Ed Poprick's update on the elementary building projects, and in particular, the work that's being done to achieve LEED certification, are often a highlight of a board meeting.
It's become clear how much can be accomplished in the realm of environmental responsibility, with minimal additional cost, when all the key players - architects, contractors and school personnel - are part of the planning from the earliest stages of the project.
It also highlights the value of our Citizen Advisory Committees, and the expertise contained within.
Some of what we saw this month: a butterfly garden (educational opportunity), a terraced rain garden (to help absorb storm run-off), a "Mt. Nittany Viewing Station" with seats and a donated information placard, and preferred parking spaces for fuel-efficient cars and car-poolers.
Other educational opportunities have been created by deliberately exposing and color-coding some of the usually 'behind the wall' aspects of building construction, such as water pipes. Each day, students will pass the hallway 'dashboard' that monitors all building functions.
Horizontal, reflective 'light shelves' are a clever way to bounce natural daylight further into the classroom, resulting in better lighting while conserving electricity.
From an earlier "spotlight": the duct work has been kept sealed throughout construction in order to keep out the dust and debris that would otherwise circulate through the building for years to come.
I was intrigued by the height indicators that have been built into the brickwork of the exterior. (How tall is the building? 30 feet, 100 feet? Young kids have no idea.) I still recall an argument with my little sister after an early visit to the Empire State Building. How large was the base - as big as our house? Smaller? Most of us are too old to remember that spatial perspective takes time to develop.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
It's time to get in the game
For some time I've been saying that teachers have not had enough input into education reform policy, and that some of this is their own fault: too much reactive, not enough proactive. It's time to get in the game!
And so they have. The PA state association's web site now features "Solutions that Work", a list of thoughtful and practical recommendations for how education could be improved. It strikes me as a good start.
The document can be downloaded here:
Teachers might be surprised to know that there are policy-makers who are genuinely interested in what they have to say.
And so they have. The PA state association's web site now features "Solutions that Work", a list of thoughtful and practical recommendations for how education could be improved. It strikes me as a good start.
The document can be downloaded here:
Teachers might be surprised to know that there are policy-makers who are genuinely interested in what they have to say.
Friday, July 8, 2011
What the feds could do
1) As I mentioned in my last post, ‘big government’ can provide a measure of economic equity that doesn’t exist at the local level. It doesn’t much matter whether this responsibility is assumed at the federal or state level; either way, some leveling of the playing field has become a practical necessity as well as a moral imperative.
(Part of the ‘equity’ issue is that we haven’t always seen this as a problem. So what if the poor didn’t get a quality education? Not everyone needed one. There were plenty of factory jobs available that didn’t require a high school education; and even those kids had a chance to live better lives than their parents.)
2) State and federal governments have the capacity to provide educational resources. For example, many districts lack the ability to develop their own curriculum. Pennsylvania is actually doing a rather good job at this, with its Standards Aligned System. Need a good lesson plan for addressing a particular curricular standard? There are several from which to choose; no need to reinvent the wheel.
3) One could argue that the federal government could be in the business of setting minimum standards, such as “Common Core” that 42 states have adopted (under some duress). I’m not opposed to this in theory, but here’s my concern.
We are at a point in our economic history that screams for a re-thinking of what we want students to know and be able to do when they graduate high school. It strikes me as a little premature to be setting national standards for geometry, for example, when we haven’t had a conversation on its relative importance – greater than probability and statistics? - since high school graduates were in the minority. Policy makers throw around terms such as “college and career ready” when there’s no consensus on what that means!
Does every student need to be mathematically literate? Yes. (We’ve never tried this before, either.) Does every student need four years of high school math? Not necessarily – and what’s the opportunity cost?
What the federal government should be doing is facilitating a national conversation - and not just among policy wonks at the national level. There should be thousands of conversations in communities across the country in which parents, teachers, community leaders and even students talk about what they want from their schools. What do business leaders have to say about this? Has DOE talked to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills?
4) Research is the fourth area in which the feds could do a lot of good, and for which they have capacity. This gets to the heart of my issue with two of DOE’s ‘reform’ strategies – charter schools and incentive pay for teachers. Charter schools remain a key part of Obama's plan, based on the reasonable theory that they provide opportunities for educational experimentation. As the President recently said, “what we have got to do is to look at the success of these schools (and) find out how we duplicate them.”
