The residents of the great state of New Jersey have invested in a high quality public school structure for the youth of this state. Each locality maintains local control over the system of local public schools under a larger umbrella of state oversight. The collaboration of both state and local educational officials in defining learning expectations for all students has resulted in some very good news for pubic schools in New Jersey. By extension, all children enrolled in Hopatcong Public Schools benefit from the very high expectations and teacher preparation that serve as the foundation of our public schools. In turn, the schools in Hopatcong Borough are very proud of the contribution we make to the overall success for students in our state.
Here are some of the things that residents have an investment in and have reason to be proud:
• Writing scores are the best in the nation (National Center for Education Statistics)
• Math scores are among the nation’s best (NCES)
• Reading scores are in the top of the nation (NCES)
• Public school students outperform private schools in AP testing (College Board)
• High school graduation rate ranks number one nationally (Education Week)
• Students are near the top for college preparation (National Center for Public Policy)
• New Jersey is among the “Smartest States” based on the quality of public schools (Education State Rankings 2007-2008)
• Leading the nation in the number of children attending preschool (Education Week)
• Leads the nation in reducing the achievement gap (NCES)
With over 2,500 schools in the state and close to 600 school districts the efforts of our teachers and administrative leaders clearly has a high payback. Over 1.3 million children attend our schools each day for 180 days. The investment that New Jersey makes each year to support public education is indicative of the effort needed to sustain and continue providing a strong foundation for the children and youth who live here.
As superintendent of Hopatcong Public School and member of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), I oversee the education of about 2,200 of New Jersey’s young people from pre-K through high school. The success of our schools is due largely to the commitment of local citizens and authorities. We have dedicated and committed teachers and educators who are highly motivated to provide quality instruction for all children. Hopatcong continues to set high goals and expectations for our schools and we are constantly receiving positive feedback on our efforts.
I received a call from the NJEA Classroom Close-Up project informing us that a television crew would be visiting Tulsa Trail Elementary School on January 27, 2010 to film a segment in one of our award-winning classrooms. Danielle Kovach, our $10,000 classroom makeover winner and her class will be the focus of this effort. Principal Jeff Nesnay expressed pride and commented on how well deserved this recognition is for the school and community.
Not all recognition is this highly visible. Principal Tracey Hensz of the Hudson-Maxim Elementary School forwarded a letter she received from a happy parent. She attended a musical event at the school and said the following: “I would like to take a moment to express how wonderful this event was. I thought all of the children did such a lovely job with learning all of the songs and delivering them to us the audience loud and proud. I would also like to say how impressive it was to see how well all of the faculty interact with the children.”
There are countless examples of the positive connections our schools make with the community of Hopatcong. Two weeks ago my wife and I attended the high school drama club production of “The Three Muskateers” and were thrilled with the quality of the overall performances. The students of our schools are under the mentorship of excellent adult role-models and master teachers in all disciplines.
Our students are fortunate to attend school in a place where education is highly regarded and the achievement bar is set so high. The four “A’s” of education are each valued and attended to in Hopatcong: Academics, Arts, Activities, and Athletics, and our young clients-the future citizens of an expanding global society-are the beneficiaries of this enormous effort to bring world-class educational experiences to our children. The AASA and NJASA support our efforts to teach the “Whole Child” not only the cognitive skills needed but the rich experiences all youth need to thrive in a democratic society. These accomplishments in New Jersey and nationwide serve as a source of pride and prove that a continued investment of funding and energy for public education has a real and measurable payoff.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Another Reason to Celebrate Youth in Hopatcong, New Jersey
As a school superintendent I am asked to do many things during the week and occasionally on weekends. Recently my wife and I were invited to the annual Hopatcong Warriors annual awards dinner along with our mayor and her husband. The Hopatcong Warriors is a town sponsored football and cheerleading football program for elementary and middle school youngsters in our community. It is an organization that has been serving the needs of our youth for many decades and is indicative of the deep support that the families in this town place upon the young people who live here.
Being a new superintendent here in Hopatcong, New Jersey, means that I have a lot of learning to do and first impressions speak volumes. To say I was favorably impressed with the event is clearly an understatement. I was overwhelmed by the awards banquet and the number of children and young people honored at this event. The outpouring of parent and community support for this program was nothing short of amazing. For approximately four hours the guests and parents in attendance were treated to testimonials from coaches and assistant coaches, executive board members, volunteers, and others regarding the accomplishments of individual children throughout the current season.
President Dan Titus and his wife Debbie were gracious hosts and thirty-year contributor John Young (also a member of the Borough Town Council) was honored for his three decades of dedication as a Warriors volunteer. Clearly, the reward for all of the hard work that drives such a successful organization is total selflessness-everyone connected to the program stated a common philosophy and motivation for contributing: building value in our youth. This is exactly what we are attempting to accomplish in Hopatcong’s public schools and to witness the efforts of the community to parallel our efforts was thrilling for this superintendent.
Athletics has a prominent place in and out of our schools in the critical development of values and character in our youth. It is part of a balanced equation that includes the Arts, Activities and Academics: what we refer to as the Four A’s of Education. Many of the speakers at the Warrior’s banquet eluded to the growth and successes of the participants this season-not in terms of wins or losses but in terms of developmental maturation. Simply stated, the youth gained in many ways from their participation: persistence, trust, hard-work, character growth, dependability, respect for others, fortitude, decision-making, teamwork, etc., and the list goes on and on.
The collective efforts of parents involved in the Warriors program is clearly indicative of an investment this community makes in its young people. The payback is enormous: Human Capital. The community, by supporting such vigorous programs for the young people, is investing in the very future of Hopatcong and by extension the future of American society itself.
As superintendent of schools I am compelled to articulate a theme that we appropriately began to use this year: “CELEBRATE WHAT’S RIGHT WITH HOPATCONG.” I can think of no greater example of what connects the schools to the community than the programs Hopatcong has in place for the young people in our town. The people here in Hopatcong are the driving force in this effort to invest all their energy into the success of the children. I can assure them that the same level of energy and commitment is present in our schools throughout the school year. Together we form a bond of support when it comes to what Hopatcong Borough values most: our children.
Being a new superintendent here in Hopatcong, New Jersey, means that I have a lot of learning to do and first impressions speak volumes. To say I was favorably impressed with the event is clearly an understatement. I was overwhelmed by the awards banquet and the number of children and young people honored at this event. The outpouring of parent and community support for this program was nothing short of amazing. For approximately four hours the guests and parents in attendance were treated to testimonials from coaches and assistant coaches, executive board members, volunteers, and others regarding the accomplishments of individual children throughout the current season.
President Dan Titus and his wife Debbie were gracious hosts and thirty-year contributor John Young (also a member of the Borough Town Council) was honored for his three decades of dedication as a Warriors volunteer. Clearly, the reward for all of the hard work that drives such a successful organization is total selflessness-everyone connected to the program stated a common philosophy and motivation for contributing: building value in our youth. This is exactly what we are attempting to accomplish in Hopatcong’s public schools and to witness the efforts of the community to parallel our efforts was thrilling for this superintendent.
Athletics has a prominent place in and out of our schools in the critical development of values and character in our youth. It is part of a balanced equation that includes the Arts, Activities and Academics: what we refer to as the Four A’s of Education. Many of the speakers at the Warrior’s banquet eluded to the growth and successes of the participants this season-not in terms of wins or losses but in terms of developmental maturation. Simply stated, the youth gained in many ways from their participation: persistence, trust, hard-work, character growth, dependability, respect for others, fortitude, decision-making, teamwork, etc., and the list goes on and on.
The collective efforts of parents involved in the Warriors program is clearly indicative of an investment this community makes in its young people. The payback is enormous: Human Capital. The community, by supporting such vigorous programs for the young people, is investing in the very future of Hopatcong and by extension the future of American society itself.
As superintendent of schools I am compelled to articulate a theme that we appropriately began to use this year: “CELEBRATE WHAT’S RIGHT WITH HOPATCONG.” I can think of no greater example of what connects the schools to the community than the programs Hopatcong has in place for the young people in our town. The people here in Hopatcong are the driving force in this effort to invest all their energy into the success of the children. I can assure them that the same level of energy and commitment is present in our schools throughout the school year. Together we form a bond of support when it comes to what Hopatcong Borough values most: our children.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Storm Clouds Gather for Public Education Funding
On the heels of recent state elections in New Jersey and across the country looms a dark shadow of things to come and the news is far from good for public education. The federal effort to stem the tide of declining state revenues by inserting $787 billion into the economy of which $100 billion was targeted for education nationwide appears to be unwinding. As public schools turn their attention to the next annual budgeting process it becomes apparent that state governments are unable or incapable of replacing the funding gaps they created when accepting federal stimulus dollars and subsequently removing state contributions.
What was intended as a gesture of good will on behalf of the federal government by committing the unprecedented $100 billion toward education for the creation of new jobs and programs ended up merely plugging the holes created when state governments withdrew funding for education budgets as fast as federal dollars flowed. According to the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), based in Arlington, Virginia, the stimulus aid fell short in preventing educational staffing cuts and operational declines nationwide. In an attempt to avoid teacher layoffs many school districts cut administrative and support staff. The problem for the next budget cycle may manifest itself in the form of increased teacher layoffs and swelling class sizes for many districts across the country.
According to a recent study conducted by AASA one-third of the responding school districts reported they were unable to avert cuts to core teaching jobs. The percentage of districts surveyed report a six fold increase from 6 percent to 34 percent in increased class size. This is a good indicator of things to come as an almost perfect storm is created when the stimulus funds disappear and the revenue streams of state budgets continue to decline nationwide. Over forty percent of states report mid-year budget gaps presently and it is expected that most if not all will continue to experience declining revenue sources in 2010-2011.
If most state governments had not backed off on their own commitment to public educational funding when stimulus funding became available schools might be able to weather this storm. But many school business administrators across the nation are bracing for deep cuts from state sources as reports of declining commitments to public education are becoming apparent. At the same time additional federal dollars dedicated to disadvantaged students from Title I and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act will also shrink this coming year.
Schools will not feel the effects of this perfect storm until they enter the 2010-2011 budget planning cycle. Chief School Administrators will be confronted with serious and difficult decisions about what staff to cut and programs to end. The resulting erosion to a system of pubic education already under widespread attack from federal and state politicians may not easily recover from the ensuing damage that will be inflicted upon them.
As a practicing school superintendent in Hopatcong, New Jersey, it is apparent that we must protect every program that benefits our children. This includes the rich experiences that children and adolescents receive from core academics, school activities, fine and performing arts, and athletic participation. We cannot fail to educate all of our children and respond to all of their specific talents, interests and needs. Further, we must not fail to maintain and keep safe our buildings, grounds, and critical infrastructure. The choices we will be forced to make next year may be the most overwhelming in decades.
The system for funding public education is broken not the system of public education itself, as political forces would have us believe. At a time when schools across this fine country are responding to the increased call for educating a 21st century globally articulate workforce, the political winds are pushing us far from the anticipated direction educators know we need to take. America’s competitive and collaborative edge in this new world order is at risk, severe risk.
The local taxpayer continues to shoulder the costs for providing communities with a quality system of schools, but cannot tolerate much more of a burden as state and federal officials pull funding commitments back to inadequate levels. This raises the same questions that New Jersey lawmakers attempted to resolve almost thirty years ago concerning the adequacy and equity of educational funding in a far-reaching legal case of Abbott v. Burke (New Jersey, 1981 filing).
The quality of public education continues to rely on the local community’s ability and willingness to pay putting economically and resource starved areas in New Jersey (and other states) at risk. Until the economy strengthens and taxpayers begin to climb out of a deep recession many schools will be asked to continue to deliver services to children with less of a financial commitment.
I have deep concerns over the expectations for future school budgets given the tension that these difficult economic times have created. The acronym NCBL (No Child Left Behind) may just become No Country Left Behind, as the federal and state budget shortfalls further erode the quality of public education in America. We are near a tipping point and next year may be the most challenging ever for our schools and the nation’s educators.
What was intended as a gesture of good will on behalf of the federal government by committing the unprecedented $100 billion toward education for the creation of new jobs and programs ended up merely plugging the holes created when state governments withdrew funding for education budgets as fast as federal dollars flowed. According to the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), based in Arlington, Virginia, the stimulus aid fell short in preventing educational staffing cuts and operational declines nationwide. In an attempt to avoid teacher layoffs many school districts cut administrative and support staff. The problem for the next budget cycle may manifest itself in the form of increased teacher layoffs and swelling class sizes for many districts across the country.
According to a recent study conducted by AASA one-third of the responding school districts reported they were unable to avert cuts to core teaching jobs. The percentage of districts surveyed report a six fold increase from 6 percent to 34 percent in increased class size. This is a good indicator of things to come as an almost perfect storm is created when the stimulus funds disappear and the revenue streams of state budgets continue to decline nationwide. Over forty percent of states report mid-year budget gaps presently and it is expected that most if not all will continue to experience declining revenue sources in 2010-2011.
If most state governments had not backed off on their own commitment to public educational funding when stimulus funding became available schools might be able to weather this storm. But many school business administrators across the nation are bracing for deep cuts from state sources as reports of declining commitments to public education are becoming apparent. At the same time additional federal dollars dedicated to disadvantaged students from Title I and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act will also shrink this coming year.
Schools will not feel the effects of this perfect storm until they enter the 2010-2011 budget planning cycle. Chief School Administrators will be confronted with serious and difficult decisions about what staff to cut and programs to end. The resulting erosion to a system of pubic education already under widespread attack from federal and state politicians may not easily recover from the ensuing damage that will be inflicted upon them.
