I read with interest an article by Federick M. Hess "The Same Thing Over and Over" in November 10, 2010, Education Week. Thought my readers would like to sample an excerpt that lays out an intelligent foundation for the need to change the way we do things in public education. What do you think?
FREDERICK M. HESS is the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, and the author of the new book The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas (Harvard University Press).
"It took more than three centuries after the first statutory education laws were adopted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1647 and 1652, until we actually got 90 percent of American students to show up in school every day. It’s hardly surprising that a system which spent centuries struggling to get students off the street and into schools, where they would be provided with minimal instruction, wasn’t built to educate every student to a high level.
This problem isn’t unique to education. Plenty of once-dominant private ventures—from Pan Am to Bethlehem Steel—have struggled to reinvent themselves when labor markets, technology, and customer demands have changed. Unable to refashion themselves, many have given way to younger, more agile competitors. Because that Darwinian process does not play out by itself in schooling, structural reform is essential to creating the room where problem-solving can happen.
We often seemingly fail to appreciate how much has changed since common-school and Progressive reformers shaped our schools in their battles to Americanize youths and get them out of the factories and in front of literate teachers.
Since the Progressive Era ended 75 years ago, our expectations have skyrocketed, with policymakers today insisting that all students need to master skills once thought the province of the elite. The expectation that our schools would mold students into “republican machines” has given way to an emphasis on diversity and tolerance, reducing the premium on homogeneity. The pool of available careerist teachers has dramatically shrunk as new opportunities have opened to women, even as professional mobility increased and the pool of educated professionals interested in teaching grew. And the ability of new technologies to assess student mastery, facilitate instruction, and enable virtual schooling has undergone a revolutionary expansion.
We’re hardly the first to be uncomfortable with change. While skeptics of technology today fret about the fate of the book, it was once books and the printing press that were feared by educators who worried that students would learn the wrong things, if left to read on their own. It was Sir Roger L’Estrange who wondered in the 17th century “whether more mischief than advantage were not occasion’d to the Christian world by the invention of typography.”
Reformers get swept up in enthusiasms and manias rather than in problem-solving. While some reformers tout mayoral control as a solution, the real challenge is the primacy of serial geographic monopolies that require every district to meet every need of every child—making it enormously difficult to do anything all that well. A century ago, this model was a best practice, as when people bought their tractors and their toothbrushes from Sears, Roebuck and Co. Today, however, coordination of provision is no longer a major challenge, enabling an array of providers to focus on the high-quality, cost-effective provision of particular goods or services.
Reformers wax enthusiastic about merit pay, while leaving intact notions of the teacher’s job description, school staffing, and the organization of instruction. Indeed, today’s “cutting edge” merit-pay strategies depend utterly on teachers’ retaining sole instructional responsibility for a group of students in a tested subject for 180 days. Rather than viewing pay reform as a tool for rethinking teaching, reformers wind up layering merit pay atop industrial-era pay scales.
Reformers celebrate alternative certification and extended learning time, yet seem to take for granted the primacy of colleges of education and the notion that all students necessarily require a standardized school year with a bureaucratically specified number of days and hours. Such assumptions learn nothing from promising ventures like San Diego’s High-Tech High School or New York City’s School of One.
The new decade ought to loom as a dynamic and enormously creative era addressing our educational challenges. We’ve set heroic goals, are constructing remarkable tools, and have an opportunity to rethink the very shape of teaching, learning, and schooling.
Yet we once again find ourselves rehashing tired debates between public school “defenders” and self-described “innovators.” On the one side are those who insist we cling to the rhythms of schoolhouses erected to sanitize Catholic immigrants. On the other are Race to the Top enthusiasts promising that data systems and more impassioned school leaders, along with a dollop of “science,” will set matters straight.
We don’t need “innovation” or to “protect” public schools. The truth is far simpler, and more frustrating, than that. Yesterday’s structures are ill-suited for today’s ambitions. Rethinking them is not an attack or a solution; it is just the inevitable precursor to crafting better answers to today’s challenges."
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Rothstein on How to Fix Our Schools
The essay below from author Rothstein should be read and contemplated by all of us who work in the public school environment. There is a lot to consider in today's political environment but the truth speaks louder than words and Rothstein certainly lays it out in this policy brief. Please take the time to read his analysis below:
From Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #286, Thursday, October 14, 2010. See http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib286 . Our thanks to Michael Goldenberg for bringing this brief to our attention.
***************************
How to fix our schools
By Richard Rothstein
Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City public school system, and Michelle Rhee, who resigned October 13 as Washington, D.C. chancellor, published a "manifesto" in the Washington Post claiming that the difficulty of removing incompetent teachers "has left our school districts impotent and, worse, has robbed millions of children of a real future." The solution, they say, is to end the "glacial process for removing an incompetent teacher" and give superintendents like themselves the authority to pay higher salaries to teachers whose students do well academically. Otherwise, children will remain "stuck in failing schools" across the country.{i}
Klein, Rhee, and the 14 other school superintendents who co-signed their statement base this call on a claim that, "as President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income - it is the quality of their teacher."
It is true that the president has sometimes said something like this. But in his more careful moments, he properly insists that teacher quality is not the most important factor determining student success; it is the most important in-school factor. Indeed, Mr. Obama has gone further, saying, "I always have to remind people that the biggest ingredient in school performance is the teacher. That's the biggest ingredient within a school. But the single biggest ingredient is the parent."{ii}
There is a world of difference between claiming, as the Klein-Rhee statement does, that the single biggest factor in student success is teacher quality and claiming, as Barack Obama does in his more careful moments, that the single biggest school factor is teacher quality. Decades of social science research have demonstrated that differences in the quality of schools can explain about one-third of the variation in student achievement. But the other two-thirds is attributable to non-school factors.{iii}
When the president says that the single most important factor is parents, he does not mean the parents' zip code or income or skin color, as though zip codes or income or skin color themselves influence a child's achievement. Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee's caricature of the research in this way prevents a careful consideration of policies that could truly raise the achievement of America's children. What President Obama means is that if a child's parents are poorly educated themselves and don't read frequently to their young children, or don't use complex language in speaking to their children, or are under such great economic stress that they can't provide a stable and secure home environment or proper preventive health care to their children, or are in poor health themselves and can't properly nurture their children, or are unable to travel with their children or take them to museums and zoos and expose them to other cultural experiences that stimulate the motivation to learn, or indeed live in a zip code where there are no educated adult role models and where other adults can't share in the supervision of neighborhood youth, then children of such parents will be impeded in their ability to take advantage of teaching, no matter how high quality that teaching may be.
President Obama put it this way: "It's not just making sure your kids are doing their homework, it's also instilling a thirst for knowledge and excellenceŠ.And the community can help the parents. Listen, I love basketball. But the smartest kid in the schoolŠshould be getting as much attention as the basketball star. That's a change that we've got to initiate in our community."
