Chatter with Children in Grocery Stores

A new study investigates adult chatter with their children while in the grocery store and find that it may help overcome the "word gap"that exists between children entering elementary school.

The Candidates (Yes, R's and D's) on Education

Education Week published this helpful index of the candidates and their plans for education. Read more here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/election-guide-5-education-takeaways-from-candidates.html

States with Most K-12 Black Student Graduates

National Center for Education Statistics new study shows that my home state, Georgia, is not among the top states with the most K-12 student graduates who are African-American/Black. Unfortunately, this is no shocker to me, but I do hope for the days where Georgia can proudly make this this. Here are those states that are above the national average of African-American/Black graduates.

National average: 69% graduation rate for African-American/Black students compared to 73% for Hispanic students, 86% for white students, and 88% for Asian students.

In reverse order, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

10. South Carolina and Arizona (71%)

9. Vermont and Maine (72%)

8. Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts and Missouri (73%)

7. Iowa, Delaware, Nebraska, West Virginia (74%)

6. Kansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia (75%)

5. North Dakota, New Hampshire, Hawaii (76%)

4. Maryland (77%)

3. Arkansas (78%)

2. Montana and Tennessee (79%)

1. Texas (84%)

See 2011-2012 data from Governing.com.

U.S. Department of Education orders districts to fix funding disparities

In an official "Dear Colleague Letter" released this week, the U.S. Department of Education basically instructed school districts to have similar academic course offerings for its students, regardless of race, color, origin, etc. The Letter is issued by the Office of Civil Rights, which enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance).

Chronic and widespread racial disparities in access to rigorous courses, academic programs, and extracurricular activities; stable workforces of effective teachers, leaders, and support staff; safe and appropriate school buildings and facilities; and modern technology and high-quality instructional materials further hinder the education of
students of color today. (Page 2).  

 As concrete examples, the letter cites:

But schools serving more students of color are less likely to offer advanced courses and gifted and talented programs than schools serving mostly white populations, and students of color are less likely than their white peers to be enrolled in those courses and programs within schools that have those offerings. For example, almost one in five black high school students attend a high school that does not offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses, a higher proportion than any other racial group. Students with limited-English-proficiency (English language learners) are also underrepresented in AP courses according to data from the 2011-12 school year. In that year, English language learners represented five percent of high school students, but only two percent of the students enrolled in an AP course.11 Similarly, of the high schools serving the most black and Latino students in the 2011-12 school year, only 74 percent offered Algebra II and only 66 percent offered chemistry. Comparable high-level opportunities were provided much more often in schools serving the fewest black and Latino students, where 83 percent offered Algebra II courses and 78 percent offered chemistry. (Page 3.)

On the facilities of schools:

The physical spaces where our children are educated are also important resources that influence the learning and development of all students, yet many of our Nation’s schools have fallen into disrepair. Too often, school districts with higher enrollments of students of color invest thousands of dollars less per student in their facilities than those districts with predominantly white enrollments. (Page 4.)

On teacher pay within the same school district:

. . . [D]isparities may be indicative of broader discriminatory policies or practices that, even if facially neutral, disadvantage students of color. For example, teachers in high schools serving the highest percentage of black and Latino students during the 2011-12 school year were paid on average $1,913 less per year than their colleagues in other schools within the same district that serve the lowest percentage of black and Latino students. (Page 5.)

The Letter also recognizes that snap-shot data may not tell the whole story.

The provision of equal opportunities may require more or less funding depending on the location of the school, the condition of existing facilities, and the particular needs of students such as English language learners and students with disabilities. For example, older facilities generally require more money for annual maintenance than do newer facilities. Similarly, greater annual per-pupil library expenditures for one school may reflect an effort to correct years of underfunding of a library collection. Funding disparities that benefit students of a particular race, color, or national origin may also permissibly occur when districts are attempting to remedy past discrimination. (Page 10.)

---

I encourage you to read more to find your own gems.

-e

New Study says a college degree continues to be more valuable

An article published in the New York Times today shows that the value of having a college degree has risen dramatically since 1980 (for the 80's babies like me), and has even risen since 2010.

Here's a bit of the scoop of what David Leonhardt writes:

The pay of people with a four-year college degree has risen compared to that of those with a high school degree but no college credit. The relative pay of people who attended college without earning a four-year degree has stayed flat.

