state, students unable to pass fourth or eighth grade reading and mathematics tests are not allowed to move onto the next grade unless they attend summer school and pass another version of the same exam.

Key statistics reflect that retention is definitely back in vogue today. Studies done in 1996 by the National Center of Educational Statistics and in 1998 by the National Association of School Psychologists both revealed that one out of every six high school seniors has been retained at least once in their schooling years. For the most part, students who repeated a grade did so in kindergarten, first or second grade. However, a recent study by Boston College researchers indicated that the number of ninth graders who fail to be promoted to tenth grade has tripled since the mid-seventies.

New Solutions Needed
The question of what to do with students who fail to reach specified standards should be at the forefront of educational discussions for the next several years, especially with the provisions of the NCLB Act. The fact that many states and cities are reverting back to a practice that has proven unsuccessful in the past is particularly troubling.

Schools will ultimately need to find an answer, a new method for dealing with this issue, if they are to have any hope of responding to this educational dilemma. Finding new solutions to this long-standing problem may actually prove to be the best outcome of the NCLB Act.

Otherwise we will continue to have situations like that of Eddie, in his fourth year of fourth grade, and as Brown noted in his piece, seemingly beyond the reach of teachers, this before Eddie is more than ten years old.

In a recent Op-Ed piece published in the New York Times and the Boston Globe, teacher Dan Brown reveals how the standardized testing associated with NCLB can actually have disastrous consequences for kids. Brown is the author of “The Great Expectations School: A Rookie Year in the New Blackboard Jungle” and is deemed a young man certain to help make policy changes in the educational arena.

His brief tales of Manolo, Sara and Eddie represent the great challenges that inner city schools face. They are three children from distinctly different worlds, two who cannot seem to meet the standards set forth under NCLB and one for which the school has no program to challenge the fourth grader’s superb intellect.

Manolo has already repeated one grade, second, the year his mother died. Brown describes him as an imaginative writer with terrible spelling and mechanics. Angry at the world that had taken his mom, Manolo now faces a system that labels him a school failure.

Brown describes Sara as way ahead of her peers. According to Brown, “She wrote hilarious, irreverent poetry and had already mastered grade-level math. She fired off endless questions about current events.” Then the crusher, “The administrators at my school discouraged creative lesson planning in order to cram in endless “drill-and-kill” packets of basic skills test-taking strategies.”

Then there is Eddie who is in his fourth year in fourth grade. His attendance is a major issue and he cannot pass the standardized tests. Try as he may, Brown cannot seem to engage him in class. The teacher notes that Eddie has a particular talent when it comes to drawing, even if the child sees no art programming because the class needs to allot more time for standardized test preparation.

Brown paints a sorry picture of what NCLB is foisting upon this school. He also notes that “nearly six years into the No Child Left Behind era, American public schools have more money than ever, but students are still widely denied the most crucial tools for their success: individual attention and specialized support.”

Instead, Brown insists that “the resources that my students badly needed were being spent elsewhere; the money was going into high-stakes testing.”

Brown then backs up his concerns with a recent report by the Center on Education Policy that states 44 percent of schools have reduced instructional time in untested subjects (social studies, science, art and music, physical education, lunch, and/or recess) since the implementation of NCLB.

His conclusion, “we have taken our eye off the ball on what is most important in schools - students’ needs.”

For more on Brown visit his blog site (note: photos are from Brown’s online site).

We found a couple of bloggers who were willing to speak to the fact that they attended one of the schools deemed in a recent report to be dropout factories. I am sure there are others out there yet it was interesting to read these two.

Doug writing on his Masson’s blog site gives his thoughts thus:

<em>It’s been 18 years since I graduated from there, so maybe it has gotten a lot worse. But, when I was there, I felt like I had the opportunity to get one of the best educations anywhere. It helped –a lot– that my parents had taught me to value my education, that school work came pretty easily to me, and that my friends and their families viewed education in much the same way. When I went to college, I met a lot of students who had come from some pretty nice private schools, and I never felt like my education was inferior to theirs. I can’t speak for the other schools on the list, and I suppose I can only speak for Richmond High School as it was many years ago, but at the time, good educational resources were available to the students.

On the other hand, it was a big school - I graduated in a class of about 400, and I think there were about 2,200 students spread over four years. I don’t doubt that it’s pretty easy for a student to get lost in the shuffle there.

My guess Doug is that the school is every bit as good as it was then if not better.

Trent England writing on his libertylive.org blog offers:

Ten years ago, I graduated from Henry Foss High School in Tacoma. I chose to commute to the inner city school rather than attend my local, upscale high school in Gig Harbor. Today, Foss is in the news as one of our state’s 22 “dropout factories.”

The solution to America’s crisis in education is out there. Even amidst the “dropout factories,” some students are learning. The solution, however, is not as simple as dollars or buildings or lofty rhetoric. The solution is a culture that values learning more than labor union politics, government control, and other petty, counterproductive agendas.

These two writers offer a very interesting perspective regarding these schools, certainly not one that matches the public perception of the term “dropout factory.”