Seeing the future

Some of the things that could be seen at Park Forest Elementary School today:

During a morning set aside for professional development, the art teacher demonstrated how regular classroom teachers could incorporate art into the environmental curriculum at each grade level. This was an example of professional development that was both dynamic (the teachers were enthusiastic) and relevant - particularly so, because the groundbreaking ceremony for the school's wetlands project would be held that afternoon. 

This is exciting on several levels.

First, educators are beginning to recognize the importance of art instruction, not just for its own merits, but for how it enhances and improves learning in the more "traditional" areas.

For example, research is starting to show that opportunities for music instruction improve student academic achievement in other areas. Even more interesting, by incorporating the arts within traditional instruction, more pathways in the brain are engaged during the learning process. As a result, the subject material is learned more deeply. (It was not an accident that you learned your "ABCs" to music.)

This is also a good example of service- and project-based learning. Students will be actively involved in both the creation and the study of the wetlands. By having their learning placed within the context of "meaningful" work, not only are they acquiring important civic skills and community awareness, their learning is enhanced due to their heightened level of engagement.

At the conclusion of the ground-breaking ceremony, an all-school meeting was held that was organized and run - almost entirely - by fifth graders. These meetings, which are held every week, are a vehicle for creating school community, as well as an excellent opportunity for the fifth-graders to learn and exercise leadership skills.

These all-school meetings also a key part of a school climate that encourages and values input from all its "citizens". (Several years ago, dissatisfaction with how the lunchroom was run was resolved by soliciting input from everyone in the school community. Representatives from each grade level continue to meet with the principal regularly in order to monitor progress.)

School "climate"

I went a bit out of my way to attend the panel discussion on school climate at the Federal Relations Network conference in Washington, but it was encouraging to see “climate” become a component of the national legislative agenda. For me, this was additional evidence that a national education consensus is emerging.

Broadly speaking, “school climate” refers to “the character and quality of school life”; that is, the educational environment that encourages – or inhibits – learning in school. It is as important, and should be given as much attention, as a farmer gives to the quality of his soil.

However, the national data on school climate should concern us:

• Less that 50% of students believe their teachers care about them as individuals.
• Less that 50% feel that they have a teacher who they can talk to if they have a problem.
• 2 out of 3 students believe that students do not respect one another.
• 20% of students feel that they are never recognized for their accomplishments.
• As students move from middle to high school, all of these problems get worse.

As explained by Jonathan Cohen of the Center for Social and Emotional Education, how a school is “experienced” by students and teachers is typically a function of:

• the norms, goals, values of the school  (What is acceptable? What are the expectations?)
• the quality of interpersonal relationships (student/student, student/teacher, teacher/teacher)
• teaching and learning practices
• the school’s leadership and organizational structure

One obvious aspect of school climate is safety - physical safety, in particular - but less obvious is social-emotional security: the extent to which students feel safe to take risks in class. (Nearly 1/3 of students feel too intimidated to raise their hand to ask a question.)

Other ways to recognize a positive school environment:

• students – and teachers - are engaged and respected;
• students, families and educators are working towards shared, and jointly developed, goals;
• nearly everyone is contributing to the school and the care of the physical environment.

Although most educators recognize the importance of school climate, it is not consistently measured with statistically reliable tools, and those results are not being used to improve the environment in a deliberate and intentional way.

The "Junk Food" Dilemma

Senator Tom Harkin, the keynote speaker at last month’s FRN conference, has long been an advocate for public education, particularly in his support for "full-funding" of IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act). So it was not a surprise that the delegates at the convention received him enthusiastically.

But the room got quiet when he began to talk about federal nutrition standards for all food sold in school – including vending machines, which is a source of income for many school districts.

A similar dynamic occurred several years ago when former President Bill Clinton addressed the National School Board Association’s annual conference. Instead of providing the delegates with the “give-the-administration-hell” speech they expected, he spent most of his time talking about childhood obesity, and what role school boards might have in addressing the issue. He received polite applause.

Part of Harkin’s proposal is a significant expansion of a program he initiated some years ago, which gives school children exposure to locally-grown and creatively-prepared fresh fruit and vegetables. State College is one of a relative handful of schools nationwide that has had an opportunity to participate – to rave reviews, particularly from the students.

The principle behind school board resistance to federal nutrition standards – which Harkin acknowledged – is “local control”. In short, local boards don’t like being told what to do by the federal government.

It should be noted, as Harkin did, that this principle has merit. A top-down, one-size-fits-all approach (NCLB, for example) often results in bad policy because it ignores the experience and insight of the people who are the closest to the issue, as well as the fact that every school is different. Local school boards are more likely to understand and are in better position to respond to the concerns of the community.

But I think it is possible to take even a good principle too far. To my knowledge, “local control” is not carved in stone, and shouldn’t be. The deeper principal: what is in the best interest of our students?

It could be argued that schools should be a safe haven from exposure to “junk”, hi-fat, hi-sugar foods. It is certainly true that the quality of food that children eat has an effect on their ability to learn. So perhaps federal legislation is needed to remove from school boards the temptation to balance their food service budgets with the sale of potato chips.

I think it’s at least worth a discussion, which is why I was one of the few who applauded.

Petitioning the government

Tuesday, Mar 3, 2009

I spent the first weekend of February – only ten days after the inauguration and just as negotiations were beginning over the economic stimulus package - at the Federal Relations Network (FRN) conference in Washington, D.C.. It was an extraordinary time to be in the capitol.

The FRN is the branch of the National School Boards Association that is responsible for influencing federal education policy. Having school board members from across the country speaking with nearly every legislator, on the same day, is a good way to have an impact.

School board members make unusual ‘lobbyists’ in that they don’t typically speak as partisans or on their own behalf. Because they are seldom endorsed by political parties when they run for office, they are not beholden to a particular political perspective.

For example, school board members are not necessarily aligned with the teacher unions, with whom they have to negotiate every few years. Rather, they represent the entire education community, students in particular.

It’s essential that our representatives in Harrisburg and Washington hear from constituents who are not only well-informed, but who also understand the impact that state and federal policy has at the level of the local school. It doesn’t hurt that we share with them the perspective and experience of being an elected official. Considering the overwhelming spectrum of issues about which our representatives need to be knowledgeable, I don’t think you can overstate the value of providing them with an opportunity to hear a perspective that is relatively unbiased.

I’m of the opinion that while school board members are primarily accountable to their local communities, we are also citizens – as is everyone - of the broader community, and therefore we have a responsibility to be engaged at the state and national level. It’s part of how we create an informed national education policy.