January 2009 Archives

There is a fascinating story in this morning’s New York Times about the struggles of immigrant students who lacked formal education in their countries of origin. The New York public schools are, of course, obligated to accept and educate these students, most of whom cannot read or write in their native language, and must begin at a basic level to build the skills they need. I have seen this first-hand in the Oakland schools as well, where we get students from rural Mexico and Guatemala who may have attended little or no school prior to their arrival. They might be 14 years old, and are placed at the grade level indicated by their ages, and mixed in with other immigrant students.

This is a challenge we accept as educators, and many of our schools have been thoughtful, creating classes of newcomers, so at least these students can be with others in similar straits, and learn together. But there was a paragraph in the NYT article that jumped out at me. Professor Elaine Klein, who investigated this situation, reported that “At one Queens high school, she said, the principal eliminated two classrooms dedicated to these students. “He said, ‘Look, you have to understand my position: what this group does for my school is bring down my numbers.’ ”

This is one small indicator of the damage done by No Child Left Behind. There are students in New York City whose primary hope for a meaningful education has been destroyed because if the school hosts them, its scores will sink, and the school will be dismantled by the punitive sanctions in this law.

Another indicator can be found by looking at the phenomenon of “push-outs.” These are students who, similar to the illiterate immigrants cited above, tend to have the effect of lowering a school’s average scores. A recent report from Rice University in Texas found that schools in that state were retaining a large number of students in the 9th grade in order to make the schools look better on reports.

By analyzing data from more than 271,000 students in a large urban district the researchers call Brazos City, the study found that 60 percent of the African American students, 75 percent of Latino students and 80 percent of ESL students did not graduate within five years. The researchers found an overall graduation rate of only 33 percent.

Researchers concluded:

The study finds that high-stakes test-based accountability leads not to equitable educational possibilities for youth, but to avoidable losses of thousands of youth from the schools. These losses occur not as administrators cheat or fail to comply, but as they comply with the system as it was designed: that is, in the production of rising test scores for their schools. The study shows that as schools came under the accountability system, which uses test scores to rate schools and reward or discipline principals, large numbers of students left the school system. The exit of low-achieving students created the appearance of rising test scores and of narrowing the achievement gap between white and minority students, thus increasing schools’ ratings.

These increased ratings led to the phenomenon promoted by then-President George W. Bush as the “Texas Miracle,” which supposedly proved that low performing schools could make dramatic increases in test scores when properly motivated.

The report also mentions another effect of NCLB. The curriculum increasingly focused on preparations for the test.

A focus group of African American honor students at Lincoln felt that their classroom experiences had changed markedly since their teachers began paying increased attention to test scores. At the time of the interview, this particular school had been targeted for possible closure the next year due to failure under the Texas and federal (NCLB) systems of accountability. This group of honors level, college-bound students were able to describe the aggravation they felt when the focus of their academic curriculum was changed to test preparation. In one student’s words,

Instead of teaching us the real life things that we are going to need for college and stuff, they started zeroing in just on that test. So it makes everybody nervous, and it threw everybody off. So, like, our curriculum is thrown off, ‘cause what they originally were teaching us in the subjects, all of the sudden they switched, and then they were just zeroing into this test.

There is also an inequity in how this impacts students. According to the report:

There is evidence that the narrowing of the curriculum in response to test mandates further widens the inequities between poor and minority students and their more privileged peers. Under NCLB, more grade levels come under the high-stakes testing requirement. Gold (2007) found that this formula narrows the curriculum for minority students in urban schools, while the suburban schools retain a broader curriculum because they are not under a similar pressure to make a large increase in test scores.

I witness this in Oakland, where teachers in low-performing schools report that they do not have time to teach science and social studies, because of pressure to increase scores in math and reading.

These complaints about NCLB are not new, but the debate is all the more urgent now that we actually have a chance to end this law and make a new start in educational reform. There is a promising petition drive under way that focuses our attention on what real education reform should look like. It is called Will We Really? It proposes four key points.

1. Every child deserves a 21st Century education

2. Every community deserves an equal chance.

3. Every child deserves a well-supported teacher.

4. Every child deserves high-quality health care.

Please join me in signing on to this new start.

What do you think? Is it time leave NCLB behind?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 12:54 PM | Permalink | 6 Comments | Recommend

In an Oakland elementary school a few weeks back I saw an unusual portrait on the office wall. America’s First Family, it said, and there were Sasha and Malia, Barack and Michelle smiling down at everyone. African American children in this school can look up and see a family that looks like their own honored. But when I think of what the children in these schools face in the coming months, why do I feel a sense of foreboding and dread?

It could be because California’s Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed the budget passed by the Democratically controlled legislature because it did not make enough cuts, and state Republicans are opposing any solution to the $40 billion deficit that includes any new taxes. And in Los Angeles, the District has sent out a letter informing 2,300 teachers that they may be laid off next month due to cuts the state is already making.

