Fixing the American Education System is Easy as Pie….Or Is It?

In his Op-Ed column for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof pushes the envelope by suggesting that “good teachers” are the most important factor the advancement and followed sustenance of the American education system. Basing his opinion on a million-person study following students from fourth grade to adulthood, Kristof touts the vitality of “strong” teachers, denounces teacher unions for championing all teachers (“regardless of quality”) and criticizes Republican nominees for nearly ignoring the topic of education during the pending campaign season. Kristof haphazardly mentions “obvious” solutions to better the education system – higher pay for teachers, teacher evaluations based on student performance and getting rid of “bad” teachers. Easy, right?

While Kristof appropriately emphasizes the importance of the education issue, his “simple” solutions are those of an education outsider – dismissing weak teachers and praising/paying more for good ones. But who are the weak ones? And who qualify as the “strong”? Should we base the value of a teacher on her students’ scores, her principal or the parents?

Perhaps before I became an educator, I, too, would agree with Kristof, but the education system is not corrected so concisely. In Baltimore City, the teacher turn over rate is already high. Keeping teachers employed in city schools is a near feat. Some teachers work relentlessly to make significant gains with their students, even if their test scores do not represent it. In my 5^th grade classroom, the average reading level is third grade. While my students are learning to become better readers, their test scores do not represent their improvement; instead, their test scores show they are failing. My students cannot succeed on a state test that is on a fifth-grade reading level when they have grown a year to become fourth grade readers. Although the “good teacher/bad teacher” argument seems like the end-all-be-all, judging the value of a teacher, especially based on test scores, is nearly impossible. Based on my experience in Baltimore, perhaps a finger should be pointed at administrators (especially principals) who allow teachers to provide subpar services and parents who never visit the school or take part in their child’s education. It takes a village to raise a child, and until every actor is doing his or her part, the education system will still be in gridlock. 

Read the Op-Ed article here.    

Michelle Obama is Always Right

An article came out in a recent issue of Time Magazine that I would have stapled to my Principal’s forehead if that weren’t so…mean. The title? The Reason for Recess: Active Children May Do Better in School. The article reviews a study by researchers in the Netherlands that reports children who get more exercise—on the playground or otherwise—tend to “have higher GPAs and better scores on standardized tests.” Their research was supported by similar studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about exercise and productivity among adults, and of course by what we see in our classrooms every day: cooping kids up in chairs and indoors is no recipe for success.

            

In my school and in many City schools, according to my friends and colleagues, the reasons for cutting recess are two-fold: schools lack staff to man the playgrounds, and (ironically) play time takes away from study time. Indeed, in the ever-growing pressure our schools face to meet budgetary shortfalls and tackle testing trepidation, our students’ basic needs become bargaining chips.

So are we cheating kids out of the scores we seek by denying them a little playtime? What age is too old for recess? What will we need to cut to make it happen? And, my favorite question, what kind of response do you expect, dear Principal, when you tell a rowdy bunch of 6-year-olds that you’re replacing their recess with silent reading time?

I think we can look to our Queen Bee for some answers here: Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative champions the gym and jungle-gym for our kids. This recent FLOTUS foray into schools and school policy makes me wonder if we're on our way to valuing physical activity and developmentally appropriate behavior alongside the more typical pushpins (think tested subjects). Will we soon see national standards for student health and fitness? Do schools have a responsibility to let kids move? Will we ever let kids roam my school's playground?

What will it take to make recess a reality in Baltimore City?

As always, more questions than answers.

Read the article here.

Click here to explore the Let’s Move initiative:

Most Children Left Behind

The National Association for Educational Statistics released a report that tested the rigor of state exams in both reading and math for 4th and 8th graders and the findings were disheartening. It found that most states' proficiency standards are below NAEP's definition of basic performance. Maryland's standards were deemed below proficient and in the bottom 10 in 4th grade reading and math; below proficient and in the bottom 15 for 8th grade reading; and slightly above basic in 8th grade math. The report also concluded that there was a significant amount of variation in the "levels of achievement required."