Importantly, the article also notes:

a bachelor’s degree does not guarantee success. But of course it doesn’t. Nothing guarantees success . . .

The article even goes on to criticize the discussions aimed to depress people from going to college.

The decision not to attend college for fear that it’s a bad deal is among the most economically irrational decisions anybody could make in 2014.

To read the whole thing yourself, see here:

Is College Worth It? Clearly, New Data Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Did you know? "Children of alumni had a 45 percent greater chance of admission"

This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Opinion that upheld the state of Michigan's ban on affirmative action policies for state undergraduate institutions.

The case is Schuette v. BAMN (the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary).  It stems form a prior case, Grutter v. Bollinger, where the U.S. Supreme Court considered University of Michigan Law School's policy to consider an applicant's race/ethnicity as one of many factors toward law school admission.  After that decision, the state of Michigan voters adopted "Proposal 2" (which subsequently became part of the state's constitution -- Art. I, §26), a state law that "prohibits the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities."  Slip Opinion, page 1. In this instant case (that's what legal people say when they are referring to the case in discussion), the Supreme Court needed to determine whether the lower court should have struck down the voter's law.  Our U.S. Supreme Court determined that the appellate court was incorrect:  the state law of Michigan banning affirmative action was upheld as a proper.

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_5367.pdf

More to write on this soon. Including a juxtoposition like this one: affirmative action and legacy preference.

Information about Every County in Mississippi: Education Scorecards

Some interesting information on education scorecards for the state of Mississippi came across my email desk today, so naturally I thought about the time I spent with the Mississippi state legislature and wanted to share them. I have a friend involved in their creation at the Center for Education Innovation, and I thought that they may peak some broader interest.

Website: http://mscei.com/community-engagement/education-scorecards/

Scorecards: https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=def63b8d677741ff&id=DEF63B8D677741FF%21411&authkey=!AMwJyo8Ji-1WHpQ 

Winners! This Round of Race to the Top Goes to ...

Houston (TX), Clarksdale (MS), Clarendon Co. (SC), Kentucky Valley (KY), Springdale (AK).

According to yesterday's news in Edweek:

• Clarendon County School District Two, a consortium of four rural districts in central South Carolina that describes itself as "very diverse." It encompasses districts with both rural and urban poverty, districts with a high percentage of minority students, and districts with a burgeoning population of English-learners. Winnings: $25 million.
• Clarksdale Municipal School District in the Mississippi Delta, a mostly black district with 3,350 students. Winnings: $10 million.
• Kentucky Valley Educational Cooperative, a consortium of 18 rural districts, that narrowly missed winning last time around. Winnings: $30 million.
• Springdale School District in the northwest corner of Arkansas. This district near the Tyson Foods headquarters enrolls 20,500 students, including many English-learners. Interestingly, the city of Springdale has one of the largest populations of Marshall Islands immigrants in the country. Winnings: $25.9 million.
• Houston is a 200,000-student urban district and two-time Broad Prize winner.

I am happy to resources going to the South and rural places where they are certainly needed.  Now, to track the applications from these winners...

Kellogg Foundation chooses its Next CEO and President: Ms. Tabron aspires to change the world for vulnerable kids

Ms. Tabron is many things:  an employee of the company for 26 years, a woman who grew up in Detroit, the current the executive vice president of operations and treasurer, the organization's 12th leader since its founding in 1930, a Michigan alumna, and the company's first African American leader and first female leader in its history.

After conducting and international and U.S. wide search, Tabron was the best candidate for the job.  She will replace Sterling Speirn, "who announced he will step down this year after heading the organization for nearly eight years."

For more:  http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20131021/NEWS01/310210017/Kellogg-Foundation-looks-within-new-CEO?nclick_check=1

All About HBCUs

I take pride in having chosen to attend an HBCU (Historically Black Colleges & Universities).  Like many blessed, mentored, hard-working and inspirational students, I had many choices of post-high school schools to choose from, including HBCUs and Ivy League schools.  I made the choice to matriculate at Hampton University.  I have been pleased with that choice through all these years.

I get the kind of pride from my undergraduate institution that many have... deeply wired in my psyche with warm nostalgic remembrances. So, it is with that pride, that I was happy to see this spread come through my emails today:  US Airways is doing a multiple-page spread on HBCUs. Begin on Page 48.