As a practicing school superintendent in Hopatcong, New Jersey, it is apparent that we must protect every program that benefits our children. This includes the rich experiences that children and adolescents receive from core academics, school activities, fine and performing arts, and athletic participation. We cannot fail to educate all of our children and respond to all of their specific talents, interests and needs. Further, we must not fail to maintain and keep safe our buildings, grounds, and critical infrastructure. The choices we will be forced to make next year may be the most overwhelming in decades.
The system for funding public education is broken not the system of public education itself, as political forces would have us believe. At a time when schools across this fine country are responding to the increased call for educating a 21st century globally articulate workforce, the political winds are pushing us far from the anticipated direction educators know we need to take. America’s competitive and collaborative edge in this new world order is at risk, severe risk.
The local taxpayer continues to shoulder the costs for providing communities with a quality system of schools, but cannot tolerate much more of a burden as state and federal officials pull funding commitments back to inadequate levels. This raises the same questions that New Jersey lawmakers attempted to resolve almost thirty years ago concerning the adequacy and equity of educational funding in a far-reaching legal case of Abbott v. Burke (New Jersey, 1981 filing).
The quality of public education continues to rely on the local community’s ability and willingness to pay putting economically and resource starved areas in New Jersey (and other states) at risk. Until the economy strengthens and taxpayers begin to climb out of a deep recession many schools will be asked to continue to deliver services to children with less of a financial commitment.
I have deep concerns over the expectations for future school budgets given the tension that these difficult economic times have created. The acronym NCBL (No Child Left Behind) may just become No Country Left Behind, as the federal and state budget shortfalls further erode the quality of public education in America. We are near a tipping point and next year may be the most challenging ever for our schools and the nation’s educators.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Should Schools Deliver H1N1 Vaccinations?
As state departments of health begin to unroll plans for the mass vaccination of children schools are now requested to assist with these large scale efforts. With very little information or knowledge regarding the implications of administering vaccines school superintendents are placed in a difficult leadership position. Do we agree to use public schools as conduits for widespread delivery of the N1H1 vaccination or do we proceed with caution and possibly remove our schools from this process given certain unknown risk factors for children?
As a school superintendent I accept the responsibility for the critical role that we play in providing for the health, safety, and welfare of children. On the surface, vaccinating children appears to be a move in the right direction regarding the health and safety of school-age children. But on balance the wholesale endorsement of providing schools as the vehicle for the delivery of vaccinations is filled with unanswered questions and perhaps even difficult ethical choices.
Schools are being directed to complete interest surveys at present with the assumption that we are the logical institutions for the efficient delivery of mass vaccinations for children. Prior to signing on to this effort it may be prudent for us to consider the unintended consequences of placing the imprimatur of the schools on this unprecedented effort. The risks appear to be minimal but many consequences may need to be considered prior to participating in the delivery of vaccinations.
Even if a school only provides a place and time for vaccination of children the perception is that the school approves and by extension endorses the vaccination. Having the imprint of the school is powerful psychologically as parents or guardians may feel a subtle pressure to have their child included. The fact that it is endorsed by school officials is a powerful psychological one and may persuade many uninformed guardians of children to sign on to the process.
The vaccine is designed for “healthy children ages 2 – 18” according to the Center for Disease Control. What parameters define a seemingly “healthy” child? Public schools experience tremendous variation in physical disabilities in their school populations. It is assumed that children with identified or pre-existing health conditions would likely be excluded. But what of young children with yet-to-be-identified developmental health conditions? The under-identified population of children with bronchial or other health related conditions are a large concern for us in public education. We currently struggle to provide health-related services to an increasing number of children with specific acute needs and the implications of administering relatively untested vaccinations across a wide spectrum of young children is a chilling prospect.
Parental notification and ensuing permission has not been addressed. How and what do we communicate regarding a mass inoculation in public schools? Does this form of communication originate with school officials (who are not experts in disease control and mitigation) and what advice to we provide to parents? Do permission forms that a school may distribute to parents pass legal muster? Who assumes the responsibility for any vaccination that may prove faulty or even lethal to a young child?
From a logistical perspective it may not be ideal for vaccinations to be administered during the school day or even in a school setting for very young children. The negative psychological results can place fear in a child regarding the vaccination and children receiving such vaccinations may present illness or sickness associated with a vaccination. A degree of Mass Sociogenic Illness (MSI) can be attributed by extension to the receipt of the vaccination. This is a social phenomenon patients experience when they believe they have been exposed to a virus and may experience symptoms triggered by a psychological response.
Of the entire spectrum of children present in public schools do we administer these vaccinations to our pre-school populations? The vaccine is supposed to be made available to children as young as two. Who makes this judgment call on behalf of the state government? What assurances are in place that guarantee the supply of vaccinations are entirely safe for very young children?
The argument for public schools in the mass vaccination of children presents many challenges for administrators who want to be good sheppards of the public trust. Yet the ethical decision to allow schools to participate is filled with emotional and behavioral challenges. I suggest a cautious approach to the endorsement of schools in the process for mass vaccination of children and recognize that public schools have much at stake in sharing the risks associated with this public safety effort. These type of decisions are not easy for school leaders and more support is needed from health experts before we proceed. What do you think?
As a school superintendent I accept the responsibility for the critical role that we play in providing for the health, safety, and welfare of children. On the surface, vaccinating children appears to be a move in the right direction regarding the health and safety of school-age children. But on balance the wholesale endorsement of providing schools as the vehicle for the delivery of vaccinations is filled with unanswered questions and perhaps even difficult ethical choices.
Schools are being directed to complete interest surveys at present with the assumption that we are the logical institutions for the efficient delivery of mass vaccinations for children. Prior to signing on to this effort it may be prudent for us to consider the unintended consequences of placing the imprimatur of the schools on this unprecedented effort. The risks appear to be minimal but many consequences may need to be considered prior to participating in the delivery of vaccinations.
Even if a school only provides a place and time for vaccination of children the perception is that the school approves and by extension endorses the vaccination. Having the imprint of the school is powerful psychologically as parents or guardians may feel a subtle pressure to have their child included. The fact that it is endorsed by school officials is a powerful psychological one and may persuade many uninformed guardians of children to sign on to the process.
The vaccine is designed for “healthy children ages 2 – 18” according to the Center for Disease Control. What parameters define a seemingly “healthy” child? Public schools experience tremendous variation in physical disabilities in their school populations. It is assumed that children with identified or pre-existing health conditions would likely be excluded. But what of young children with yet-to-be-identified developmental health conditions? The under-identified population of children with bronchial or other health related conditions are a large concern for us in public education. We currently struggle to provide health-related services to an increasing number of children with specific acute needs and the implications of administering relatively untested vaccinations across a wide spectrum of young children is a chilling prospect.
Parental notification and ensuing permission has not been addressed. How and what do we communicate regarding a mass inoculation in public schools? Does this form of communication originate with school officials (who are not experts in disease control and mitigation) and what advice to we provide to parents? Do permission forms that a school may distribute to parents pass legal muster? Who assumes the responsibility for any vaccination that may prove faulty or even lethal to a young child?
From a logistical perspective it may not be ideal for vaccinations to be administered during the school day or even in a school setting for very young children. The negative psychological results can place fear in a child regarding the vaccination and children receiving such vaccinations may present illness or sickness associated with a vaccination. A degree of Mass Sociogenic Illness (MSI) can be attributed by extension to the receipt of the vaccination. This is a social phenomenon patients experience when they believe they have been exposed to a virus and may experience symptoms triggered by a psychological response.
Of the entire spectrum of children present in public schools do we administer these vaccinations to our pre-school populations? The vaccine is supposed to be made available to children as young as two. Who makes this judgment call on behalf of the state government? What assurances are in place that guarantee the supply of vaccinations are entirely safe for very young children?
The argument for public schools in the mass vaccination of children presents many challenges for administrators who want to be good sheppards of the public trust. Yet the ethical decision to allow schools to participate is filled with emotional and behavioral challenges. I suggest a cautious approach to the endorsement of schools in the process for mass vaccination of children and recognize that public schools have much at stake in sharing the risks associated with this public safety effort. These type of decisions are not easy for school leaders and more support is needed from health experts before we proceed. What do you think?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Negative Consequences of National Educational Standardization
The push is on by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governor's Assoication Center for Best Practices to develop a set of common academic standards for America's public schools. The new version details expectations of what students should know and be able to do by the end of high school in math and language arts. All this in an effort to define guidelines for determining college and career readiness. A total of forty-eight states are attached to the effort to develop common core standards in response to the fragmented patchwork of separate state standards in use today. All this effort to quantify what students need to know by the time they graduate high school has been in the making for over fifty years now. We need to be cautious about the unintended consequences of the efforts of government officials to decide what it is that represents the best educational practices in our schools and which standardized tests measure adequate student achievement.
A standardized test is any test that is administered, scored, and interpreted in a standard, predetermined manner(W. James Popham). Such tests are designed to make predictions about how a test taker will perform in a subsequent setting (post-secondary, community college, university, etc.). The ACT and SAT tests are typically used to predict the grades that high school students may earn at the post-secondary level. These tests were never meant to compare results across cohort groups of students nor measure intelligence across various demographic groups.
According to Popham, in an effort to boost student's state standardized test scores many teachers are forced to jettison curricular content not apt to be covered on an upcoming test. As a result, students may end up educationally shortchanged. I ask what about the value of arts education: drama, vocal music, band, jazz ensemble, strings, visual arts, physical education, dance, movement education? Are not these subjects a vital part of the curriculum as well as the core content standards? How about the activities such as student government and extracurricular clubs that serve to engage students in America's schools? Popham refers to the narrowing of curriculum as "Curricular Reductionism", it is becoming more and more like "Curriculum Destructionism".
Popham goes on to state that because it is essentially impossible to raise students' test scores on instructionally insensitive tests, many schools and teachers require seemingly endless practice with items similar to those on an approaching accountability test. This dreary drilling often stamps out any genuine joy students might experience while they learn. Is this the purpose for education? These negative consequences of standardization and standardized tests as measuring tools make it apparent that we are on a path driven by invalid evaluations and misleading consequences about the worth and value of American education. Beyond that, such reliance on standardized tests can dramatically lower the quality of education overall.
To be ready for college and post-secondary career readiness today's students need a more flexible mastery of the fundamentals in each academic discipline. To be ready for the next phase of life, students will also need to be able to apply their content knowledge to new and even unexpected situations throughout their years as graduates in the workforce. For years American industry has been demanding that schools produce thinkers: young workers capable of problem-solving and decision-making, literate, cooperative and collaborative, and loyal to the company ethics and task at hand. Yet public education has been subjected to an unprecedented mountain of state and federal regulations and testing designed to satisfy the political hungar for quantitative data associated with comparitive reductionist interests.
So how does all this benefit our children? Short answer-it does not benefit children. However, since delicate and fragile funding sources are at risk in this era of standardization and standardized tests, schools are forced to embrace standardized testing and the now apparent proposed common academic standards in the name of school reform. We need to weigh carefully the balance any school district must strike between towing the line and producing higher test results with the interests of what the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development calls the "Whole Child" so we do not loose sight of the reason schools exist in the fist place: for children. What do you think?
Posted by Charles Maranzano, Jr. at 4:00 PM
A standardized test is any test that is administered, scored, and interpreted in a standard, predetermined manner(W. James Popham). Such tests are designed to make predictions about how a test taker will perform in a subsequent setting (post-secondary, community college, university, etc.). The ACT and SAT tests are typically used to predict the grades that high school students may earn at the post-secondary level. These tests were never meant to compare results across cohort groups of students nor measure intelligence across various demographic groups.
According to Popham, in an effort to boost student's state standardized test scores many teachers are forced to jettison curricular content not apt to be covered on an upcoming test. As a result, students may end up educationally shortchanged. I ask what about the value of arts education: drama, vocal music, band, jazz ensemble, strings, visual arts, physical education, dance, movement education? Are not these subjects a vital part of the curriculum as well as the core content standards? How about the activities such as student government and extracurricular clubs that serve to engage students in America's schools? Popham refers to the narrowing of curriculum as "Curricular Reductionism", it is becoming more and more like "Curriculum Destructionism".
Popham goes on to state that because it is essentially impossible to raise students' test scores on instructionally insensitive tests, many schools and teachers require seemingly endless practice with items similar to those on an approaching accountability test. This dreary drilling often stamps out any genuine joy students might experience while they learn. Is this the purpose for education? These negative consequences of standardization and standardized tests as measuring tools make it apparent that we are on a path driven by invalid evaluations and misleading consequences about the worth and value of American education. Beyond that, such reliance on standardized tests can dramatically lower the quality of education overall.
To be ready for college and post-secondary career readiness today's students need a more flexible mastery of the fundamentals in each academic discipline. To be ready for the next phase of life, students will also need to be able to apply their content knowledge to new and even unexpected situations throughout their years as graduates in the workforce. For years American industry has been demanding that schools produce thinkers: young workers capable of problem-solving and decision-making, literate, cooperative and collaborative, and loyal to the company ethics and task at hand. Yet public education has been subjected to an unprecedented mountain of state and federal regulations and testing designed to satisfy the political hungar for quantitative data associated with comparitive reductionist interests.
So how does all this benefit our children? Short answer-it does not benefit children. However, since delicate and fragile funding sources are at risk in this era of standardization and standardized tests, schools are forced to embrace standardized testing and the now apparent proposed common academic standards in the name of school reform. We need to weigh carefully the balance any school district must strike between towing the line and producing higher test results with the interests of what the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development calls the "Whole Child" so we do not loose sight of the reason schools exist in the fist place: for children. What do you think?