This report also gives strength to implementing an across-the-board curriculum like the Common Core, because it would norm the standards and really hold states accountable for ensuring that the standards are actually rigorous. On a website that discussed Georgia's performance, there was a quote from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan's Chief-of-Staff, Joanne Weiss, speaking to the report and why it may be so. She said that the federal No Child Left Behind law has inadvertently driven states to lower their standards. Hopefully, with the implementation of the Common Core, this doesn't have to be the case in the future.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011458
http://www.gpb.org/news/2011/08/10/study-finds-low-test-standards

Making change

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-to-improve-teacher-education-now-and-why-teach-for-america-isnt-the-answer/2011/08/02/gIQANclsqI_blog.html

This piece by Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and former president of Teachers College, argues that alternative certification programs like Teach for America serve to undermine true reform efforts in teacher quality. These programs, he says, siphon off resources that could go towards truly reforming teacher education programs. Instead of shutting down or revamping poorly performing schools, we simply create another source of teachers. Meanwhile, poor schools continue producing lackluster results.

This sounds a lot like the opposition I’ve heard to the charter movement. Much like Levine’s frustration with alternative certification, critics see them as band-aids for more systemic issues in education.

But if there is demand for these schools – and for these teachers – programs like charters and alternative certification can offer an important service.

Both charter schools and programs like Teach for America act in many ways as laboratories for innovation. Teach for America doesn’t simply provide certified teachers to classrooms. As an organization, it has contributed to a body of knowledge, offering valuable insight into what creates results in low performing schools. Though not everything a charter school or TFA tries is successful, these movements accelerate innovation.

A Warning for Charters?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/nyregion/tom-vander-arks-new-york-area-charter-schools-falter.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

When first reading about Tom Vander Ark’s history as former director of education for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and his ambitious plan to create a network of his own charter schools, I thought he and his schools were sure to be another charter success story. However, his efforts to open charters in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, and Newark can be described as nothing less than an epic fail.

After spending more than $1.5 million of investors’ money, Mr. Vander Ark has walked away from the project, and the schools will not open as planned this fall, leaving others involved “stunned and frustrated”.

One consultant puts into words the thoughts of many charter school critics that seemed to come alive in this particular case, “…it signals what’s wrong with the so-called charter school community. Somebody who doesn’t deserve a charter gets a charter. Somebody who doesn’t deserve a building gets a building. And then somebody who doesn’t care about the communities can turn their head and walk away.”

Obviously what happened in the case of Mr. Vander Ark is not exemplary of every charter school, and many find much more success than their traditional counterparts. However, I think it does provide a warning for anyone hoping to open a charter in the future as well as a possible deterrent to school districts’ desires to expand their charter numbers.

Leave the kids behind. They just aren't curious.

A New York Times article published yesterday listed scores and results in the national geographic survey, administered to 4th, 8th and 12th graders across the United States. The article started out with promise, saying, “The good news is that students did not do all that poorly.”

That was the only good news and I wasn’t impressed.

Only one in four fourth graders could identify all seven continents. (Did anyone else fight this battle in his/her classroom this year? It drove me crazy.) No higher than 27 percent of any of the grades tested were rated proficient. If that’s not “all that poorly” then I don’t know what is. The article was written in a Q&A style and I found some of the comments made by David P. Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board quite interesting. He put the blame on today’s children lacking curiousity for knowledge. He said they could memorize song lyrics, but couldn’t name the vice president and that was the fault of not working hard enough.

He sounds like a real winner.

I agree that students need to take responsibility in part, but they need to be provided with quality instruction in a quality environment in order to succeed. They also need to have sturctured home life that encourages that curiousity. They need to have books in the house. Maybe this Driscoll wasn’t all bad, but he certainly rubbed me the wrong way.

Equally concerning was that results had not shown significant improvement since the test was last administered in 2001. I thought no children were being left behind during this time period…

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/us/01questions.html?ref=education

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them stop cheating.

