High School athletics has always been an integral part of public education in America for young men and women of school age. The benefits of athletic participation extend beyond the playing field as many of our high school athletes also excel academically and represent the core of student leadership in our schools. One of the risks associated with athletic participation are the increasing numbers of sports-related injuries, particularly head injuries.
The number of sports-related concussions appears to be on the rise prompting awareness campaigns from athletic associations and medical advocates to protect our youth. The acute nature of concussion related injuries include symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, confusion, slurred speech, and memory problems. Visits to the emergency room for concussions for children ages 8 to 19 doubled over a ten year period from 1997 to 2007. The sports students are most prone to suffer a concussion in are football, soccer, lacrosse, ice hockey, and cheerleading. While brain injuries across the entire general population range from 1.6 million to 3.8 million annually, the range of football related brain injuries alone range from 43,200 to 67,200, annually placing it in the top risk category.
The National Athletic Trainers’ Association and the National Academy of Neuropsychology Foundation launched a campaign recently to educate athletes, coaches, teachers, and parents about the danger of concussions. Legislation has been introduced from the United States House, Education, and Labor Committee that would require schools to develop a plan for concussion safety and management.
Hopatcong Public Schools, New Jersey, implemented computerized preseason baseline and post-injury neuropsychological required testing for all student athletes in the fall of 2010. Athletic Director Tom Vara and trainer John Canzone obtained a computerized testing program with the support of the high school Parent Teacher Student Organization. The program helps establish a quantitative baseline assessment score for all athletes as one criteria to determine an athlete’s ability to return to sports after receiving a head injury. After an injury to the head, a post-test is administered to the student-athlete to determine if and when the student may return to participate. The athlete must sit out for a week and pass this post-test in order to return to practices.
“The stakes are too high,” said Vara, “We need to make sure we do everything we can to keep the kids on our teams healthy by preventing injuries and by making sure they’re able to return from injury at the proper time.” Hopatcong took the lead in this important area of physical health by conducting a region wide athletic clinic in early September and introduced the computerized baseline assessment program for other school districts to consider implementing. These efforts will go a long way to educating the general public about the dangers associated with athletic head injuries and the steps Hopatcong is taking to ensure student safety on and off of the playing field.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Oprah, Zuckerberg, Christie, and Booker's Education Gamble
The frenzied media attention concerning how poor American Schools are performing may have reached new heights with Oprah Winfrey’s recent announcement that billionaire Mark Zuckerberg will donate $100 million to fix the public schools of Newark, New Jersey. Somehow, Newark Mayor Cory Booker becomes the Knight in Shining Armor sent by Governor Chris Christie to fix an ailing system of urban public education. I tend to agree with Bob Braun’s take on this one reported in the New Jersey Star-Ledger (Friday, September 24, 2010) as it’s worth reading.
Not that public education in Newark or in any other urban environment is in need of a tune up, it certainly is. In fact, schools in rural areas face similar challenges. The main problem is twofold here in my humble opinion. First, schools in America are chronically underfunded given the challenges we face and required mandates we must meet. Second, schools were designed to be a one-size-fits-all institution and society contains far too much variation for a public institution designed over a century ago to effectively respond to.
Consider that America still is singularly the most significant social experiment in the world: a magnificent melting pot of cultures that places her people in the most non-homogeneous environment ever to populate a geographic area. In other words we are replete with diversity: not one other world country can claim this fame nor rise to this educational challenge.
Its not that American education is failing students on a wholesale scale like the critics, think-tanks, pundits, and (certain) politicians would have us believe. In fact its not that we are failing our students rather we are failing to change to adjust to our students. In fact by design, we are not able to adjust to the rapidly changing global and technological society that evolves around us.
Author Jim Collins of Good to Great, demonstrated this concept with his descriptions of corporate America at the end of the past century. In simplistic terms he suggested that corporations who were lean and adaptable were the most likely to survive the forward march of time and everyone else destined to fail.
Schools as an institution are no exception. Think about the typical school calendar public schools in America follow: A ten-month agrarian design that suited the lifestyle of this country well over a hundred years ago when the family farm dictated the pulse of most communities. How predominant are family farms in 2010? The same can be said about many of the rules and mandates schools must follow in this new century: all designed for a society that no longer exists.
The “failing” label that the federal government now attaches to schools that do not meet 100% of their annual targets reaches an even higher level of improbability as all schools and children in our nation under No Child Left Behind must be 100% proficient in a few short years. A goal worth reaching for but a reality not attainable unless the natural variation in the human population ceases to exist in the near future. Our children live in conditions far too overwhelming for schools to mitigate in the little time students attend school during their youthful lives.
American schools are far too understaffed and under-resourced in order to attain this objective, especially if we consider the overwhelming number of children with learning disabilities, developmental conditions, and physiological unmet needs entering schools each day. Factor in millions of immigrant children (legal and illegal) who are part of America’s peripatetic population attending schools far less than others in their age cohort. Think about the language barriers. How can schools overcome these challenges alone?
Richard Rothstein made a strong case for the problems that manifest themselves in American public schools as societal ones. His book, Class and Schools, identifies the problems America faces and encourages us to take a more complete approach to closing the academic achievement gap. He acknowledges that schools alone cannot fix the problems endemic in American society. Government needs to stop blaming schools for America’s problems and begin the massive effort of creating a lean and more flexible institution capable of responding to the challenges existing in the heterogeneous population living in our society present to educators nationwide.
This is a challenge that money alone will not fix. That is why I remain cynical about Zuckerberg’s latest move for Newark. The Abbott districts already receive the lion’s share of state funding (Newark receives $940 million presently) and after three decades of adequacy and equity funding we still do not see a measurable difference in student performance.
I agree with Governor Christie in this area that New Jersey’s system of public education needs reform in order to survive the future (given protracted poor economic conditions). The unionism that dominates the patterns of New Jersey government may be the biggest impediment to effective overall reform. If only the educational community would embrace the necessary changes and begin the process of needed reform instead of waiting for politicians to do it for them. We must not fail to recognize that we are on the verge of a paradigm shift in public education and our success as a public institution hangs in the balance.