Posted by Charles Maranzano, Jr. at 4:00 PM
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Teaching for Content and Skills: A 21st Century Perspective
Please allow me to share an important perspective that presents the issue of teaching for content and skills in a clear educational context.
A relevant article appeared in Education Week on April 22, 2009, authored by Richard H. Hersh, on the topic of teaching for content and skills. I would like all of us to reflect on his views and consider several conclusions based upon the thoughtful insight Hersh proposes:
Recent work in developmental, cognitive, and brain-based learning research makes it clear that this is not about content or skills, but content and skills. Learning involves constructing meaning, not just knowing about things; it is about being able to apply what one knows to novel situations. In a knowledge-rich world, being able to access, structure, and use content is crucial. What the New York Times writer Thomas L. Friedman calls a "Flat World"-the global leveling of opportunities resulting from the ways people, in his words, "plug, play, compete, connect, and collaborate with more equal power than ever before"-requires all of the knowledge, intellectual horsepower, rigor, and deep thinking we have traditionally associated with the best of education.
Instant access to 21st-century information technology does not absolve us of the need to master appropriate content. But equally necessary is the ability to connect disparate dots across virtually infinite information-to think critically, apply knowledge, solve problems, and write and speak well (thinking made public). And thus those arguing for teaching "21st-century skills" are also on very solid ground. The debate is not just about the ends of education but, equally important, its means - curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment-and where the emphasis on content and skill acquisition and its measurement ought to be placed, given limited time and resources.
Focusing solely on content learning is not sufficient, because there is ample evidence that content acquisition does not automatically translate into application of knowledge, problem-solving, or critical thinking. And focusing solely on teaching thinking skills devoid of content, as some critics worry, is a vacuous exercise.
Hersh continues: We must move beyond the flawed content-vs.-skills argument and the equally harmful effects of the reductionist learning objectives and assessment measures states have developed in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. We need to focus instead on tightly coupling the high expectations and standards, rich curricula, and pedagogy, and equally rich and appropriate learning assessment. These cannot be treated separately, for the research on effective schools clearly demonstrates that it is the cumulative effects of such coupling that promote significantly greater and better learning.
If teaching for 21st-century content and skills is our objective, what are the consequences of our not getting these linkages right?
I emphatically agree with Hersh. What do you think about this important matter? How does it shape the way you think, teach, or lead? Are there real consequences for not making these connections? Absolutely! I believe that we cannot dispense with either argument but must assimilate the two traditional positions on content vs. skills into one, not treat them separately.
For me, the debate about (content vs. skills) or (content and skills) brings to my mind a profound and beautifully conclusion written in a poem by Robert Frost ("Two Tramps in Mud Time") that with a little stretch of the imagination puts this into perspective for me:
"But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done."
For Heaven and the future's sakes"
It's all about the future as far as our children are concerned. Educators need to get this right and be thoroughly prepared for teaching both content and skills.
I have enjoyed sharing some of my educational insights with all of you. As I leave my position as Superintendent of Schools for Dinwiddie County in August, I will be posting my thoughts on other websights. In September I will begin a new position as Superintendent of Schools for Hopatcong Borough, New Jersey.
Thank you all for following and reflecting on these pages and for your feedback over the years.
Dr. Maranzano
A relevant article appeared in Education Week on April 22, 2009, authored by Richard H. Hersh, on the topic of teaching for content and skills. I would like all of us to reflect on his views and consider several conclusions based upon the thoughtful insight Hersh proposes:
Recent work in developmental, cognitive, and brain-based learning research makes it clear that this is not about content or skills, but content and skills. Learning involves constructing meaning, not just knowing about things; it is about being able to apply what one knows to novel situations. In a knowledge-rich world, being able to access, structure, and use content is crucial. What the New York Times writer Thomas L. Friedman calls a "Flat World"-the global leveling of opportunities resulting from the ways people, in his words, "plug, play, compete, connect, and collaborate with more equal power than ever before"-requires all of the knowledge, intellectual horsepower, rigor, and deep thinking we have traditionally associated with the best of education.
Instant access to 21st-century information technology does not absolve us of the need to master appropriate content. But equally necessary is the ability to connect disparate dots across virtually infinite information-to think critically, apply knowledge, solve problems, and write and speak well (thinking made public). And thus those arguing for teaching "21st-century skills" are also on very solid ground. The debate is not just about the ends of education but, equally important, its means - curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment-and where the emphasis on content and skill acquisition and its measurement ought to be placed, given limited time and resources.
Focusing solely on content learning is not sufficient, because there is ample evidence that content acquisition does not automatically translate into application of knowledge, problem-solving, or critical thinking. And focusing solely on teaching thinking skills devoid of content, as some critics worry, is a vacuous exercise.
Hersh continues: We must move beyond the flawed content-vs.-skills argument and the equally harmful effects of the reductionist learning objectives and assessment measures states have developed in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. We need to focus instead on tightly coupling the high expectations and standards, rich curricula, and pedagogy, and equally rich and appropriate learning assessment. These cannot be treated separately, for the research on effective schools clearly demonstrates that it is the cumulative effects of such coupling that promote significantly greater and better learning.
If teaching for 21st-century content and skills is our objective, what are the consequences of our not getting these linkages right?
I emphatically agree with Hersh. What do you think about this important matter? How does it shape the way you think, teach, or lead? Are there real consequences for not making these connections? Absolutely! I believe that we cannot dispense with either argument but must assimilate the two traditional positions on content vs. skills into one, not treat them separately.
For me, the debate about (content vs. skills) or (content and skills) brings to my mind a profound and beautifully conclusion written in a poem by Robert Frost ("Two Tramps in Mud Time") that with a little stretch of the imagination puts this into perspective for me:
"But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done."
For Heaven and the future's sakes"
It's all about the future as far as our children are concerned. Educators need to get this right and be thoroughly prepared for teaching both content and skills.
I have enjoyed sharing some of my educational insights with all of you. As I leave my position as Superintendent of Schools for Dinwiddie County in August, I will be posting my thoughts on other websights. In September I will begin a new position as Superintendent of Schools for Hopatcong Borough, New Jersey.
Thank you all for following and reflecting on these pages and for your feedback over the years.
Dr. Maranzano
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Federal School Food and Nutrition Costs Rise
The 2009 data from the United States Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) indicate that demand for school lunches nationwide have reached an all time high. The federal government has been involved in the National School Lunch Program since the 1946-47 school year. Since the humble beginning of this program to present day, over 30.5 million children now are fed in America’s schools with over 101,000 of our nation’s schools participating in the subsidized federal program. Since the modern program began, more than 214 billion lunches have been served. Dinwiddie County Public Schools, Virginia, all participate in the federal program and we serve about 750,000 meals per year.
Public or nonprofit private schools of high school grade or under and public or nonprofit private residential child care institutions may participate in the school lunch program. School districts and independent schools that choose to take part in the lunch program get cash subsidies and donated commodities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lunches that meet Federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced price lunches to eligible children. School food authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in afterschool educational or enrichment programs.
Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, 130 percent of the poverty level is $27,560 for a family of four; 185 percent is $39,220.) Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay a full price, though their meals are still subsidized to some extent. Local school food authorities set their own prices for full-price (paid) meals, but must operate their meal services as non-profit programs
Most of the support USDA provides to schools in the National School Lunch Program comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each meal served. The current (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) basic cash reimbursement rates if school food authorities served less than 60% free and reduced price lunches during the second preceding school year are:
Free lunches: $2.57
Reduced-price lunches: $2.17
Paid lunches: $0.24
In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled by law to receive commodity foods, called "entitlement" foods, at a value of 20.75 cents for each meal served in Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Schools can also get "bonus" commodities as they are available from surplus agricultural stocks. Through Team Nutrition USDA provides schools with technical training and assistance to help school food service staffs prepare healthful meals, and with nutrition education to help children understand the link between diet and health.
The average cost to produce a typical school lunch is $ 2.92 per meal. With the maximum federal reimbursement at $ 2.57 per meal, the average difference is $ -0.35per meal. This is a real problem for school lunch program participants as the cost difference must be made up at the local school district level. Additional variables drive the production cost of meals higher including the increasing costs of goods, labor, health insurance and benefits for employees, and ever-rising energy expenses. These factors typically drive the percentage of doing business higher than the potential revenue stream.
Many school divisions have been forced to raise the cost of a breakfast or lunch item over the past few years in an attempt to operate at the required not-for-profit level. In Dinwiddie County we have increased the cost of a breakfast meal from $ 1.10 to $ 1.25 and a lunch from $ 1.85 to $ 2.00 for the 2009-10 school year. The costs for eligible students under the federal guidelines will be underwritten as in the past. Students who meet the criteria will continue to receive free or reduced priced meals accordingly. Please do not forget that in Virginia, as in many states, the school cafeteria accounts are separate from the regular school budget. This means that the cafeteria services need to operate at or near a profit and must not operate at a loss. The cafeteria is a self-sustaining business operation by law and can be viewed as separate and apart from the regular school budget.
The challenges for public schools are increasing as more demands are placed upon us to provide basic services for children. We embrace the dual role of providers and educators for the youth of America. The state and federal government must recognize the ever-increasing costs of educating children in modern-day society and begin to play a more significant role in the development of resources and increased funding for public education. Absent the adequate support of all three partners (federal, state, and local) we will be hard-pressed to continue delivering essential services and providing for the basic needs of the children who enter our public schools.
Public or nonprofit private schools of high school grade or under and public or nonprofit private residential child care institutions may participate in the school lunch program. School districts and independent schools that choose to take part in the lunch program get cash subsidies and donated commodities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lunches that meet Federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced price lunches to eligible children. School food authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in afterschool educational or enrichment programs.
Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, 130 percent of the poverty level is $27,560 for a family of four; 185 percent is $39,220.) Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay a full price, though their meals are still subsidized to some extent. Local school food authorities set their own prices for full-price (paid) meals, but must operate their meal services as non-profit programs
Most of the support USDA provides to schools in the National School Lunch Program comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each meal served. The current (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) basic cash reimbursement rates if school food authorities served less than 60% free and reduced price lunches during the second preceding school year are:
Free lunches: $2.57
Reduced-price lunches: $2.17
Paid lunches: $0.24
In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled by law to receive commodity foods, called "entitlement" foods, at a value of 20.75 cents for each meal served in Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Schools can also get "bonus" commodities as they are available from surplus agricultural stocks. Through Team Nutrition USDA provides schools with technical training and assistance to help school food service staffs prepare healthful meals, and with nutrition education to help children understand the link between diet and health.
The average cost to produce a typical school lunch is $ 2.92 per meal. With the maximum federal reimbursement at $ 2.57 per meal, the average difference is $ -0.35per meal. This is a real problem for school lunch program participants as the cost difference must be made up at the local school district level. Additional variables drive the production cost of meals higher including the increasing costs of goods, labor, health insurance and benefits for employees, and ever-rising energy expenses. These factors typically drive the percentage of doing business higher than the potential revenue stream.
Many school divisions have been forced to raise the cost of a breakfast or lunch item over the past few years in an attempt to operate at the required not-for-profit level. In Dinwiddie County we have increased the cost of a breakfast meal from $ 1.10 to $ 1.25 and a lunch from $ 1.85 to $ 2.00 for the 2009-10 school year. The costs for eligible students under the federal guidelines will be underwritten as in the past. Students who meet the criteria will continue to receive free or reduced priced meals accordingly. Please do not forget that in Virginia, as in many states, the school cafeteria accounts are separate from the regular school budget. This means that the cafeteria services need to operate at or near a profit and must not operate at a loss. The cafeteria is a self-sustaining business operation by law and can be viewed as separate and apart from the regular school budget.
The challenges for public schools are increasing as more demands are placed upon us to provide basic services for children. We embrace the dual role of providers and educators for the youth of America. The state and federal government must recognize the ever-increasing costs of educating children in modern-day society and begin to play a more significant role in the development of resources and increased funding for public education. Absent the adequate support of all three partners (federal, state, and local) we will be hard-pressed to continue delivering essential services and providing for the basic needs of the children who enter our public schools.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Reflections on Home-Schooling in America
According to the U. S. Department of Education an estimated 2.9% or 1.5 million children in the United States are home-schooled. This number is up from 1.7% about a decade ago in 1999. The ratio of home-schooled boys to girls has changed from 49% boys and 51% girls in 1999 to 42% boys and 58% girls. Home-schooling is predominantly selected by higher-income families with 60% earning more than $50,000 per year. In Virginia, the number of home-schooled children jumped 9% statewide in one year. Notably the number of white families choosing to home school nationwide has doubled in the past decade and the number of college-educated parents home-schooling is up from 4.9% to 6.8%.
The reasons parents choose this course of action are varied: 36% say their decision was to provide “religious or moral” instruction; 21% cited school environment and culture; and only 17% cited “dissatisfaction with academic instruction.” Let’s explore these in more detail.
First, the religious basis for home-schooled choice: The religious foundation of our country that served as a basis for public instruction a century ago is well documented. The religious limits concerning contemporary public school education are also well documented. This basis has been clearly redefined by the judicial branch of the federal government. The Supreme Court of the United States established a “wall” of separation concerning church vs. state teachings in public schools dating back to the 1950’s and this guidance has served as the basis for the past sixty years of litigation and hence public school curricular development. Therefore, Parents who want their children to benefit from an education that favors a particular religious perspective have two choices: send their children to parochial/private schools or teach them at home. We cannot fulfill a religious function in the public arena to the extent that many parents would like for their children. Our ever-increasing diverse and forward-thinking society is required to tolerate extremes in lifestyles, freedom of expression and personal choices never thought imaginable just a few decades ago. These values often run contrary to specific religious beliefs.