Congratulations to my home state of Pennsylvania for adding itself to the growing list of states filed under educational cheaters. The New York Times reported today that 89 schools in Pennsylvania (28 from Philly) have thrown up red flags for “questionable gains” and questionable numbers of erasure marks.
The information that led to this discovery was collecting e-dust for more than a year before a reporter from a Philadelphia outlet called The Notebook had time to dig deeper. The state put out a study of red flagged schools and then did nothing with the information – nothing that is until The Notebook ran an article with the information from that study.
It’s frustrating that a state study went widely unnoticed for so long. It’s even more frustrating that I doubt much more will be done with the information. The article paralleled the Atlanta cheating scandal, where 10 months of investigations led to the identification of 44 shady schools. Those schools account for half of Atlanta’s district. In Pennsylvania, there are 3,300 schools to sift through.
So far, no teachers or administrators have gone on record about cheating at their schools. Additionally, there are political ties that will further complicate an investigation. One of the schools that had the most flagrant violations reported is run by the biggest donor to Governor Tom Corbitt’s last campaign.
It always comes back to leadership, doesn’t it? Crooked politicians. Crooked Administrators. Maybe that is the key. We need more Geoffrey Canada’s out there. How do we change the whole system? How do we create an educational climate where schools don’t resort to cheating?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/education/01winerip.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=education

Raising the stakes

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/07/duncan_teacher_salaries_should.html

On Friday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called for higher pay for teachers, more accountability, and higher entrance criteria at education schools. And in order to make this happen, he stressed, the nation is going to have to think critically about our current hiring practices, job security, and benefits in the field.

In other words, we need to raise the stakes for public school teachers.

About a month ago, I would have seen this news, reported in Education Week, as purely positive. But the class on school reform I am currently taking makes this news more nuanced for me. It’s not that I do not want stronger teachers or incentives for hard work. I truly believe that these measures will do good things for our nation’s students. Still, I think we need to consider carefully how we evaluate our teachers and structure compensation modules.

When we place a disproportionate focus on test scores in a school environment – and then award money accordingly – we can create a climate that does not focus on complex and meaningful learning. As Alfie Kohn argues in a recent opinion piece featured online in the Washington Post, some teachers in struggling schools that aggressively and sometimes obsessively pursue gains on standardized tests reduce their classrooms to relentless test-taking drills. There is little room for a constructive approach to education in these settings.

It’s just something to think about.

Ed Schools' Pedagogical Puzzle

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlife/edl-24teacher-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

At Relay Graduate School of Education they are doing things differently. Instead of lectures and traditional courses, graduate students will mainly be mentored at their schools and focus on teaching techniques that they can “use on Monday”. There have been many complaints lately that teachers are unprepared for the classroom- even though they may be certified or have a Master’s degree. Relay, a spin off of Teacher U which was founded by leaders from Achievement First, Uncommon Schools, and KIPP to train their teachers, seems to be following the national trend of emphasizing practical instruction over academic study in order to vastly improve teacher education. Students are not even allowed to receive their master’s degree until they have submitted a portfolio proving that their own students have made at least one year of academic progress.

While there are many supporters of this kind of teacher education, critics worry about several factors of the Teacher U/Relay model. Some say that it will add unneeded competition in a time of budget cuts and teacher lay-offs. However, the main criticism is that it dumbs-down teacher education and that the focus on pedagogical context has teachers following protocol without intellectual rigor. Though I would argue many teachers find daily classroom struggles much more challenging and “rigorous” than their traditional master’s coursework. Others are not so much concerned with the methods of Relay but rather that resources could be better spent on monitoring and supervising existing graduate schools rather than saying “let’s just toss it to the side and create something different”.

The goal of Relay’s leaders, though it may not be achieved, is to move their model beyond just servicing the charter school world. They hope to have half of their students be traditional public school teachers who can benefit just as much from the techniques and strategies, including those of Doug Lemov, that Relay focuses on. I think that many teachers would be in favor of this type of education; however, as Linda Darling-Hammond warns, with anything new “we risk learning on other people’s’ kids”.

Tricky Tenure

New York is often one of the first looked at cities when regarding school reform in urban environments, and tenure consistently remains in the center of reform controversy. What is the purpose of tenure? Is its main purpose to still protect teacher’s rights? Or is it working more to keep a steady flow of ineffective teachers responsible for educating our nation’s children? What rights do ineffective teachers deserve if they are not living up their professional expectations as educators?