Of course, there are exceptions. Just as not all children flourish with high-quality teachers, not all children fail to flourish just because their parents can't help with homework or because they live in communities where athletes are the most prominent role models. Under any set of circumstances, there will be a distribution of outcomes - that's human nature. And on average, disadvantaged children who have high-quality teachers will do better than similar children whose teachers are less adequate. But good teachers alone, for most children, cannot fully compensate for the disadvantages many children bring to school. As we noted, differences in the quality of in-school experiences can explain about one-third of the differences in achievement.
Even the president's more careful statement - that teacher quality is the most important in-school factor - is actually without solid foundation in research. It is true that some studies have found that variation in teacher quality has more of an influence on test scores than do the size of classes or average district-wide per pupil spending. In other words, you are better off having a good teacher in a larger class than a poor teacher in a smaller class. But that's it. It is on this thin reed that Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee are mounting a campaign to make improving teacher quality, and removing teachers whose students' test scores are lower, the centerpiece of national efforts to improve the life chances of disadvantaged students.
There are plausibly many other in-school factors, not quantified in research, that could have as much if not more of an influence on student test scores than teacher quality. Take the quality of school leadership. Would an inspired school principal get better student achievement from a corps of average-quality teachers than a mediocre principal could get from high-quality teachers? Studies of organizations would suggest the answer is yes, but there have been no such studies of school leadership. Take the quality of the curriculum. Would average teachers given a well-designed curriculum get better achievement from their students than would high-quality teachers with a poor curriculum? A very few research studies in this field suggest the answer might be yes as well.
Or take another in-school factor, teacher collaboration. Even when elementary school students sit in a single classroom for most of the day, several teachers influence their achievement. Teachers can meet to compare lesson plans that worked well and those that didn't. Teachers in lower grades can successfully align their instruction with what will be most helpful for learning in the next grade. Teachers of the arts can reinforce the writing curriculum, and vice-versa. Will average-quality teachers who work well together as a team with the common purpose of raising student achievement get better results than higher-quality teachers working in isolation? Plausibly, the answer is yes. Will promising to pay individual teachers more if their students get higher test scores than the students of another teacher reduce the incentives for teachers to collaborate? Again, a plausible answer is yes.
Of course, schools should try to recruit better-quality teachers and should remove those who are ineffective. After all, the quality of teachers is an important part of the one-third share of the achievement gap that can be traced to the quality of schools. But before making teacher quality the focus of a national campaign, school systems will have to develop better ways of identifying good and bad teachers. Using students' test scores as the chief marker of teacher quality is terribly dangerous, for a variety of reasons: it encourages a narrowing of the curriculum because only test scores in one or two subjects (math and reading) can be used for this purpose, and teachers who will be evaluated mainly by these test scores will have incentives to minimize attention to other subjects; it creates pressure to "teach to the test," that is, emphasizing topics likely to appear on our existing low-quality standardized tests rather than other equally important but untested topics; and it is likely to misidentify teachers - labeling many good teachers as poor and many poor teachers as good - because test scores can be influenced by so many other factors besides good teaching.{iv}
The necessary task of identifying good teachers and removing those who are inadequate requires more than student test score data. It requires a holistic approach, in which qualified experts observe teachers' lessons, evaluate the quality of their instruction, and examine a wide range of their students' work and how teachers respond to it. This requires a bigger investment of qualified supervisory time than most schools are prepared to make. Using student test scores as a shortcut will do great harm to American education.
Making teacher quality the only centerpiece of a reform campaign distracts our attention from other equally and perhaps more important school areas needing improvement, areas such as leadership, curriculum, and practices of collaboration, mentioned above. Blaming teachers is easy. These other areas are more difficult to improve.
But most important, making teacher quality the focus distracts us from the biggest threat to student achievement in the current age: our unprecedented economic catastrophe and its effect on parents and their children's ability to gain from higher-quality schools.
Consider the implications of this catastrophe for our aspirations to close the black-white achievement gap. The national unemployment rate remains close to an unacceptably high 10%. But 15% of all black children now have an unemployed parent compared to 8.5% of white children. If we also include children whose parents have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work, and children whose parents are working part-time because they can't find full-time work, we find that 37% of black children have an unemployed or underemployed parent compared to 23% of white children. Over half of all black children have a parent who has either been unemployed or underemployed during the past year.{v} Thirty-six percent of black children now live in poverty.{vi}
The consequences of this social disaster for schools are apparent, and include:
Greater geographic disruption: Families become more mobile because they can no longer afford to keep up with rent or mortgage payments. They are in overcrowded housing; they often have to double up with relatives in apartments that were already too small. Children have no quiet place to study or do homework. They switch schools more often, fall behind in the curriculum, and lose the connection with teachers who know them well enough to adapt instruction to their individual strengths and weaknesses. Inner-city schools themselves are thrown into turmoil because classes must frequently be reconstituted as enrollment rises and falls with family mobility. Even the highest-quality teachers cannot fully insulate their students from the effects of this disruption.{vii}
Greater hunger and malnutrition: When more parents lose employment, their income plummets and food insecurity grows. More children come to school hungry and/or inadequately nourished and are less able to focus on schoolwork. Attentive teachers realize that one of the best predictors of how their students will perform is what they had for breakfast, if anything at all.{viii}
Greater stress: Families where parents are unemployed are under greater psychological stress. Such parents, no matter how well-intentioned, often become more arbitrary in their discipline and less supportive of their children. Children from families in such stress are more likely to act out in school and are less able to progress academically. The ability to comfort and support such students may be a more important indicator of a teacher's quality than her students' test scores, which may still be lower than the scores of students coming from stable and secure homes.
Poorer health: Families where parents lose employment are also more likely to lose health insurance.{ix} Their children are less likely to get routine and preventive health care and more likely to miss school days because of illness. They are less likely to get symptomatic treatment for illnesses like asthma, the most common cause of chronic school absenteeism. Children with asthma, even when they attend school, are more likely to come to school irritable, having been up at night with breathing difficulty.{x}
All these consequences of unacceptably high unemployment rates for disadvantaged parents contribute to depressing student achievement for their children. It is obtuse to expect to narrow the achievement gap in such circumstances. It is fanciful for national policy makers to pick this moment to raise their expectations for academic achievement from children of families in such stress and to single out teacher quality as the culprit most deserving of their public attention.
It would inappropriately undermine the credibility of public education if, in such an economic climate, educators were blamed for their failure to raise student achievement of disadvantaged children. Indeed, educators should get great credit if they prevent the achievement of disadvantaged children from falling further during this economic crisis.
Meanwhile, our political system is paralyzed, unable to take meaningful steps to reduce unemployment. Corporate profits are healthy, but an unjustified fear of short-term deficits prevents public spending from putting low-income parents back to work. Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and the other superintendents who signed their manifesto are influential in states whose national and state leaders contribute to this paralysis. These school leaders should raise their voices in protest against economic policies that doom children to failure.