Not that public education in Newark or in any other urban environment is in need of a tune up, it certainly is. In fact, schools in rural areas face similar challenges. The main problem is twofold here in my humble opinion. First, schools in America are chronically underfunded given the challenges we face and required mandates we must meet. Second, schools were designed to be a one-size-fits-all institution and society contains far too much variation for a public institution designed over a century ago to effectively respond to.
Consider that America still is singularly the most significant social experiment in the world: a magnificent melting pot of cultures that places her people in the most non-homogeneous environment ever to populate a geographic area. In other words we are replete with diversity: not one other world country can claim this fame nor rise to this educational challenge.
Its not that American education is failing students on a wholesale scale like the critics, think-tanks, pundits, and (certain) politicians would have us believe. In fact its not that we are failing our students rather we are failing to change to adjust to our students. In fact by design, we are not able to adjust to the rapidly changing global and technological society that evolves around us.
Author Jim Collins of Good to Great, demonstrated this concept with his descriptions of corporate America at the end of the past century. In simplistic terms he suggested that corporations who were lean and adaptable were the most likely to survive the forward march of time and everyone else destined to fail.
Schools as an institution are no exception. Think about the typical school calendar public schools in America follow: A ten-month agrarian design that suited the lifestyle of this country well over a hundred years ago when the family farm dictated the pulse of most communities. How predominant are family farms in 2010? The same can be said about many of the rules and mandates schools must follow in this new century: all designed for a society that no longer exists.
The “failing” label that the federal government now attaches to schools that do not meet 100% of their annual targets reaches an even higher level of improbability as all schools and children in our nation under No Child Left Behind must be 100% proficient in a few short years. A goal worth reaching for but a reality not attainable unless the natural variation in the human population ceases to exist in the near future. Our children live in conditions far too overwhelming for schools to mitigate in the little time students attend school during their youthful lives.
American schools are far too understaffed and under-resourced in order to attain this objective, especially if we consider the overwhelming number of children with learning disabilities, developmental conditions, and physiological unmet needs entering schools each day. Factor in millions of immigrant children (legal and illegal) who are part of America’s peripatetic population attending schools far less than others in their age cohort. Think about the language barriers. How can schools overcome these challenges alone?
Richard Rothstein made a strong case for the problems that manifest themselves in American public schools as societal ones. His book, Class and Schools, identifies the problems America faces and encourages us to take a more complete approach to closing the academic achievement gap. He acknowledges that schools alone cannot fix the problems endemic in American society. Government needs to stop blaming schools for America’s problems and begin the massive effort of creating a lean and more flexible institution capable of responding to the challenges existing in the heterogeneous population living in our society present to educators nationwide.
This is a challenge that money alone will not fix. That is why I remain cynical about Zuckerberg’s latest move for Newark. The Abbott districts already receive the lion’s share of state funding (Newark receives $940 million presently) and after three decades of adequacy and equity funding we still do not see a measurable difference in student performance.
I agree with Governor Christie in this area that New Jersey’s system of public education needs reform in order to survive the future (given protracted poor economic conditions). The unionism that dominates the patterns of New Jersey government may be the biggest impediment to effective overall reform. If only the educational community would embrace the necessary changes and begin the process of needed reform instead of waiting for politicians to do it for them. We must not fail to recognize that we are on the verge of a paradigm shift in public education and our success as a public institution hangs in the balance.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Reflections on Pay to Play and other Educational Issues
I recently read with interest an article in the New Jersey publication the Daily Record on School Pay to Play policies:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100917/COMMUNITIES/100916097/NJ-Assembly-probes-pay-to-participate-student-fees-at-schools
In Hopatcong Borough Public Schools where I am superintendent, we studied the concept this year and choose to call it “Pay to Participate” so there would be no guarantee of actually "playing" at the varsity level, just participating. Having read the article, I am relieved my school board did not adopt a Pay to Play policy this year. Instead, we are studying the impact of such policies on other districts and looking at the wide variety of approaches to this problem. There appears to be several advocacy groups across the country (in California for example) where lawsuits are being initiated over the charging of activity fees. Where this ends up is beyond my imagination.
No one wants to deny any child of an educational opportunity...and in my opinion the “Four A's” of education all are an intricate part of the human development continuum for healthy growth and individual attainment (The “Four A's:” Academics, Arts, Activities, and Athletics). When we limit a student's access to any segment of a comprehensive education we in fact deny them an opportunity. So the very nature of Pay to Play may violate the expectations that a student has a right to an education inside and outside of the classroom. But school districts and divisions nationwide are forced to take such measures as a response to the drastic cuts we are experiencing due to the economic downturn and underfunding of public education.
The sad part of this discussion is the programs that are being lost as a result of the economic crisis and the outright attack on public education by federal and state "politicians gone wild". We are not immune here in Hopatcong as several programs were cut that were a long standing part of our educational system. Notably, the German language program, Field Hockey, Golf, Marching Band, and all freshman sports. The parents have brought back the Golf and Marching Band program with private funding and volunteer supervision, but these are temporary fixes to a long standing problem that will plague New Jersey and schools nationwide for years to come.
Public schools are not optional. They are created by the constitutional authority vested in each state (note: pubic education is absent in the U.S. Constitution). Every state over the past three decades has advocated for a "world class" education and accountability for reaching out to achieve a 100% success rate across the entire strata of student population in this country (well over 50 million), an ambition that thus far has eluded educators in every state. Reaching for the remarkable goal of pushing every child toward a high school diploma regardless of circumstances will require far more resources than available to public schools in America. For example, the effort to ensure and guarantee a high school diploma to every child enrolled in America’s public schools may require education to expand to 220 to perhaps even 260 days per year as opposed to the standard 180 days we currently operate under. So what are needed for public schools to succeed are more resources, not less.
In the meantime, when politicians attack public education and pull back significant portions of state support for education, we are left to ask the question: Who are we not supposed to teach this year? If schools followed an industrial model then a downturn in cash flow would be met with a reduction in output: For example, an automotive industry facing a 15% cut in revenue would respond with a similar reduction in production in order to survive. But public schools in America are being asked to do much more with far less funding...a formula for disaster in the long run. When you factor in the countless federal and state mandates that are underfunded or not even funded this problem becomes even larger.
