An Annual Tradition

Another topic at Monday’s board meeting that generated a fair amount of discussion - as it does every year - was the issue of the school calendar for the upcoming year.

The three options that were presented to the board offered a clear choice:
    1) You can start the school year after Labor Day, avoiding the conflict with Grange Fair, or
    2) You can have a spring break that is synchronized with the Penn State calendar, or
    3) You can end the year early in June, avoiding some high-heat days, as well as conflicts with summer programs.

You may only pick one.

Over the course of the discussion, however, the idea emerged that a shorter spring break - perhaps two days - might be sufficient for many families who would like to travel and for the students (and teachers) who just need a break from school.

If one accepts that premise, where do we put those three “no-school” days – at the beginning of the school year, or at the end?

During my time on the board, I have consistently favored the post-Labor Day start. Not only does this avoid the conflict with Grange Fair, but, to me, Labor Day has always felt like the traditional end of summer. When I was a parent of school-aged children, I felt shortchanged when school started before Labor Day.

Unfortunately, this point is moot when Penn State - Graham Spanier’s promise to the contrary, notwithstanding – begins classes in August. And I don’t feel as strongly about the issue when Labor Day falls as late as it does this year, on Sept. 7th.

On the other hand, the argument for ending school earlier June has never carried much weight with me, for a couple of reasons. First, - I hate these “when I was in school” proclamations, but here goes - I recall going to school until late June, in a warmer climate. (And yes, I walked uphill both ways..) More to the point, average high temperatures in early June are very similar to average high temperatures in early September.

Second, it’s impossible to realistically plan family vacations or much of anything for mid-June, because the actual end of the school year varies according to the severity of our winter. (Seniors, having graduated, are exempted.)

It’s not yet clear how this will be resolved, but I hope that in 10-15 years, when State College's facilities have been sufficiently upgraded to support year-round education, this will no longer be an issue. By then, perhaps, a future board will have given serious consideration to year-round schooling.

A decision about paper

It is not often that a request to accept a bid for copier paper generates a 25-minute discussion, especially one that concludes with a 6-3 vote.

But as I said last night, this is a classic Public Issues Forum type of dilemma: competing courses of action (purchase recycled paper at a higher price, vs. regular copier paper at the lower price) driven by competing values (social/environmental responsibility vs. fiscal responsibility).

But this wasn't a case of simply one point of view versus another. I was struck by the fact that everyone at the table seemed to appreciate both sides of the argument.

Everyone understood that we have a responsibility to be stewards of the taxpayers' money.   

Similarly, there was a general recognition that, at some point, we have to put our (that is, your) money where our mouth is: that there will be a cost associated with supporting the sustainability resolution that we passed several months ago.

In this case, at what point do the scales tip? Is $10,000 too much? What if it were $5,000? $1,000?

Would I personally spend an extra 10% in order to be environmentally responsible? Probably so. As a taxpayer, would I be ok with a board decision to spend the extra $10,000? Again, probably so.

The question is, does the public feel the same way?

Given the current economic climate, perhaps not. In any event, I did not feel confident that I could make that assumption, so I voted for the least expensive option.

But I am confident we will face this issue again.

Now he tells us..

The architect of NCLB is having second thoughts - additional evidence that a national consensus on education may be developing.

(Yet more evidence: a recent national survey of educators ranked 21st century skills - such as the ability to collaborate, innovate and create - as the most important priority for the new administration.)

In an article in The National Review (from which I quote liberally), Michael Petrilli, the co-author of "No Child Left Behind: A Primer" writes that he's "reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair."

Petrilli now concedes that requiring all states to reach proficiency by 2014 while allowing them to define proficiency was spurring a "race to the bottom".

He also admits to other problems that took him longer to recognize, such as "the conversion of schools into test-prep factories," and the fact that school-choice laws are meaningless when in most of our big cities, there are too few good schools to go around.

He even admits that a change of focus is needed from teacher "quality" to teacher effectiveness - which is probably better handled at the state level.

However, Petrilli remains a supporter of the ideas underlying the law. Foremost: that virtually all children have the capacity to achieve a reasonable level of proficiency in reading and math by the time they turn 18 — and that it’s the education system’s job to make sure they do.

Petrilli still believes that improving education is a national imperative, and that the federal government can and should play a constructive role - which would begin with "a more realistic assessment of what the federal government can reasonably hope to achieve".

Certainly, the federal government has a role in ensuring that high poverty schools receive equitable resources.  It would also serve a useful function if it collected and published reliable and comparable data on the performance of the nation’s schools.