In New York, tenure is changing. According to the New York Times, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that the era of automatic tenure for teachers is over because of tougher evaluation guidelines put into place earlier this year.
Teachers are eligible for tenure in New York, once they have completed their third year teaching. This year only 58% percent of eligible teachers received tenure based on the evaluation system where teachers are rated as highly effective, effective, developing, or ineffective from student test-scores, classroom observations, feedback from parents, and other factors. Teachers who did not score in effective categories were deferred tenure, and three percent were denied tenure. Bloomberg says that teachers who continue to work a fourth year, with deferred tenure, will be helped with training, with hope that they will improve and earn tenure eventually.

Tenure becomes a very sticky subject between districts and unions. What should the policy be here in Baltimore? Does the extra “developing” category give new teachers the support they need to become the effective teachers that students deserve and who deserve to stay in the classroom. I think Baltimore could definitely benefit from this four-tiered evaluation system for both our teachers and our students. How will we get there, and who will decide?

For more information, read here.

This Is Your Brain on Summer

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/opinion/28smink.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

We often joke during the school year that our students are just going to forget everything they learned over the summer. A New York Times article published last week explains that summer learning loss isn't just a joke: it happens every year, and it disproportionally affects low-income students. A Johns Hopkins Study of Baltimore students found that "about two-thirds of the achievement gap between lower- and higher-income ninth graders could be explained by summer learning loss during the elementary school years" because they are exposed fewer opportunities for learning, reading, and thinking each summer. This is a scary thing.

The reality is that a 180-day school calendar is highly ineffective. It's based on an outdated agrarian calendar, which our country no longer has a need for. Many other countries (which surpass us in student achievement) have embraced year-round schooling. An alternative to converting to year-long schooling (which I honestly don't see happening in the near future) are good summer programs. However, very few districts offer this on a large scale. The article argues that high-need schools "should have at least six weeks of full-day summer school that is comprehensive and engaging." Perhaps summer learning will be the newest school reform craze.

Race to the Top Funds

Reuters reported on statements made by Republican, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, in an educational funding hearing. Yesterday, Senator Shelby questioned funding for Obama’s Race to the Top campaign. He expressed concern about the program being too competitive and drawing funds away from poor states. He conveyed doubt regarding the mandates of the Race to the Top applications, and he showed worry about federal meddling in the state business of education. Senator Shelby provided support for state flexibility in education decisions to meet the needs of the state.
Moreover, Senator Shelby asked Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, to review and possibly change criteria for evaluating Race to the Top allocation of funds. Reuters included a quote from Shelby in which he stated that he is concerned funds will be drawn away from poor rural areas and redistributed to urban areas. Arne responded by saying that the evaluation of distribution of funding criteria is a “work in progress,” and he added that there will be more grant opportunities for rural areas. Reuters mentioned that critics argue that Race to the Top has been emphasizes charters school, which in return hurts public schools.
Senator Shelby displays a valid concern for rural areas. At times, I feel so consumed by the education reform going on in Baltimore City that I forget to acknowledge work in other low income areas. Are there reforms taking place in rural areas that could benefit initiatives in urban areas? How can we better communicate and partnership with schools from rural areas to enhance education for students in both areas? The allocations of funding for Race to the Top present a challenge for the federal government. A competition does not usually include equity, but when the federal government examines funding for education, it appears equity must be taken into consideration regarding the students. Does a competition change the way the federal government should approve allocations? Is it fair to students in low income areas with failing schools that are in states that do not get as much funding? What will the allocation of funds from Race to the Top look like in Baltimore City?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-usa-states-education-race-idUSTRE76Q5LA20110727

School Choice

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/nyregion/at-best-schools-competing-for-best-performers-students-may-be-left-behind.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=education

I strongly recommend reading this article if you’re interested in school choice.

This is a riveting story about a single mother of three who wanted to send her youngest daughter to a strong public school in New York City. The child started out at Dewey, a failing school with low test scores. To find a strong middle school, the mother had to practically memorize the education department’s vague and confusing guide to middle schools, attend middle school fairs, tour schools, and ultimately, invest hours and hours of her time into doing so.