Of course, the superintendents should continue attempts to improve teacher quality. They should work on developing ways to identify better and worse teachers without relying heavily on the corrupting influence of high-stakes test scores.{xi} In addition to teacher quality, they should pay attention to school leadership, curriculum improvement, and school organization. They should consider what initiatives they can take, either themselves or in partnership with other community organizations, to improve children's opportunities to come to school in good health and with enriched experiences in early childhood and out-of-school time.{xii}
But they will have to embed all of this work in an insistence on broader efforts of economic and social reform if they hope their school improvements to make any difference.
Otherwise, their manifesto might appear to be more an example of scapegoating teachers than a reflection of serious commitment to the futures of our children.
----------------------
Richard Rothstein (RRothstein@epi.org) is a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute.
****************************
{i} "How to Fix Our Schools: A Manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and Other Education Leaders," Washington Post, October 10, B01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html
{ii} Barack Obama, Remarks by the President in Arnold, Missouri, Town Hall. April 29, 2009. Emphasis added. Pauses and word repetitions omitted. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-arnold-missouri-town-hall.
{iii} The 2/3 - 1/3 breakdown between family background and school influences was the core finding of the 1966 federal study, the "Coleman Report." But this interpretation of the report overstates its finding about the influence of schools, because Coleman and his colleagues considered the influence of a child's schoolmates ("peer effects") to be a school factor, not an out-of-school factor. (Coleman, James S., and Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Rober L. York, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Government Printing Office, 1966.) Yet the only way to affect the composition of peers in the neighborhood schools he studied would be to change the composition of neighborhoods, with housing integration policies, for example. Of the in-school influences, the Coleman Report identified teacher quality (defined by teacher characteristics such as their educational attainment and experience) to be most important.
In a more recent study, Meredith Phillips and colleagues analyzed data from a federal longitudinal study, "Children of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth." They controlled for factors such as whether anyone in the family subscribed to magazines or newspapers or had a library card, grandparents' educational attainment, a mother's own cognitive ability (test score) and educational attainment, how often a mother reads to her child, the size of a family and its income, single parenthood, parenting practices, child birthweight, and others. They concluded that "{e}ven though traditional measures of socioeconomic status account for no more than a third of the {black-white} test score gap, our results show that a broader index of family environment may explain up to two-thirds of it." There are other differences, for example health and housing, not considered by these analysts that might explain even more of the gap. (Meredith Phillips, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela Klebanov, and Jonathan Crane, "Family Background, Parenting Practices, and the Black-White Test Score Gap," in Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.)
{iv} Eva L. Baker, Paul E. Barton, Linda Darling-Hammond, Edward Haertel, Helen F. Ladd, Robert L. Linn, Diane Ravitch, Richard Rothstein, Richard J. Shavelson, and Lorrie A. Shepard, Problems With the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, Economic Policy Institute, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp278
{v} These data are for 2009, and have been calculated by analysts at the Economic Policy Institute from the Current Population Survey. Current overall unemployment is slightly higher than it was in 2009 (9.7% vs. 9.3%), so it is unlikely that the differences in family unemployment for black and white children are now appreciably different from a year ago. Tables from which these data were drawn are available from the author upon request.
{vi} Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, A Lost Decade: Poverty and Income Trends Paint a Bleak Picture for Working Families, Economic Policy Institute, September 16, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/a_lost_decade_poverty_and_income_trends
{vii} In 2009, 18% of African American children lived in households that had moved at least once in the previous year, compared to 11% of white children (U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, calculated from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/cps2009/tab01-02.xls and http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/cps2009/tab01-03.xls). A national survey of nearly 2,000 school districts finds substantially growing numbers of homeless students, largely due to parental unemployment and home foreclosure (Barbara Duffield and PhillipLovell, The Economic Crisis Hits Home: The Unfolding Increase in Child & Youth Homelessness, National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (NAEHCY) and First Focus, December 2008, http://www.naehcy.org/dl/TheEconomicCrisisHitsHome.pdf). A controlled study of homeless and stable children in New York City found that "homeless children perform at a lower academic level and have a higher rate of grade repetitionŠcompared with housed children {otherwise similar demographically} in New York City, despite our finding no difference in cognitive functioning" (Donald H. Rubin, Candace J. Erickson, Mutya San Agustin, Sean D. Cleary, Janet K. Allen, and Patricia Cohen, "Cognitive and Academic Functioning of Homeless Children Compared With Housed Children," Pediatrics 97(3):289-294, 1996).
{viii} From 2007 to 2008, the percentage of black children who lived in households without adequate food ("food insecure households") jumped from 26% to 34%, while the percentage of white children in such households jumped from 12% to 16%. From 2008 to 2009, the percentage of black children who at least some time were hungry, skipped a meal, or did not eat for a whole day because the household could not afford enough food nearly doubled, rising from 1.8% to 3.2%, while the percentage of white children in this category grew from 0.5% to 0.6% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (ChildStats.gov) http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/eco3.asp). By age 15, 85% of all black children have lived in a household that used food stamps at some time during their childhood, compared to 33% of white children (Mark R. Rank and Thomas A. Hirschl, "Estimating the Risk of Food Stamp Use and Impoverishment During Childhood," Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 163(9):994-999, November 2009). The U.S. Conference of Mayors surveyed 27 cities and reported an overall increase of 26% from 2008 to 2009 in the number of requests for emergency food assistance, with unemployment by far the most significant causal factor (U.S. Conference of Mayors, Homelessness and Hunger Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: A 27-City Survey, December 2009 http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/USCMHungercompleteWEB2009.pdf).
{ix} In 2009, 11.5% of black children had no public or private health insurance, up from 10.7% the previous year. For white children, the percentage grew from 6.7% to 7.0% (Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/health/h08_000.htm and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/health/h08_000.htm).
{x} Another Conference of Mayors report summarized the situation as follows: "When a child is unable to concentrate because they haven't eaten in days and misses a week of school because they could not fight off a simple cold, they cannot succeed in school. Lacking a solid education, they cannot find high-paying jobs. Ultimately, they are forced to remain in poverty, eventually placing their own children in the same situation" (U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sodexo, Childhood Anti-Hunger Programs in 24 Cities, 2009, http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/20091116-report-childhoodantihunger.pdf).
{xi} The accountability statement of the "Broader Bolder Approach to Education" campaign (www.boldapproach.org) describes the outlines of appropriate school accountability.
{xii} The initial call for a "Broader, Bolder Approach to Education" (www.boldapproach.org) elaborates on these points.
********************************************
--
Jerry P. Becker
Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
625 Wham Drive
Mail Code 4610
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610
Phone: (618) 453-4241 [O]
(618) 457-8903 [H]
Fax: (618) 453-4244
E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu
Dr. Charles Maranzano, Jr.