The quality of a public school system depends upon motivating the student to succeed and creating a synergistic partnership with parents and community alike. The four "A's" are the bedrock of public education and must be fully supported in order for us to sustain a quality system for producing a citizenry that will support our democratic ideals long into the future. Having observed the fabric of society change significantly over the past five decades let me add that the public schools and perhaps the religious institutions in this country are the glue that keeps the fabric of our culture alive. Where else are the lessons of virtue, character, and honesty demonstrated and practiced on a daily basis?
Chip away at the foundation of public education and soon the very core of a civil society will erode. Isn't it time to rethink our priorities? Charging students to participate or selling ads on the sides of school busses will not resolve the financial issues in the long run. Let's do some serious thinking about what we want the future of America to look like...then adequately and generously invest in her public schools for the good of all people.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100917/COMMUNITIES/100916097/NJ-Assembly-probes-pay-to-participate-student-fees-at-schools
In Hopatcong Borough Public Schools where I am superintendent, we studied the concept this year and choose to call it “Pay to Participate” so there would be no guarantee of actually "playing" at the varsity level, just participating. Having read the article, I am relieved my school board did not adopt a Pay to Play policy this year. Instead, we are studying the impact of such policies on other districts and looking at the wide variety of approaches to this problem. There appears to be several advocacy groups across the country (in California for example) where lawsuits are being initiated over the charging of activity fees. Where this ends up is beyond my imagination.
No one wants to deny any child of an educational opportunity...and in my opinion the “Four A's” of education all are an intricate part of the human development continuum for healthy growth and individual attainment (The “Four A's:” Academics, Arts, Activities, and Athletics). When we limit a student's access to any segment of a comprehensive education we in fact deny them an opportunity. So the very nature of Pay to Play may violate the expectations that a student has a right to an education inside and outside of the classroom. But school districts and divisions nationwide are forced to take such measures as a response to the drastic cuts we are experiencing due to the economic downturn and underfunding of public education.
The sad part of this discussion is the programs that are being lost as a result of the economic crisis and the outright attack on public education by federal and state "politicians gone wild". We are not immune here in Hopatcong as several programs were cut that were a long standing part of our educational system. Notably, the German language program, Field Hockey, Golf, Marching Band, and all freshman sports. The parents have brought back the Golf and Marching Band program with private funding and volunteer supervision, but these are temporary fixes to a long standing problem that will plague New Jersey and schools nationwide for years to come.
Public schools are not optional. They are created by the constitutional authority vested in each state (note: pubic education is absent in the U.S. Constitution). Every state over the past three decades has advocated for a "world class" education and accountability for reaching out to achieve a 100% success rate across the entire strata of student population in this country (well over 50 million), an ambition that thus far has eluded educators in every state. Reaching for the remarkable goal of pushing every child toward a high school diploma regardless of circumstances will require far more resources than available to public schools in America. For example, the effort to ensure and guarantee a high school diploma to every child enrolled in America’s public schools may require education to expand to 220 to perhaps even 260 days per year as opposed to the standard 180 days we currently operate under. So what are needed for public schools to succeed are more resources, not less.
In the meantime, when politicians attack public education and pull back significant portions of state support for education, we are left to ask the question: Who are we not supposed to teach this year? If schools followed an industrial model then a downturn in cash flow would be met with a reduction in output: For example, an automotive industry facing a 15% cut in revenue would respond with a similar reduction in production in order to survive. But public schools in America are being asked to do much more with far less funding...a formula for disaster in the long run. When you factor in the countless federal and state mandates that are underfunded or not even funded this problem becomes even larger.
The quality of a public school system depends upon motivating the student to succeed and creating a synergistic partnership with parents and community alike. The four "A's" are the bedrock of public education and must be fully supported in order for us to sustain a quality system for producing a citizenry that will support our democratic ideals long into the future. Having observed the fabric of society change significantly over the past five decades let me add that the public schools and perhaps the religious institutions in this country are the glue that keeps the fabric of our culture alive. Where else are the lessons of virtue, character, and honesty demonstrated and practiced on a daily basis?
Chip away at the foundation of public education and soon the very core of a civil society will erode. Isn't it time to rethink our priorities? Charging students to participate or selling ads on the sides of school busses will not resolve the financial issues in the long run. Let's do some serious thinking about what we want the future of America to look like...then adequately and generously invest in her public schools for the good of all people.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Period of Uncertainty, Change, and Innovation for Public Education
Anyone connected to public education is feeling a bit uncomfortable right now due to the dire state of the economy and the political pressure to reduce budgets at all levels. In most communities public schools represent the largest expenditure for state and local government and are experiencing unprecedented cuts to operational and personnel costs. The reduced revenue stream to schools has been met with a response by educators to cut programs and instructors all across the nation in order to produce a balanced budget for 2010-2011.
Think about this: No one is presently talking about reduced expectations for public education in spite of these recent record cuts to personnel and programs. In fact, the opposite is true-during a time of drastic cuts in educational resources the expectations for teaching our youth are actually elevated. Another key point: There are very few correlations to the dramatic budget cuts we are experiencing in terms of outputs. In other words, any other industry experiencing such reductions in cash flow would naturally adjust its production rates. For example, a fifteen percent reduction in the revenue stream of a manufacturer who produces light bulbs might be met by a fifteen percent cut in output or product. Not public schools. We are expected to produce the exact same results with many fewer dollars to accomplish this mission.
If you know of Joel Barker’s work with “paradigms” over the past twenty years set your sites on public schools. According to Joel, when the old rules don’t apply that represent the stable or accepted order of things you can count on one thing for certain: new rules take over. Public education is poised for such a paradigm shift that may dramatically alter the way we deliver educational services to youth. In fact, government officials may be counting on this as the frenzy to “privatize” educational delivery models as Charter Schools, Virtual Schools, School Choice programs, and even Home Schools gain increased credibility.
