Are Baltimore Students Degreeless in Debt?

Earlier this fall, a Johns Hopkins study found that only 6 percent of Baltimore City's High School Class of 2004 graduated from two-year colleges within six years. Why are so few students graduating from these two-year colleges? The Hopkins researchers suggested that perhaps the city schools are pushing students into two-year programs because it's easier and cheaper. These schools, however, do not serve their students very well. On the other hand, 34% of the Class of 2004 graduated within six years from four-year colleges.

But another reason is also likely playing a factor. Although two-year schools are generally more affordable than four-year colleges, students going to college from predominantly low-income urban school systems probably have to take out loans to finance their education. But because low-income students are generally averse to debt, it's more likely that these students would adopt risky behaviors to minimize the amount of loans they need to take out. If students choose to delay enrollment after high school, enroll college part-time, or work full-time, then they become more at risk for not completing their degrees. This was what I discovered in my new report, entitled Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out, recently released from Education Sector, an education policy think tank in D.C.

To read more about the Hopkins study, click here.

To read more about my new report, click here.

Baltimore Sun Article: Suspension

Baltimore Sun Article: Suspension

The article details a state-wide approach to reducing suspensions and overturning the zero tolerance approach in schools. It particularly reference the notion that zero tolerance was heavily used in the last decade (2000s) to reduce crime and stabilize tough schools. Currently, Baltimore County has one of the highest suspension rates in the state of Maryland. Moving forward, the state has decided to pressure school districts to revise their Code of Conducts to the point that it would be hard for schools to suspend for issues unless they are violent or extremely dangerous. This is the result of a 15 year old who was long-term suspended and missed a whole year of school. Therefore, to reduce this type of disposition, schools would have to develop alternatives to suspension.
This makes me think about my school and how our suspension rate this school year is very high. The only strategy that we have is detention and Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS). I feel these are ineffective and really do not curve behaviors. I do believe schools should suspend students who show consistent negative behaviors, but I believe we must create solutions that empower our students and. It disempower them. Education is an avenue of support for students, but if the institution of learning works as a prison then we are doomed. What can be done? Well, learn your students, develop strong mentoring programs, engage student's through programs such as athletics, and remain consistent with consequences. The solution isn't easy or always fast, but changing the way schools think is half the battle.

High Stakes Testing 2.0

In his State of the Union address, President Obama talked about his wish to see teachers move away from teaching to the test. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the landmark education law signed by President Bush in 2002 implemented a high-stakes testing regime throughout the country that severely penalized schools and school systems for failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The heavy reliance on testing data produced some unintended consequences, as some schools began to narrow their focus to reading and math instruction because they were the only two subjects tested under NCLB. Additionally, past incidences of cheating on tests have led the National Center for Fair & Open Testing to urge the Department of Education to avoid tying incentives to test scores.

Recently, the American Federation of Teachers announced that it supported President Obama's calls to move away from test-based accountability as it existed under NCLB. Instead, they argue, test data should be used to improve teacher practices and truly measure student knowledge. As the country moves toward a redefined version of NCLB, or towards a modified understanding of teacher and school accountability, the hope is that a more nuanced approach toward school, student and teacher performance will be taken. If testing is used as a tool to improve rather than broadly criticize, hopefully the pressure to cheat will disappear, and stories like this will not happen in Baltimore.

Back to Basics Math Instruction

Baltimore City Public Schools introduced in the last two years a new instructional framework based on "rigor, engagement, and intervention." According to the framework, students in Baltimore City classrooms need to be engaged in high level learning at all times, and those who are not achieving at these rigorous levels need to have interventions so that they can master skills and then move on to higher level work. To these ends, the city has pushed efforts for more collaborative teamwork in classrooms, student-centered, and inquiry-based learning, especially in math and science.

At the same time, in focusing on the instruction piece of student learning, many schools are spending time developing teachers' proficiency in explicit instruction. Explicit instruction is often thought of as a more traditional method of instruction, and is characterized in some education circles as the "old" method of teaching. However, in an article on EducationNews.org, Barry Garelick offers a still-untested hypothesis that it is explicit instruction and a "back to basics" approach that is needed in math to lower the rates of students categorized as special needs. In his article, "Mathematics Education: Being Outwitted by Stupidity," Garelick argues that low levels of success later in school are a result of poor understandings and mastery of basic math processes and facts. In order to obtain this basic knowledge, math instruction needs explicit instruction and automaticity rather than an emphasis on conceptual knowledge in the early years.

Garelick suggests that educators not abandon "traditional" math instruction that could have "failed millions" because it was improperly given. Rather, he writes, it might actually be what is necessary to finally reach those higher levels of rigor everyone wants. There are many critics to the "drill and kill" style of teaching, and yet there are also great numbers of students (many in BCPSS) who can not keep up with math at higher levels. Perhaps when it comes to math, a happy medium must be found.

Note: The discussion that follows the article is very interesting and plays into the debate over a wide, shallow curriculum (that many states currently have) and the narrower, deeper Common Core State Standards that do not spiral as much material through the grade levels.

Teacher Evaluations: Should They Be Published?

This past week, the New York City Education Department released teachers’ individual performance ratings. The released information included teachers’ names and schools so anyone could look up a specific teacher’s evaluation. It is ironic, then, that the NYC Education Department “admonished” the media not to “use the scores to label or pillory teachers.” However, given the recent trend to blame teachers (and teachers alone) for the failures in our education system, how could the media, parents, and other stakeholders do anything with this information except what the NYC Education Department allegedly did not intend?

For me, the NYT article highlights many of the problems that exist in current teacher evaluation systems. The ratings published in NYC were based on students’ gains on the state’s math and English exams over the past five years. However, the margin of error for student gains was as high as 53 percentage points (in English). The article also mentioned that for some teachers, they were evaluated based on the achievement of as few as 10 students. With so much error in student gains, it seems almost ridiculous that this information would serve any constructive purpose.

As much as sources in the article insist that these rankings will not be used to judge teachers in isolation, unfortunately not everyone will consider the data’s margin of error or the possibility of bias when they read these rankings. In my opinion, if school districts are going to publish teacher evaluations at all, at least it should be accurate, reliable, and fair. This means that most school districts should rethink how they evaluate teachers before announcing these evaluations to the public.

You can find the NYT article at the following URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/schoolbook/2012/02/24/teacher-data-reports-are-released