But where’s the research? We know that only about 17% of charter schools do any better than regular public schools, and incentive pay results are all over the map. (Unsurprisingly, a lot depends on how you do it – NYC recently abandoned their experiment.) Before we mandate a “solution” that may do more harm than good, shouldn’t we have a better idea of what works, and under what circumstances?
One problem is that we’ve been running the exact opposite of a controlled experiment - every charter school does its own thing, with predictable consequences. Longer days, more homework, more structure or less, teacher incentives, teacher collaboration, smaller schools, more opportunities for students - or a focus on the ‘basics’, incentives for teachers (and/or students), an emphasis on science (or arts or language), etc., etc.. Which of these factors really matter, and which are secondary or completely unimportant?
How do we plan to find out? Unless we know what we’re looking for, continuing to throw tax dollars at unfocused charter school experiments won’t tell us anything we don’t know already.
Finally, I think there could be a federal role in developing models that would help struggling schools create the ‘climate’ necessary for good education. A key example: if you want to attract the best teachers, you need schools that have stable and effective educational leadership and cultures in which learning is valued – where teachers can see the results of their efforts. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem that’s well beyond the capacity of the schools that need it most. Another example: I would like to see more research on effective models for teacher training and mentoring.
While the work has to be done locally, the feds could develop usable models, and perhaps provide some seed money. This would be a lot less expensive than the current proposals.
(Part of the ‘equity’ issue is that we haven’t always seen this as a problem. So what if the poor didn’t get a quality education? Not everyone needed one. There were plenty of factory jobs available that didn’t require a high school education; and even those kids had a chance to live better lives than their parents.)
2) State and federal governments have the capacity to provide educational resources. For example, many districts lack the ability to develop their own curriculum. Pennsylvania is actually doing a rather good job at this, with its Standards Aligned System. Need a good lesson plan for addressing a particular curricular standard? There are several from which to choose; no need to reinvent the wheel.
3) One could argue that the federal government could be in the business of setting minimum standards, such as “Common Core” that 42 states have adopted (under some duress). I’m not opposed to this in theory, but here’s my concern.
We are at a point in our economic history that screams for a re-thinking of what we want students to know and be able to do when they graduate high school. It strikes me as a little premature to be setting national standards for geometry, for example, when we haven’t had a conversation on its relative importance – greater than probability and statistics? - since high school graduates were in the minority. Policy makers throw around terms such as “college and career ready” when there’s no consensus on what that means!
Does every student need to be mathematically literate? Yes. (We’ve never tried this before, either.) Does every student need four years of high school math? Not necessarily – and what’s the opportunity cost?
What the federal government should be doing is facilitating a national conversation - and not just among policy wonks at the national level. There should be thousands of conversations in communities across the country in which parents, teachers, community leaders and even students talk about what they want from their schools. What do business leaders have to say about this? Has DOE talked to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills?
4) Research is the fourth area in which the feds could do a lot of good, and for which they have capacity. This gets to the heart of my issue with two of DOE’s ‘reform’ strategies – charter schools and incentive pay for teachers. Charter schools remain a key part of Obama's plan, based on the reasonable theory that they provide opportunities for educational experimentation. As the President recently said, “what we have got to do is to look at the success of these schools (and) find out how we duplicate them.”
But where’s the research? We know that only about 17% of charter schools do any better than regular public schools, and incentive pay results are all over the map. (Unsurprisingly, a lot depends on how you do it – NYC recently abandoned their experiment.) Before we mandate a “solution” that may do more harm than good, shouldn’t we have a better idea of what works, and under what circumstances?
One problem is that we’ve been running the exact opposite of a controlled experiment - every charter school does its own thing, with predictable consequences. Longer days, more homework, more structure or less, teacher incentives, teacher collaboration, smaller schools, more opportunities for students - or a focus on the ‘basics’, incentives for teachers (and/or students), an emphasis on science (or arts or language), etc., etc.. Which of these factors really matter, and which are secondary or completely unimportant?
How do we plan to find out? Unless we know what we’re looking for, continuing to throw tax dollars at unfocused charter school experiments won’t tell us anything we don’t know already.
