Category — Public Policy

It is one of the great moments in movie history, one of the many that involve Jack Nicholson. It is when Nicholson, playing Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, is on the witness stand and he is in the midst of a remarkable exchange with navy Lt. Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!

That scene immediately ran through my head when I read the recent news from Reuters regarding genetic testing for the gene associated with Alzheimer’s and other memory impairments. Ultimately, if I could be tested, would I want to be and emotionally, could I handle knowing the test results?

Could I handle the truth?

Most OK With the News

It seems that some in fact could handle the results.

In what was an enormous surprise to me, the findings from a group of American researchers indicates that the majority of those people informed that they carry a genetic risk of Alzheimer’s actually took the news well. Of course, that news also came as a shock to many professionals who have long thought that most people would not be able to psychologically handle such troubling news.

The gene in question, specifically the e4 version of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, is known to be associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. It is also associated with memory impairments in people without dementia.

In the study, people were randomly assigned to one of two groups. They either received the results of their APOE genetic test, carrier or non-carrier, or they were not provided their testing results.

Reuter’s reports:

People who were informed of their test results, the researchers found, did not have significantly more depression or anxiety than those who were not informed of their test results either immediately after receiving the test results or 1 year later. That was true regardless of whether they were in the subgroup of people found to carry the high-risk APOE e4 gene variant.

“Subjects were not immune to the negative implications of learning that they had an increased risk, but these feelings were not associated with clinically significant psychological distress,” Green and colleagues point out.

Conversely, in what would be a very intuitive result, being informed that one did not carry the Alzheimer’s-associated gene was in fact a great stress relief.

The Future

As science moves steadily forward, such testing options will soon become routine. We will undoubtedly have access to information our forefathers could never have imagined.

For those diseases where treatments are available, well, it seems like a no-brainer. Test me and when necessary, get me started on the path to wellness.

When it comes to the terrifying thought of a disease such as Alzheimer’s or dementia, one where there is currently no cure, only horrifying blackness, well I am not so sure where I stand.

I am simply not sure I could handle the truth.

The agenda of the Obama administration continues to cast a wide net. While much of the recent focus has been on the need for affordable healthcare, the president and his advisers are moving forward on a number of educational fronts.

A great deal of time is being spent on the notion of making higher education more accessible to Americans. That has led to new provisions regarding the repayment of federal loans (undertaken prior to Obama taking office) and to a proposed overhaul of the financial aid application form, the FAFSA.

But while those steps are significant, none are likely to be as critical for education as the administration’s recent push to overhaul how public school teachers are paid. In a major speech to the members of the National Education Association today, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan insisted it was time to not only rethink teacher seniority and tenure, it was time to tie those elements and pay to teacher performance.

Federal Funding Behind the Changes

While the emphasis on performance pay is not new, Duncan’s speech today provided clear indication that the U.S. Department of Education will likely continue to put federal money on the line as part of the process for fueling changes. In a move that is actually reminiscent of past Republican party planks on education, Duncan today indicated that it was time to use accountability measures such as student data as part of the teacher evaluation process.

Duncan spoke of the need to improve the quality of the teaching in America and insisted that it was time to eliminate the prior practices that treated teachers “like interchangeable widgets.” More importantly, Duncan alluded to the current seniority and tenure rules as a system design that puts adults ahead of children.

Said Duncan of the format: “We are not only putting kids at risk, we’re putting the entire education system at risk.”

Much as those in the healthcare profession are not enamored by the recent proposals to that industry, the calls for compensation and evaluation changes for teachers were not entirely welcomed by NEA members in attendance today. According to reports, those members booed and hissed when Duncan addressed those topics during his speech.

A Major Shift for Democratic Party

In an effort to appease those members, Duncan insisted that he would seek these reforms in a collaborative way, working with teachers to implement the structural changes. That stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration and Secretary of Education Rod Paige’s, my way or the highway approach, during the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Yet the uproar may be just as strong especially since the proposed changes represent a significant shift for the party that has traditionally been most in line with educators in the past. Current teacher payment and retention policies, all previously supported by Democratic leadership, focus strictly on years of service and degree status earned. The only bonuses currently going to teachers go to those who have earned National Board certification.