Superintendent of Schools for Hopatcong Borough
From Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #286, Thursday, October 14, 2010. See http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib286 . Our thanks to Michael Goldenberg for bringing this brief to our attention.
***************************
How to fix our schools
By Richard Rothstein
Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City public school system, and Michelle Rhee, who resigned October 13 as Washington, D.C. chancellor, published a "manifesto" in the Washington Post claiming that the difficulty of removing incompetent teachers "has left our school districts impotent and, worse, has robbed millions of children of a real future." The solution, they say, is to end the "glacial process for removing an incompetent teacher" and give superintendents like themselves the authority to pay higher salaries to teachers whose students do well academically. Otherwise, children will remain "stuck in failing schools" across the country.{i}
Klein, Rhee, and the 14 other school superintendents who co-signed their statement base this call on a claim that, "as President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income - it is the quality of their teacher."
It is true that the president has sometimes said something like this. But in his more careful moments, he properly insists that teacher quality is not the most important factor determining student success; it is the most important in-school factor. Indeed, Mr. Obama has gone further, saying, "I always have to remind people that the biggest ingredient in school performance is the teacher. That's the biggest ingredient within a school. But the single biggest ingredient is the parent."{ii}
There is a world of difference between claiming, as the Klein-Rhee statement does, that the single biggest factor in student success is teacher quality and claiming, as Barack Obama does in his more careful moments, that the single biggest school factor is teacher quality. Decades of social science research have demonstrated that differences in the quality of schools can explain about one-third of the variation in student achievement. But the other two-thirds is attributable to non-school factors.{iii}
When the president says that the single most important factor is parents, he does not mean the parents' zip code or income or skin color, as though zip codes or income or skin color themselves influence a child's achievement. Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee's caricature of the research in this way prevents a careful consideration of policies that could truly raise the achievement of America's children. What President Obama means is that if a child's parents are poorly educated themselves and don't read frequently to their young children, or don't use complex language in speaking to their children, or are under such great economic stress that they can't provide a stable and secure home environment or proper preventive health care to their children, or are in poor health themselves and can't properly nurture their children, or are unable to travel with their children or take them to museums and zoos and expose them to other cultural experiences that stimulate the motivation to learn, or indeed live in a zip code where there are no educated adult role models and where other adults can't share in the supervision of neighborhood youth, then children of such parents will be impeded in their ability to take advantage of teaching, no matter how high quality that teaching may be.
President Obama put it this way: "It's not just making sure your kids are doing their homework, it's also instilling a thirst for knowledge and excellenceŠ.And the community can help the parents. Listen, I love basketball. But the smartest kid in the schoolŠshould be getting as much attention as the basketball star. That's a change that we've got to initiate in our community."
Of course, there are exceptions. Just as not all children flourish with high-quality teachers, not all children fail to flourish just because their parents can't help with homework or because they live in communities where athletes are the most prominent role models. Under any set of circumstances, there will be a distribution of outcomes - that's human nature. And on average, disadvantaged children who have high-quality teachers will do better than similar children whose teachers are less adequate. But good teachers alone, for most children, cannot fully compensate for the disadvantages many children bring to school. As we noted, differences in the quality of in-school experiences can explain about one-third of the differences in achievement.
Even the president's more careful statement - that teacher quality is the most important in-school factor - is actually without solid foundation in research. It is true that some studies have found that variation in teacher quality has more of an influence on test scores than do the size of classes or average district-wide per pupil spending. In other words, you are better off having a good teacher in a larger class than a poor teacher in a smaller class. But that's it. It is on this thin reed that Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee are mounting a campaign to make improving teacher quality, and removing teachers whose students' test scores are lower, the centerpiece of national efforts to improve the life chances of disadvantaged students.
There are plausibly many other in-school factors, not quantified in research, that could have as much if not more of an influence on student test scores than teacher quality. Take the quality of school leadership. Would an inspired school principal get better student achievement from a corps of average-quality teachers than a mediocre principal could get from high-quality teachers? Studies of organizations would suggest the answer is yes, but there have been no such studies of school leadership. Take the quality of the curriculum. Would average teachers given a well-designed curriculum get better achievement from their students than would high-quality teachers with a poor curriculum? A very few research studies in this field suggest the answer might be yes as well.
Or take another in-school factor, teacher collaboration. Even when elementary school students sit in a single classroom for most of the day, several teachers influence their achievement. Teachers can meet to compare lesson plans that worked well and those that didn't. Teachers in lower grades can successfully align their instruction with what will be most helpful for learning in the next grade. Teachers of the arts can reinforce the writing curriculum, and vice-versa. Will average-quality teachers who work well together as a team with the common purpose of raising student achievement get better results than higher-quality teachers working in isolation? Plausibly, the answer is yes. Will promising to pay individual teachers more if their students get higher test scores than the students of another teacher reduce the incentives for teachers to collaborate? Again, a plausible answer is yes.
Of course, schools should try to recruit better-quality teachers and should remove those who are ineffective. After all, the quality of teachers is an important part of the one-third share of the achievement gap that can be traced to the quality of schools. But before making teacher quality the focus of a national campaign, school systems will have to develop better ways of identifying good and bad teachers. Using students' test scores as the chief marker of teacher quality is terribly dangerous, for a variety of reasons: it encourages a narrowing of the curriculum because only test scores in one or two subjects (math and reading) can be used for this purpose, and teachers who will be evaluated mainly by these test scores will have incentives to minimize attention to other subjects; it creates pressure to "teach to the test," that is, emphasizing topics likely to appear on our existing low-quality standardized tests rather than other equally important but untested topics; and it is likely to misidentify teachers - labeling many good teachers as poor and many poor teachers as good - because test scores can be influenced by so many other factors besides good teaching.{iv}
The necessary task of identifying good teachers and removing those who are inadequate requires more than student test score data. It requires a holistic approach, in which qualified experts observe teachers' lessons, evaluate the quality of their instruction, and examine a wide range of their students' work and how teachers respond to it. This requires a bigger investment of qualified supervisory time than most schools are prepared to make. Using student test scores as a shortcut will do great harm to American education.
Making teacher quality the only centerpiece of a reform campaign distracts our attention from other equally and perhaps more important school areas needing improvement, areas such as leadership, curriculum, and practices of collaboration, mentioned above. Blaming teachers is easy. These other areas are more difficult to improve.
But most important, making teacher quality the focus distracts us from the biggest threat to student achievement in the current age: our unprecedented economic catastrophe and its effect on parents and their children's ability to gain from higher-quality schools.
