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.

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

DeKalb County (Atlanta) ranks 15th on School Choice -- Ahead of Boston and Charlotte and Cobb Co. (outside Atlanta) School Districts

A Brookings study released in Q1 2014, purportedly ranks school districts based School Choice, measured by 13 different categories of policy and practice.  Some of the 13 categories include virtual schools (and the % of students enrolled), availability of alternative schools (such as magnets, vouchers, affordable private, and tax credit scholarships), whether there is a policy of restructuring or closing schools, whether there is a common application to enroll, performance data, comparable standards and assessments, and transportation.  The purpose of the study is to "to create public awareness of the differences among districts in their support of school choice."  

A conversation about measurables aside (everyone knows that what you measure often dictates what you find), Brookings ranks the top 107 school districts -- with only New Orleans schools and NYC schools getting overall "A" or "A-" grades and school districts like Atlanta - Fulton County, Clayton County (south of Atlanta) and Shelby County, TN receiving grades of "F."  

DeKalb County (Atlanta) comes out passing with a "C+" at rank number 15.

Article found here:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/ecci_2013

-E

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

Research from Boston Public Schools: Student Achievement Scores over Art/Science Offerings

A recent report from a Harvard Kennedy School researcher analyzed parents' school preferences for Kindergarten, Sixth Grade, and Ninth Grade to determine which factors made the most differences.  In his new paper, the researcher, Edward Glaser, found:

"parents favor closer schools and schools with higher levels of academic achievement (as measured by the MCAS test). It also finds that certain school structures -- K1 (over K2 only) schools and K-8 (over K-5) schools – are preferred. . . .
Overall school size, computer facilities, and gyms did not have a significant impact. Art, music, and science lab facilities had minimal or no impact."

For the abstract and more on the paper, see here: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=9043&type=WPN 

An agriculture degree instead of a finance degree--makes some sense to me

A recent article by Alex Rosenberg (of course forwarded to me by my father who retired from agriculture field), argues that real goods are going to be much more important than speculative goods in the future.  Precisely, Rosenberg argues that fields like finance are going to be less pivotal than fields like agriculture. He captures this in his article:

 "We are going to be trying to feed 9 billion people by 2050 with the same number of acres of arable land," said Timothy Burcham, dean of agriculture and technology at Arkansas State University. Calling that task "overwhelming," Burcham notes that "the opportunities for a person that has a graduate degree in agriculture are great now, but they are going to be really, really excellent going into the future."

The article (and the argument) have some staying power with me.  By my own admission, I have always thoughts that great mind power should be applied to public policy issues:  education policy (of course), food policy, energy policy . . .

Anyway, for your reading pleasure: Jim Rogers: Skip the MBA, get an agriculture degree

UPDATE 1/8/2014:

From reports in England, it seems that His Royal Highness Prince William is prepping to study agriculture at Cambridge soon.  Hat tip to him.

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.

It Takes One to Know One

It has occurred to me that many of the high-profile education reforms (many of which I have spent the last 5 weeks following on twitter, attending their speeches, reading their newly released reports, and cruntching their policies) probably have never spent 24 hours in the public schools that they have remedies for. 

Maybe this shocks no one.

But for me, as one who sees such merit in many, many of the reform proposals, it seems a bit disingenous to have a cure and have never interacted with the "patients," their communities, or the everyday stressors that may be responsible for the illness in the first place.

Notice to Parents (especially those in APS schools): School Choice is Law

In doing some research, I came across the following provision within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended and authorized as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  This provision concerns school choice for parents and families that attend a Title I school if the school is categorized as a school in need of improvement. 

Perhaps this helps some families, especially given the volitile state of some Title I schools in Atlanta Public School System.  Check first to see if the school is on the "needs improvement" list.  If so, these federal requirements should apply.  The information shared below is from the Congressional Research Service and was presented to the U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce committee in June of 2011. (Internal citations omitted.)  For reference, AYP is Adequate Yearly Progress and LEA is local educational agency (like a school district).

After not making AYP for two consecutive years, a Title I-A school is identified for school improvement.  Being designated for school improvement carries with it the requirement to develop or revise a school  plan designed to result in the improvement of the school. LEAs are required to provide schools within their jurisdictions with technical assistance in the design and implementation of school improvement plans. Schools identified for improvement must use at least 10% of their Title I-A funding for professional development. All students attending Title I-A schools identified for school improvement also must be offered public school choice—the opportunity to transfer to another public school within the same LEA.

Under public school choice, students must be afforded the opportunity to choose from among two or more schools, located within the same LEA, that have not been identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and that also have not been identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs are required to provide students who transfer to different schools with transportation and must give priority in choosing schools to the lowest-achieving children from low-income families. LEAs may not use lack of capacity as a reason for denying students the opportunity to transfer to a school of choice. In instances where there are no eligible schools in the student’s LEA, LEAs are encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements with surrounding LEAs to enable students to transfer to an eligible public school.