Finally, I think there could be a federal role in developing models that would help struggling schools create the ‘climate’ necessary for good education. A key example: if you want to attract the best teachers, you need schools that have stable and effective educational leadership and cultures in which learning is valued – where teachers can see the results of their efforts. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem that’s well beyond the capacity of the schools that need it most. Another example: I would like to see more research on effective models for teacher training and mentoring.
While the work has to be done locally, the feds could develop usable models, and perhaps provide some seed money. This would be a lot less expensive than the current proposals.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Can the feds fix education?
For two years I’ve struggled to understand the Obama administration’s thinking on education reform. The President and Ed Secretary Duncan appear to be smart guys with good intentions, but I continue to feel – like Madeline - that something’s not right.
Obama has said that his greatest concern is for the highly dysfunctional schools that tend to be found in large urban areas. As he put it: “the lowest income schools with the kids who are two, three grade levels behind”.
Good. I’m completely with him on this. If the immediate goal is to transform those schools, then let’s say so, and focus school reform efforts there.
But I have several concerns. First, there has been little conversation on what can be reasonably accomplished at the federal level. Well-intentioned or not, is what they’re attempting possible? Traditionally, education has been a responsibility of state and local governments. Only recently has Washington had significant influence, and judging by the nearly universal criticism of NCLB, not particularly successfully.
Prior to NCLB, the federal responsibility was primarily financial: for special education (IDEA), and for “low SES” (Title I), the theory being that a child’s zip code shouldn’t be a predictor of educational opportunity. Should there be a greater federal role, either through direct funding, or by insisting that states do a better job of ensuring educational equity? Perhaps.
But those who say that you can’t solve this problem by throwing money at it are correct. Here’s the reason: for many schools, the lack of resources are not just financial. Effective schools are almost always the result of a collaboration between teachers, administrators, school board members(!), involved parents, local civic and business leaders, and community volunteers. Many of our ‘underperforming’ schools lack the human capital needed to create an environment in which quality education can flourish.
Plus, the issues that cause community dysfunction are precisely those that must be addressed in order to create quality schools. (This is why KIPP is successful – but not cheap!) Good schools are locally produced.
But it’s hard for single parents, or parents working multiple jobs to be involved parents. And while there was a time when teachers were required to live in the communities in which they taught, few teachers are willing to live and raise families in the these ‘communities’ now..
Further, most city schools are governed, and resources allocated by, a bureaucracy that is far removed from the local school. The members of a city school board don’t know you, your kids, or your teachers. They don’t live in your community, and their kids don’t go to your school.
Back when Governor Rendell had the nutty idea of consolidating Pennsylvania’s five hundred districts, I commented that perhaps he should consider breaking up the large city districts, on the premise that districts with hundreds of schools and hundreds of thousands of students are far too large to manage effectively. I now think I was more right about that than I realized.
A lot of what is required to produce quality schools is beyond the ability of the federal government to deliver. If this is true – and I believe it is – then there is no quick fix. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get on with creating an educational system that works for everyone. (Note: for all the rhetoric, we’ve never tried to create a national education system before!)
Obama has said that his greatest concern is for the highly dysfunctional schools that tend to be found in large urban areas. As he put it: “the lowest income schools with the kids who are two, three grade levels behind”.
Good. I’m completely with him on this. If the immediate goal is to transform those schools, then let’s say so, and focus school reform efforts there.
But I have several concerns. First, there has been little conversation on what can be reasonably accomplished at the federal level. Well-intentioned or not, is what they’re attempting possible? Traditionally, education has been a responsibility of state and local governments. Only recently has Washington had significant influence, and judging by the nearly universal criticism of NCLB, not particularly successfully.
Prior to NCLB, the federal responsibility was primarily financial: for special education (IDEA), and for “low SES” (Title I), the theory being that a child’s zip code shouldn’t be a predictor of educational opportunity. Should there be a greater federal role, either through direct funding, or by insisting that states do a better job of ensuring educational equity? Perhaps.
But those who say that you can’t solve this problem by throwing money at it are correct. Here’s the reason: for many schools, the lack of resources are not just financial. Effective schools are almost always the result of a collaboration between teachers, administrators, school board members(!), involved parents, local civic and business leaders, and community volunteers. Many of our ‘underperforming’ schools lack the human capital needed to create an environment in which quality education can flourish.
Plus, the issues that cause community dysfunction are precisely those that must be addressed in order to create quality schools. (This is why KIPP is successful – but not cheap!) Good schools are locally produced.