Consider the implications of this catastrophe for our aspirations to close the black-white achievement gap. The national unemployment rate remains close to an unacceptably high 10%. But 15% of all black children now have an unemployed parent compared to 8.5% of white children. If we also include children whose parents have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work, and children whose parents are working part-time because they can't find full-time work, we find that 37% of black children have an unemployed or underemployed parent compared to 23% of white children. Over half of all black children have a parent who has either been unemployed or underemployed during the past year.{v} Thirty-six percent of black children now live in poverty.{vi}
The consequences of this social disaster for schools are apparent, and include:
Greater geographic disruption: Families become more mobile because they can no longer afford to keep up with rent or mortgage payments. They are in overcrowded housing; they often have to double up with relatives in apartments that were already too small. Children have no quiet place to study or do homework. They switch schools more often, fall behind in the curriculum, and lose the connection with teachers who know them well enough to adapt instruction to their individual strengths and weaknesses. Inner-city schools themselves are thrown into turmoil because classes must frequently be reconstituted as enrollment rises and falls with family mobility. Even the highest-quality teachers cannot fully insulate their students from the effects of this disruption.{vii}
Greater hunger and malnutrition: When more parents lose employment, their income plummets and food insecurity grows. More children come to school hungry and/or inadequately nourished and are less able to focus on schoolwork. Attentive teachers realize that one of the best predictors of how their students will perform is what they had for breakfast, if anything at all.{viii}
Greater stress: Families where parents are unemployed are under greater psychological stress. Such parents, no matter how well-intentioned, often become more arbitrary in their discipline and less supportive of their children. Children from families in such stress are more likely to act out in school and are less able to progress academically. The ability to comfort and support such students may be a more important indicator of a teacher's quality than her students' test scores, which may still be lower than the scores of students coming from stable and secure homes.
Poorer health: Families where parents lose employment are also more likely to lose health insurance.{ix} Their children are less likely to get routine and preventive health care and more likely to miss school days because of illness. They are less likely to get symptomatic treatment for illnesses like asthma, the most common cause of chronic school absenteeism. Children with asthma, even when they attend school, are more likely to come to school irritable, having been up at night with breathing difficulty.{x}
All these consequences of unacceptably high unemployment rates for disadvantaged parents contribute to depressing student achievement for their children. It is obtuse to expect to narrow the achievement gap in such circumstances. It is fanciful for national policy makers to pick this moment to raise their expectations for academic achievement from children of families in such stress and to single out teacher quality as the culprit most deserving of their public attention.
It would inappropriately undermine the credibility of public education if, in such an economic climate, educators were blamed for their failure to raise student achievement of disadvantaged children. Indeed, educators should get great credit if they prevent the achievement of disadvantaged children from falling further during this economic crisis.
Meanwhile, our political system is paralyzed, unable to take meaningful steps to reduce unemployment. Corporate profits are healthy, but an unjustified fear of short-term deficits prevents public spending from putting low-income parents back to work. Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and the other superintendents who signed their manifesto are influential in states whose national and state leaders contribute to this paralysis. These school leaders should raise their voices in protest against economic policies that doom children to failure.
Of course, the superintendents should continue attempts to improve teacher quality. They should work on developing ways to identify better and worse teachers without relying heavily on the corrupting influence of high-stakes test scores.{xi} In addition to teacher quality, they should pay attention to school leadership, curriculum improvement, and school organization. They should consider what initiatives they can take, either themselves or in partnership with other community organizations, to improve children's opportunities to come to school in good health and with enriched experiences in early childhood and out-of-school time.{xii}
But they will have to embed all of this work in an insistence on broader efforts of economic and social reform if they hope their school improvements to make any difference.
Otherwise, their manifesto might appear to be more an example of scapegoating teachers than a reflection of serious commitment to the futures of our children.
----------------------
Richard Rothstein (RRothstein@epi.org) is a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute.
****************************
{i} "How to Fix Our Schools: A Manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and Other Education Leaders," Washington Post, October 10, B01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html
{ii} Barack Obama, Remarks by the President in Arnold, Missouri, Town Hall. April 29, 2009. Emphasis added. Pauses and word repetitions omitted. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-arnold-missouri-town-hall.
{iii} The 2/3 - 1/3 breakdown between family background and school influences was the core finding of the 1966 federal study, the "Coleman Report." But this interpretation of the report overstates its finding about the influence of schools, because Coleman and his colleagues considered the influence of a child's schoolmates ("peer effects") to be a school factor, not an out-of-school factor. (Coleman, James S., and Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Rober L. York, Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Government Printing Office, 1966.) Yet the only way to affect the composition of peers in the neighborhood schools he studied would be to change the composition of neighborhoods, with housing integration policies, for example. Of the in-school influences, the Coleman Report identified teacher quality (defined by teacher characteristics such as their educational attainment and experience) to be most important.
In a more recent study, Meredith Phillips and colleagues analyzed data from a federal longitudinal study, "Children of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth." They controlled for factors such as whether anyone in the family subscribed to magazines or newspapers or had a library card, grandparents' educational attainment, a mother's own cognitive ability (test score) and educational attainment, how often a mother reads to her child, the size of a family and its income, single parenthood, parenting practices, child birthweight, and others. They concluded that "{e}ven though traditional measures of socioeconomic status account for no more than a third of the {black-white} test score gap, our results show that a broader index of family environment may explain up to two-thirds of it." There are other differences, for example health and housing, not considered by these analysts that might explain even more of the gap. (Meredith Phillips, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela Klebanov, and Jonathan Crane, "Family Background, Parenting Practices, and the Black-White Test Score Gap," in Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.)
{iv} Eva L. Baker, Paul E. Barton, Linda Darling-Hammond, Edward Haertel, Helen F. Ladd, Robert L. Linn, Diane Ravitch, Richard Rothstein, Richard J. Shavelson, and Lorrie A. Shepard, Problems With the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, Economic Policy Institute, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp278
{v} These data are for 2009, and have been calculated by analysts at the Economic Policy Institute from the Current Population Survey. Current overall unemployment is slightly higher than it was in 2009 (9.7% vs. 9.3%), so it is unlikely that the differences in family unemployment for black and white children are now appreciably different from a year ago. Tables from which these data were drawn are available from the author upon request.
{vi} Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, A Lost Decade: Poverty and Income Trends Paint a Bleak Picture for Working Families, Economic Policy Institute, September 16, 2010. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/a_lost_decade_poverty_and_income_trends
{vii} In 2009, 18% of African American children lived in households that had moved at least once in the previous year, compared to 11% of white children (U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, calculated from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/cps2009/tab01-02.xls and http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/cps2009/tab01-03.xls). A national survey of nearly 2,000 school districts finds substantially growing numbers of homeless students, largely due to parental unemployment and home foreclosure (Barbara Duffield and PhillipLovell, The Economic Crisis Hits Home: The Unfolding Increase in Child & Youth Homelessness, National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (NAEHCY) and First Focus, December 2008, http://www.naehcy.org/dl/TheEconomicCrisisHitsHome.pdf). A controlled study of homeless and stable children in New York City found that "homeless children perform at a lower academic level and have a higher rate of grade repetitionŠcompared with housed children {otherwise similar demographically} in New York City, despite our finding no difference in cognitive functioning" (Donald H. Rubin, Candace J. Erickson, Mutya San Agustin, Sean D. Cleary, Janet K. Allen, and Patricia Cohen, "Cognitive and Academic Functioning of Homeless Children Compared With Housed Children," Pediatrics 97(3):289-294, 1996).