I hope you enjoy it.

August Trial Date for (first of many) APS Cheating Scandal Legal Proceedings

A judge has set a trial date for this August 2013 for the state to present its case against a defendant-former executive.  These charges are separate from the conspiracy case that envelopes most of the Atlanta Public Schools Cheating Scandal legal proceedings that are certain to come later.  As reported, this trial is for actions of intimidating witnesses.

Watch for yourself (courtesy of local news affiliate WSB):

Affirmative Action still not "decided"

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released its Opinion of the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. case, also known as our time's Affirmative Action case.

For the non-lawyers, my reading is that the Supreme Court held that a university gets deference in deciding and determining its diversity mission...but University does not get deference in deciding how to go about achieving diversity. Judicial review (strict scrutiny) is required. The case now goes back to lower courts to review whether the university went about achieving their mission in a "narrowly-tailored" (as race-neutral as possible) way.

So, the Court did not do much "deciding" today on the merits on the case (which means they did not get into whether "diversity" is actually a compelling interest, except Justice Thomas who long ago decided his stance that no use of race is acceptable to him) but rather did some clarifying on what the judicial standard is for college admissions cases. The initial Plaintiff, Fisher, did not ask the Court to decide whether past cases on college admissions (Grutter, especially) needed overturning -- a point which Scalia writes separately to justify as his reason for joining the Court's decision on this case. 

I did find some of the Court's point particularly interesting.  First, the Court actually said that universities are not required to exhaust all the race-neutral means of admissions processes that they can think of.  Instead, the Court said that universities are required to have serious, good faith consideration of race-neutral means of admissions and then justify why those alternative admissions process would not work.  570 U.S. ___ at 10 (2013).  Further, the Court reemphasized that the university's decision must be a workable decision, and tipped its hat that an administratively viable solution might be a consideration in the narrowly-tailored analysis that will follow once the lower courts sort out the judicial review.  570 U.S. ___ at 11 (2013).  Finally, the Court also restated that the judicial standard of strict scrutiny not be "fatal in fact"--which means that it cannot be the case that each time a court reviews a program by which the state has taken action or made some type of determination, a court later strikes it down and says that it was not good enough to muster the constitutional protections of the 14th Amendment.  In fairness, the Court also stated that the strict scrutiny analysis cannot also be "feeble" such that state action gets deference or an easy pass in its process.  570 U.S. ___ at 13 (2013).  

For me, I'm kinda happy that the deciding did not come today (dunno if my heart could take it), but in line with many of my colleagues' sentiments, I don't know whether the odds are going to be better years from now... And, I certainly would have loved to hear Justice Ginsburg on the merits of this case another, wonderful time.


As always, I'm providing the actual Opinion:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
 

Former Georgia Superintendent of Schools Got Out of Prison Last Week

Ms. Linda Schrenko was released from federal prison on March 6, 2013 after serving time for embezzling federal education funds.  She was convicted in 2006, according to public sources.  Supposedly, she spent "half the diverted funds . . . [on her] 2002 campaign for governor, plus $9,300 more for a facelift."

She'll spend the balance of her 5-or-so months in home confinement, pay $414,888 in restitution, and spend three years in a federal probation program.

Crazy right?

Out-of-School Time Opportunity: IKEA is having a Bring a Friend Day

If it takes a village to raise a child (including corporate "villagers"), and out-of-school-time is supposed to be productive, then here's a family outing that might be worth your time.

On March 9^th IKEA is hosting a day of "Bring friends to a local IKEA store."  there is supposed to be some special perks & rewards.

Here's the link to the coupons:  http://www.thelifeimprovementproject.com/byof-coupon.pdf

Here's information about the event:  http://www.thelifeimprovementproject.com/byofevents/bring-friends-to-a-local-ikea-store-for-a-day-of-special-perks-and-rewards-1407

Code much?

What if schools taught students to code?.

Click the link, watch the video.

Buy a T-shirt? How about give to a classroom . . .

J. Crew is selling t-shirts in support of Teach For America, Inc.

See here.


 For the past few years, Teach For America and J. Crew have had a partnership in which shoppers could come in and use a friends and family discount with some of the proceeds benefiting Teach For America, Inc.  And, they aren't the only corporate cause (see here for the Minted sponsorship).

