Category — Public Policy

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.

There are of course many folks who think President Barack Obama is trying to do too much too soon. Republicans, looking for every chance to assert their differences, have hammered on the president in recent days for not focusing his attention solely on the economy.

However, having run a campaign featuring the word hope and the call for a better future, the president has always insisted he would look to rebuild our country if given the chance to lead. Provided with that chance, on Tuesday Obama took a much-needed step toward a more prosperous country by addressing America’s maligned educational system.

And this time, he took a play out of the recent Republican playbook with calls for greater accountability and his endorsement of a GOP mainstay, the idea of school choice. But he did so on his terms and his steadfast focus on a long-term approach to rebuilding the country.

Pay for Teacher Performance

In direct opposition to the current position of the teachers unions, Obama called for measures to link teachers’ pay to student performance. Insisting that “the United States must drastically improve student achievement to regain lost international standing,” the president laid the groundwork for merit pay for teachers.

The concept is in direct opposition to the union position and the current trend to pay teachers according to their credentials and years of experience. While those elements could still form some basis of the pay scale in the future, Obama seeks to base raises on teacher effectiveness as measured by the performance levels of that teacher’s students.

In unveiling his push, President Obama acknowledged that he was in direct conflict with the union position. And since those unions make up a large segment of the Democratic Party, his position was also in conflict with a large segment of his own base of supporters.

But the change is remarkably consistent with his prior day’s speech regarding science and stem cell research. Instead of basing his decision on past practice or the view points of certain supporters, the president was acknowledging that all research points to higher student achievement levels in those classrooms where teachers excelled at their craft.

While some wanted to parse the president’s words regarding student performance, the tie to student achievement was not one of those areas he was willing to give in on. In clear, distinct support that student performance would be a factor in the merit pay concept, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told The Associated Press:

“What you want to do is really identify the best and brightest by a range of metrics, including student achievement.”

Expansion of Charter Schools

Obama also called for the expansion of innovative charter schools, another initiative that has long been opposed by the members of teachers unions. Charter schools are publicly funded but are operating independently of many of the constraints that current public schools face. They also are a key component of the move towards giving parents a choice as to where to send their children.

Critics insist that charter schools are being held to a different standard even as they drain precious resources from the established public schools. Those same critics believe the resource drainage come in two forms. First, there are the funds to pay for the schools. Second, there is the belief that charter schools are siphoning off the stronger, more motivated students, leaving public schools to work with the less-capable and the disinterested.

In direct opposition to those who want to see limits on the number of charter schools, Obama was unrelenting. Stating that many of the innovations in education today are taking place in charter schools, Obama insisted that placing limits on the number of such schools is not “good for our children, our economy or our country.”

Tackling Another Longstanding Issue

As if that were not enough, Obama also moved to one of the other growing criticisms of schools – the time kids spend in the classroom. In addition to the controversial proposals of merit pay and increased numbers of charter schools, the president insisted it was time for a longer school day and school years.

Ironically, while many of his positions were counter to that of the unions, the initial response of union leaders was remarkably positive. That view appeared to come primarily from Obama’s pledge to include educators in the process, a step that his predecessor is generally charged with avoiding virtually every step of the way.

In addition, the president did continue his support for at least one position not supported by the GOP, more money for early childhood education. That no doubt helped win him some additional support from educators.

While the economic stimulus bill is set to automatically provide additional funds for education over the next two years, some of those dollars are already supposed to be tied to teacher quality and on states developing better systems for tracking overall student progress.

Talking about Improving Education

While against union positions, Democrats have to be happy that Obama is putting education front and center. More importantly, Republicans and Democrats alike have to be happy that the president is willing to examine ideas from both sides of the aisle to ensure improvement in our schools.

While the economy is critical, school improvement is also one of America’s most pressing problems moving forward, especially when we consider our country’s long term viability in a global marketplace.

Flickr photos courtesy of BarackObamadotcom, Obama-Biden Transition Project and esagor.