But it’s hard for single parents, or parents working multiple jobs to be involved parents. And while there was a time when teachers were required to live in the communities in which they taught, few teachers are willing to live and raise families in the these ‘communities’ now..
Further, most city schools are governed, and resources allocated by, a bureaucracy that is far removed from the local school. The members of a city school board don’t know you, your kids, or your teachers. They don’t live in your community, and their kids don’t go to your school.
Back when Governor Rendell had the nutty idea of consolidating Pennsylvania’s five hundred districts, I commented that perhaps he should consider breaking up the large city districts, on the premise that districts with hundreds of schools and hundreds of thousands of students are far too large to manage effectively. I now think I was more right about that than I realized.
A lot of what is required to produce quality schools is beyond the ability of the federal government to deliver. If this is true – and I believe it is – then there is no quick fix. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get on with creating an educational system that works for everyone. (Note: for all the rhetoric, we’ve never tried to create a national education system before!)
Monday, June 27, 2011
"Now, what?"
I suspect there aren't many Beetle Bailey fans out there, but there's a running gag that seldom fails to make me smile.
It goes like this: a series of unlikely events and unfortunate decisions eventually produces a bizarre and ridiculous situation into which General Halftrack walks, completely unaware of the context. His invariable response: "Now, what??"
This came to mind recently upon hearing that the State Senate had passed legislation that would "prohibit a school board from taking votes or any other official action, other than votes of a ministerial or emergency nature, between October 1 of each odd-numbered year and the board’s re-organizational meeting following a primary election."
This legislation is apparently so important that it was "fast-tracked" (I guess there's nothing else going on at the moment.)
The intent, I'm sure, is to prevent boards that have just undergone a significant election turnover from making a 'lame-duck' decision that would be contrary to the will of the newly elected board. And, to be fair, lame-duck boards have occasionally made big, vindictive decisions on their way out the door, such as hiring or firing superintendents.
Here's one question: why "October 1st", a full month before the election?
But what really troubles me is that no consideration appears to have been given to how a board is supposed to conduct normal business for two months. Such as, "entering into any contract over $100" or "filling any kind of staff vacancy". Are you kidding me??
I guess it's also safe to assume that no serious discipline issues ever come up in the months of October or November.
Why do legislators appear to have such little regard for elected school boards? Don't they realize that the citizens who vote for school board are the very same people who vote for state representatives?
It's stunning how willing our legislators are to impose a restriction on school boards that they would never consider putting on themselves. Another example: we are only 3 days away from the legal deadline for passing the school budget, and we still don't know what our state appropriation will be, because the state hasn't passed it's budget - but school boards were required to make key budget decisions based on that six months ago!
The vote was 33-17.
It goes like this: a series of unlikely events and unfortunate decisions eventually produces a bizarre and ridiculous situation into which General Halftrack walks, completely unaware of the context. His invariable response: "Now, what??"
This came to mind recently upon hearing that the State Senate had passed legislation that would "prohibit a school board from taking votes or any other official action, other than votes of a ministerial or emergency nature, between October 1 of each odd-numbered year and the board’s re-organizational meeting following a primary election."
This legislation is apparently so important that it was "fast-tracked" (I guess there's nothing else going on at the moment.)
The intent, I'm sure, is to prevent boards that have just undergone a significant election turnover from making a 'lame-duck' decision that would be contrary to the will of the newly elected board. And, to be fair, lame-duck boards have occasionally made big, vindictive decisions on their way out the door, such as hiring or firing superintendents.
Here's one question: why "October 1st", a full month before the election?
But what really troubles me is that no consideration appears to have been given to how a board is supposed to conduct normal business for two months. Such as, "entering into any contract over $100" or "filling any kind of staff vacancy". Are you kidding me??
I guess it's also safe to assume that no serious discipline issues ever come up in the months of October or November.
Why do legislators appear to have such little regard for elected school boards? Don't they realize that the citizens who vote for school board are the very same people who vote for state representatives?
It's stunning how willing our legislators are to impose a restriction on school boards that they would never consider putting on themselves. Another example: we are only 3 days away from the legal deadline for passing the school budget, and we still don't know what our state appropriation will be, because the state hasn't passed it's budget - but school boards were required to make key budget decisions based on that six months ago!
The vote was 33-17.