And in reality, over time, Obama and Duncan may soon find they have a bigger fight on their hands as Democrats in Congress begin pushing back, taking more traditional positions on the teacher pay issue as they hear from those outraged NEA members. However, there is no doubt where Duncan and Obama are drawing the line at this point.

Both insist it is time education found ways to reward teachers according to the quality of the instruction they deliver and not the credentials they have earned.

Flickr photos courtesy of House Committee on Education and Labor and House Committee on Education and Labor.

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.

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.

Once the magic word was plastics. Today, however, the magic advice might lie in a two word phrase:

Keep working.

According to recent research, it turns out that the solution to preventing dementia might well be the very same one proffered to help our underfunded social security system remain solvent.

Yes, it might be time to forget about retiring early. Heck, it might just be time to forget about retiring period.

Mental Activity Is Critical

It has long been suspected that those who remain mentally active later in life may be able to postpone and/or lessen the effects of Alzheimer’s. While that notion has spawned a whole industry devoted to brain fitness, it turns out that simply working later in life might be that ticket to warding off the effects of the debilitating disease.

That fact came as a result of the research of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London. Experts took a look at more than 1,320 dementia patients, approximately 30% of them men.

Those who retired later in life developed Alzheimer’s at a later stage. As a simple association, for each additional year of employment there was about a six week later age of onset of the disease.

Use It or Lose It

There is a growing body of evidence pointing to the concept of cognitive reserve. For example, research shows that a quality education correlates to a reduced risk of dementia.

What is still unknown is whether we can continue to create cognitive reserve later in life or if by remaining mentally active we are able to preserve that brain status for a longer period. But the new philosophy of use it or lose it has moved from the world of physical fitness into the mental health field.

The study reveals that brain fitness may be maintained simply by the stimulation of the work environment.

Still, there were no findings to suggest that working longer would end the risk of Alzheimer’s. And others, like Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society, noted that the study’s small sample size minimizes the ability to draw firm conclusions.

“There could be a number of reasons why later retirement in men is linked with later onset of dementia,” Sorenson told the BBC. “Men who retire early often do so because of health conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes, which increase your risk of dementia.”

Time to Keep Working?

Sorenson went on to add that working helps keep your body active as well, another key factor to reducing the risk of dementia.

One aspect that was mentioned but received little discussion is that it might well be time to put an end to the notion of working full time until that one magic day when a person draws the retirement line. Currently, for many the process is a precipice that marks the end of the world of work and the start of the retirement years.

It would stand to reason that for a vast array of reasons, financial, societal (social security and medical impact), as well as mental, the shift away from the work world should be more gradual. Instead of calling it quits one day, older workers should be able to reduce both their weekly and their yearly number of hours on the job in a more gradual manner.

Brain images courtesy of jj_judes and Institut Douglas.

When it comes to intelligence, there has always been one fundamental question:

Is it a function of nature? Is it simply encoded in a child’s genes?

Or is it a function of nurture? Is it more about the environment that a child grows up in?

Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, addresses the topic in fundamental detail in his new book, “Intelligence and How to Get It.” And thank goodness for teachers, Nisbett insists that nurture is in fact paramount to intellectual development.

In fact, his message matches almost verbatim what we have discussed previously on our site:

• Praise the effort, not the achievement
• Teach the concept of delayed gratification
• Limit reprimands and use praise to stimulate curiosity.

The Nature versus Nurture Question

Nisbett takes exception to the notion that IQ is 75 to 85 percent inherited. Instead, he sees the gene implications at something less than 50 percent.

Nicholas D. Kristoff recently took a look at the nature versus nurture question and came away with enormous support of Nisbett’s book. The NY Times columnist notes the work of Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia who has conducted research that indicates IQ is minimally the result of genetics.

Kristof further cites studies that indicate that “when poor children are adopted into upper-middle-class households, their IQ’s rise by 12 points to 18 points.”

As for the importance of school, Kristof also notes that “children’s IQ’s drop or stagnate over the summer months when they are on vacation (particularly for kids whose parents don’t inflict books or summer programs on them).”

In Nisbett’s book, there is a strong push for early childhood education. Here again, Kristof offers support of Professor Nisbett by taking a look at the “Milwaukee Project.”