Leave no doubt about it. Public schools will have to embrace accelerated changes in the way we deliver educational services to youth or someone else will step in and do it for us. Oh, and we will have to do this with far less funding. The challenge is daunting given the multitude of unfunded (if not underfunded) federal and state mandates that account for huge parts of school budgets. Union contracts will have to be revisited in states that allow for collective bargaining practices. The existing regulations in place for the thorough and efficient operations of public schools will not make it easy to meet these challenges ahead.
Here’s where innovation fits into the big picture. Schools are embracing changes that were unimaginable just a few years ago but are now up for serious consideration given the pressures of the budget reductions. Recent news accounts in New Jersey point to new programs or initiatives here in the metropolitan area as the school year begins. For example, Toms River schools are incorporating cell phones into the curriculum for students to conduct research, write reports, or download books. In lieu of foreign language teachers some are schools are counting on DVD’s to deliver basic instruction in Spanish at the elementary school level.
Virtual learning classes are becoming a more widely acceptable way for students to earn advanced credits at schools that have eliminated or reduced advanced placement programs. In Mount Olive Township, parents of school-aged children are suddenly being asked to pay for transportation if they live within a two-mile zone of their schools known as subscription bussing. In Sparta, parents of student athletes are being charged a pay-to-play participation fee.
Professional development for teachers appears to be rapidly changing as more and richer content is made available to them via online internet sites. One example is Hopatcong Borough which uses the School Improvement Network’s professional development software to deliver quality enrichment experiences via the internet. Over twenty percent of all advanced degrees for educators nationwide are now earned through virtual colleges such as The University of Phoenix, AspenUniversity, or Walden University (to name just a few).
In a period of accelerated change either public schools will join with others to create innovative opportunities for educational services or step aside as other institutions take over. These are the challenges we must contemplate as the shrinking economy will not allow for additional funding for our public schools. What was once valued as an ideal: low pupil to teacher ratios, is being replaced with much larger than sought after class sizes preK-12. The teacher of the future may be valued for his/her ability to teach students in much larger numbers than the teacher of today. Is this a change that represents an educational improvement? Possibly not, but a function of the new economic realities we must confront.
The future for pubic education may look entirely different than we imagine today. These are the times and challenges we face and like it or not we must be accepting of them. The educational leader of tomorrow will have to first usher in a period of transition and uncertainty as public schools that were once the bedrock of American society for the past hundred years reshape themselves for the profoundly different future ahead.
Think about this: No one is presently talking about reduced expectations for public education in spite of these recent record cuts to personnel and programs. In fact, the opposite is true-during a time of drastic cuts in educational resources the expectations for teaching our youth are actually elevated. Another key point: There are very few correlations to the dramatic budget cuts we are experiencing in terms of outputs. In other words, any other industry experiencing such reductions in cash flow would naturally adjust its production rates. For example, a fifteen percent reduction in the revenue stream of a manufacturer who produces light bulbs might be met by a fifteen percent cut in output or product. Not public schools. We are expected to produce the exact same results with many fewer dollars to accomplish this mission.
If you know of Joel Barker’s work with “paradigms” over the past twenty years set your sites on public schools. According to Joel, when the old rules don’t apply that represent the stable or accepted order of things you can count on one thing for certain: new rules take over. Public education is poised for such a paradigm shift that may dramatically alter the way we deliver educational services to youth. In fact, government officials may be counting on this as the frenzy to “privatize” educational delivery models as Charter Schools, Virtual Schools, School Choice programs, and even Home Schools gain increased credibility.
Leave no doubt about it. Public schools will have to embrace accelerated changes in the way we deliver educational services to youth or someone else will step in and do it for us. Oh, and we will have to do this with far less funding. The challenge is daunting given the multitude of unfunded (if not underfunded) federal and state mandates that account for huge parts of school budgets. Union contracts will have to be revisited in states that allow for collective bargaining practices. The existing regulations in place for the thorough and efficient operations of public schools will not make it easy to meet these challenges ahead.
Here’s where innovation fits into the big picture. Schools are embracing changes that were unimaginable just a few years ago but are now up for serious consideration given the pressures of the budget reductions. Recent news accounts in New Jersey point to new programs or initiatives here in the metropolitan area as the school year begins. For example, Toms River schools are incorporating cell phones into the curriculum for students to conduct research, write reports, or download books. In lieu of foreign language teachers some are schools are counting on DVD’s to deliver basic instruction in Spanish at the elementary school level.
Virtual learning classes are becoming a more widely acceptable way for students to earn advanced credits at schools that have eliminated or reduced advanced placement programs. In Mount Olive Township, parents of school-aged children are suddenly being asked to pay for transportation if they live within a two-mile zone of their schools known as subscription bussing. In Sparta, parents of student athletes are being charged a pay-to-play participation fee.
Professional development for teachers appears to be rapidly changing as more and richer content is made available to them via online internet sites. One example is Hopatcong Borough which uses the School Improvement Network’s professional development software to deliver quality enrichment experiences via the internet. Over twenty percent of all advanced degrees for educators nationwide are now earned through virtual colleges such as The University of Phoenix, AspenUniversity, or Walden University (to name just a few).
In a period of accelerated change either public schools will join with others to create innovative opportunities for educational services or step aside as other institutions take over. These are the challenges we must contemplate as the shrinking economy will not allow for additional funding for our public schools. What was once valued as an ideal: low pupil to teacher ratios, is being replaced with much larger than sought after class sizes preK-12. The teacher of the future may be valued for his/her ability to teach students in much larger numbers than the teacher of today. Is this a change that represents an educational improvement? Possibly not, but a function of the new economic realities we must confront.
The future for pubic education may look entirely different than we imagine today. These are the times and challenges we face and like it or not we must be accepting of them. The educational leader of tomorrow will have to first usher in a period of transition and uncertainty as public schools that were once the bedrock of American society for the past hundred years reshape themselves for the profoundly different future ahead.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Complex World of Internet Speech and Student Expression
The world of instant communications via the internet and instant messaging services has created an environment that schools find increasingly difficult to regulate or influence. Complicating the issue is the limited authority of schools and the individual rights of teens and children to express freely their thoughts and comments on social media. This area deserves much judicial attention and in fact will take many years of litigation in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the ability of school officials to intervene when student speech reaches a broad audience via cyberspace.