Friday, June 17, 2011
A typical meeting
People often ask me why I enjoy being a school board member. Part of my answer is that it’s rarely boring; on a regular basis we have the opportunity to deal with an incredibly wide range of issues. Our last meeting was a good example.
Mike Hardy began by listing some of the District’s accomplishments over the past year, including several national honors: the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching to Gail Romig; an Agri-science Educator Award to Paul Heasley; and the National Scholastics Championship by the “Dream Team”.
We listened to about a half-hour of very well-articulated public comment, mostly in reference to the proposed furlough of the engineering position. (You can watch for yourself here:, beginning at about the 11 minute mark.)
We welcomed a new athletic director, Peg Pennypacker. She appears to have great experience and energy, and at the risk of stereotype, I’m excited that we’ve hired a female for this position.
We welcomed our new superintendent and his family. His few words of introduction, which highlighted the importance of “knowing students as individual learners, developing innovative, meaningful and complex experiences for students, and fostering leadership among faculty” suggests that Bob O’Donnell is going to be an asset to the district and community.
We voted to refinance some of the districts bonds, which will save about $300,000 over the next several years.
We voted on the furloughs, to which I stated my objections concerning three specific items. One, the elimination of the development specialist, strikes me as counter-productive, especially when one considers that our reliance on private fundraising is almost certainly going to increase in the future.
Two other positions, the engineering and automotive teacher reductions, seem contrary to the board’s objective of keeping these cuts “as far as away from the classroom as possible.” I am particularly saddened by the engineering reduction, which cuts the heart out of a great partnership between the science and CTC departments; the kind of collaboration that represents the future of education.
I’m not sure whether the closeness of the 5-4 vote makes me feel better, or worse.
We had an extended discussion on whether to authorize the development of design documents for the first phase of the Memorial Field renovation. Unless we intend to abandon the west side bleachers altogether, to not move forward while we still have the team in place would seem to risk wasting an entire year of effort and money already spent.
We voted on the purchase of furniture for the new elementary schools. (The ‘old’ furniture will be ‘handed-down’ to replace decades-old furniture elsewhere in the district.)
As I mentioned later in the meeting, it seems that most classroom furniture is intentionally designed to be uncomfortable – but one of the first things I learned as a school board member was that this is not a legal requirement! So I’m thrilled to hear that the district is now purchasing ergonomically-correct, molded plastic seats instead of the hard plastic (or wood) that students have put up with for generations.
We authorized textbook purchases for next year, not without at least a little controversy.
Ed Poprick gave his monthly update on the two elementary building projects. Each time, Ed highlights how our commitment to LEED certification affects a building feature. I’m thrilled about the attention that’s been given to acoustics, from design through construction, which will have a direct impact on the classroom learning environment.
We heard an enlightening – and, from a board member’s perspective, exciting - presentation on a somewhat revised district strategy on student assessments. The new Classroom Diagnostic Tools (CDT) can be taken up to five times per year, on-line, at no cost, and will provide teachers with a wealth of easily accessible individual and aggregate student data, aligned to state standards, and tied to the state’s Standards Aligned System (SAS). This will be an incredible resource for teachers.
The assessments will also tie to the new Keystone exams, which are being designed to assess a typical mid-20th century curriculum. The silver lining of the state budget crisis is that the implementation of the Keystone exams will be delayed by a year.
We talked briefly about the impact of this year’s budget and tax decisions on next year’s budget, and the fact that due to Act 1 and the early presidential-year primary, next year’s preliminary budget will have to be prepared by January.
At 11:00, we still weren’t finished, as we adjourned to an executive session to discuss the status of contract negotiations and property tax appeals. (When the economy struggles, businesses often feel their properties are no longer worth their previously assessed value–but wouldn’t it be interesting if we could buy the property at the price of the proposed reassessment?) And then there’s the matter of a couple of outstanding federal lawsuits. Just another day on the school board.
A little longer post than usual, but reflective of a typical board meeting.
Mike Hardy began by listing some of the District’s accomplishments over the past year, including several national honors: the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching to Gail Romig; an Agri-science Educator Award to Paul Heasley; and the National Scholastics Championship by the “Dream Team”.
We listened to about a half-hour of very well-articulated public comment, mostly in reference to the proposed furlough of the engineering position. (You can watch for yourself here:, beginning at about the 11 minute mark.)