Second: School environment and the culture of our schools is a direct reflection of societal attitudes in the community and strongly correlated to the norms of that community. The total investment in school facilities and the resources utilized in public schools is directly related to the the conditions in the locality supporting the schools. Two decades of litigation in a dozen states concerning school funding formulas involving “adequacy and equity” formulas have failed to change this over time. Therefore, the ability and willingness of a community to invest in its public schools connects to how the community values its core mission to provide a free and appropriate education for all. According to Fuller’s “Savage Inequalities” the disparities in capital investments in public education are extreme and much in need of attention nationwide. In resource-starved communities where schools are less than desirable places for children to be all day long, the home-schooled option seems obvious. This also may explain why so many charter schools have blossomed across the country. Finally, the heterogeneous clientele present in American schools is problematic for some families who prefer a much more homogeneous environment for their children, so the 21% who said environment was a factor in their decision is understandable.
Third: Academic instruction is the area that 17% of parents cited as reasons for home-schooling. While I can accept this rationale on the surface due to the fact that many parents want their child to be challenged and pushed to higher limits, many feel they can do it better and more effectively at home rather than the institutional model for schools and current standards established state-to-state. However, research does not support the fact that home-schooling produces any better results than public schools. While home-schooled children hold their own on standardized tests for intelligence, they are not socialized to the extent that children exposed to diverse learning styles are in public schools. The need for American children to compete internationally in many different arenas over the next century speaks volumes for the need to teach our young tolerance and respect for individual and cultural differences. The shelter of a home-schooled environment protects certain children from exposure to other children who may contribute varied perspectives in the learning environment and this may be detrimental in the long run to the home-schooled child.
Perhaps most compelling reason why public schools contribute to the well-rounded development of young people is the learning that is offered by specialists in public schools. By the time a child graduates from a public high school he/she will have had as many as sixty to seventy different teachers. These professionals will present children with positive models of effective teaching and learning that can only benefit children and young adults as they formulate opinions about their own education. How many parents are prepared to teach advanced subject matter such as Chemistry, Biology, AP Calculus or have the advanced equipment at their disposal to conduct scientific or mathematical research? Let us not also discount the variety of subjects and experiences that occur outside of the four walls of the classroom such as activities, athletics, and the arts, and the rich experiences children learn through collaborating with others in public schools.
We who serve in public education respect the choice that parents make regarding their preferences for home-schooling here in Virginia and nationwide. Parents who choose this path feel that they can provide a targeted and specific education for their children and have total control over the content and form of teaching and learning. If the resources are in place to deliver rigorous educational exposure and the parent is prepared to accept the full responsibility for a comprehensive curricular experience then we are compelled to approve of this approach.
In conclusion, I said this to Jay Scarborough of the Petersburg Progress-Index in May of 2009, “We are preparing children today for a global experience tomorrow. Children have to be flexible and adaptable and they’ve got to be ready to modulate and function in a world without borders. What public education does well is bring disparate, socio-economically deprived children into the same classroom as privileged children and educate them and prepare them for a role in the world.” Let us not forget the role America’s public schools played in creating the great democracy we live in today. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. The challenge will be to adjust and change to meet the technological challenges that the new century presents for us in order to produce the creative, intelligent, and thoughtful future citizens America deserves.
The reasons parents choose this course of action are varied: 36% say their decision was to provide “religious or moral” instruction; 21% cited school environment and culture; and only 17% cited “dissatisfaction with academic instruction.” Let’s explore these in more detail.
First, the religious basis for home-schooled choice: The religious foundation of our country that served as a basis for public instruction a century ago is well documented. The religious limits concerning contemporary public school education are also well documented. This basis has been clearly redefined by the judicial branch of the federal government. The Supreme Court of the United States established a “wall” of separation concerning church vs. state teachings in public schools dating back to the 1950’s and this guidance has served as the basis for the past sixty years of litigation and hence public school curricular development. Therefore, Parents who want their children to benefit from an education that favors a particular religious perspective have two choices: send their children to parochial/private schools or teach them at home. We cannot fulfill a religious function in the public arena to the extent that many parents would like for their children. Our ever-increasing diverse and forward-thinking society is required to tolerate extremes in lifestyles, freedom of expression and personal choices never thought imaginable just a few decades ago. These values often run contrary to specific religious beliefs.
Second: School environment and the culture of our schools is a direct reflection of societal attitudes in the community and strongly correlated to the norms of that community. The total investment in school facilities and the resources utilized in public schools is directly related to the the conditions in the locality supporting the schools. Two decades of litigation in a dozen states concerning school funding formulas involving “adequacy and equity” formulas have failed to change this over time. Therefore, the ability and willingness of a community to invest in its public schools connects to how the community values its core mission to provide a free and appropriate education for all. According to Fuller’s “Savage Inequalities” the disparities in capital investments in public education are extreme and much in need of attention nationwide. In resource-starved communities where schools are less than desirable places for children to be all day long, the home-schooled option seems obvious. This also may explain why so many charter schools have blossomed across the country. Finally, the heterogeneous clientele present in American schools is problematic for some families who prefer a much more homogeneous environment for their children, so the 21% who said environment was a factor in their decision is understandable.
Third: Academic instruction is the area that 17% of parents cited as reasons for home-schooling. While I can accept this rationale on the surface due to the fact that many parents want their child to be challenged and pushed to higher limits, many feel they can do it better and more effectively at home rather than the institutional model for schools and current standards established state-to-state. However, research does not support the fact that home-schooling produces any better results than public schools. While home-schooled children hold their own on standardized tests for intelligence, they are not socialized to the extent that children exposed to diverse learning styles are in public schools. The need for American children to compete internationally in many different arenas over the next century speaks volumes for the need to teach our young tolerance and respect for individual and cultural differences. The shelter of a home-schooled environment protects certain children from exposure to other children who may contribute varied perspectives in the learning environment and this may be detrimental in the long run to the home-schooled child.
Perhaps most compelling reason why public schools contribute to the well-rounded development of young people is the learning that is offered by specialists in public schools. By the time a child graduates from a public high school he/she will have had as many as sixty to seventy different teachers. These professionals will present children with positive models of effective teaching and learning that can only benefit children and young adults as they formulate opinions about their own education. How many parents are prepared to teach advanced subject matter such as Chemistry, Biology, AP Calculus or have the advanced equipment at their disposal to conduct scientific or mathematical research? Let us not also discount the variety of subjects and experiences that occur outside of the four walls of the classroom such as activities, athletics, and the arts, and the rich experiences children learn through collaborating with others in public schools.
We who serve in public education respect the choice that parents make regarding their preferences for home-schooling here in Virginia and nationwide. Parents who choose this path feel that they can provide a targeted and specific education for their children and have total control over the content and form of teaching and learning. If the resources are in place to deliver rigorous educational exposure and the parent is prepared to accept the full responsibility for a comprehensive curricular experience then we are compelled to approve of this approach.
In conclusion, I said this to Jay Scarborough of the Petersburg Progress-Index in May of 2009, “We are preparing children today for a global experience tomorrow. Children have to be flexible and adaptable and they’ve got to be ready to modulate and function in a world without borders. What public education does well is bring disparate, socio-economically deprived children into the same classroom as privileged children and educate them and prepare them for a role in the world.” Let us not forget the role America’s public schools played in creating the great democracy we live in today. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. The challenge will be to adjust and change to meet the technological challenges that the new century presents for us in order to produce the creative, intelligent, and thoughtful future citizens America deserves.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Role of Educational Influence and AASA in American Policy
As chair of the Region I Superintendents in Richmond, Virginia, I am privileged to serve with several of my colleagues on the Board of Directors for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents(VASS). As a member of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) my fellow superintendents and I have become increasingly more active in political advocacy for education and for all of the American children we serve in our great country. AASA has clearly led the effort to step up this level of advocacy at the national level of government.
The Executive Director of AASA, Dan Domenech, met with the VASS executive board and membership in Roanoke, Virginia this morning May 6, 2009. Dan is a well-rounded educator (formerly superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia) who clearly sees the “big picture” and is an outspoken leader committed to promoting the influence of AASA in educational decision making at the highest federal levels of government. I applaud Dan’s efforts to collaborate with the United States Department of Education and with the Obama administration in Washington, D.C., for embracing AASA.
For far too many years educators have been excluded in policy decisions at the highest levels of our government. The period of the past eight years have been very difficult for public education as critics of American schools appeared to have the upper hand in Washington, D.C., and the voices of the professional organizations representing education purposefully excluded from any substantive discussion (AASA, ASCD, NASSP, NAESP, NSBA, NEA, to name just a few). That day has past.
Dan Domenech reaffirmed this concept today in his remarks to the leadership of the Virginia Superintendents. Dan announced that AASA has a prominent place “at the table” since President Obama took office, and shared with us how this began to take shape during Obama’s transition to the presidency. Dan suggested that the shift in political power in Washington has opened a new era for educational policy in this nation. Most encouragingly, Dan confirmed that the Obama administration was actively listening and engaged with AASA as future educational policy decisions are being formulated in our capitol.
This is very god news for professional educators across America and a huge shift from the former administration. The federal government is increasingly moving forward to be a key player in educational decision making, an area that is relatively new in the history of this country. Absent any federal role as defined by our federal constitution, the power to establish and regulate educational policy has been left to the states. With a renewed interest in globalization and international standards, we can expect the federal government to step up its role in the formulation of standards for American education.
It is imperative that AASA and parallel organizations representing the educational community be present for these important policy discussions. Dan Domenech affirmed that President Obama’s administration is committed to pursuing the broad educational objectives defined during the political campaign in 2008 and is now in the process of engaging our professional organizations in conceptualizing a new direction for American education.
The challenges are formidable for all of us in education. While critics at the national level like to place blame on the educational system for a perceived failure to perform, what they lack is a thorough understanding of the dynamics of American education and all we are attempting to accomplish. International comparisons are valuable, as they continue to remind us that expectations must be raised and the stakes are extremely high in a global age of collaboration and cooperation. But international comparisons are not quite what they appear to be as many countries are clearly not as diverse as America nor committed to educating 100% of their children. This is particularly true in India and China, two countries we are constantly compared to.
In fact, many countries have homogeneous populations or implement tiered and exclusionary approach to moving students along an educational continuum, rendering statistical comparisons less than valid or reliable. So what does this mean? What is important for us to do in America is to strive for the best system of public education and promote what is in the best interest of all our children. Dan Domenech said it best today when he reminded us that we did not become the world power America is today with less than adequate public education. The real challenge for us is to articulate what works in American education and what we still need to do to improve the system for the enormous diversity that exists in the American school population.
Finally, the measures of success for educating a populace must not be limited to a snapshot or single standardized test (my own thoughts) but a true “motion picture” of how we are teaching young people to think, assess, analyze and act about the world they will occupy in future years. The correlation between poverty and academic achievement is so powerful that this is the single most important challenge for us in American culture at this moment. It will take strong educational leaders to mitigate the effects of socio-economic depravation on the children we serve, but we are up to this task. This is why educational “influence” is so important at the highest levels of American government now and in future years.
We as educators are capable of solving any of the challenges we embrace now and in the future, and these solutions will require an unprecedented amount of stakeholder input and discussion at every level of government. Reforms begin at home in local communities and are realized at the state and federal levels once we all speak from the same page and establish common understandings about what America’s schools are accomplishing and want to accomplish in future years. This is exactly what professional educators are trying to do at this moment to effect the necessary changes in policy and influence at all levels of government. I am proud of the unified voice AASA brings to state superintendents and proud of the work the Virginia superintendents have accomplished to articulate the need for progress and reforms in a new era of internationalization. Let’s be glad that President Obama is listening and committed to our efforts for the good of all our children.
The Executive Director of AASA, Dan Domenech, met with the VASS executive board and membership in Roanoke, Virginia this morning May 6, 2009. Dan is a well-rounded educator (formerly superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia) who clearly sees the “big picture” and is an outspoken leader committed to promoting the influence of AASA in educational decision making at the highest federal levels of government. I applaud Dan’s efforts to collaborate with the United States Department of Education and with the Obama administration in Washington, D.C., for embracing AASA.
For far too many years educators have been excluded in policy decisions at the highest levels of our government. The period of the past eight years have been very difficult for public education as critics of American schools appeared to have the upper hand in Washington, D.C., and the voices of the professional organizations representing education purposefully excluded from any substantive discussion (AASA, ASCD, NASSP, NAESP, NSBA, NEA, to name just a few). That day has past.
Dan Domenech reaffirmed this concept today in his remarks to the leadership of the Virginia Superintendents. Dan announced that AASA has a prominent place “at the table” since President Obama took office, and shared with us how this began to take shape during Obama’s transition to the presidency. Dan suggested that the shift in political power in Washington has opened a new era for educational policy in this nation. Most encouragingly, Dan confirmed that the Obama administration was actively listening and engaged with AASA as future educational policy decisions are being formulated in our capitol.
This is very god news for professional educators across America and a huge shift from the former administration. The federal government is increasingly moving forward to be a key player in educational decision making, an area that is relatively new in the history of this country. Absent any federal role as defined by our federal constitution, the power to establish and regulate educational policy has been left to the states. With a renewed interest in globalization and international standards, we can expect the federal government to step up its role in the formulation of standards for American education.