A review of fundamental issues regarding student free speech rights reveal how little school officials can control the content of student online expression especially if the student speech originates off campus. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as granted by the United States Constitution. The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and applies this concept to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In my home state of New Jersey, the free speech clause is found in Article I, paragraph 6, and states that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…” The freedom of expression encompasses non-verbal and verbal speech, including expressive conduct which conveys a particularized message that must generally be understood by those viewing it. When expressed views are controversial the government must be tolerant of the rights of individuals to express their views. Students cannot be disciplined or even punished for expressing their personal views on school property unless school officials have reasons to expect that the speech or expressive conduct will substantially interfere with the operation of the school and this becomes more complex when student views are expressed off school property.
A school district can restrict certain speech depending on the forum in which the speech or expression occurs. This becomes clear if the speech originates on school grounds or at a school sponsored function when that speech is lewd, vulgar or profane, or if the speech advocates for the illegal use of drugs. When an observer would view student speech as that of the school’s own speech on the basis of legitimate pedagogical concerns, or if the speech were powerful enough to cause a substantial disruption to the educational process or the rights of other students at school, school officials may act to limit or restrict such speech. Three types of forums exist: open forums, limited public forums, and closed public forums. The open forum is a traditional place with a long-standing tradition of free expression such as sidewalks, streets, parks, shopping malls, and generally any public venue like the Internet. Limited pubic forums and closed public forums allow governmental limits to certain types or forms of public speech as long as government policies are reasonable and do are not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint nor can such policies discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker.
School policies are generally designed to control student speech and conduct attributable to actions occurring when students attend school or school sponsored events. It is wise to note that most children and young adults attend school only about one-sixth of their lives from birth to eighteen years of age. The other five-fifths in the lives of youth occur in public settings, communities, or homes and these actions generally are not within reach of school officials. This is an important component for consideration given that the majority of student speech originates in the public or private sector of society and not in school buildings.
School officials are confronted these days with complex questions when asked to deal with the phenomenon of what has become to be known as “Cyberbullying”. This area of student speech is largely unregulated and often results in what researchers have characterized as “willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers toward other children or students. Remember that cell phones have just recently evolved into tiny computers with internet capabilities including not only texting but photographic and video sharing of content. Often, school disciplinary codes of conduct define very little about the authority of educators to regulate online student speech and expression due to the lack of authority that school officials actually have regarding these matters. Whether the responsibility for regulating student conduct online falls to the family, the police, or the schools remains an open question for modern society to explore.
The issues of student speech and content of online speech will remain problematic for school officials unless such speech materially and substantially interferes with maintaining discipline and the general safe operation of the school. One example would be an off campus threat of violence made by a student such as a bomb threat or “hit list” against specific individuals. The more complex issues revolve around non-violent, non-threatening speech that may simply be vulgar, offensive or harassing. Courts are clearly divided on the ability of school officials to regulate or even react to student online speech that originates off campus. Numerous cases have risen in various circuit courts and the overwhelming majority of cases have been found in favor of the free speech rights of students or children.
It is increasingly more apparent that the Internet has created a revolution in the manner in which society communicates. Students will use the Internet as a vehicle for social interaction, communication, and information. Young people will use the online forum to criticize, attack, humiliate, embarrass and even anger other students or school officials. With respect to the type of speech that occurs on the Internet, the central question of whether such speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school will determine the appropriate reaction of school officials nationwide in future months or years. The facts or circumstances that may lead a reasonable person to conclude that the result of such speech will lead to classroom disruptions, acts of violence such as fights, defiant student behavior, and truancy, will be the determining factor guiding the actions of schools. The “materially and substantially interferes” threshold of law that applies to the appropriate discipline and operation of schools will continue to guide school officials in this confusing and complex area of student speech regulation. Until the courts have provided sufficient guidance to school officials, the Internet remains a wide-open public forum for expression that will evade restrictions or regulations due in part to the freedoms provided by the United States Constitution for all individuals in society including our youngest citizens.
A review of fundamental issues regarding student free speech rights reveal how little school officials can control the content of student online expression especially if the student speech originates off campus. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as granted by the United States Constitution. The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and applies this concept to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In my home state of New Jersey, the free speech clause is found in Article I, paragraph 6, and states that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…” The freedom of expression encompasses non-verbal and verbal speech, including expressive conduct which conveys a particularized message that must generally be understood by those viewing it. When expressed views are controversial the government must be tolerant of the rights of individuals to express their views. Students cannot be disciplined or even punished for expressing their personal views on school property unless school officials have reasons to expect that the speech or expressive conduct will substantially interfere with the operation of the school and this becomes more complex when student views are expressed off school property.
A school district can restrict certain speech depending on the forum in which the speech or expression occurs. This becomes clear if the speech originates on school grounds or at a school sponsored function when that speech is lewd, vulgar or profane, or if the speech advocates for the illegal use of drugs. When an observer would view student speech as that of the school’s own speech on the basis of legitimate pedagogical concerns, or if the speech were powerful enough to cause a substantial disruption to the educational process or the rights of other students at school, school officials may act to limit or restrict such speech. Three types of forums exist: open forums, limited public forums, and closed public forums. The open forum is a traditional place with a long-standing tradition of free expression such as sidewalks, streets, parks, shopping malls, and generally any public venue like the Internet. Limited pubic forums and closed public forums allow governmental limits to certain types or forms of public speech as long as government policies are reasonable and do are not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint nor can such policies discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker.
School policies are generally designed to control student speech and conduct attributable to actions occurring when students attend school or school sponsored events. It is wise to note that most children and young adults attend school only about one-sixth of their lives from birth to eighteen years of age. The other five-fifths in the lives of youth occur in public settings, communities, or homes and these actions generally are not within reach of school officials. This is an important component for consideration given that the majority of student speech originates in the public or private sector of society and not in school buildings.