What do I think?  As a Teach For America alumna?

Well, I think that Teach For America works relentlessly to move toward its goals.  One of those goals has been an expansion of the corps to impact more underrepresented students in under-served communities.  As most non-profit leaders will tell you, that takes money.  So, no.  I'm not gonna hate on Teach For America for building corporate sponsorships to strengthen its finances.  Nor am I gonna hate on Teach For America for its effort to market itself as hip, cool, and the thing to do among recent and prospective college graduates.  The teaching profession needs electricity and enthusiasm.

But what goes through my mind seeing the J. Crew model sporting a Teach For America t-shirt for purchase is: why didn't that person just give to Teach For America directly?  Or, they could have bought a t-shirt directly form Teach For America at the online store (and it may even be cheaper).

Better yet, to have a direct impact, a person could go to the donorschoose.org site, filter through the projects, and select a Teach For America corps member classroom (or, hey, ANY project cause any of these teachers' students deserve it) to which a donation would be greatly appreciated.  I have been on the receiving end of someone donating to my classroom.  As thanks, the donor got pictures of my students using the materials, and my students got days on end of playing bean-bag math and reading in our softly lit corner.  I call that having an impact!

If you received a grant for in-school clinic services, what would YOU use it for?

The assumption for this response is that a grant recipient (from the Johnson Foundation) would be able to create a full service healthcare wing of the middle or high school that would be staffed with at least two nurses each of the 5 school days a week.  Given this assumption, here is the plan for specific healthcare services.

More after the break...

Head Start has to keep its Federal Support

Data suggests that enrollment in Head Start is not determinative of whether a child is a successful elementary school student or whether a child is a higher-functioning learner through elementary grades.  Hence, those waiting for Head Start to be the silver bullet to end the achievement gap are sentenced to wait some more.  What Head Start does do (as supported by this study) is ready young children for kindergarten and deliver them to a high-quality kindergarten teacher as eager little sponges ready to grow to their next level of learning (see Exhibits 3a and 3b showing statistically significant cognitive impacts of Head Start for the four-year-old cohort and three-year old cohorts, respectively (p. xxiv-xxvi)).  This is what we should want for all children—to have the skills and readiness to begin to learn.  A program that ensures our nation’s children are ready to learn when they reach school is a program worthwhile.

But the prompt asks whether Head Start is still relevant, which probes not just into the effects of the program (though, excitingly the random assignment of this study allows us to be able to determine actual causality of Head Start), but asks us to explore whether Head Start should continue to take up policy space, research, and public priority.  Should the federal government continue to support the program?

I point to two reasons why Head Start should continue to be supported by the federal government:  (1) the alternative to no federal government support is likely state-only support (rather than no support at all) and states are not currently in positions to take on this additional responsibility and (2) the federal government has societal interest in the secondary benefits Head Start has shown to produce in low-income children and families.

See why after the jump.

Closing the School-to-Prison Pipeline [Conference]

Blogging from Harvard Law School Advocate 4 Education’s 1^st Conference on the School-to-Prison Pipeline

March 8, 2012

                The purpose of the conference is to generate multi-disciplinary dialogue about the challenges and foster solutions to the school-to-prison pipeline.  There’s a call for people to work on specific areas of the pipeline, but a greater call for people to see how these pieces fit together.  The speakers are both legal and non-legal, non-profits, juvenile justice officials.  The audience includes service-providers, policy advocates, lawyers, teachers, and students.  Most dynamic, the closing session will be a dialogue from each of the panels applied to a vignette in hopes to find creative ways to approach the particular case.

Panel 1: Education—How do educational institutions add to the problem and how can they solve it?

Moderator:  Susan Cole:  HLS Director of Ed Law Clinic of Trauma and Law clinic

Dr. Laura McNeal, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute

• ·         Research projects are underway that look at some of the causes of disparate impact that policies have (like “zero-tolerance”).  Also developing research tools that will quantify unconscious/implicit bias in order to push public policy change.

Alana Greer, Advancement Project

• ·         Work with community groups and national organizations to get their voices heard at the policy table.  See various takes on what the exact issues are.  Works in LA (truancy tickets for walking to class late or criminal record), Philadelphia (transfers to alternative disciplinary schools, zero-tolerance, out-of-school suspensions).  There’s a background principle being applied that students are different than they were and are more violent and need a police state.  One of the goals is getting administrators’ discretion back so that boyscouts stop getting disciplined for having sporks and students with scissors from gift-wrapping stop getting put in alternative schools.