It is imperative that AASA and parallel organizations representing the educational community be present for these important policy discussions. Dan Domenech affirmed that President Obama’s administration is committed to pursuing the broad educational objectives defined during the political campaign in 2008 and is now in the process of engaging our professional organizations in conceptualizing a new direction for American education.
The challenges are formidable for all of us in education. While critics at the national level like to place blame on the educational system for a perceived failure to perform, what they lack is a thorough understanding of the dynamics of American education and all we are attempting to accomplish. International comparisons are valuable, as they continue to remind us that expectations must be raised and the stakes are extremely high in a global age of collaboration and cooperation. But international comparisons are not quite what they appear to be as many countries are clearly not as diverse as America nor committed to educating 100% of their children. This is particularly true in India and China, two countries we are constantly compared to.
In fact, many countries have homogeneous populations or implement tiered and exclusionary approach to moving students along an educational continuum, rendering statistical comparisons less than valid or reliable. So what does this mean? What is important for us to do in America is to strive for the best system of public education and promote what is in the best interest of all our children. Dan Domenech said it best today when he reminded us that we did not become the world power America is today with less than adequate public education. The real challenge for us is to articulate what works in American education and what we still need to do to improve the system for the enormous diversity that exists in the American school population.
Finally, the measures of success for educating a populace must not be limited to a snapshot or single standardized test (my own thoughts) but a true “motion picture” of how we are teaching young people to think, assess, analyze and act about the world they will occupy in future years. The correlation between poverty and academic achievement is so powerful that this is the single most important challenge for us in American culture at this moment. It will take strong educational leaders to mitigate the effects of socio-economic depravation on the children we serve, but we are up to this task. This is why educational “influence” is so important at the highest levels of American government now and in future years.
We as educators are capable of solving any of the challenges we embrace now and in the future, and these solutions will require an unprecedented amount of stakeholder input and discussion at every level of government. Reforms begin at home in local communities and are realized at the state and federal levels once we all speak from the same page and establish common understandings about what America’s schools are accomplishing and want to accomplish in future years. This is exactly what professional educators are trying to do at this moment to effect the necessary changes in policy and influence at all levels of government. I am proud of the unified voice AASA brings to state superintendents and proud of the work the Virginia superintendents have accomplished to articulate the need for progress and reforms in a new era of internationalization. Let’s be glad that President Obama is listening and committed to our efforts for the good of all our children.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Pay-for-Performance in Public Schools
A valued friend, Bob Holdsworth, publishes a blog called Virginia Tomorrow. Recently, I responded to one of Bob’s posts concerning pay-for-performance for public school teachers. My reaction to Bob’s post was clear and direct. I do not subscribe to nor agree to the concept that pay-for -performance is an effective strategy for public school educators. Bob published my remarks (with permission) and I would like to take the opportunity to address my comments in more detail.
A recent publication (Education Week, March 11, 2009) by Donald B. Gratz summarized the issue this way. “To believe that teachers will try harder if offered a financial incentive is to assume that they aren’t trying hard now, that they know what to do but simply aren’t doing it, and that they are motivated more by money than by their students’ needs. These are unlikely and unsupported conclusions, which teachers find insulting rather than motivating” (p.40). I couldn’t agree with Donald Gratz more. As I interact with and collaborate with the fine teachers we employ in the Dinwiddie County, VA, School Division, it is apparent that they are not here for the money. Rather, a profound dedication to children and young adults motivates each and every one of our teachers to do the best they possibly can, even in an era of increased accountability and shrinking resources.
The fact that a child in any school in America is required to take standardized tests does not give rise to the validity or reliability that such tests are predictors of student needs later in life. Nor are such tests indicative of the multi-faceted and profound influence of teaching on the social, emotional, physical and intellectual development of our youth. The purpose for schooling as it relates to our nation’s history according to Jefferson, Emerson, Dewey and other leaders is not limited to measurable cognitive knowledge. In fact, the broader purpose for school is to provide children with the skills, knowledge, and disposition to succeed as citizens, workers, and members of our democratic society. In 21st century terms we may need to reconsider what outcomes are valued. The four areas of skill most sought according to Grantz are: professionalism and work ethic; oral and written communications; teamwork and collaborating; and critical-thinking and problem solving. Do standardized test account for these qualities?
Return now to the concept of pay-for-performance for teachers. Since children at any point in their educational continuum have multiple teachers, to which specific teacher do we attribute any measurable gain the cognitive, social, developmental, emotional, artistic, or intellectual development of a child? What measurement will best determine when the child gained the skills or knowledge? Will this decision be based upon a single source test? What skill sets or specific knowledge do we value most? How about student growth? What about the role of good parenting in the development of the child?
I had a neighbor who was the CFO of a respected corporation and earned a very comfortable income. He could not wait to retire so he could fulfill his lifelong desire to teach math. When he did retire, he accepted a job at a middle school in Virginia. After two years he reported back to me that he never worked so hard, under such pressure, and with such limited support as he did in the teaching profession. Undoubtedly, he finally did retire with a profound respect for those who choose a career in teaching. Do teachers deserve higher pay? Absolutely! If we value teachers and the contribution they make to American society then we need to provide more value in their paychecks. But so many variables exist in the development of a child’s intellect, social and emotional growth that it will be impossible to attribute these to any one moment in time or to any one specific person. Let’s decide to invest in public schools as a whole, and not attempt to demoralize the teaching profession any further by instituting pay-for-performance until we understand what it is we are trying to measure and value in the first place.
A recent publication (Education Week, March 11, 2009) by Donald B. Gratz summarized the issue this way. “To believe that teachers will try harder if offered a financial incentive is to assume that they aren’t trying hard now, that they know what to do but simply aren’t doing it, and that they are motivated more by money than by their students’ needs. These are unlikely and unsupported conclusions, which teachers find insulting rather than motivating” (p.40). I couldn’t agree with Donald Gratz more. As I interact with and collaborate with the fine teachers we employ in the Dinwiddie County, VA, School Division, it is apparent that they are not here for the money. Rather, a profound dedication to children and young adults motivates each and every one of our teachers to do the best they possibly can, even in an era of increased accountability and shrinking resources.
The fact that a child in any school in America is required to take standardized tests does not give rise to the validity or reliability that such tests are predictors of student needs later in life. Nor are such tests indicative of the multi-faceted and profound influence of teaching on the social, emotional, physical and intellectual development of our youth. The purpose for schooling as it relates to our nation’s history according to Jefferson, Emerson, Dewey and other leaders is not limited to measurable cognitive knowledge. In fact, the broader purpose for school is to provide children with the skills, knowledge, and disposition to succeed as citizens, workers, and members of our democratic society. In 21st century terms we may need to reconsider what outcomes are valued. The four areas of skill most sought according to Grantz are: professionalism and work ethic; oral and written communications; teamwork and collaborating; and critical-thinking and problem solving. Do standardized test account for these qualities?
Return now to the concept of pay-for-performance for teachers. Since children at any point in their educational continuum have multiple teachers, to which specific teacher do we attribute any measurable gain the cognitive, social, developmental, emotional, artistic, or intellectual development of a child? What measurement will best determine when the child gained the skills or knowledge? Will this decision be based upon a single source test? What skill sets or specific knowledge do we value most? How about student growth? What about the role of good parenting in the development of the child?
I had a neighbor who was the CFO of a respected corporation and earned a very comfortable income. He could not wait to retire so he could fulfill his lifelong desire to teach math. When he did retire, he accepted a job at a middle school in Virginia. After two years he reported back to me that he never worked so hard, under such pressure, and with such limited support as he did in the teaching profession. Undoubtedly, he finally did retire with a profound respect for those who choose a career in teaching. Do teachers deserve higher pay? Absolutely! If we value teachers and the contribution they make to American society then we need to provide more value in their paychecks. But so many variables exist in the development of a child’s intellect, social and emotional growth that it will be impossible to attribute these to any one moment in time or to any one specific person. Let’s decide to invest in public schools as a whole, and not attempt to demoralize the teaching profession any further by instituting pay-for-performance until we understand what it is we are trying to measure and value in the first place.
Friday, April 3, 2009
AASA Study Confirms Impact of the Economic Downturn on Public Schools
When it became apparent in 2008 that an economic downturn was upon us the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) took the lead in studying and analyzing the impact that changes in economic conditions would have upon school divisions nationwide. A study was conducted on the economic downturn that revealed measures were underway in most school divisions in response to shrinking budgets. The study also suggested that the economic downturn could threaten gains in student achievement and progress in narrowing the achievement gap and the capacity of schools to deliver essential services.
Two additional studies were conducted by AASA in December and in January 2009. These new surveys analyzed the potential impact of the continued economic downturn on schools nationwide. One of the revealing areas of interest was the fact that almost three-quarters of school leaders planned to eliminate jobs in the 2009-2010 school year. The reality that many schools would have to operate with fewer academic instructors, support staff and student services staff was a major concern.
The latest surveys indicate that the adjustments administrators made prior to the 2008-2009 school year were moderate when compared to the cuts schools are being forced to consider for the 2009-2010 school year. Some summary results are listed below:
• In the recent studies, 75 per cent of respondents described their districts as “inadequately funded”.
• A quarter indicated they were facing short-term borrowing to meet payroll and accounts payable, with two percent facing non-performance on bond repayment schedules and one percent facing insolvency.
• The top five “high priority” items were: classroom technology, school modernization, safety and security measures, connectivity, and professional development.
• The top five “priority” uses were: classroom equipment/supplies, software, supportive technology for students with needs, professional development, and textbooks.
• The top five “low priority” items were: health equipment, new career/technical programs, art education equipment, physical education equipment, and music education equipment.
Education represents a large share of the states’ general fund budgets. With state deficits expected to total more than $350 billion over the next two years, it will be very difficult for states to avoid damaging cuts to education as the recession continues. While the $100 billion included for education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should help backfill some of the identified budget cuts, it is unlikely that the federal money will be enough to allow states and schools to completely reverse the proposed cuts in educational spending. The temptation for state governments and even local funding agencies to further reduce educational funding by using ARRA funds to bolster funding categories for other services (roads, building projects, social services, tax relief, etc.) presents a daunting challenge for school districts depending upon additional funding to survive the economic downturn.
All local school divisions must continue to articulate their needs to the local and state funding authorities in order to survive the immediate impact of reduced funding for the next fiscal year or two. The real challenge may be to plan for the 2010-2011 budget cycle that may be absent any additional federal stimulus funding and necessitate even deeper cuts to local school budgets. The immediate future for public educational funding will be at best difficult times for public education. Let’s hope we can avoid a catastrophic event for the sake of the children we serve.
Two additional studies were conducted by AASA in December and in January 2009. These new surveys analyzed the potential impact of the continued economic downturn on schools nationwide. One of the revealing areas of interest was the fact that almost three-quarters of school leaders planned to eliminate jobs in the 2009-2010 school year. The reality that many schools would have to operate with fewer academic instructors, support staff and student services staff was a major concern.
The latest surveys indicate that the adjustments administrators made prior to the 2008-2009 school year were moderate when compared to the cuts schools are being forced to consider for the 2009-2010 school year. Some summary results are listed below:
• In the recent studies, 75 per cent of respondents described their districts as “inadequately funded”.
• A quarter indicated they were facing short-term borrowing to meet payroll and accounts payable, with two percent facing non-performance on bond repayment schedules and one percent facing insolvency.
• The top five “high priority” items were: classroom technology, school modernization, safety and security measures, connectivity, and professional development.
• The top five “priority” uses were: classroom equipment/supplies, software, supportive technology for students with needs, professional development, and textbooks.
• The top five “low priority” items were: health equipment, new career/technical programs, art education equipment, physical education equipment, and music education equipment.
Education represents a large share of the states’ general fund budgets. With state deficits expected to total more than $350 billion over the next two years, it will be very difficult for states to avoid damaging cuts to education as the recession continues. While the $100 billion included for education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should help backfill some of the identified budget cuts, it is unlikely that the federal money will be enough to allow states and schools to completely reverse the proposed cuts in educational spending. The temptation for state governments and even local funding agencies to further reduce educational funding by using ARRA funds to bolster funding categories for other services (roads, building projects, social services, tax relief, etc.) presents a daunting challenge for school districts depending upon additional funding to survive the economic downturn.
All local school divisions must continue to articulate their needs to the local and state funding authorities in order to survive the immediate impact of reduced funding for the next fiscal year or two. The real challenge may be to plan for the 2010-2011 budget cycle that may be absent any additional federal stimulus funding and necessitate even deeper cuts to local school budgets. The immediate future for public educational funding will be at best difficult times for public education. Let’s hope we can avoid a catastrophic event for the sake of the children we serve.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Arts Position Statement
Excerpts from a speech to regional school board members in Virginia, March 25, 2009
I would like to address the fine and performing arts in public schools from two perspectives: one is the threat of tough budget times that the arts must endure, and the other is the hope that the arts will soon realize an elevated sense of purpose in future years. This is a topic very dear to me and I am glad to share it with you.
As expected in these difficult budget times, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that a significant portion of the economic stimulus package is heading to public schools. The bad news for many school districts is that any funds they receive are likely to provide only a portion of what is needed to avoid budget cuts. These are challenging times when difficult decisions must be made about how to best allocate resources.
As educators, parents, community leaders, and policymakers, we must look through the eyes of our children as we weigh each decision before us. The temptation to cut entire programs as an expedient way to realize savings within our budgets and must be avoided at all costs. This is no easy task as many valuable programs like the arts considered extensions of the core academic focus are at risk, especially programs like the visual arts, instrumental and choral music, drama, and even physical education.