School officials are confronted these days with complex questions when asked to deal with the phenomenon of what has become to be known as “Cyberbullying”. This area of student speech is largely unregulated and often results in what researchers have characterized as “willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers toward other children or students. Remember that cell phones have just recently evolved into tiny computers with internet capabilities including not only texting but photographic and video sharing of content. Often, school disciplinary codes of conduct define very little about the authority of educators to regulate online student speech and expression due to the lack of authority that school officials actually have regarding these matters. Whether the responsibility for regulating student conduct online falls to the family, the police, or the schools remains an open question for modern society to explore.
The issues of student speech and content of online speech will remain problematic for school officials unless such speech materially and substantially interferes with maintaining discipline and the general safe operation of the school. One example would be an off campus threat of violence made by a student such as a bomb threat or “hit list” against specific individuals. The more complex issues revolve around non-violent, non-threatening speech that may simply be vulgar, offensive or harassing. Courts are clearly divided on the ability of school officials to regulate or even react to student online speech that originates off campus. Numerous cases have risen in various circuit courts and the overwhelming majority of cases have been found in favor of the free speech rights of students or children.
It is increasingly more apparent that the Internet has created a revolution in the manner in which society communicates. Students will use the Internet as a vehicle for social interaction, communication, and information. Young people will use the online forum to criticize, attack, humiliate, embarrass and even anger other students or school officials. With respect to the type of speech that occurs on the Internet, the central question of whether such speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school will determine the appropriate reaction of school officials nationwide in future months or years. The facts or circumstances that may lead a reasonable person to conclude that the result of such speech will lead to classroom disruptions, acts of violence such as fights, defiant student behavior, and truancy, will be the determining factor guiding the actions of schools. The “materially and substantially interferes” threshold of law that applies to the appropriate discipline and operation of schools will continue to guide school officials in this confusing and complex area of student speech regulation. Until the courts have provided sufficient guidance to school officials, the Internet remains a wide-open public forum for expression that will evade restrictions or regulations due in part to the freedoms provided by the United States Constitution for all individuals in society including our youngest citizens.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Connection Between Student Achievement and Teacher Evaluation
The debate concerning the use of student progress as a measure of teacher performance is beginning to receive considerable attention nationwide. With the recent election of Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey this idea gained further traction in the Garden State. The sought after federal “Race to the Top” U.S. Department of Education grant for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding is contingent on a renewed teacher evaluation process that formally recognizes a correlation between student achievement and teacher performance. Is this a valid idea whose time has come? Ask yourself this question: In an era of increased accountability for public education why would any reliable system for evaluation not include student performance?
Here is the problem: The current system of teacher evaluation in use throughout New Jersey is far too narrow in scope and falls short in many key critical areas. This is primarily due to overreliance on outdated methods for assessing teaching performance linked to limited criteria. For example, a major flaw in the current process for evaluation is the sole reliance upon direct observation of teachers by principals or supervisors. Direct observation limits the evaluator’s view to only a fraction of total annual teaching time. As a result the evaluation process fails to offer a complete picture of employee performance. Therefore by design the common evaluation process for assessing teacher performance in New Jersey limits school administrators to only a snapshot of employee performance. What’s needed is a full motion picture of performance over time.
The dual mandates of teacher accountability and improvement of instruction are among the most important components of our schools and should be the centerpiece for valid and reliable teacher evaluation practices. Consider that the quality of any school district is directly linked to the performance of the individuals who work there. Administrators are in need of accurate and complete measures of employee performance in order to assure the best connection between qualifications and assignment of personnel. By extension, administrative decisions concerning teacher placement typically correlate with the overall achievement of students assigned to specific courses within a school. These important components need to be infused into a reliable and defensible evaluation process.
Classroom observation as a primary data source for evaluation provides only one snapshot of teaching actions and limits the administrator’s overall view of performance. The exclusive use of direct observation presumes that observable, overt teaching behaviors provide a sufficient basis for judging teacher adequacy and competencies. Hidden from view are the elements of teacher planning, modification of instructional materials, context and depth, working relationships with colleagues, and student growth factors. Equally important are the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, content mastery, and feedback from students and parents.
The reforms that are shaping America’s public schools include a movement toward increased academic rigor, learner-centered schools, distributed leadership responsibilities, professional learning communities, and collaborative problem-solving. A new era of rapid technological change implies that teachers will need sustained professional growth experiences and the ability to communicate with many constituencies. Outdated and subjective teacher evaluation practices exclude most of the elements described above and contribute little to the student learning and growth measures needed today in our public schools.
If teachers and principals together are to be held accountable for student performance then they will need to have genuine and sustainable professional interactions that support teaching and learning. What is also needed is a mechanism for performance evaluation that takes into account multiple measures of student success. If evaluation protocols intend to respect the professionalism and qualities of excellent teaching then a more inclusive system for collecting, collaborating, analyzing and disaggregating data is needed. At the center for all of our efforts must be the growth and progress of the students we serve.
Schools now have access to multiple views and longitudinal data about student progress thanks to a decade of content standard development and standardized testing in America. Why not use this rich data to inform us about the effectiveness of teaching practices and behaviors in our public schools? Outdated evaluative practices merely offer a glimpse into the act of teaching as opposed to the results of teaching. This is an important shift for educators. Why do many professional teacher associations appear fearful of analyzing the results of teaching when considering the overall effectiveness of teaching behaviors?
In fact, teachers should be making their own case for valid and reliable evaluation practices rather than avoiding or deflecting this discussion. The reason schools exist as a public institution is to meet the needs of the children we serve. Teachers who are unwilling to accept responsibility for student progress or demonstrate consistently mediocre professionalism need to be counseled and removed. Unfortunately, only in extreme cases are schools able to facilitate the dismissal of ineffective teachers. In order to prevail in cases of dismissal school boards must rely upon a wealth of data absent from common evaluation practices in New Jersey.
Many other states have embraced the use of student data and multiple criteria for evaluation as part of a complete picture of employee performance. It is time for New Jersey to usher in a new era of accountability and cooperation based upon more modern and reliable assessments. Evaluation of teachers should contain multiple rating categories and procedures that value student growth and achievement. Evaluation must be fair, inclusive of constructive feedback, and connected to a foundation of support and shared professional development in schools.