We welcomed a new athletic director, Peg Pennypacker. She appears to have great experience and energy, and at the risk of stereotype, I’m excited that we’ve hired a female for this position.
We welcomed our new superintendent and his family. His few words of introduction, which highlighted the importance of “knowing students as individual learners, developing innovative, meaningful and complex experiences for students, and fostering leadership among faculty” suggests that Bob O’Donnell is going to be an asset to the district and community.
We voted to refinance some of the districts bonds, which will save about $300,000 over the next several years.
We voted on the furloughs, to which I stated my objections concerning three specific items. One, the elimination of the development specialist, strikes me as counter-productive, especially when one considers that our reliance on private fundraising is almost certainly going to increase in the future.
Two other positions, the engineering and automotive teacher reductions, seem contrary to the board’s objective of keeping these cuts “as far as away from the classroom as possible.” I am particularly saddened by the engineering reduction, which cuts the heart out of a great partnership between the science and CTC departments; the kind of collaboration that represents the future of education.
I’m not sure whether the closeness of the 5-4 vote makes me feel better, or worse.
We had an extended discussion on whether to authorize the development of design documents for the first phase of the Memorial Field renovation. Unless we intend to abandon the west side bleachers altogether, to not move forward while we still have the team in place would seem to risk wasting an entire year of effort and money already spent.
We voted on the purchase of furniture for the new elementary schools. (The ‘old’ furniture will be ‘handed-down’ to replace decades-old furniture elsewhere in the district.)
As I mentioned later in the meeting, it seems that most classroom furniture is intentionally designed to be uncomfortable – but one of the first things I learned as a school board member was that this is not a legal requirement! So I’m thrilled to hear that the district is now purchasing ergonomically-correct, molded plastic seats instead of the hard plastic (or wood) that students have put up with for generations.
We authorized textbook purchases for next year, not without at least a little controversy.
Ed Poprick gave his monthly update on the two elementary building projects. Each time, Ed highlights how our commitment to LEED certification affects a building feature. I’m thrilled about the attention that’s been given to acoustics, from design through construction, which will have a direct impact on the classroom learning environment.
We heard an enlightening – and, from a board member’s perspective, exciting - presentation on a somewhat revised district strategy on student assessments. The new Classroom Diagnostic Tools (CDT) can be taken up to five times per year, on-line, at no cost, and will provide teachers with a wealth of easily accessible individual and aggregate student data, aligned to state standards, and tied to the state’s Standards Aligned System (SAS). This will be an incredible resource for teachers.
The assessments will also tie to the new Keystone exams, which are being designed to assess a typical mid-20th century curriculum. The silver lining of the state budget crisis is that the implementation of the Keystone exams will be delayed by a year.
We talked briefly about the impact of this year’s budget and tax decisions on next year’s budget, and the fact that due to Act 1 and the early presidential-year primary, next year’s preliminary budget will have to be prepared by January.
At 11:00, we still weren’t finished, as we adjourned to an executive session to discuss the status of contract negotiations and property tax appeals. (When the economy struggles, businesses often feel their properties are no longer worth their previously assessed value–but wouldn’t it be interesting if we could buy the property at the price of the proposed reassessment?) And then there’s the matter of a couple of outstanding federal lawsuits. Just another day on the school board.
A little longer post than usual, but reflective of a typical board meeting.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Notes on Diane Ravitch
Diane Ravitch began her keynote presentation to PSBA with this cheerful thought: “Pennsylvania is in the forefront of doing terrible things in education.” It’s hard to argue with that when the Commonwealth’s new Education Secretary claims that “money has no impact on the quality of education”. A number of other comments were also worth noting.
Ravitch challenged the idea that schools should be run like a business, noting that capitalism is built on the premise that failure is acceptable, and even desirable. In education, however, we can’t afford to produce failure.
Taking on the voucher issue, she noted that just as we wouldn’t consider privatizing public libraries, beaches and parks, or police and fire departments, we should be equally reluctant to privatize public education.
Ravitch cited several studies. In Milwaukee, vouchers have been available for about 20 years, and are used by about 20% of their students, but there’s no evidence that vouchers have positively impacted educational achievement in any way. She also noted the so-called Texas and New York ‘miracles’ that, upon further review, turned out to be non-existent.