The wonderful art display all of us had the opportunity to view is representative of thousands of pieces of student work created and submitted by your school districts. During the month of March hundreds of individual pieces of art are on display throughout Virginia including Dinwiddie County in banks, business, schools, and our government center in honor of Arts Education. The quality of student work is indicative of the creative streak that each of us as human beings inherently possesses. All that was required for this creativity to flow is the opportunity and encouragement from our teachers and mentors. Public schools nationwide play a vital role in the promotion of arts and aesthetic education and the arts are an important part of the human growth and development of our youth.
In Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind, the author describes a seismic shift under way in much of the advanced world we live in. Pink suggests that we are moving from an economy built on the logical, linear, computer-like capabilities of the Information Age to an economy and society built on the inventive, empathetic, big-picture capabilities of what is rising in its place, what Pink calls the Conceptual Age.
He describes the six new senses of the Conceptual Age in this way: Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play, and Meaning. Pink says survival in the Conceptual Age will be contingent on our ability to detect patterns and opportunities, to create artistic and emotional beauty, to craft a meaningful narrative, and to combine seemingly unrelated ideas into something new. The “Right-Brain” qualities of inventiveness, empathy, joyfulness, and meaning, increasingly will determine who flourishes and who flounders. The book offers hope to the power of the human mind in an age of conceptualization. But remember, this is nothing new.
The fine and performing arts have always played an integral part in the growth and development of the human intellect: across cultures, across continents, and across time itself. Art and music have been part of mankind from the very beginning. Since nomadic peoples first sang and danced in early rituals, since hunters first painted their quarry on the walls of caves, since parents first acted out the stories of heroes for their children, the arts have described, defined, and deepened human experience.
Across the bridge of time, all people of the world have demonstrated an abiding need for meaning in order to connect time, space, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People have created art to make connections and construct personal meaning from life experiences, to explain the seemingly unexplainable phenomena in life, to express joy, wonder, gratitude, or sorrow. The arts are one of humanity's deepest rivers of continuity, serving as a link that connects each new generation with those that have gone before.
The arts are everywhere in our present day lives, adding depth and dimension to our environment. Music and art are a powerful economic force in the global economy of the 21st century, from the visual creativity of fashion, to the designs that comprise every manufactured product, to the richness of traditional and contemporary architecture, to the performance and entertainment art form that has grown into multi-billion dollar industries.
At another level, the arts are society's gift to itself, linking hope to memory, inspiring courage, enriching our celebrations, and making our tragedies bearable. The arts have touched every generation that ever lived upon this planet because they bring us face to face with ourselves, and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves.
Music and art are deeply embedded in our daily lives and are an inseparable part of the human journey. If civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nurturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the intellectual capacities of our children and our children's children. All of our students deserve access to the rich education and understanding that only the arts can provide, regardless of their background, talents, or limitations.
In an increasingly technological environment, the ability to perceive, interpret, understand, reflect, and evaluate artistic and aesthetic forms of expression is critical. Perhaps most important, the arts have deep intrinsic value. They are worth learning for their own sake, providing benefits not available through any other means. Because the arts transcend the multi-dimensional aspects of reality, there can be no substitute for an education in the arts, which provides bridges to things we can scarcely describe but respond to on the deepest levels. In elemental terms, no educational experience is complete without them.
Please continue to value the arts by demonstrating the leadership to maintain and support arts education in each of your schools. This is a decision that has long-lasting implications for the quality of life in future generations, and a decision you will not regret now or in the coming years.
I would like to address the fine and performing arts in public schools from two perspectives: one is the threat of tough budget times that the arts must endure, and the other is the hope that the arts will soon realize an elevated sense of purpose in future years. This is a topic very dear to me and I am glad to share it with you.
As expected in these difficult budget times, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that a significant portion of the economic stimulus package is heading to public schools. The bad news for many school districts is that any funds they receive are likely to provide only a portion of what is needed to avoid budget cuts. These are challenging times when difficult decisions must be made about how to best allocate resources.
As educators, parents, community leaders, and policymakers, we must look through the eyes of our children as we weigh each decision before us. The temptation to cut entire programs as an expedient way to realize savings within our budgets and must be avoided at all costs. This is no easy task as many valuable programs like the arts considered extensions of the core academic focus are at risk, especially programs like the visual arts, instrumental and choral music, drama, and even physical education.
The wonderful art display all of us had the opportunity to view is representative of thousands of pieces of student work created and submitted by your school districts. During the month of March hundreds of individual pieces of art are on display throughout Virginia including Dinwiddie County in banks, business, schools, and our government center in honor of Arts Education. The quality of student work is indicative of the creative streak that each of us as human beings inherently possesses. All that was required for this creativity to flow is the opportunity and encouragement from our teachers and mentors. Public schools nationwide play a vital role in the promotion of arts and aesthetic education and the arts are an important part of the human growth and development of our youth.
In Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind, the author describes a seismic shift under way in much of the advanced world we live in. Pink suggests that we are moving from an economy built on the logical, linear, computer-like capabilities of the Information Age to an economy and society built on the inventive, empathetic, big-picture capabilities of what is rising in its place, what Pink calls the Conceptual Age.
He describes the six new senses of the Conceptual Age in this way: Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play, and Meaning. Pink says survival in the Conceptual Age will be contingent on our ability to detect patterns and opportunities, to create artistic and emotional beauty, to craft a meaningful narrative, and to combine seemingly unrelated ideas into something new. The “Right-Brain” qualities of inventiveness, empathy, joyfulness, and meaning, increasingly will determine who flourishes and who flounders. The book offers hope to the power of the human mind in an age of conceptualization. But remember, this is nothing new.
The fine and performing arts have always played an integral part in the growth and development of the human intellect: across cultures, across continents, and across time itself. Art and music have been part of mankind from the very beginning. Since nomadic peoples first sang and danced in early rituals, since hunters first painted their quarry on the walls of caves, since parents first acted out the stories of heroes for their children, the arts have described, defined, and deepened human experience.
Across the bridge of time, all people of the world have demonstrated an abiding need for meaning in order to connect time, space, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People have created art to make connections and construct personal meaning from life experiences, to explain the seemingly unexplainable phenomena in life, to express joy, wonder, gratitude, or sorrow. The arts are one of humanity's deepest rivers of continuity, serving as a link that connects each new generation with those that have gone before.
The arts are everywhere in our present day lives, adding depth and dimension to our environment. Music and art are a powerful economic force in the global economy of the 21st century, from the visual creativity of fashion, to the designs that comprise every manufactured product, to the richness of traditional and contemporary architecture, to the performance and entertainment art form that has grown into multi-billion dollar industries.
At another level, the arts are society's gift to itself, linking hope to memory, inspiring courage, enriching our celebrations, and making our tragedies bearable. The arts have touched every generation that ever lived upon this planet because they bring us face to face with ourselves, and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves.
Music and art are deeply embedded in our daily lives and are an inseparable part of the human journey. If civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nurturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the intellectual capacities of our children and our children's children. All of our students deserve access to the rich education and understanding that only the arts can provide, regardless of their background, talents, or limitations.
In an increasingly technological environment, the ability to perceive, interpret, understand, reflect, and evaluate artistic and aesthetic forms of expression is critical. Perhaps most important, the arts have deep intrinsic value. They are worth learning for their own sake, providing benefits not available through any other means. Because the arts transcend the multi-dimensional aspects of reality, there can be no substitute for an education in the arts, which provides bridges to things we can scarcely describe but respond to on the deepest levels. In elemental terms, no educational experience is complete without them.
Please continue to value the arts by demonstrating the leadership to maintain and support arts education in each of your schools. This is a decision that has long-lasting implications for the quality of life in future generations, and a decision you will not regret now or in the coming years.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Need for Fine and Performing Arts in Schools
The fine and performing arts have always played an integral part in the growth and development of the human intellect: across cultures, across continents, and across time itself. Art and music have been part of mankind from the very beginning. Since nomadic peoples first sang and danced in early rituals, since hunters first painted their quarry on the walls of caves, since parents first acted out the stories of heroes for their children, the arts have described, defined, and deepened human experience.
Across the bridge of time, all people of the world have demonstrated an abiding need for meaning in order to connect time, space, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People have created art to make connections and construct personal meaning from life experiences, to explain the seemingly unexplainable phenomena in life, to express joy, wonder, gratitude, or sorrow. The arts are one of humanity's deepest rivers of coninuity, serving as a link that connects each new generation with those that have gone before (National Standards for Arts Education, 1994).
The arts are everywhere in our present day lives, adding depth and dimension to our environment. Music and art are a powerful economic force in the global economy of the 21st century, from the visual creativity of fashion, to the designs that comprise every manufactured product, to the richness of traditional and contemporary architecture, to the performance and entertainment art form that has grown into multi-billion dollar industries.
At another level, the arts are society's gift to itself, linking hope to memory, inspiring courage, enriching our celebrations, and making our tragedies bearable. The arts have touched every generation that ever lived upon this planet because they bring us face to face with ourselves, and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves.
Music and art are deeply embedded in our daily lives and are an inseparable part of the human journey. If civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nuturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the intellectual capacities of our children and our children's children. All of our students deserve access to the rich education and understanding that only the arts can provide, regardless of their background, talents, or limitations.
In an increasingly technological environment, the abililty to perceive, interpret, understand, reflect, and evaluate artistic and aesthetic forms of expression is critical. Perhaps most important, the arts have deep intrinsic value. They are worth learning for their own sake, providing benefits not available through any other means. Because the arts transcend the multi-dimensional aspects of reality, there can be no substitue for an education in the arts, which provides bridges to things we can scarcely describe but respond to on the deepest levels. In elemental terms, no educational experience is complete without them.
Please join me in every effort to support the fine and performing arts in America's public schools. Let's celbrate and acknowledge the talents and gifts that every child brings to our schools and give them a means to grow and develop intellectually. They will be better for it, and our society will be as well.
Across the bridge of time, all people of the world have demonstrated an abiding need for meaning in order to connect time, space, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People have created art to make connections and construct personal meaning from life experiences, to explain the seemingly unexplainable phenomena in life, to express joy, wonder, gratitude, or sorrow. The arts are one of humanity's deepest rivers of coninuity, serving as a link that connects each new generation with those that have gone before (National Standards for Arts Education, 1994).
The arts are everywhere in our present day lives, adding depth and dimension to our environment. Music and art are a powerful economic force in the global economy of the 21st century, from the visual creativity of fashion, to the designs that comprise every manufactured product, to the richness of traditional and contemporary architecture, to the performance and entertainment art form that has grown into multi-billion dollar industries.
At another level, the arts are society's gift to itself, linking hope to memory, inspiring courage, enriching our celebrations, and making our tragedies bearable. The arts have touched every generation that ever lived upon this planet because they bring us face to face with ourselves, and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves.
Music and art are deeply embedded in our daily lives and are an inseparable part of the human journey. If civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nuturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the intellectual capacities of our children and our children's children. All of our students deserve access to the rich education and understanding that only the arts can provide, regardless of their background, talents, or limitations.
In an increasingly technological environment, the abililty to perceive, interpret, understand, reflect, and evaluate artistic and aesthetic forms of expression is critical. Perhaps most important, the arts have deep intrinsic value. They are worth learning for their own sake, providing benefits not available through any other means. Because the arts transcend the multi-dimensional aspects of reality, there can be no substitue for an education in the arts, which provides bridges to things we can scarcely describe but respond to on the deepest levels. In elemental terms, no educational experience is complete without them.
Please join me in every effort to support the fine and performing arts in America's public schools. Let's celbrate and acknowledge the talents and gifts that every child brings to our schools and give them a means to grow and develop intellectually. They will be better for it, and our society will be as well.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Technology Enhances Education in Dinwiddie County
Dinwiddie County Public Schools has been recognized by the Southside Virginia Regional Technology Consortium as a state model for educational technology. In the fall of 2008 our School Division won the state SVRTC Technology Award. This credit belongs to the leadership of our technology team, led by Timothy Ampy and our educational technology staff for supporting technology on many different levels and for utilizing E-Rate funding to place Dinwiddie County Public Schools in an elite group of school divisions (Top 4% in Virginia). The most recent effort approved by the Board of Education is to advance Dinwiddie County's technology capability light years ahead by upgrading Dinwiddie Schools to fiber-optic cable to deliver our telecommunications needs (underwritten by state and federal financial resources). The shift to fiber-optic will enable us to run our internet and telecommunication systems with a Gigabit WAN system, or to put this in more simplistic terms our internet will not only increase capacity but will run over 600 times faster than the present T-1 lines that serve us can.
This is great news for our schools with over 2,200 computers and an aggressive on-line testing and instructional program. Computer speed has increased dramatically since the advent of the networks most school divisions have employed, and with web-based software accounting for most of the major functions of schools nationwide, the upgrade to fiber optic will enable schools to meet the demands of the new digital age. Our student information system is currently being upgraded to Infinite Campus, a product that is anticipated to be heavily used by both staff and parents on a daily basis. Faster internet connections will not only unclog some of the typical traffic jams encountered by all faculty and staff at peak usage times, but also provide teachers with more web-based teaching opportunities for students overall.