Assigning African-American children considered at risk for mental retardation randomly to two groups, the project offers enormous support for early childhood education. The mothers of the infants selected all had IQ’s below 80 and in many cases the fathers were absent.

The children were assigned either to a control group that received no additional support or to a group that enjoyed day care and educational programming from 6 months of age until the children were to enter first grade.

By the age of six the children experimental group had an IQ average of 120.7 as compared to the control group’s 87.2

Quality Pre-School for All

We previously noted the enormous educational success of Finland. Kati Tuurala, Microsoft’s education manager in Finland, indicates that the majority of Finland’s educational success can be traced to major reforms implemented in the 1970s.

One of those reforms centered upon an emphasis on primary education for every single child in the country. In Finland, students do not begin formal schooling until at age seven, two years after most American children begin school.

However, prior to entering school, all children have participated in a high-quality government funded preschool program. Interestingly, instead of focusing on getting a jump academically, Finland’s early-childhood program focuses on self-reflection and social behavior.

The early focus on self-reflection is seen as a key component for developing a level of personal responsibility towards learning. It is a focus more in line with the original theory of kindergarten set forth in 1837 by German Educator Friedrich Froebel. His kindergarten, literally meaning a “children’s garden,” was envisioned as a place and time where children could learn through play opportunities.

Ultimately, Finland appears to focus on the nurturing process during the preschool years and that appears to be the first step to eliminating socioeconomic differences within the school setting within the country.

Presidential Support

When it comes to the question of nature versus nurture, the data clearly indicates that the latter is indeed more than 50% of the equation. That is good news for educators, but even better news for society as a whole.

Fortunately, President Obama has come out in strong support of early childhood education, particularly for those children most at risk of school failure. Investing in quality pre-school opportunities clearly helps give children from poverty-stricken areas the chance at a stronger start in school and in life.

If we are serious about helping our children succeed in school, if we are truly interested in “Leaving No Child Behind,” we will take a hard look at this compelling data and begin investing greater sums at the early childhood level.

Come November, Maine voters will have the opportunity to vote down the state’s repressive school consolidation law.

Up in the tiny state of Maine, a great deal of time and energy over the past two years has centered upon the issue of school consolidation.

Initiated and pressed through the legislature by Democratic Governor John Baldacci, the move has been rightfully met with stiff opposition in many sectors of the state, particularly the more rural and less affluent areas. Thanks to the hard work of Skip Greenlaw and his push to create a citizen’s referendum, the issue will return this fall to the place it rightfully belongs, to the hands of Maine voters.

Enacting School Consolidation

Most educators and a large number of community members still have not forgiven the Governor for his heavy-handed approach to the matter of reducing the number of school districts in Maine. While the general consensus had been that Maine could reduce the number of school districts, that consensus was immediately weakened by the methods the governor utilized to bring about the change.

First, there was the fact that the governor made no mention of his plan to reduce the number of school districts while on the campaign trail. Once re-elected, he shocked the educational community with a proposed plan to reduce Maine’s 290 school districts to 26.

Particularly appalling was the governor’s own words at the time. Bill Nemitz, writing for the Maine Sunday Telegram quoted the governor as follows: “I’m not running for anything anymore. And I think I should take advantage of that for the citizens’ sake.”

The idea that he would admit to acting one way while campaigning and yet another once elected had some expressing that he lacked the “courage to stand up for what he truly thinks is right while running for office.”

The Maine writer went on to refer to the governor in a number of unflattering terms, calling him Baldacci the Bulldozer and likening him to the fictional character, Rocky Balboa.

Unrealistic Timeline

Within the governor’s push to consolidate were a number of unrealistic proposals. First, there was the two year timeline proposed to bring about the change and the number of potential districts.

Though the number of districts was later modified to a more manageable number of 80, the two-year timeline essentially remained intact. That timeline can certainly be tested as the state approaches the end of the second year.

To date, Maine voters have already rejected 22 of 46 proposed regional school units involving their local districts. Most recently, 11 of the 18 proposed were rejected in late January.

So more than half of the towns attempting to create regional school units have seen their community reject consolidation measures. Given that the heavy-handed approach includes stiff financial penalties for not consolidating, these votes are extremely telling of the current view of Maine citizens.