The results: Dewey. “Dewey,” Ms. Otero said. “A complete waste of my time. She should have gone straight into Dewey.”

I couldn’t imagine the efforts parents must invest in having to choose an elementary, middle, and high school for multiple children. School choice sounds good in theory, but in reality, few parents have the time to sort through all the research and make the best decisions. Remember how stressful it was applying to colleges? Imagine the same process for elementary school, middle school, high school, and college? It’s overwhelming, and I’m not sure that it’s the answer. And I can’t imagine how terrible it feels for parents like Ms. Otero, who did invest hours and hours of her precious time, only to have to send her daughter back to the same failing school.

With anything else, I wish we’d just focus our efforts on making the public schools that we do have great. The system we have in place has the potential to educate our students; why are we investing millions of dollars into opening up charters, providng vouches, etc., when we could pour that same money into attracting strong human capital to fix the schools we already have?

Baltimore County Public Schools Cut Teaching Positions

Baltimore County schools appear on the front cover of The Baltimore Sun today because 196 teacher positions have been cut for the upcoming school year. Liz Bowie of The Baltimore Sun writes that the school system hired administrators, curriculum supervisors, accountants, and others, amounting to $1.9 million in annual salaries (1). The Baltimore Sun finds that with a budget of $1.9 million Baltimore County Public Schools could have hired 42 teachers at an annual pay of $45,000 or 37 teachers for at an annual pay of $50,000 (1).



Cutting teachers is a challenging side to defend when placing student needs first. The article offers alternative measures to cutting teacher positions like freezing teacher salaries for a year or reducing health benefits. These appear to be good alternatives to reducing teaching positions, but it makes me question how unions would respond to this type of arrangement.



This article directly relates to two new hiring updates that were provided today by Balitmore City CEO, Dr. Alonso. Two new leadership positions have been created and filled according to the press release to better meet the needs of students and families. These Baltimore City new cabinet appointments make me question whether these types of new positions created by Alonso are a good use of funding. As the weight of education continues to fall on the shoulders of teachers and reform emphasizes the need for highly qualified teachers, why are funds being allocated to fill new positions in administrative roles? Could these administrative roles be better organized with fewer people and still be run efficiently? It would be interesting to see research on how the funding of different school districts (in particular looking at the funding for teachers verses administration/ operations) plays into student achievement.



Baltimore City Press Release: http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cms/lib/MD01001351/Centricity/Domain/1/%20pdf/BricePerkinsPressRelease.pdf



Baltimore Sun Article: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-co-schools-hiring-20110726,0,4016054.story

Common Core Academies in Maryland

Late last month educators from across northwestern Maryland arrived at Mountain Ridge High School in Frostburg, MD. on a mission: to figure out how to apply the common core standards to their classroom and to their schools. This gathering is the first of many “educator effectiveness academies” for teachers and principals, which officials say will be the largest teacher professional-development program ever held in the state. Every public school from this region, 1,450 total, have been asked to send a team of educators to one of the three day workshops that will continue over the next two summers. The state is expecting to spend $12.5 million of its Race to the Top award on the academies over three years. To conclude the professional development plan, Maryland officials say they will provide follow-up support by having schools complete “transition” plans to describe how they will make their colleagues comfortable with the standards.

Educators attending the academy voiced both their support and concern of the new standards. Matthew Marsh, an English teacher, predicts that the standards could result in students’ arriving in his class with a better set of skills acquired in earlier grades, but worries that the standards will de-emphasize a rich study of literature. Another teacher asked during a question-and-answer session, “How Maryland could be developing a system for evaluating teachers using test scores, when the state is still trying to explain its standards to teachers, and hasn’t developed the exams that will be based on those standards” The state officials response was, “I wish I had an answer for that.”

