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.
Monday, November 23, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)