Emily Barbour, Jody Feder, and Rebecca Skinner, CRS 7-5700, Secretary of Education’s Waiver Authority with Respect to Title I-A Provisions Included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congressional Research Services (June 28, 2011) at 8-9, http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/June_28_2011_CRS_report.pdf.

Special Education Mediation - a snippet from my research

There continues to be an unexplored area of special education mediation focused on outcomes for students. More evidence and live interviews are needed to cure possible ineffective uses of mediation by families of children with special needs, school administrators, and mediators themselves. Parents of children with special needs see mediation as an extension of an IEP meeting and therefore embrace it as a place to voice their concerns about school administrator policies or actions. School officials see mediation as a platform to persuade families that they are competent in fulfilling their responsibilities and exercising discretion over special education services. However both of these views advance a narrow perception that each party has a “one way voice” opportunity to extend its position while the third-party mediator either rationalizes the position to the other party or has them bargain for their demands through the mediation process. Coincidently, both overlook the opportunity for mediation to be a time to reflect collaboratively on where the child’s needs may lie and where family and school could adjust to meet those needs. Special education mediators have a huge role in mending these fences. For the sake of students, special education mediation need evolve into a child’s best interest platform if it is to fulfill promises of alternative dispute resolution in this area. Mediation should not only be procedurally different from due process hearings, but it should be substantively different from even the other IDEA safeguards of IEP meetings and civil litigations. Additional evaluative research mindful of children’s bests interests can make this possible.

Blogging from The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas

with Rick Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute

March 30, 2011

On Today’s agenda: attend the talk with author, education-thinker Rick Hess. I’d read article after article of his during my Fall Introduction to Education Policy class at Harvard University Graduate School of Education. I own his “Common Sense Reform” book, so I was eager to hear what he had to say.

Apparently, the session was a book talk. He was self-depreciating at the beginning but also declaring that all the good ideas, he would take credit for. He’s sociable—but I wanted to withhold my opinion. He opened with a reference to a different context—a past article he’d written on teacher certification. What he found most useful about the past discussion was that the habit of discussing teacher licensure opened doors of attack or defense of the education system. He wanted people to engage in the debates of education—not just the notions of whether something is a solution to schooling or an attack on schooling (of course, I’m paraphrasing).  He’d like to discuss using new tools to solve new problems, instead of whether certain principles are sacrosanct. Sounds good, right? Cut to the substance…

They Say “Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant” [Reading Response]

I am just like the optimistic, problem-solving spirits that want and believe we can fix education. I am also like the hard-look, cautious, and critical realists that demand our solutions to be complete, robust, and honest. So when I hear the message from Rothstein‘s “Class and Schools” is that there is no schooling model that we can use to indicate how to teach disadvantaged minority, low-income children well across subjects in consistent years (so stop looking), I come to a standstill. I am not moved to throw stones nor am I moved to shout Amen. One of those, “ok, so what do I do with this?” moments set in. It forces me to come back around to the paper’s shouting opener that there is a design flaw within value-added approaches to measure teachers’ ability to move students.  I am left in a place where I am (1) a bit disappointed and (2) asking “who is the intended audience for this piece?”, “What does the author seek to accomplish?”, and “Does this help or hurt the work of these education actors?”

For transparency and integrity reasons, many should read and consider Rothstein’s piece. Information is powerful—it can make people more cognizant of their messaging and consumers more demanding of their sources.  Having information about reform outcomes is like sprinkling disinfectant over veils of benign ignorance: It’s better than not knowing. However, I do fear that such “guess what” news will turn people off to ideas of innovation—or worse, give ammunition to those who would rather we stop making education excellence and equity discussions such a big deal. But after data and independent variables have been disaggregated about model schools, charter performance, and student achievement, I believe there can still be resolve (and rationality) to keep at the goal of finding solutions. Even if that resolve comes from no other reason than there is no next best alternative: if we stop trying, what else are we going to do?

“Local Control” should not be an obscenity [Reading Response]

The federal role illuminates how the very structure of education hails the national expert over the local novice (and the philosopher-king/reformer over the mass-elected schoolboard member). Similarly, the increased federal role in education, from historical social injustice and disenfranchisement, appeals to our moral notions of guarding the rights of individuals over notions that local control of education breeds tyranny of the majority at the expense of the underrepresented. The top-down, federal-over-state approach becomes synonymous to a government as expert model—or, in a slight alternative, to a national-research-applied-to-communities approach. National education research and the concentration of policy experts in the federal government may justify decisions on educational institutional design or even (gasp) national standards and assessments—but the government as expert model should not apply to everything. Orfield and Lee discussed the fallacy of“using exceptions to the rule to prove a relationship” and I easily see how successful exceptions that have achieved amazing educational outcomes become the expert sources for how to “get it right” in education.