Daniel Losen, UCLA Civil Rights Project, Director of Center for Civil Rights Remedies

• ·         Focus on school discipline problem—the number of children getting kicked out of school for discipline issues.  For successful remedies have to get to school resources, implicit bias, effective preschool because expulsion is the outcome of these things.  Has promoted a borrowing a disparate impact analysis from administrative law—requiring that a method of administration that has an adverse impact on protected groups (even though it’s facially neutral) can still violate Title XI.  The structure of that disparate impact analysis includes (1) adverse impact on protected group, and either (2) the practice is educationally unsound or (3) less discrimination option exist.  Discipline isn’t just about safety, it’s about students getting time back in school.

Dr. Tim Lisante, New York City Department of Education

• ·         Spent time in Rikers Island in NYC (where there are many jails) teaching and being a principal with students who were sent to the center from their home school.  At this stage, being in the center is pre-adjudication for the students until they have been through their court process.  Now he’s a bureaucrat (J) and a parent of three sons in NYC.  Works on home-school re-entry to transfer students back into their schools once finished in the court systems. (NYC has over 500 high schools).

Back to the Question: Is a FEDERAL Department of Education Necessary—notes from academia

On Hess and Darling-Hammond

About two months ago, Rick Hess and Linda Darling-Hammond joined forces to tell New York Times subscribers what the federal government is good at doing as it relates to education.[1]  Four things were on their list—and “[b]eyond this list, the federal government is simply not well situated to make schools and teachers improve.” Of the four, I’d probably be in 75% agreement, but as my previous posts would suggest, I’d also add other things to the list that I continue to be comfortable that the federal government has a role (like incentivizing and supporting state education agencies to make their own administrative and structural changes that might unlock best practices for reducing bureaucracy and supporting local education agencies).  Here’s my quick and dirty thoughts:

1.      Hess + Darling-Hammond: The federal government is good at encouraging transparency for school performance and spending.  à Transparency is a great-sounding sound bite for whatever comes after it.  Who wants systems to operate from behind the curtain anyway?  The scary part is that transparency is usually only talk about the ends, outputs, and outcomes rather than about the resources available, constraints, or inputs.  It is though, a good place to start.  Hess + Darling-Hammond think reports of school and district-level spending would square with the public.  My concern is that raw spending is less important and can easily be manipulated out-of-context.  I would like to see contextualized spending that incorporated best budgeting practices and cost accounting.  How much overhead is needed?  Why? Is money being spent EFFICIENTLY?  Who cares whether $5,000 more was spent in one school than another if that $5,000 was spent on floor cleaner for the cafeteria?  I’m more concerned with which programs or activities use the most resources and of those, which groups they are servicing, for how long, and what those investments are allowing the groups to do and community to enjoy.  I’d rather pay more for a program that fully services its clients’ needs.  Isn’t that what the money’s supposed to be for in the first place?

2.      Hess + Darling-Hammond: The federal government is good at enforcing civil rights laws and ensuring that low-income and SpEd dollars are spent appropriately.  à Full agreement here.

3.      Hess + Darling-Hammond: The federal government is good at financing reliable research for fundamental questions.  à Agreed

4.      Hess + Darling-Hammond: The federal government is good at voluntary, competitive federal grants that support innovation. à  Hess + Darling-Hammond give a backhanded compliment to Race to the Top by acknowledging its effect of “providing political cover for school boards, union leaders and others to throw off anachronistic routines” but then basically degrade the policy of using consultants to implement because they don’t see the implementation as true innovation.  I understand the critique that the federal education agenda might be too engrained with what is needed to win the Race to the Top monies in the first place, but we should remember from whence we have come.  Fewer than fifteen years ago, we didn’t even have comparable data on our children, few believed (and many, many still don’t) that all children are capable of learning and mastering material, and, if we are being honest, we didn’t know how severe the performance and achievement gaps were in our systems (though to a small subset this has always been evident). In my idealism, what I hope that Race to the Top is doing is more like giving states and LEAs the opportunity to rid themselves of the low-hanging fruit so that they can begin to paint on the fresh canvas.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/how-to-rescue-education-reform.html?_r=2