{viii} From 2007 to 2008, the percentage of black children who lived in households without adequate food ("food insecure households") jumped from 26% to 34%, while the percentage of white children in such households jumped from 12% to 16%. From 2008 to 2009, the percentage of black children who at least some time were hungry, skipped a meal, or did not eat for a whole day because the household could not afford enough food nearly doubled, rising from 1.8% to 3.2%, while the percentage of white children in this category grew from 0.5% to 0.6% (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (ChildStats.gov) http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/eco3.asp). By age 15, 85% of all black children have lived in a household that used food stamps at some time during their childhood, compared to 33% of white children (Mark R. Rank and Thomas A. Hirschl, "Estimating the Risk of Food Stamp Use and Impoverishment During Childhood," Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 163(9):994-999, November 2009). The U.S. Conference of Mayors surveyed 27 cities and reported an overall increase of 26% from 2008 to 2009 in the number of requests for emergency food assistance, with unemployment by far the most significant causal factor (U.S. Conference of Mayors, Homelessness and Hunger Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: A 27-City Survey, December 2009 http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/USCMHungercompleteWEB2009.pdf).
{ix} In 2009, 11.5% of black children had no public or private health insurance, up from 10.7% the previous year. For white children, the percentage grew from 6.7% to 7.0% (Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/health/h08_000.htm and http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/health/h08_000.htm).
{x} Another Conference of Mayors report summarized the situation as follows: "When a child is unable to concentrate because they haven't eaten in days and misses a week of school because they could not fight off a simple cold, they cannot succeed in school. Lacking a solid education, they cannot find high-paying jobs. Ultimately, they are forced to remain in poverty, eventually placing their own children in the same situation" (U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sodexo, Childhood Anti-Hunger Programs in 24 Cities, 2009, http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/20091116-report-childhoodantihunger.pdf).
{xi} The accountability statement of the "Broader Bolder Approach to Education" campaign (www.boldapproach.org) describes the outlines of appropriate school accountability.
{xii} The initial call for a "Broader, Bolder Approach to Education" (www.boldapproach.org) elaborates on these points.
********************************************
--
Jerry P. Becker
Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
625 Wham Drive
Mail Code 4610
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610
Phone: (618) 453-4241 [O]
(618) 457-8903 [H]
Fax: (618) 453-4244
E-mail: jbecker@siu.edu
Dr. Charles Maranzano, Jr.
Superintendent of Schools for Hopatcong Borough
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Hopatcong is a Leader in Concussion Assessment
High School athletics has always been an integral part of public education in America for young men and women of school age. The benefits of athletic participation extend beyond the playing field as many of our high school athletes also excel academically and represent the core of student leadership in our schools. One of the risks associated with athletic participation are the increasing numbers of sports-related injuries, particularly head injuries.
The number of sports-related concussions appears to be on the rise prompting awareness campaigns from athletic associations and medical advocates to protect our youth. The acute nature of concussion related injuries include symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, confusion, slurred speech, and memory problems. Visits to the emergency room for concussions for children ages 8 to 19 doubled over a ten year period from 1997 to 2007. The sports students are most prone to suffer a concussion in are football, soccer, lacrosse, ice hockey, and cheerleading. While brain injuries across the entire general population range from 1.6 million to 3.8 million annually, the range of football related brain injuries alone range from 43,200 to 67,200, annually placing it in the top risk category.
The National Athletic Trainers’ Association and the National Academy of Neuropsychology Foundation launched a campaign recently to educate athletes, coaches, teachers, and parents about the danger of concussions. Legislation has been introduced from the United States House, Education, and Labor Committee that would require schools to develop a plan for concussion safety and management.
Hopatcong Public Schools, New Jersey, implemented computerized preseason baseline and post-injury neuropsychological required testing for all student athletes in the fall of 2010. Athletic Director Tom Vara and trainer John Canzone obtained a computerized testing program with the support of the high school Parent Teacher Student Organization. The program helps establish a quantitative baseline assessment score for all athletes as one criteria to determine an athlete’s ability to return to sports after receiving a head injury. After an injury to the head, a post-test is administered to the student-athlete to determine if and when the student may return to participate. The athlete must sit out for a week and pass this post-test in order to return to practices.
“The stakes are too high,” said Vara, “We need to make sure we do everything we can to keep the kids on our teams healthy by preventing injuries and by making sure they’re able to return from injury at the proper time.” Hopatcong took the lead in this important area of physical health by conducting a region wide athletic clinic in early September and introduced the computerized baseline assessment program for other school districts to consider implementing. These efforts will go a long way to educating the general public about the dangers associated with athletic head injuries and the steps Hopatcong is taking to ensure student safety on and off of the playing field.
The number of sports-related concussions appears to be on the rise prompting awareness campaigns from athletic associations and medical advocates to protect our youth. The acute nature of concussion related injuries include symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, confusion, slurred speech, and memory problems. Visits to the emergency room for concussions for children ages 8 to 19 doubled over a ten year period from 1997 to 2007. The sports students are most prone to suffer a concussion in are football, soccer, lacrosse, ice hockey, and cheerleading. While brain injuries across the entire general population range from 1.6 million to 3.8 million annually, the range of football related brain injuries alone range from 43,200 to 67,200, annually placing it in the top risk category.
The National Athletic Trainers’ Association and the National Academy of Neuropsychology Foundation launched a campaign recently to educate athletes, coaches, teachers, and parents about the danger of concussions. Legislation has been introduced from the United States House, Education, and Labor Committee that would require schools to develop a plan for concussion safety and management.
Hopatcong Public Schools, New Jersey, implemented computerized preseason baseline and post-injury neuropsychological required testing for all student athletes in the fall of 2010. Athletic Director Tom Vara and trainer John Canzone obtained a computerized testing program with the support of the high school Parent Teacher Student Organization. The program helps establish a quantitative baseline assessment score for all athletes as one criteria to determine an athlete’s ability to return to sports after receiving a head injury. After an injury to the head, a post-test is administered to the student-athlete to determine if and when the student may return to participate. The athlete must sit out for a week and pass this post-test in order to return to practices.
“The stakes are too high,” said Vara, “We need to make sure we do everything we can to keep the kids on our teams healthy by preventing injuries and by making sure they’re able to return from injury at the proper time.” Hopatcong took the lead in this important area of physical health by conducting a region wide athletic clinic in early September and introduced the computerized baseline assessment program for other school districts to consider implementing. These efforts will go a long way to educating the general public about the dangers associated with athletic head injuries and the steps Hopatcong is taking to ensure student safety on and off of the playing field.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Oprah, Zuckerberg, Christie, and Booker's Education Gamble
The frenzied media attention concerning how poor American Schools are performing may have reached new heights with Oprah Winfrey’s recent announcement that billionaire Mark Zuckerberg will donate $100 million to fix the public schools of Newark, New Jersey. Somehow, Newark Mayor Cory Booker becomes the Knight in Shining Armor sent by Governor Chris Christie to fix an ailing system of urban public education. I tend to agree with Bob Braun’s take on this one reported in the New Jersey Star-Ledger (Friday, September 24, 2010) as it’s worth reading.