Then leaning on the advice from “All the President’s Men” to “follow the money”, Ravitch observed that hedge fund managers are key players in the current push for charter schools. The possibility of using public dollars to finance for-profit schools is viewed by them as a significant investment opportunity.
She challenged the assertion of “Waiting for Superman” that “70% of students are performing below grade level.” She said the actual number is 25%, which includes a high proportion of non-English speaking and special education students.
While quality teachers are correctly recognized as the key to a good education, Ravitch pointed out that statistically, families have the greater impact on student achievement, and that ‘family income’ is the better predictor.
And while the Harlem Children’s Zone is often cited as an example of how it is possible to educate students from difficult environments, Ravitch observed that the HCZ is successful because they explicitly address issues resulting from poverty. Their budget is about $16,000 per student, not including the cost of their after-school program, rewards for student performance, a chef who prepares healthy meals, central administration and most building costs, as well as some of the expense of the students’ free health and dental care.
Another charter school success cited by “Waiting for Superman” is the SEED school in Washington, D.C.. , which is, however, not cheap at about $35,000 per student.
Ravitch mentioned two keys to improving education: a strong professional teaching force, and an emphasis on early childhood education to address the gap that exists on the first day of school, and which will only widen if you don’t address it.
She suggested that we might want to consider the models of successful countries. In Finland, for example, schools are not labeled as “failing”; rather, the best schools help the weaker schools, just as the better teachers are seen as resources to help the weaker ones. The ideal teacher evaluation tool would be largely dependent on quality principal and peer review.
In the midst of all the rhetoric about “college and work readiness” we have forgotten that the Founding Fathers saw public education primarily as necessary vehicle for the development of a capable citizenry.
Stating what ought to be obvious, Ravitch concluded by saying that we shouldn’t be mandating unproven ideas, and that the current rhetoric on education reform “borders on nihilism”.
Ravitch challenged the idea that schools should be run like a business, noting that capitalism is built on the premise that failure is acceptable, and even desirable. In education, however, we can’t afford to produce failure.
Taking on the voucher issue, she noted that just as we wouldn’t consider privatizing public libraries, beaches and parks, or police and fire departments, we should be equally reluctant to privatize public education.
Ravitch cited several studies. In Milwaukee, vouchers have been available for about 20 years, and are used by about 20% of their students, but there’s no evidence that vouchers have positively impacted educational achievement in any way. She also noted the so-called Texas and New York ‘miracles’ that, upon further review, turned out to be non-existent.
Then leaning on the advice from “All the President’s Men” to “follow the money”, Ravitch observed that hedge fund managers are key players in the current push for charter schools. The possibility of using public dollars to finance for-profit schools is viewed by them as a significant investment opportunity.
She challenged the assertion of “Waiting for Superman” that “70% of students are performing below grade level.” She said the actual number is 25%, which includes a high proportion of non-English speaking and special education students.
While quality teachers are correctly recognized as the key to a good education, Ravitch pointed out that statistically, families have the greater impact on student achievement, and that ‘family income’ is the better predictor.
And while the Harlem Children’s Zone is often cited as an example of how it is possible to educate students from difficult environments, Ravitch observed that the HCZ is successful because they explicitly address issues resulting from poverty. Their budget is about $16,000 per student, not including the cost of their after-school program, rewards for student performance, a chef who prepares healthy meals, central administration and most building costs, as well as some of the expense of the students’ free health and dental care.
Another charter school success cited by “Waiting for Superman” is the SEED school in Washington, D.C.. , which is, however, not cheap at about $35,000 per student.
Ravitch mentioned two keys to improving education: a strong professional teaching force, and an emphasis on early childhood education to address the gap that exists on the first day of school, and which will only widen if you don’t address it.
She suggested that we might want to consider the models of successful countries. In Finland, for example, schools are not labeled as “failing”; rather, the best schools help the weaker schools, just as the better teachers are seen as resources to help the weaker ones. The ideal teacher evaluation tool would be largely dependent on quality principal and peer review.
In the midst of all the rhetoric about “college and work readiness” we have forgotten that the Founding Fathers saw public education primarily as necessary vehicle for the development of a capable citizenry.
Stating what ought to be obvious, Ravitch concluded by saying that we shouldn’t be mandating unproven ideas, and that the current rhetoric on education reform “borders on nihilism”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)