 
I recognize the benefit that a large sample size of educational practices can extract meaningful lessons which can be applied in concentrated areas, but I push-back on our ability to prescribe too far from the ivy tower and capitol hill. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander—even when they are of the same race or background (a notion that is not new to practitioners). If anything, I agree with Cohen and Moffit’s assessment that “the success of innovative policies and program depends… on whether practitioners and others in the environment posses or can improve capability” (p. 15). Our educational research has lead us to become more precise at determining the true causes of the educational outcomes we observe, but as to the ability to generalize findings to other places, I argue that we have a ways to go to make our findings externally valid. Local control over the administration and operations of education ought remain in local hands (CEO/Superintendent), and accountability and decisionmaking for schools ought devolve rightfully to schoolboards and principals. Localities are experts on its people. And until our local communities of control get better at producing the results we desire, we should empower them with experimental options (like participatory governance of Fung) and incentive support systems rather than dishearten them with low expectations that they are unable to solve their own problems. Some will say trusting locals is what got us here in the first place, but because sunlight is the best disinfectant, I think pointing out shortcomings is the easy part—finding ways to build capacity is the solutions part that will better us all. 

Why Education Needs Teachers More Than Ever

This is not about hiring more effective teachers nor is it about pay-for-performance.


This is not about the achievement gap.


This is not about ensuring that we can "staff" our schools and that each child has someone to teach him or her.


It's not even about the instrinsic value a teacher brings to the classroom.


This is about why, more than ever, policy makers NEED teachers and why teachers NEED to critically analyze (and embrace) significant education research.


I will do my best to make this as generalizable as possible. But, in an effort to be as transparent as possible, it must be understood that my plea cries from not only the academic background I've been exposed to, the professionals I've dialogued with, the policy reports and findings I've read, or the environments I've worked in or have knowledge of. Combined in my statements are deductions from what I've felt around me, from what I've seen, and from what I know-- very concretely-- to be true.


Right there I've lost half of the readers. My appeal to authority has been undermined because I introduced conditions that are outside of objective, data based, or quantitative conclusions. I violated the Harvard-iron-clad law of "substantive argument." That I use my gut isn't good enough. At the least, I would be asked for my antecodotal notes. I need a central thesis, literature review, findings, results and analysis before I make my ultimate judgement. Sorry readers, I don't have any of those. Again, I've lost some.


But those whom I've lost probably wouldn't have accepted my plea anyway.


Actually, it's exactly "those people" who create the environment I'm suggesting we abolish. It's those people that (no matter how politically vulnerable it will make them if they were forthcoming) cringe everytime someone identifies herself as a "teacher." Those people-- these macro-level, policy analyst, think-tank professionals, education-reform stamped experts-- "know better" and "know more" than any teacher would, even though teachers, of course think that they have all the answers. I'm harsh. But I'm precise.


I understand that each education program or social innovation geared toward making improvements in education falls short of its gains. I even get the fact that identifying oneself as a Teach For America alumna builds a barrcade that's extremely difficult to overcome successfully. I even agree, in some cases, why these programs, entrepreunerial endeavors and movements should be challenged. What I don't get is why one's experience in the classroom isn't relevant to policy. Why interfacing with the same children that others count in a sample isn't as significant as the data trend that child produces. I don't understand why there is teacher-aversion.


It sickens me, as it would presumeably sicken any onlooker who's been at the dinner table in both houses, to be a part of a conversation where both policy maker and practioner sit together and dismiss the other.


To be skeptical, yes. To be synical, no. Big no. Brash disjointment is unacceptable when we have children not learning. They don't have time for adults to make themselves play nice or respect one another. They don't really have time for much.


Education policy makers NEED teachers now more than ever.


Perhaps I will develop this argument out further, and the implications of what I am saying, and most importantly, for what I am proposing and what it means for each party. I will list why I think teachers need to be given education policy professional development through university-leave opportunities after the first five years of teaching. And why I think education policy makers need to be recruiting, in high volume, teachers to fill in the seats around their idea tables and to be part of their research evaluation process. And, to get to my purpose in all of this, why every education policy maker or reformer needs to step into a classroom.


Best case scenario? If you wanna make decisions regarding education policy, you need to have taught for at least two-years. Because (and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise), you don't really know unless you were there.


So, maybe I'll accept comparable education experience. Perhaps you were not a teacher in a classroom, but you have acquired comparable insight which includes being responsibile for implementing the policies you proscribe or support. Not through research or volunteerism, but something that has punitive and biting consequences. Again, still have to flesh this one out. I'll accept coverletters and counter-arguments until then.