New Jersey’s new administration has a golden opportunity to depart from the past practices that have limited the overall view of educational performance and innovation by advocating for evaluation reform. These reforms need to be consistent with the federal Department of Education’s Race to the Top funding goals as millions of dollars in federal support could be gained. This alone is reason enough to pursue some much needed reforms in educational evaluation.
If New Jersey is to embrace any form of merit pay for school employees it will first have to address the inconsistencies and shortcomings of current evaluation processes. The Commissioner of Education would be wise to inspect the educational changes that have taken root in other places and be prepared to break from outdated thinking about evaluation and accountability practices. This may finally be the best time for us to place students at the center of our renewed efforts to build excellent public schools in New Jersey. Isn’t that why our schools exist in the first place?
Here is the problem: The current system of teacher evaluation in use throughout New Jersey is far too narrow in scope and falls short in many key critical areas. This is primarily due to overreliance on outdated methods for assessing teaching performance linked to limited criteria. For example, a major flaw in the current process for evaluation is the sole reliance upon direct observation of teachers by principals or supervisors. Direct observation limits the evaluator’s view to only a fraction of total annual teaching time. As a result the evaluation process fails to offer a complete picture of employee performance. Therefore by design the common evaluation process for assessing teacher performance in New Jersey limits school administrators to only a snapshot of employee performance. What’s needed is a full motion picture of performance over time.
The dual mandates of teacher accountability and improvement of instruction are among the most important components of our schools and should be the centerpiece for valid and reliable teacher evaluation practices. Consider that the quality of any school district is directly linked to the performance of the individuals who work there. Administrators are in need of accurate and complete measures of employee performance in order to assure the best connection between qualifications and assignment of personnel. By extension, administrative decisions concerning teacher placement typically correlate with the overall achievement of students assigned to specific courses within a school. These important components need to be infused into a reliable and defensible evaluation process.
Classroom observation as a primary data source for evaluation provides only one snapshot of teaching actions and limits the administrator’s overall view of performance. The exclusive use of direct observation presumes that observable, overt teaching behaviors provide a sufficient basis for judging teacher adequacy and competencies. Hidden from view are the elements of teacher planning, modification of instructional materials, context and depth, working relationships with colleagues, and student growth factors. Equally important are the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, content mastery, and feedback from students and parents.
The reforms that are shaping America’s public schools include a movement toward increased academic rigor, learner-centered schools, distributed leadership responsibilities, professional learning communities, and collaborative problem-solving. A new era of rapid technological change implies that teachers will need sustained professional growth experiences and the ability to communicate with many constituencies. Outdated and subjective teacher evaluation practices exclude most of the elements described above and contribute little to the student learning and growth measures needed today in our public schools.
If teachers and principals together are to be held accountable for student performance then they will need to have genuine and sustainable professional interactions that support teaching and learning. What is also needed is a mechanism for performance evaluation that takes into account multiple measures of student success. If evaluation protocols intend to respect the professionalism and qualities of excellent teaching then a more inclusive system for collecting, collaborating, analyzing and disaggregating data is needed. At the center for all of our efforts must be the growth and progress of the students we serve.
Schools now have access to multiple views and longitudinal data about student progress thanks to a decade of content standard development and standardized testing in America. Why not use this rich data to inform us about the effectiveness of teaching practices and behaviors in our public schools? Outdated evaluative practices merely offer a glimpse into the act of teaching as opposed to the results of teaching. This is an important shift for educators. Why do many professional teacher associations appear fearful of analyzing the results of teaching when considering the overall effectiveness of teaching behaviors?
In fact, teachers should be making their own case for valid and reliable evaluation practices rather than avoiding or deflecting this discussion. The reason schools exist as a public institution is to meet the needs of the children we serve. Teachers who are unwilling to accept responsibility for student progress or demonstrate consistently mediocre professionalism need to be counseled and removed. Unfortunately, only in extreme cases are schools able to facilitate the dismissal of ineffective teachers. In order to prevail in cases of dismissal school boards must rely upon a wealth of data absent from common evaluation practices in New Jersey.
Many other states have embraced the use of student data and multiple criteria for evaluation as part of a complete picture of employee performance. It is time for New Jersey to usher in a new era of accountability and cooperation based upon more modern and reliable assessments. Evaluation of teachers should contain multiple rating categories and procedures that value student growth and achievement. Evaluation must be fair, inclusive of constructive feedback, and connected to a foundation of support and shared professional development in schools.
New Jersey’s new administration has a golden opportunity to depart from the past practices that have limited the overall view of educational performance and innovation by advocating for evaluation reform. These reforms need to be consistent with the federal Department of Education’s Race to the Top funding goals as millions of dollars in federal support could be gained. This alone is reason enough to pursue some much needed reforms in educational evaluation.
If New Jersey is to embrace any form of merit pay for school employees it will first have to address the inconsistencies and shortcomings of current evaluation processes. The Commissioner of Education would be wise to inspect the educational changes that have taken root in other places and be prepared to break from outdated thinking about evaluation and accountability practices. This may finally be the best time for us to place students at the center of our renewed efforts to build excellent public schools in New Jersey. Isn’t that why our schools exist in the first place?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Superintendent's Perspective on Budget Cuts to Public Education
The economic realities that confront the nation and particularly the state of New Jersey at this critical time have created a “perfect storm” for public school educational funding. We face the largest budget shortfall for school financing in at least half a century. The federal, state, and local commitment to fully fund public school budgets has been seriously eroded and the nationwide taxpayer frustration over increased taxes and spending have placed schools at serious risk of becoming underfinanced for 2010-2011 and beyond. As a result public schools nationwide are curtailing programs and cutting staff. According to one national survey by the American Association of School Administrators more than 275,000 teachers risk a loss of employment on July 1, 2010.
New Jersey is a good example of the current economic maelstrom. The recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie began a public campaign this winter to discredit the New Jersey Education Association and its membership. Governor Christie then cut educational funding statewide by $820 million. When school budgets were presented for elections in April Governor Christie encouraged taxpayers to turn out in record numbers to defeat ballot initiatives. As a result most of the school budgets in New Jersey were defeated. Following the defeat municipal governments were then empowered to further reduce school funding resulting in unprecedented and deep budget cuts.