What is Baltimore City doing to prepare for the use of the Common Core Standards? As part of the early childhood cohort, we were able to catch a glimpse of what the Department of Early Learning had began writing for the district at last summers New Teacher Institute, but haven’t heard anything since. Should Baltimore introduce the curriculum by sending teams to workshops as Northern Maryland has done? And also what are you thoughts on using the core standards?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/07/13/36maryland_ep.h30.html?tkn=SZYFpeW3f7%2B4kwTkDPDHUY%2BIvXiqKp7lalQX&cmp=clp-edweek

Switch to Elected Boards in the County?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/07/balto_county_school_board_task_force_chair_looking_ahead.html

Out in the country, a task force was put together in order to examine the structure of the school board. A series of public hearings were held, whose input will help put together the board's recommendations. At the last hearing, it was reported that the public voiced support for an elected board. Currently, the board is appointed by the governor. However, others were skeptical, saying the structure does not need to be changed citing success on test scores as evidence.

It is noteworthy that when the public is asked how they want their school board members to be chosen, the majority said elections. Though, it's not entirely surprising, given that the people who attended these public hearings are likely ones who attend school board meetings, would vote in school board elections, and probably want more say in who sits on the board. Most interesting, however, is that some thought there should be no changes because the country is doing well (in their opinion). Does this mean that, if asked, Baltimore City residents would want to switch to an elected board, since City Schools is perceived by many to be failing? I would argue yes. Nonetheless, I doubt the City would ever switch to an elected board, given that most urban districts now have an appointed school board.

Traditional Education Reform Founded on the American Dream?

In this day and age, the phrase "public education" has become code for the education of the poor and the achievement gap that exists between lower and higher income students. Many public education reform efforts target improving or shutting down failing schools in light of the conventional wisdom that failing schools are the cause of the problem--the achievement gap--and should thus be the point of intervention. Unfortunately, conventional wisdom puts the cart before the horse.

Solving the problem of public education in America requires more than just school reform. Schools should not be ignored, but they only account for a fraction of the problems that face American public education. There are extrinsic social, emotional, physiological, and psychological challenges related to socioeconomic status that leave children living in poverty playing catch-up from the minute they enter school. In particular, children living in low socioeconomic households are not adequately prepared to learn what schools are in place to teach when they enter school in PK or K.

Research has shown that low-income parents use fewer words with their children on a daily basis, engage in less two-way conversation, and expose their children to books and reading less compared to middle and upper income parents. There has been much discussion about the significant role that parents have to play in their child's education, but when it comes to educational reform efforts that reach out to parents most programs fall flat. This is what makes programs like Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone unique. The HCZ and other prospective "Promise Neighborhoods" offer parents the educational opportunities and resources that they need to learn about early childhood education so that they can intervene as soon as their child is born. The program takes a more holistic approach to educational reform, providing poor parents with resource and support they need so that they can devote the necessary time and energy to prepare their kids for academic success.

Sadly, holistic approaches such as Canada's threaten the very platform upon which most traditional education reform programs are built: demography is not destiny and the American dream lives on! According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, every child can learn and thrive despite the challenges at home. This requires that reform efforts do not attempt to lower standards because certain students face significant challenges at home. However, maintaining high standards is not the idea being challenged. Rather, education reform should seek to maintain high standards while also providing poor students and their families with the resources that they need to achieve such standards. In this way, the holistic approach to educational reform places the horse in front of the cart in the hopes of moving forward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/failing-students-not-fail_b_534797.html

Is the NYC Middle School Lottery a True Lottery System?

In the NYC public school system, students entering the 6th grade are placed into a lottery to determine which middle school they will attend. For a child to attend a school outside of his or her neighborhood, there must be demonstrated high achievement on the state standardized test. This was the situation facing Aaliyah Otero's mother as her daughter began the 5th grade. Ms. Otero was well aware that Dewey, Aaliyah's neighborhood middle school, was underperforming and would not be a good avenue for her daughter to be accepted into a strong high school. “A lot of kids at Dewey cut class, hang out on the street,” Ms. Otero said. “Kids get jumped in the park.” Ms. Otero was determined to get her daughter into a better school, and so she entered the lottery process armed with detailed knowledge of exactly what each school was looking for as far as admissions criteria.

