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.

School Calendar, continued..

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the idea of year-round schooling. I thought I ought to elaborate on that a bit.

It is widely recognized that the traditional 9½ month school calendar is a throw-back to an agricultural society that hasn’t existed for several generations, One consequence is that the United States, where 180 instructional days is typical, has one of the shortest academic calendars in the industrialized world. (State College has 185 days.)

Said calendar continues nationwide with no reasonable justification, educational or otherwise, except inertia. What a waste of time, effort and resources to spend a month or more every year catching students up to where they were back in June!

It is also generally recognized – although not as often stated publicly – that the current school year seems interminable to many, perhaps most, students and teachers. Some ambitious doctoral student should research how much actual learning occurs in May, as opposed to say, October.

This is what I envision – please note: this is not a proposal! - as a potential calendar: four, ten-week sessions, separated by two-week breaks, a longer four-week break in August and perhaps a week each for Christmas and other holidays.

This will seem familiar to Penn State alumni old enough to remember the four, ten-week term calendar; I have yet to meet an alum who did not consider that to be superior to the current "traditional" semester calendar. (For one thing, there was always light at the end of the tunnel.) But that’s another discussion.

A couple of years ago I attended a presentation by a school district that did some very creative things with those two-week breaks. They allowed their teachers to teach a mini-course on any subject in which they had a personal interest. These optional courses were offered to students on a tuition basis. Both teachers and the students were invigorated as a result.   

The establishment of a year-round school calendar would require a lot of planning, and may well be decades away, but it strikes me as inevitable.

Meanwhile, back to our calendar: I hope that not only do we approve the school calendar for next year, but that we establish parameters that would provide a basis for calendars in future years. It would be a service to the community to eliminate the annual tradition of the calendar debate.

Now, what?

I think the public should be more concerned about Governor Rendell's recent proposal to consolidate Pennsylvania’s 501 public school districts down to one hundred, not only for of the flaws in the idea, but also for how he’s going about it.

In terms of local impact, you may be interested to know that by the governor’s calculation, the State College Area school District is not nearly big enough.

In order to get to the projected average of 18,000 students per district, we would have to annex Bellefonte, Bald Eagle, Penns Valley, Clearfield, and Philippsburg - encompassing an area of well over 1000 square miles. Needless to say, this would be a massive, and expensive, undertaking - which, it should be noted, undermines the very justification for doing this in the first place.

Certain economies of scale can be achieved when small districts either pool resources or combine functions – something many districts are already doing. All of this should be encouraged and supported by the state.

But the idea that consolidation should be mandated state-wide makes so little sense that it leads one to speculate as to the governor’s true motive. Could it possibly be that the governor resents the fact the school boards across the Commonwealth resisted first, his Act 1 proposal, and more recently, the GCAs, and therefore he is looking for a way to restrict their power?

Nah, that’s ridiculous. On the other hand, let’s look a little closer at what he’s proposed. The task for the committee that he has authorized is not to examine whether consolidation will save money, or even if it is feasible; it’s to come up with two options for how to actually eliminate 400 school districts. (Clearly, the governor has already decided that this is a good idea.) These two options would be presented to the legislature, which would have to pick one. If the legislature decided that it didn’t like either one, the governor would pick one!

I’m trying hard not to be guilty of hyperbole, but this strikes me as a rather dictatorial view of what the governor’s role in state government is supposed to be; a pattern that was established when he proceeded with the implementation of his GCA proposal, in spite of overwhelming rebukes by both houses of the legislature. Is the Governor unaware of the concept of “checks and balances?”  

Although it’s more the result of luck than planning, I've long had the sense that State College is just about the right size for a school district: large enough to take advantage of some economies of scale (the high school Career and Technical Center being a great example), but small enough to allow for a reasonably flat organization. I can't imagine how one superintendent oversees a system of 700,000 students (as happens in Los Angeles). In fact, I suspect that some of the problems of city schools are a result of being simply too large to be managed effectively. 

Perhaps the governor should begin with trying to break up the School District of Philadelphia, currently the eighth largest school district in the country.

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.