Unrealistic Projected Savings

Then there was the preposterous suggestion that within the first three years the state could see as much as $250 million in savings. Those numbers were later significantly revised to a projected $30-40 million annually.

Those dollars were to come from the reduction of central office staff. In his proposal the governor insisted that those savings would come from the reduction of “back room office personnel.” He also insisted that districts would not need to reduce the number of schools to obtain such savings.

To get a sense of the comparative real savings, though several districts have in fact been approved, the estimates outside the Governor’s office have the consolidation work thus far saving about $1.6 million.

At the same time, many communities are finding that consolidation positively impacts one town in a proposed regional school unit but does so at the expense of another town in the RSU. At the same time there are a number of unresolved issues related to federal grant eligibility. At first glance, some new units now believe that creating a larger district may have negatively impacted their access to federal grant funds.

Unrealistic Implications

In addition to the unrealistic timeline and savings projections, the governor and his aides also insisted that consolidation was the path to improving the educational offerings for Maine students. That amazing claim continues to be part of the consolidation push but those who have done any research on the matter understand full well that there is no data to support this improvement assertion.

While no hard agreement exists on optimal school size, the research generally suggests a maximum of 300-400 students for elementary schools and 400-800 for secondary schools. In addition, many studies that seek to focus on the social and emotional aspects of student success conclude that no school should be larger than 500. Only in more affluent communities can test data support larger schools and in general, the poorer the school, the smaller it should be.

In addition, there is also clear research that there is no ideal size for school districts though generally smaller districts have better achievement, affective and social outcomes. More importantly, the larger a district becomes, the greater the district resources devoted to secondary and/or non-essential activities. And as with school size, there is a negative correlation between district size and student achievement when the student population is primarily low-income.

Ultimately, a review of the data indicates that the elimination of school districts will neither improve education nor enhance cost-effectiveness.

Will of the People

Last week, the Maine legislature elected to put aside several school consolidation amendment bills and wait to see what voters have to say come November. The willingness to defer to the will of people on this matter represented a refreshing change from the legislature’s willingness to tinker with the law previously.

It also contrasted with the governor who has continued his heavy-handed approach by pledging to actively work towards defeating the pending citizen’s referendum proposal.

So finally, this fall Maine voters will have the chance to speak collectively regarding the issue. The loss of local control and the clear data that larger schools are not equated with higher educational performance will certainly bring a number of votes to repeal the law. Those will likely be offset by voters who are of the fiscal mindset that school costs must be reduced.

For both of those groups as well as those yet undecided, the February 2009 edition of Rural Policy Matters explains why all citizens should cast the repressive consolidation law aside.
 
“Maine consolidation has become what state mandated consolidation usually becomes — something the rich force on the poor for the sake of cutting their state aid.” 
 
Flickr photos courtesy of SarekofVulcan, yomanimus and lachance.

There is growing consensus that the educational system in America is falling short when it comes to preparing our children for the future. As to the method for improving our current system today, the general focus centers upon increased accountability and a need for higher academic standards.

While there is little doubt that we have many schools in need of improvement, the idea that all of our educational woes are a result of under-performing schools and inadequate instruction is a gross over-simplification. As but one example that demonstrates the enormous complexity facing public schools in our country, we note this story of homeless children which aired Tuesday, March 31st, on PBS.

The story of Tiberius is one every public school critic should hear. Able to articulate his feelings of inadequacy, yet more withdrawn and carrying a burden that no one so young should ever have to shoulder, Tiberius’ educational progress this school year could never be adequately measured by a standardized test score.

Nor should the performance of his teacher be downgraded should Tiberius be unable to demonstrate the skills necessary for promotion. It is preposterous to think that the math or writing skills of a child in need of food and clothing are not affected by the student’s predicament.

As Ms. Hoople notes so well, sometimes “their emotions get in the way.”

And in these time of severe budget cuts, is it not increasingly clear why so many inner city schools cry out when social workers become the first of educational employees to fall victim to the budget knife?

But going back to those test scores and higher standards, the words of Mr. Hannemann certainly offer a different perspective:

“You do the best that you can with the time that you have; and you just keep moving forward.”