After ranking Dewey at the bottom of the list and ranking several strong schools at the top, Aaliyah was still placed in her neighborhood school, Dewey. Aaliyah is not a bad student. Her test scores fall right on the cusp of what the more selective schools look for. However, the simple fact is that she will be a student at Dewey in the fall and will have much greater odds stacked against her as a result of having to attend there. “That’s so young for a decision that can affect them until they graduate high school,” one guidance counselor said. It seems as though this process really benefits those students who perform well, while it hurts students such as Aaliyah whose scores don't quite make the cut. In my opinion, it's the beginning of a two-class educational system where the stronger students (and usually more affluent students) will receive an even greater education than those students left to suffer at neighborhood schools which are on the decline.

Voucher Program Faces Lawsuit

In Colorado, the Douglas County School District is facing a lawsuit challenging a pilot voucher program. The program, known as The Douglas County's Choice Scholarship Program is facing a lawsuit filed by three civil liberties unions, including the ACLU, and parents who claim that the program violates the lawful separation of church and state. The plaintiffs argue that taxpayer funds intended to go into Colorado's public education system should not be allowed to fund private schools because of their religious affiliations.

In response, district officials have filed a motion requesting that the court allow them to carry out their pilot vouchers, through which they have already distributed over $158,000 of public funds to private schools for 14o students. The defense argues that since the money has already been distributed it would be nonsensical to cancel the program because doing so would only serve to inconvenience the families of the students involved.

The debate over vouchers is not an unfamiliar one. In Baltimore, city officials continue to oppose proposals for voucher programs. Though there are surely numerous reasons for the rejection of vouchers in Baltimore, it is likely that the major point of contention revolves around spending public funds on tuition for private schools with religious affiliations. Many existing voucher programs appear to offer students and their families anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000. In Baltimore City, this amount of money would afford students entry into schools like Archbishop Curley High School or Mercy High School, which are both parochial schools with mission statements promoting Christian beliefs and values. Tuition for these schools is slightly above $11,000. To send students to any of the elite private schools in and around the city that are not religiously affiliated might cost upwards of $20,000 a year.

If Baltimore city officials were to adopt a voucher program, they may find themselves facing a lawsuit similar to the one facing Douglas county officials. Are such lawsuits the beginning of the end for vouchers programs as a means of urban school reform?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/douglas-county-school-boa_n_908961.html

"Students Score Slightly Better on State Science Test" -Baltimore Sun

In an article released earlier this week, the Maryland State Department of Education shared the results of the science MSA taken by fifth and eighth graders. While the state average in science was better than this year's average in reading and math, there hasn't been a noticeable jump in test scores since the science MSA was instituted 4 years ago.

Bowie reports, "In Baltimore City, the fifth grade dropped 3 percentage points to 36 percent passing while eighth-graders rose 3 percentage points to 37.6 percent. The city scores were 30 percentage points below the state average[my emphasis]." This data represents a stark reality facing Baltimore City Public Schools. Whether or not we should consider this data reliable, we should be concerned at the disparity between the performance of students in Baltimore City and those in the surrounding Maryland counties. Why might we be performing so much worse?

Bowie mentions the release of a National Research Council "framework for what students should be taught in science from kindergarten through 12th grade. The framework places more weight on teaching engineering as well as science and reduces the number of core concepts taught in a year." To me, reducing the number of core concepts taught in a year - the depth over breadth argument - is key. While I don't personally have experience teaching science, one of my close colleagues this year (a teacher who just completed his fifth year) was tasked with trying to prepare our 8th graders for the science MSA. One of the major difficulties - he said - was the breadth of topics that the test covers, as well as the fact that the MSA is designed to test knowledge gleaned from 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. I think that he would welcome this framework as opposed to the current science curriculum.

This goes back to the consideration of new standards like Common Core: will this significantly help students in Baltimore City and other urban areas? And not only that, but how long will it take to see results? Ravitch argues that good curricula is essential to a good education. But obviously, it is not the only factor we need to consider in reforming our schools. Baltimore City also needs to continue to encourage and develop teacher effectiveness, infuse schools with good leadership, involve families and communities in the process of school reform, and much, much more if we want to see really game-changing results in the quality of our student's education (and this means not just results on tests, obviously). Better curricula is without doubt a great thing, but it is just one piece of the education puzzle.