Not that public education in Newark or in any other urban environment is in need of a tune up, it certainly is. In fact, schools in rural areas face similar challenges. The main problem is twofold here in my humble opinion. First, schools in America are chronically underfunded given the challenges we face and required mandates we must meet. Second, schools were designed to be a one-size-fits-all institution and society contains far too much variation for a public institution designed over a century ago to effectively respond to.
Consider that America still is singularly the most significant social experiment in the world: a magnificent melting pot of cultures that places her people in the most non-homogeneous environment ever to populate a geographic area. In other words we are replete with diversity: not one other world country can claim this fame nor rise to this educational challenge.
Its not that American education is failing students on a wholesale scale like the critics, think-tanks, pundits, and (certain) politicians would have us believe. In fact its not that we are failing our students rather we are failing to change to adjust to our students. In fact by design, we are not able to adjust to the rapidly changing global and technological society that evolves around us.
Author Jim Collins of Good to Great, demonstrated this concept with his descriptions of corporate America at the end of the past century. In simplistic terms he suggested that corporations who were lean and adaptable were the most likely to survive the forward march of time and everyone else destined to fail.
Schools as an institution are no exception. Think about the typical school calendar public schools in America follow: A ten-month agrarian design that suited the lifestyle of this country well over a hundred years ago when the family farm dictated the pulse of most communities. How predominant are family farms in 2010? The same can be said about many of the rules and mandates schools must follow in this new century: all designed for a society that no longer exists.
The “failing” label that the federal government now attaches to schools that do not meet 100% of their annual targets reaches an even higher level of improbability as all schools and children in our nation under No Child Left Behind must be 100% proficient in a few short years. A goal worth reaching for but a reality not attainable unless the natural variation in the human population ceases to exist in the near future. Our children live in conditions far too overwhelming for schools to mitigate in the little time students attend school during their youthful lives.
American schools are far too understaffed and under-resourced in order to attain this objective, especially if we consider the overwhelming number of children with learning disabilities, developmental conditions, and physiological unmet needs entering schools each day. Factor in millions of immigrant children (legal and illegal) who are part of America’s peripatetic population attending schools far less than others in their age cohort. Think about the language barriers. How can schools overcome these challenges alone?
Richard Rothstein made a strong case for the problems that manifest themselves in American public schools as societal ones. His book, Class and Schools, identifies the problems America faces and encourages us to take a more complete approach to closing the academic achievement gap. He acknowledges that schools alone cannot fix the problems endemic in American society. Government needs to stop blaming schools for America’s problems and begin the massive effort of creating a lean and more flexible institution capable of responding to the challenges existing in the heterogeneous population living in our society present to educators nationwide.
This is a challenge that money alone will not fix. That is why I remain cynical about Zuckerberg’s latest move for Newark. The Abbott districts already receive the lion’s share of state funding (Newark receives $940 million presently) and after three decades of adequacy and equity funding we still do not see a measurable difference in student performance.
I agree with Governor Christie in this area that New Jersey’s system of public education needs reform in order to survive the future (given protracted poor economic conditions). The unionism that dominates the patterns of New Jersey government may be the biggest impediment to effective overall reform. If only the educational community would embrace the necessary changes and begin the process of needed reform instead of waiting for politicians to do it for them. We must not fail to recognize that we are on the verge of a paradigm shift in public education and our success as a public institution hangs in the balance.
Not that public education in Newark or in any other urban environment is in need of a tune up, it certainly is. In fact, schools in rural areas face similar challenges. The main problem is twofold here in my humble opinion. First, schools in America are chronically underfunded given the challenges we face and required mandates we must meet. Second, schools were designed to be a one-size-fits-all institution and society contains far too much variation for a public institution designed over a century ago to effectively respond to.
Consider that America still is singularly the most significant social experiment in the world: a magnificent melting pot of cultures that places her people in the most non-homogeneous environment ever to populate a geographic area. In other words we are replete with diversity: not one other world country can claim this fame nor rise to this educational challenge.
Its not that American education is failing students on a wholesale scale like the critics, think-tanks, pundits, and (certain) politicians would have us believe. In fact its not that we are failing our students rather we are failing to change to adjust to our students. In fact by design, we are not able to adjust to the rapidly changing global and technological society that evolves around us.
Author Jim Collins of Good to Great, demonstrated this concept with his descriptions of corporate America at the end of the past century. In simplistic terms he suggested that corporations who were lean and adaptable were the most likely to survive the forward march of time and everyone else destined to fail.
Schools as an institution are no exception. Think about the typical school calendar public schools in America follow: A ten-month agrarian design that suited the lifestyle of this country well over a hundred years ago when the family farm dictated the pulse of most communities. How predominant are family farms in 2010? The same can be said about many of the rules and mandates schools must follow in this new century: all designed for a society that no longer exists.
The “failing” label that the federal government now attaches to schools that do not meet 100% of their annual targets reaches an even higher level of improbability as all schools and children in our nation under No Child Left Behind must be 100% proficient in a few short years. A goal worth reaching for but a reality not attainable unless the natural variation in the human population ceases to exist in the near future. Our children live in conditions far too overwhelming for schools to mitigate in the little time students attend school during their youthful lives.
American schools are far too understaffed and under-resourced in order to attain this objective, especially if we consider the overwhelming number of children with learning disabilities, developmental conditions, and physiological unmet needs entering schools each day. Factor in millions of immigrant children (legal and illegal) who are part of America’s peripatetic population attending schools far less than others in their age cohort. Think about the language barriers. How can schools overcome these challenges alone?
Richard Rothstein made a strong case for the problems that manifest themselves in American public schools as societal ones. His book, Class and Schools, identifies the problems America faces and encourages us to take a more complete approach to closing the academic achievement gap. He acknowledges that schools alone cannot fix the problems endemic in American society. Government needs to stop blaming schools for America’s problems and begin the massive effort of creating a lean and more flexible institution capable of responding to the challenges existing in the heterogeneous population living in our society present to educators nationwide.
This is a challenge that money alone will not fix. That is why I remain cynical about Zuckerberg’s latest move for Newark. The Abbott districts already receive the lion’s share of state funding (Newark receives $940 million presently) and after three decades of adequacy and equity funding we still do not see a measurable difference in student performance.