America may, in places, have issues with school quality. But watching this PBS story it is easy to see why so many people insist that school improvement measures cannot be handled in isolation, not until we as a country begin to deal with the other crisis affecting our kids: the growing number of them living in poverty.

The data recorded by Natalia Palacios regarding immigrant children’s early learning could have major ramifications for educators seeking answers to America’s high drop out rates.

Her findings in fact have caused some to ask, “Is the process of becoming an American a developmental risk for future generations?”

Palacios Work
The recent work of Palacios is actually consistent with other studies done on immigrant adolescents. Palacios’ longitudinal study of 17,000 children from kindergarten through third grade examined the reading achievement levels of first-, second- and third-generation immigrant children.

Those unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the “Immigrant Paradox” will no doubt be startled by the researchers findings. Once she had controlled for English language proficiency, she found that first-generation children demonstrated higher performance reading levels than their second- or third-generation peers when measured at the end of kindergarten. Perhaps even more importantly, the gap grew even larger by third grade.

In addition to the reduced levels of academic success reported by Palacios, other studies have noted that the physical health and the ability to stay out of trouble also decline from first- to third-generation immigrant children. Once we control for socioeconomic status, the health of children from most immigrant groups worsens from the first to the third generations, the number of teenagers reporting substance abuse rises between generations and the levels of violent behavior increases.

What makes the data so difficult to understand is that new immigrants do extremely well in America particularly given the initial challenges they face. Despite limited language skills and little money, many first generation immigrants find success.

Of course, what makes the data interesting to educators is the fact that so many native-born American students are doing poorly in our schools. Moreover, it appears that the paradox does not exist in many other countries. In most other countries, the first generation does worse than the second and third generations – the exceptions being the US, New Zealand and Australia.

One Plausible Explanation
One simple explanation for the issue occurring here is that America is the land of immigrants. Therefore, there are potential networks in place for new immigrants to access and to help them make that initial transition. Such networks do not appear to be as well-established in other countries.

A second thought, one postulated by researchers, is that immigrants often come with a strong educational background. That background is likely more important than the socioeconomic status of those seeking entry into America.

Unfortunately, as the future generations become more acculturated and more language proficient, they seem to do worse in school. Researchers surmise that these individuals may begin to buy in to the stereotypical notion regarding minorities in the United States, the belief that even if one works hard, discrimination will prevail.

Ultimately, the result is that foreign-born students outperform their American-born counterparts. Foreign-born students test higher, have higher school attendance rates and lower rates of participation in special education programs. They also graduate from high school at higher rates than the native-born.

One Not So Positive Possibility

In a recent article for EdWeek, Scholars Mull the ‘Paradox’ of Immigrants, Mary Ann Zehr first reports on a perplexed parent from Providence. In trying to put his arms around the issue, Tony Mendez spoke of the cultural differences he currently sees.

Mendez, who came to the United States when he was 12, noted he was puzzled by the differences of family members still living in the Dominican Republic. There, youngsters “take it as a given that they will finish high school and go to college.” Yet here in America, Dominican parents “find it hard to persuade their children to stay in high school.”

In essence, Mendez offers that the lack of success in school is perhaps due to the fact that second and third generations may suffer from a diminished sense of urgency regarding trying to make a better life. It may be as simple as, dare we say it, that the acculturated students begin to do less homework.

Min Zhou, a UCLA sociology professor, has a very different perspective. In her eyes, these U.S.-born children are unlike their parents. They are not likely to simply take any job they can get.

Instead, they begin to have expectations, and when those expectations are not met, they respond negatively. In other words, these second and third generation immigrants become a victim of our stratified society of the haves and the have nots.

Critical Issue for America

The current student drop out rate in America represents one of the most significant issues facing our schools and our country. But we also fall significantly short when measured against other nations when it comes to child welfare.

Nine million children without health insurance and more than 13 million living in poverty are numbers that are as striking as the fact that every 26 seconds another American drops out of high school.

Add to that fact the deteriorating results of second- and third-generation immigrants and one has to begin to wonder about the current fabric of our society. Certainly, with such data it is easy to see why some people are asking that incredibly poignant question:

Does becoming an American represent a developmental risk?

Flickr photos courtesy of Diego, Brittney Bush and Monroe’s DragonFly.