In the district of Hopatcong, New Jersey, the above scenario had a dramatic effect on our total school budget for 2010-2011. Couple this with almost two decades of defeated budgets in Hopatcong (school budgets passed only four times in sixteen years) and the cumulative affect is proving to be devastating for our schools. The state reduced its share by 13.2% of the total budget resulting in a formula decrease of $1,700,962. The town council imposed an additional cut of $730,000 to this number resulting in a net loss of more than $2.4 million dollars. The impact will be immediate. Over twenty-four teaching positions will disappear from next year’s workforce in tiny Hopatcong.
Expected increases in required expenditures for 2010-2011 exacerbate these cuts by adding an additional burden of another $2 million to Hopatcong’s school budget. The cumulative effect is a net overall loss of about $4 million to accomplish the mission of our schools. The unprecedented cuts and projected costs will cause the Hopatcong school board to make reductions in positions and programs that will have profound implications for future years. In the past two years alone over forty teaching, operational, and administrative positions have been parsed from our workforce.
The overall impact of these projected cuts to next year’s school budget result in the reduction of the number of teachers available to teach courses, the downsizing of certain programs, the elimination of some sports and activities, and the curtailment of some advanced course offerings for students at the secondary level. Class sizes are expected to increase at all levels from Kindergarten through high school, and the ability of our teaching staff to personalize education for students has been seriously reduced. Activities that extend student learning outside the four walls of the classroom are also negatively affected. It is becoming increasingly harder to preserve the arts, student activities, and athletic programs for students.
The impact of the sudden and serious reductions to school funding may not be known for several years. What is recognized is the profound jeopardy that the reduction in resources and funding has placed our public schools in. The risks are very real that students will not receive the benefits of a comprehensive education they have come to expect. Ironically, New Jersey has built a national reputation on the accomplishments of its public schools with the highest math and language arts test scores in the nation, a dramatic reduction in the minority achievement gap, and the highest graduation rate of all the states.
Missing from this conversation are the realities that schools may not be able to deliver the high quality of services and educational experiences necessary for the future. The state demands a “thorough and efficient” education for each child yet it appears content to provide a “less than complete and effective” amount of funding to accomplish this. Let us not forget that quality public schools are not optional but necessary. We cannot fail to educate all of the children who enter our doors each day and prepare them for a profoundly different 21st century than the one we knew.
Superintendents and school boards will try to preserve as many programs as possible and our outstanding teachers will continue to strive for high outcomes in the years ahead. It is clear that all of us will have to embrace change and adjust to the new economic realities that are destined to alter the face of public education for years to come. What is not clear is our ability to predict the total net impact of all these changes on the people we employ and students we serve. Please know that the leadership of the Hopatcong Public Schools and many others across the state and nation will try our very best to analyze, assess, and adjust to the changing and challenging economic climate ahead for the sake of our children and our future.
New Jersey is a good example of the current economic maelstrom. The recently elected New Jersey governor Chris Christie began a public campaign this winter to discredit the New Jersey Education Association and its membership. Governor Christie then cut educational funding statewide by $820 million. When school budgets were presented for elections in April Governor Christie encouraged taxpayers to turn out in record numbers to defeat ballot initiatives. As a result most of the school budgets in New Jersey were defeated. Following the defeat municipal governments were then empowered to further reduce school funding resulting in unprecedented and deep budget cuts.
In the district of Hopatcong, New Jersey, the above scenario had a dramatic effect on our total school budget for 2010-2011. Couple this with almost two decades of defeated budgets in Hopatcong (school budgets passed only four times in sixteen years) and the cumulative affect is proving to be devastating for our schools. The state reduced its share by 13.2% of the total budget resulting in a formula decrease of $1,700,962. The town council imposed an additional cut of $730,000 to this number resulting in a net loss of more than $2.4 million dollars. The impact will be immediate. Over twenty-four teaching positions will disappear from next year’s workforce in tiny Hopatcong.
Expected increases in required expenditures for 2010-2011 exacerbate these cuts by adding an additional burden of another $2 million to Hopatcong’s school budget. The cumulative effect is a net overall loss of about $4 million to accomplish the mission of our schools. The unprecedented cuts and projected costs will cause the Hopatcong school board to make reductions in positions and programs that will have profound implications for future years. In the past two years alone over forty teaching, operational, and administrative positions have been parsed from our workforce.
The overall impact of these projected cuts to next year’s school budget result in the reduction of the number of teachers available to teach courses, the downsizing of certain programs, the elimination of some sports and activities, and the curtailment of some advanced course offerings for students at the secondary level. Class sizes are expected to increase at all levels from Kindergarten through high school, and the ability of our teaching staff to personalize education for students has been seriously reduced. Activities that extend student learning outside the four walls of the classroom are also negatively affected. It is becoming increasingly harder to preserve the arts, student activities, and athletic programs for students.
The impact of the sudden and serious reductions to school funding may not be known for several years. What is recognized is the profound jeopardy that the reduction in resources and funding has placed our public schools in. The risks are very real that students will not receive the benefits of a comprehensive education they have come to expect. Ironically, New Jersey has built a national reputation on the accomplishments of its public schools with the highest math and language arts test scores in the nation, a dramatic reduction in the minority achievement gap, and the highest graduation rate of all the states.
Missing from this conversation are the realities that schools may not be able to deliver the high quality of services and educational experiences necessary for the future. The state demands a “thorough and efficient” education for each child yet it appears content to provide a “less than complete and effective” amount of funding to accomplish this. Let us not forget that quality public schools are not optional but necessary. We cannot fail to educate all of the children who enter our doors each day and prepare them for a profoundly different 21st century than the one we knew.
Superintendents and school boards will try to preserve as many programs as possible and our outstanding teachers will continue to strive for high outcomes in the years ahead. It is clear that all of us will have to embrace change and adjust to the new economic realities that are destined to alter the face of public education for years to come. What is not clear is our ability to predict the total net impact of all these changes on the people we employ and students we serve. Please know that the leadership of the Hopatcong Public Schools and many others across the state and nation will try our very best to analyze, assess, and adjust to the changing and challenging economic climate ahead for the sake of our children and our future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)