David Brooks, the well-known op-ed columnist for the New York Times, recently gave us pause with a piece called “What Life Asks of Us.” Brooks begins by citing a Harvard faculty committee report from a few years back that offered the following purpose of education:

“The aim of a liberal education is to unsettle presumptions, to defamiliarize the familiar, to reveal what is going on beneath and behind appearances, to disorient young people and to help them to find ways to reorient themselves.”

Brooks goes on to summarize the report’s implications:

“The report implied an entire way of living,” noted Brooks. “Individuals should learn to think for themselves. They should be skeptical of pre-existing arrangements. They should break free from the way they were raised, examine life from the outside and discover their own values.”

Brooks offers that this approach is “deeply consistent with the individualism of modern culture, with its emphasis on personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness.”

Institutional Thinking

Brooks contrasts this current notion with “another, older way of living” that was discussed in a book by the political scientist Hugh Heclo called “On Thinking Institutionally.” In citing such a focus, Brooks almost hearkens back to Kennedy’s call in the early sixties.

“We are not defined by what we ask of life,” writes Brooks. “We are defined by what life asks of us. As we go through life, we travel through institutions — first family and school, then the institutions of a profession or a craft.”

And those institutions are crucial to Brooks. They provide “certain rules and obligations that tell us how to do what we’re supposed to do.

“New generations don’t invent institutional practices. These practices are passed down and evolve. So the institutionalist has a deep reverence for those who came before and built up the rules that he has temporarily taken delivery of.”

Brooks then goes to Heclo directly to offer:

“In taking delivery,” Heclo writes, “institutionalists see themselves as debtors who owe something, not creditors to whom something is owed.”

Reverence for Institutionalists

Brooks is no fan of our modern culture, the one described in that Harvard faculty report.

“The rules of a profession or an institution are not like traffic regulations,” writes Brooks. “There will be many long periods when you put more into your institutions than you get out.”

And this notion is so important to the writer:

“I try to keep a list of the people in public life I admire most,” Brooks adds. “Invariably, the people who make that list have subjugated themselves to their profession, social function or institution.”

He closes with the following support for institutional thinking:

“Institutions do all the things that are supposed to be bad. They impede personal exploration. They enforce conformity.

“But they often save us from our weaknesses and give meaning to life.”

Different View

Over at Brian Barrington’s Blog, little reverence is expressed for Brooks’ thoughts. Barrington sees Brooks as offering nothing more than the traditional conservative line.

He goes on to note some of our prior institutional practices that were rightly questioned: slavery, the right of women to vote, and a time when child labor was an effective way to reduce factory costs.

Institutionalists would be “telling us that women should get back in their kitchens where they can be happy,” writes Barrington, “or else it will be the end of civilization as we know it. They would have been telling us that the women they most admire are the ones who stay in their kitchens where they do the work that gives meaning to their lives.”

Barrington makes some great points. Clearly, many of our most positive societal changes have come from times when individuals have in fact examined life from the outside and subsequently called into question some existing institutional behaviors, if not those institutions themselves.

Personal vs Societal

And yet we are reminded of the fundamental notion of institutions: “structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals …. identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior.”

That definition, along with the premises that Brooks set forth, is precisely why his op-ed piece gave us such pause. It reminds us of Bill Bradley’s notion that the biggest challenge we face is that neither of our political parties offers a philosophy that fits our current world.

We cannot so easily dismiss what Brooks notes. It is important to ask, do we see ourselves “as debtors who owe something” or as “creditors to whom something is owed.”

There is also great merit in our young people learning that “there will be many long periods when you put more into your institutions than you get out.”

At the same time, we have great concern that the emphasis on personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness is in fact undermining our fundamental need for cooperative human behavior.

Somehow, we must find a proper balance between the two notions.

Which leads back to the fundamental question, what should be the aim of education, liberal or otherwise?

Flickr photo courtesy of DoubleSpeakShow.