"This upgrade will allow for new and expanded curriculum technologies to be introduced and will enhance all of our programs K-12," said Christie Clarke, Coordinator of Instructional Technology. Every teacher in Dinwiddie County operates a laptop computer and a multitude of instructional needs are addressed through advanced technologies in our school division. There are a variety of new initiatives underway at Dinwiddie County Public Schools: Digital Conversion of paper student records; Upgrade of the current student information system to Infinite Campus; Upgrade of the Library system to Desitiny; Addition of Trip Tracker to the online transportation system; Upgrade of KeyStone for Human Resources and Finance Departments; Software upgrade Division-Wide to Office 2007; addition of new Digital Reader to help imporve student reading skills; E-Office Point-of-Sale food service system; Replacement of all school-based file servers; Replacement of all elementary school computer labs; Addition of at least two wireless carts to each school; Replacement of all routers and PIX Firewall; Addition of IEP Online development for the Special Education staff; Addition of web filter proxies at each school; and Network Digital copiers added division-wide.
As Superintendent of Schools I could not be more pleased with the advancement of technology to enhance and enable student learning. We are entering a period of time when schools nationwide must rethink the delivery system of educational services to students and community members, and the new technologies available to us at this time will require a solid infrastructure and technology backbone to advance our capabilities. We envision schools that soon will look considerably different than our 20th century counterparts and technology is the promise of a vastly different future for citizens of the 21st century. Those citizens are occupying seats in today's classrooms across America, and will be the driving force for the changes that will propel us into the 22nd century. It should be a fun ride.
This is great news for our schools with over 2,200 computers and an aggressive on-line testing and instructional program. Computer speed has increased dramatically since the advent of the networks most school divisions have employed, and with web-based software accounting for most of the major functions of schools nationwide, the upgrade to fiber optic will enable schools to meet the demands of the new digital age. Our student information system is currently being upgraded to Infinite Campus, a product that is anticipated to be heavily used by both staff and parents on a daily basis. Faster internet connections will not only unclog some of the typical traffic jams encountered by all faculty and staff at peak usage times, but also provide teachers with more web-based teaching opportunities for students overall.
"This upgrade will allow for new and expanded curriculum technologies to be introduced and will enhance all of our programs K-12," said Christie Clarke, Coordinator of Instructional Technology. Every teacher in Dinwiddie County operates a laptop computer and a multitude of instructional needs are addressed through advanced technologies in our school division. There are a variety of new initiatives underway at Dinwiddie County Public Schools: Digital Conversion of paper student records; Upgrade of the current student information system to Infinite Campus; Upgrade of the Library system to Desitiny; Addition of Trip Tracker to the online transportation system; Upgrade of KeyStone for Human Resources and Finance Departments; Software upgrade Division-Wide to Office 2007; addition of new Digital Reader to help imporve student reading skills; E-Office Point-of-Sale food service system; Replacement of all school-based file servers; Replacement of all elementary school computer labs; Addition of at least two wireless carts to each school; Replacement of all routers and PIX Firewall; Addition of IEP Online development for the Special Education staff; Addition of web filter proxies at each school; and Network Digital copiers added division-wide.
As Superintendent of Schools I could not be more pleased with the advancement of technology to enhance and enable student learning. We are entering a period of time when schools nationwide must rethink the delivery system of educational services to students and community members, and the new technologies available to us at this time will require a solid infrastructure and technology backbone to advance our capabilities. We envision schools that soon will look considerably different than our 20th century counterparts and technology is the promise of a vastly different future for citizens of the 21st century. Those citizens are occupying seats in today's classrooms across America, and will be the driving force for the changes that will propel us into the 22nd century. It should be a fun ride.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Base Realignment Impacts Schools in Growth Communities
The Unintended Consequences of BRAC on Growth Communities
Selected regions of the country will soon experience a surge in growth resulting from the federal legislation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). The rationale supporting this multi-billion dollar legislation quantifies several well-intended national military objectives. However, a closer inspection of BRAC reveals both risks and opportunities for many growth communities surrounding military bases across America.
There are two distinct effects emerging from the BRAC implementation. On one side of this equation are military bases in several states designated to close and the anticipated loss of military-related populations. On the other side are military bases and regions gaining significant populations.
Congress purposefully provided necessary financial relief and benefits for regions loosing a military presence as a result of BRAC. Without federal financial assistance, long-established military communities slated to downsize may not be able to transition into viable economies. This makes good sense.
Unfortunately, Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) expended little thought or planning for the regions across America that would be gaining military and civilian growth. Thus, little federal discussion has been generated regarding the potential negative implications on communities anticipating growth. The “tsunami effect” of sudden unpredictable population increases could have devastating implications for existing community infrastructures and services.
One example will be the significant impact on America’s public schools across growing military regions of the country. At least fifty school divisions in the proximity of twelve expanding military bases are adversely affected. Military families bring with them school-aged children, and no less than 100,000 military children will be enrolling in public schools nationally between 2008-2014. Without the capacity to absorb such large numbers of school-age children, public schools are certain to be overwhelmed.
The Fort Lee communities of Dinwiddie, Petersburg, Prince George, Colonial Heights, Chesterfield and Hopewell will experience the direct impact of increased military, contractors, and civilian defense personnel. All community services will be affected, but none as severely as public schools. According to the 2006 Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Study (EIS) possibly as many as 4,700 new school age children will enter Southside Virginia schools in the next few years around Fort Lee.
The problem isn’t necessarily one of quantity alone. The distribution of students poses some interesting challenges. For example, if twenty-four children enter an elementary school operating at capacity and by chance all are fifth graders, then an investment of $100,000 (cost of a classroom) and $50,000 (cost of a teacher) will be needed. If these children are distributed four at each grade level (K,1,2,3,4,5), then $600,000 (six additional classrooms) and $300,000 (six additional teachers) may be needed. Thus twenty-four children alone could generate an initial investment range of $150,000 to $900,000.
According to recent EIS projections, sixteen new schools may be needed in Southside Virginia. Regional school construction and renovation costs could exceed 750 million dollars. Nationally, this figure rises to about $ 3 billion. Few area schools have the luxury of empty classroom space, and few local budgets have the capacity to hire additional qualified teachers and support staff to address this problem.
In an age of an all-volunteer military designed to defend and protect the interests of the United States against threats of terror, the fabric of the military family itself is at stake in the high-stakes BRAC gamble to uproot families. Compounding this issue are three additional factors: The transition of military forces, global debasing, and the continuing war in Iran and Afghanistan.
Presently, military families are at a high risk of unraveling due in part to the pressures and assignments imposed on them to fight the global war on terror. Military families already post unusually high divorce and separation rates, and recent studies indicated that spousal and child abuse rates soar above national norms. Thus, the “no room at the inn” theme will not play well among uprooted military families attempting to enroll children in the region’s public schools. Would it not be ironic for those serving in the United States military services who fought and sacrificed in the Middle East post-September 11, 2001 era to have another battle on hand when they return home? The battle to enroll their children in overcrowded public schools!
It is imperative that we do everything possible to provide for the quality of military life in communities gaining military families. I have been to Washington dozens of times requesting assistance as a leader of the Seven Rivers Coalition for Military Growth. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense, Department of Education, and even Congress itself appears content to “push the problem downstream”. This is federal speak for “the local taxpayer”. Not one person I met in Washington denies the validity of the problem, nor has one offered any real financial assistance. Perhaps the new administrative team taking office after January 20, 2009 under President Obama will take a pro-active approach to solving this dilemma.
So who really gains from sudden economic development and growth? Should localities be forced to bear all of the expense for new schools? How does this affect the local taxpayer? These questions deserve answers.
The positive impact of an increase in regional economic activity may not be realized for decades or more, and even then money will be needed for additional services such as police, fire, emergency response, human services, hospitals, recreation, and new roads, to name a few. BRAC may have good intentions, but the dark side of this equation could have devastating and lasting negative effects on our schools and communities in the growing years ahead, and especially for children of military dependants.
Selected regions of the country will soon experience a surge in growth resulting from the federal legislation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). The rationale supporting this multi-billion dollar legislation quantifies several well-intended national military objectives. However, a closer inspection of BRAC reveals both risks and opportunities for many growth communities surrounding military bases across America.
There are two distinct effects emerging from the BRAC implementation. On one side of this equation are military bases in several states designated to close and the anticipated loss of military-related populations. On the other side are military bases and regions gaining significant populations.
Congress purposefully provided necessary financial relief and benefits for regions loosing a military presence as a result of BRAC. Without federal financial assistance, long-established military communities slated to downsize may not be able to transition into viable economies. This makes good sense.
Unfortunately, Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD) expended little thought or planning for the regions across America that would be gaining military and civilian growth. Thus, little federal discussion has been generated regarding the potential negative implications on communities anticipating growth. The “tsunami effect” of sudden unpredictable population increases could have devastating implications for existing community infrastructures and services.
One example will be the significant impact on America’s public schools across growing military regions of the country. At least fifty school divisions in the proximity of twelve expanding military bases are adversely affected. Military families bring with them school-aged children, and no less than 100,000 military children will be enrolling in public schools nationally between 2008-2014. Without the capacity to absorb such large numbers of school-age children, public schools are certain to be overwhelmed.
The Fort Lee communities of Dinwiddie, Petersburg, Prince George, Colonial Heights, Chesterfield and Hopewell will experience the direct impact of increased military, contractors, and civilian defense personnel. All community services will be affected, but none as severely as public schools. According to the 2006 Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Study (EIS) possibly as many as 4,700 new school age children will enter Southside Virginia schools in the next few years around Fort Lee.
The problem isn’t necessarily one of quantity alone. The distribution of students poses some interesting challenges. For example, if twenty-four children enter an elementary school operating at capacity and by chance all are fifth graders, then an investment of $100,000 (cost of a classroom) and $50,000 (cost of a teacher) will be needed. If these children are distributed four at each grade level (K,1,2,3,4,5), then $600,000 (six additional classrooms) and $300,000 (six additional teachers) may be needed. Thus twenty-four children alone could generate an initial investment range of $150,000 to $900,000.
According to recent EIS projections, sixteen new schools may be needed in Southside Virginia. Regional school construction and renovation costs could exceed 750 million dollars. Nationally, this figure rises to about $ 3 billion. Few area schools have the luxury of empty classroom space, and few local budgets have the capacity to hire additional qualified teachers and support staff to address this problem.
In an age of an all-volunteer military designed to defend and protect the interests of the United States against threats of terror, the fabric of the military family itself is at stake in the high-stakes BRAC gamble to uproot families. Compounding this issue are three additional factors: The transition of military forces, global debasing, and the continuing war in Iran and Afghanistan.
Presently, military families are at a high risk of unraveling due in part to the pressures and assignments imposed on them to fight the global war on terror. Military families already post unusually high divorce and separation rates, and recent studies indicated that spousal and child abuse rates soar above national norms. Thus, the “no room at the inn” theme will not play well among uprooted military families attempting to enroll children in the region’s public schools. Would it not be ironic for those serving in the United States military services who fought and sacrificed in the Middle East post-September 11, 2001 era to have another battle on hand when they return home? The battle to enroll their children in overcrowded public schools!
It is imperative that we do everything possible to provide for the quality of military life in communities gaining military families. I have been to Washington dozens of times requesting assistance as a leader of the Seven Rivers Coalition for Military Growth. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense, Department of Education, and even Congress itself appears content to “push the problem downstream”. This is federal speak for “the local taxpayer”. Not one person I met in Washington denies the validity of the problem, nor has one offered any real financial assistance. Perhaps the new administrative team taking office after January 20, 2009 under President Obama will take a pro-active approach to solving this dilemma.
So who really gains from sudden economic development and growth? Should localities be forced to bear all of the expense for new schools? How does this affect the local taxpayer? These questions deserve answers.
The positive impact of an increase in regional economic activity may not be realized for decades or more, and even then money will be needed for additional services such as police, fire, emergency response, human services, hospitals, recreation, and new roads, to name a few. BRAC may have good intentions, but the dark side of this equation could have devastating and lasting negative effects on our schools and communities in the growing years ahead, and especially for children of military dependants.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tax Cuts for Teachers: New York Times
From the New York Times, author Thomas L. Friedman wrote this insightful opinion that I wanted to share with all of our friends in education:
Tax Cuts for Teachers
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
So here’s hoping that our new administration and Congress will be guided in shaping the stimulus by reading John Maynard Keynes in one hand — to get as much money injected as quickly as possible — and by reading “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” with the other.
“Gathering Storm” was the outstanding 2005 report produced by our National Academies on how to keep America competitive by vastly improving math and science education, investing in long-term research, recruiting top students from abroad and making U.S. laws the most conducive in the world for innovation.
You see, even before the current financial crisis, we were already in a deep competitive hole — a long period in which too many people were making money from money, or money from flipping houses or hamburgers, and too few people were making money by making new stuff, with hard-earned science, math, biology and engineering skills.
The financial crisis just made the hole deeper, which is why our stimulus needs to be both big and smart, both financially and educationally stimulating. It needs to be able to produce not only more shovel-ready jobs and shovel-ready workers, but more Google-ready jobs and Windows-ready and knowledge-ready workers.
If we spend $1 trillion on a stimulus and just get better highways and bridges — and not a new Google, Apple, Intel or Microsoft — your kids will thank you for making it so much easier for them to commute to the unemployment office or mediocre jobs.
Barack Obama gets it, but I’m not sure Congress does. “Yes,” Mr. Obama said on Thursday, “we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy.” Sure that means more smart grids and broadband highways, he added, but it also “means investing in the science, research and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries and entire new industries.”