California’s school children and teachers are going to be the next big victims of the collapse in our economy. A a dozen years ago, when the state coffers were full, then-governor Pete Wilson launched a class-size reduction program. In California today most kindergarten to third grade classrooms have no more than twenty students. But these class sizes are likely to go back up to thirty or more in many districts across the state, once proposed cuts take effect.

Meanwhile, President-elect Obama has pledged to make the repair and modernization of our schools a top priority. In his radio address of December 6, he said:

...my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.

No firm dollar figure for this effort has been decided on. But the collapse of our state’s economy and the dire warnings from our state capitol have me wondering how we are caring for more than our school buildings.

The dictionary defines infrastructure as “the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.” As a society, we are able to see the value of investing in these facilities, because we will get two benefits, one immediate and one long term. We get an economic boost from the jobs created and the dollars flowing to pay for materials and construction. And we get the long term benefit of improved facilities, which continue to serve us after they are built.

Supporters of investing this money in school infrastructure have suggested it will improve student outcomes by reducing crowded conditions and creating safer, more technologically advanced schools. But at the same time we are preparing to invest in facilities, it appears we are ready to disinvest in the teachers and staff that make these facilities work. And while new schools may help relieve crowding, the layoff of thousands of teachers will have the opposite effect.

Just like the roads and buildings on the drawing boards, our children’s minds are being built each and every day they are in school. Their fundamental ability to read, write, and reason will be undermined if the schools are de-funded. What’s more, we are sending our children a blunt message about how they are valued as part of society.

Our schools are indeed a key part of our nation’s infrastructure – but schools are much more than the buildings that house them. A school is alive with the students who fill its corridors and classrooms. Will they be fed and healthy? Will they be moved mid-year, crammed 30-plus into classrooms accustomed to holding 20? Will their teachers be honored and decently paid, their health cared for? Or will they face layoffs and cuts to their health benefits?

At a time when millions of students across the nation face economic stress and even hunger and homelessness, it is more important than ever that our public schools offer an oasis of stability and support for learning. The quality and strength of our schools is not something that should be compromised when times are tough -- it is something that should be strengthened as one of the central pillars of our society.

I understand that our new president cannot solve all our woes with the wave of a wand. But I hope that our leaders, both state and federal, come to understand that shiny new schools will be of little value if they are not well-staffed by dedicated teachers.

Are budget cuts hitting your school? What do you think of the prospect of public investment in educational infrastructure?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

When I graduated from high school in the mid 70s, a year early, I had the bare minimum of credits and a GPA just over 3. I went to work in the foundry industry and attended Laney College in Oakland off and on over the next seven years, before being admitted to UC Berkeley in 1982. I wasn’t ready for a UC education at age 17, but I graduated with honors in 1986.

This experience is part of the reason I have questioned the wisdom of gearing our high schools to focus on preparing all graduates for admission to top-level four year universities. This was in response to current proposals and policies that would mandate Algebra for all 8th grade students in California (now on hold due to an injunction) and require high school graduates to meet the University of California’s “A to G requirements.”

In my post a few weeks back, I raised the concern that if we make a high school diploma an all-or-nothing deal, with admission to a four-year university the only acceptable outcome, we risk increasing the number of students who will drop out, and ignore the many students who may find other pathways to success in their adult lives.

There is no doubt that in our future economy, some form of post-secondary education will be of increasing value. Community colleges helped me along my path, providing me with inexpensive, flexible and accessible classes that allowed me to transfer to a four-year institution. It turns out community colleges are a hugely overlooked resource, which provide a vital avenue to success for many people.

A draft white paper by PolicyLink on Federal Infrastructure Workforce Strategy recently reported that:

Seventy five percent of all African-American, Latino, and Native Americans that pursue a higher education degree start their journey in a community college. Offering more 175 degree and certificates in hundreds of vocation fields, in California, for example, the 109 colleges that make up the CCC are the largest provider of work training. Meanwhile, students who earn a degree or certificate from a California community college increase their earnings by 63%. Meanwhile, in state of Washington, which is realigning the state's basic skills education to integrate it with workforce training, found that students who complete at least one year of community college (that leads to a credential) can significantly improve their earning power. Conducted for the Ford Foundation by David Prince, The Tipping Point Study (2005), which tracked 35, 000 working age adult students who came to community college with high school education or less, or non-English-speaking, found that attainment of a one-year credential resulted in an "earnings bump" of: $7,000 more per year for ESL students, $8,500 more per year for an adult basic education student, and $2,700 and $1,700 more per year (respectively) for workforce students entering with a GED or high school diploma only.

I was permitted to graduate from high school even though I was not ready for a four-year university. Community colleges allowed me the freedom to learn as I was ready, grow up a bit, and when I eventually arrived at UC Berkeley, I was a hungry student ready to succeed. Let’s work to keep as many avenues open to our students as possible.

Was a community college part of your pathway? What role do community colleges play in your region? How do you think our high schools should best prepare students for their futures?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:53 PM | Permalink | 5 Comments | Recommend