But clean-tech projects like intelligent grids and broadband take a long time to implement. Can we stimulate both our economy and our people in time? Maybe rather than just giving everyone a quick $1,500 to hit the mall to buy flat-screen TVs imported from China, or creating those all-important green-collar jobs for low-skilled workers — to put people to work installing solar panels and insulating homes — we should also give everyone who is academically eligible and willing a quick $5,000 to go back to school. Universities today are the biggest employers in many Congressional districts, and they’re all having to downsize.
My wife teaches public school in Montgomery County, Md., where more and more teachers can’t afford to buy homes near the schools where they teach, and now have long, dirty commutes from distant suburbs. One of the smartest stimulus moves we could make would be to eliminate federal income taxes on all public schoolteachers so more talented people would choose these careers. I’d also double the salaries of all highly qualified math and science teachers, staple green cards to the diplomas of foreign students who graduate from any U.S. university in math or science — instead of subsidizing their educations and then sending them home — and offer full scholarships to needy students who want to go to a public university or community college for the next four years.
J.F.K. took us to the moon. Let B.H.O. take America back to school.
But that will take time. There’s simply no shortcut for a stimulus that stimulates minds not just salaries. “You can bail out a bank; you can’t bail out a generation,” says the great American inventor, Dean Kamen, who has designed everything from the Segway to artificial limbs. “You can print money, but you can’t print knowledge. It takes 12 years.”
Sure, we’ll waste some money doing that. That will happen with bridges, too. But a bridge is just a bridge. Once it’s up, it stops stimulating. A student who normally would not be interested in science but gets stimulated by a better teacher or more exposure to a lab, or a scientist who gets the funding for new research, is potentially the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. They create good jobs for years. Perhaps more bridges can bail us out of a depression, but only more Bills and Steves can bail us into prosperity.
Tax Cuts for Teachers
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.
So here’s hoping that our new administration and Congress will be guided in shaping the stimulus by reading John Maynard Keynes in one hand — to get as much money injected as quickly as possible — and by reading “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” with the other.
“Gathering Storm” was the outstanding 2005 report produced by our National Academies on how to keep America competitive by vastly improving math and science education, investing in long-term research, recruiting top students from abroad and making U.S. laws the most conducive in the world for innovation.
You see, even before the current financial crisis, we were already in a deep competitive hole — a long period in which too many people were making money from money, or money from flipping houses or hamburgers, and too few people were making money by making new stuff, with hard-earned science, math, biology and engineering skills.
The financial crisis just made the hole deeper, which is why our stimulus needs to be both big and smart, both financially and educationally stimulating. It needs to be able to produce not only more shovel-ready jobs and shovel-ready workers, but more Google-ready jobs and Windows-ready and knowledge-ready workers.
If we spend $1 trillion on a stimulus and just get better highways and bridges — and not a new Google, Apple, Intel or Microsoft — your kids will thank you for making it so much easier for them to commute to the unemployment office or mediocre jobs.
Barack Obama gets it, but I’m not sure Congress does. “Yes,” Mr. Obama said on Thursday, “we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy.” Sure that means more smart grids and broadband highways, he added, but it also “means investing in the science, research and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries and entire new industries.”
But clean-tech projects like intelligent grids and broadband take a long time to implement. Can we stimulate both our economy and our people in time? Maybe rather than just giving everyone a quick $1,500 to hit the mall to buy flat-screen TVs imported from China, or creating those all-important green-collar jobs for low-skilled workers — to put people to work installing solar panels and insulating homes — we should also give everyone who is academically eligible and willing a quick $5,000 to go back to school. Universities today are the biggest employers in many Congressional districts, and they’re all having to downsize.
My wife teaches public school in Montgomery County, Md., where more and more teachers can’t afford to buy homes near the schools where they teach, and now have long, dirty commutes from distant suburbs. One of the smartest stimulus moves we could make would be to eliminate federal income taxes on all public schoolteachers so more talented people would choose these careers. I’d also double the salaries of all highly qualified math and science teachers, staple green cards to the diplomas of foreign students who graduate from any U.S. university in math or science — instead of subsidizing their educations and then sending them home — and offer full scholarships to needy students who want to go to a public university or community college for the next four years.
J.F.K. took us to the moon. Let B.H.O. take America back to school.
But that will take time. There’s simply no shortcut for a stimulus that stimulates minds not just salaries. “You can bail out a bank; you can’t bail out a generation,” says the great American inventor, Dean Kamen, who has designed everything from the Segway to artificial limbs. “You can print money, but you can’t print knowledge. It takes 12 years.”
Sure, we’ll waste some money doing that. That will happen with bridges, too. But a bridge is just a bridge. Once it’s up, it stops stimulating. A student who normally would not be interested in science but gets stimulated by a better teacher or more exposure to a lab, or a scientist who gets the funding for new research, is potentially the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. They create good jobs for years. Perhaps more bridges can bail us out of a depression, but only more Bills and Steves can bail us into prosperity.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Funding Cuts Threaten Public Schools in Virginia
State governments across America are reporting record losses in their budgets as the continued economic downturn continues to impact (tax) revenue collections. With less available funding streams many state governments are cutting back essential services and public schools are not immune to these negative economic implications. In Virginia this situation is compounded by the fact that local school boards do not have taxing authority (they do in most other states) and therefore depend upon local appropriating bodies to fund schools. What this means in tough economic times is that Virginia schools typically will take a double hit: a reduction in funding first from the state share of public educational costs, and a second reduction when the local appropriating body (municipal governments) find themselves short of income to fund police, fire, emergency services, mental health services, recreation, roads, parks, etc., and as a consequence reduce school funding accordingly. Thus, school funding in Virginia becomes a dilemma for local school boards as they may expect to experience a dramatic downturn of expected funding from both the state and local governments.
Quality educational programs are not inexpensive and thus every community bears a responsibility to fund a high quality local educational in order to meet state and federal guidelines. Unfortunately, the rising costs of such programs are often "pushed downstream" to the local taxpayer and this very concept of local school funding has been the source of a dozen adequacy and equity lawsuits for more than two decades. Local taxpayers are being asked to more than they are able to in tough economic times and the whole system of educational funding appears to be at serious risk of collapse.
Virginia finds itself in the eye of the storm as current economic conditions not only present compelling challenges but threaten the sustainability of a high quality system of public education for the commonwealth. Why? Let's try to put the current scenario in plain language so our readers will understand the maelstrom that is about to overwhelm public education.
Proposed reductions by Virginia's governor in the Basic Aid school funding formula will have devastating effects in every school division in Virginia, unlike anything any of us have experienced in the past forty years. The finance office of the governor reports these changes as "technical adjustments" and insist they will not have a measurable impact on classroom instruction-but public school superintendents know differently. Every significant reduction in educational funding quickly finds its way to the classroom level. To make matters worse, the Virginia General Assembly appears reluctant to utilize the Revenue Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund) to bolster educational funding...we are not talking about a rainy day here, but a full blown hurricane.
Here's why: Serious reductions to localities (10% - 15% of state support) will result in immediate reductions in teaching positions and teaching related support positions. This in turn will created much larger class sizes and increased teacher-to-pupil ratios. The larger class sizes will disproportionally affect services to our most at-risk children and older disadvantaged students as resources are diminished at all levels. Finally, as school divisions contemplate a reduction in overall instructional time (for example, a movement is underway to consider a four day school week in some states) and the elimination of after-school and summer school programs for underachieving youth who need our help the most.
The core of many school budgets are employee expenses. In fact, our own school budget represents about 78% - 80% for teacher and employee salaries, health insurance, and benefits. If you combine the cost of instruction with operations, maintenance, and student transportation, the portion of the budget for these services is 92% of our budget. The rest is technology (4%), student health services (2%), and administration (2%).
There is little if any to cut from school budgets without seriously affecting what happens in the classroom. In fact, our school division participated in a voluntary state efficiency study just two years ago resulting in a savings of over 1.5 million dollars as the recommended cuts and adjustments were implemented. Now we are asked to cut an additional $3 million from the state share of our budget...our state basic aid contribution is only $26 million overall so the net impact will be an additional 12% loss of revenue. This type of deep cut will regrettably cause a reduction in the teaching force and other dramatic measures.
In difficult economic times the families we serve that live at or below the poverty line are most vulnerable. Many of them operate on the survival mode and the children of at-risk families often depend on public schools as the only source of stability in their lives. Schools provide many additional support services to identified special needs children that may have to be reduced to some extent due to budget restraints. Just a few additional children per classroom across our schools could have a negative impact on the delivery of basic services as children in large classes often loose their individual identity and must compete for the attention of an often overwhelmed teacher. In fact, research indicates that there is a strong correlation between low class size and increased student achievement, something we have been able to provide in Virginia over the years that contributes to the overall success of all our schools in this era of standardized tests and federal regulations.
We ask that our state government leaders consider the implications of severe and sudden reductions to school funding. State leaders could preserve school funding by:
1. not applying any permanent cuts to the state basic aid funding formula
2. restore the $85 million lottery construction fund and school construction grant program
3. use the Revenue Stabilization Fund in both 2009 and 2010 to reduce cuts to education
4. reduce or eliminate unnecessary testing mandates (both state and local).
(Note: The state could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars by suspending mandatory testing requirements at all current grade levels until economic times turn better.)
In conclusion, public education is an essential service, not an optional one. An educated, adaptive, vibrant and competitive workforce is directly connected to producing a strong economy. Diminishing support for a high-quality system of public education therefore has a diminishing return on the future workforce in Virginia, further depressing future economic conditions. This is the absolute wrong time to reduce support for educational funding. Every citizen needs to implore state lawmakers to preserve educational funding at current levels and not place in jeopardy Virginia's most precious resource: her children.
Quality educational programs are not inexpensive and thus every community bears a responsibility to fund a high quality local educational in order to meet state and federal guidelines. Unfortunately, the rising costs of such programs are often "pushed downstream" to the local taxpayer and this very concept of local school funding has been the source of a dozen adequacy and equity lawsuits for more than two decades. Local taxpayers are being asked to more than they are able to in tough economic times and the whole system of educational funding appears to be at serious risk of collapse.
Virginia finds itself in the eye of the storm as current economic conditions not only present compelling challenges but threaten the sustainability of a high quality system of public education for the commonwealth. Why? Let's try to put the current scenario in plain language so our readers will understand the maelstrom that is about to overwhelm public education.
Proposed reductions by Virginia's governor in the Basic Aid school funding formula will have devastating effects in every school division in Virginia, unlike anything any of us have experienced in the past forty years. The finance office of the governor reports these changes as "technical adjustments" and insist they will not have a measurable impact on classroom instruction-but public school superintendents know differently. Every significant reduction in educational funding quickly finds its way to the classroom level. To make matters worse, the Virginia General Assembly appears reluctant to utilize the Revenue Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund) to bolster educational funding...we are not talking about a rainy day here, but a full blown hurricane.
Here's why: Serious reductions to localities (10% - 15% of state support) will result in immediate reductions in teaching positions and teaching related support positions. This in turn will created much larger class sizes and increased teacher-to-pupil ratios. The larger class sizes will disproportionally affect services to our most at-risk children and older disadvantaged students as resources are diminished at all levels. Finally, as school divisions contemplate a reduction in overall instructional time (for example, a movement is underway to consider a four day school week in some states) and the elimination of after-school and summer school programs for underachieving youth who need our help the most.
The core of many school budgets are employee expenses. In fact, our own school budget represents about 78% - 80% for teacher and employee salaries, health insurance, and benefits. If you combine the cost of instruction with operations, maintenance, and student transportation, the portion of the budget for these services is 92% of our budget. The rest is technology (4%), student health services (2%), and administration (2%).
There is little if any to cut from school budgets without seriously affecting what happens in the classroom. In fact, our school division participated in a voluntary state efficiency study just two years ago resulting in a savings of over 1.5 million dollars as the recommended cuts and adjustments were implemented. Now we are asked to cut an additional $3 million from the state share of our budget...our state basic aid contribution is only $26 million overall so the net impact will be an additional 12% loss of revenue. This type of deep cut will regrettably cause a reduction in the teaching force and other dramatic measures.
In difficult economic times the families we serve that live at or below the poverty line are most vulnerable. Many of them operate on the survival mode and the children of at-risk families often depend on public schools as the only source of stability in their lives. Schools provide many additional support services to identified special needs children that may have to be reduced to some extent due to budget restraints. Just a few additional children per classroom across our schools could have a negative impact on the delivery of basic services as children in large classes often loose their individual identity and must compete for the attention of an often overwhelmed teacher. In fact, research indicates that there is a strong correlation between low class size and increased student achievement, something we have been able to provide in Virginia over the years that contributes to the overall success of all our schools in this era of standardized tests and federal regulations.
We ask that our state government leaders consider the implications of severe and sudden reductions to school funding. State leaders could preserve school funding by:
1. not applying any permanent cuts to the state basic aid funding formula
2. restore the $85 million lottery construction fund and school construction grant program
3. use the Revenue Stabilization Fund in both 2009 and 2010 to reduce cuts to education
4. reduce or eliminate unnecessary testing mandates (both state and local).
(Note: The state could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars by suspending mandatory testing requirements at all current grade levels until economic times turn better.)
In conclusion, public education is an essential service, not an optional one. An educated, adaptive, vibrant and competitive workforce is directly connected to producing a strong economy. Diminishing support for a high-quality system of public education therefore has a diminishing return on the future workforce in Virginia, further depressing future economic conditions. This is the absolute wrong time to reduce support for educational funding. Every citizen needs to implore state lawmakers to preserve educational funding at current levels and not place in jeopardy Virginia's most precious resource: her children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)