I agree with Governor Christie in this area that New Jersey’s system of public education needs reform in order to survive the future (given protracted poor economic conditions). The unionism that dominates the patterns of New Jersey government may be the biggest impediment to effective overall reform. If only the educational community would embrace the necessary changes and begin the process of needed reform instead of waiting for politicians to do it for them. We must not fail to recognize that we are on the verge of a paradigm shift in public education and our success as a public institution hangs in the balance.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Reflections on Pay to Play and other Educational Issues
I recently read with interest an article in the New Jersey publication the Daily Record on School Pay to Play policies:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100917/COMMUNITIES/100916097/NJ-Assembly-probes-pay-to-participate-student-fees-at-schools
In Hopatcong Borough Public Schools where I am superintendent, we studied the concept this year and choose to call it “Pay to Participate” so there would be no guarantee of actually "playing" at the varsity level, just participating. Having read the article, I am relieved my school board did not adopt a Pay to Play policy this year. Instead, we are studying the impact of such policies on other districts and looking at the wide variety of approaches to this problem. There appears to be several advocacy groups across the country (in California for example) where lawsuits are being initiated over the charging of activity fees. Where this ends up is beyond my imagination.
No one wants to deny any child of an educational opportunity...and in my opinion the “Four A's” of education all are an intricate part of the human development continuum for healthy growth and individual attainment (The “Four A's:” Academics, Arts, Activities, and Athletics). When we limit a student's access to any segment of a comprehensive education we in fact deny them an opportunity. So the very nature of Pay to Play may violate the expectations that a student has a right to an education inside and outside of the classroom. But school districts and divisions nationwide are forced to take such measures as a response to the drastic cuts we are experiencing due to the economic downturn and underfunding of public education.
The sad part of this discussion is the programs that are being lost as a result of the economic crisis and the outright attack on public education by federal and state "politicians gone wild". We are not immune here in Hopatcong as several programs were cut that were a long standing part of our educational system. Notably, the German language program, Field Hockey, Golf, Marching Band, and all freshman sports. The parents have brought back the Golf and Marching Band program with private funding and volunteer supervision, but these are temporary fixes to a long standing problem that will plague New Jersey and schools nationwide for years to come.
Public schools are not optional. They are created by the constitutional authority vested in each state (note: pubic education is absent in the U.S. Constitution). Every state over the past three decades has advocated for a "world class" education and accountability for reaching out to achieve a 100% success rate across the entire strata of student population in this country (well over 50 million), an ambition that thus far has eluded educators in every state. Reaching for the remarkable goal of pushing every child toward a high school diploma regardless of circumstances will require far more resources than available to public schools in America. For example, the effort to ensure and guarantee a high school diploma to every child enrolled in America’s public schools may require education to expand to 220 to perhaps even 260 days per year as opposed to the standard 180 days we currently operate under. So what are needed for public schools to succeed are more resources, not less.
In the meantime, when politicians attack public education and pull back significant portions of state support for education, we are left to ask the question: Who are we not supposed to teach this year? If schools followed an industrial model then a downturn in cash flow would be met with a reduction in output: For example, an automotive industry facing a 15% cut in revenue would respond with a similar reduction in production in order to survive. But public schools in America are being asked to do much more with far less funding...a formula for disaster in the long run. When you factor in the countless federal and state mandates that are underfunded or not even funded this problem becomes even larger.
The quality of a public school system depends upon motivating the student to succeed and creating a synergistic partnership with parents and community alike. The four "A's" are the bedrock of public education and must be fully supported in order for us to sustain a quality system for producing a citizenry that will support our democratic ideals long into the future. Having observed the fabric of society change significantly over the past five decades let me add that the public schools and perhaps the religious institutions in this country are the glue that keeps the fabric of our culture alive. Where else are the lessons of virtue, character, and honesty demonstrated and practiced on a daily basis?
Chip away at the foundation of public education and soon the very core of a civil society will erode. Isn't it time to rethink our priorities? Charging students to participate or selling ads on the sides of school busses will not resolve the financial issues in the long run. Let's do some serious thinking about what we want the future of America to look like...then adequately and generously invest in her public schools for the good of all people.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100917/COMMUNITIES/100916097/NJ-Assembly-probes-pay-to-participate-student-fees-at-schools
In Hopatcong Borough Public Schools where I am superintendent, we studied the concept this year and choose to call it “Pay to Participate” so there would be no guarantee of actually "playing" at the varsity level, just participating. Having read the article, I am relieved my school board did not adopt a Pay to Play policy this year. Instead, we are studying the impact of such policies on other districts and looking at the wide variety of approaches to this problem. There appears to be several advocacy groups across the country (in California for example) where lawsuits are being initiated over the charging of activity fees. Where this ends up is beyond my imagination.
No one wants to deny any child of an educational opportunity...and in my opinion the “Four A's” of education all are an intricate part of the human development continuum for healthy growth and individual attainment (The “Four A's:” Academics, Arts, Activities, and Athletics). When we limit a student's access to any segment of a comprehensive education we in fact deny them an opportunity. So the very nature of Pay to Play may violate the expectations that a student has a right to an education inside and outside of the classroom. But school districts and divisions nationwide are forced to take such measures as a response to the drastic cuts we are experiencing due to the economic downturn and underfunding of public education.
The sad part of this discussion is the programs that are being lost as a result of the economic crisis and the outright attack on public education by federal and state "politicians gone wild". We are not immune here in Hopatcong as several programs were cut that were a long standing part of our educational system. Notably, the German language program, Field Hockey, Golf, Marching Band, and all freshman sports. The parents have brought back the Golf and Marching Band program with private funding and volunteer supervision, but these are temporary fixes to a long standing problem that will plague New Jersey and schools nationwide for years to come.
Public schools are not optional. They are created by the constitutional authority vested in each state (note: pubic education is absent in the U.S. Constitution). Every state over the past three decades has advocated for a "world class" education and accountability for reaching out to achieve a 100% success rate across the entire strata of student population in this country (well over 50 million), an ambition that thus far has eluded educators in every state. Reaching for the remarkable goal of pushing every child toward a high school diploma regardless of circumstances will require far more resources than available to public schools in America. For example, the effort to ensure and guarantee a high school diploma to every child enrolled in America’s public schools may require education to expand to 220 to perhaps even 260 days per year as opposed to the standard 180 days we currently operate under. So what are needed for public schools to succeed are more resources, not less.
In the meantime, when politicians attack public education and pull back significant portions of state support for education, we are left to ask the question: Who are we not supposed to teach this year? If schools followed an industrial model then a downturn in cash flow would be met with a reduction in output: For example, an automotive industry facing a 15% cut in revenue would respond with a similar reduction in production in order to survive. But public schools in America are being asked to do much more with far less funding...a formula for disaster in the long run. When you factor in the countless federal and state mandates that are underfunded or not even funded this problem becomes even larger.
The quality of a public school system depends upon motivating the student to succeed and creating a synergistic partnership with parents and community alike. The four "A's" are the bedrock of public education and must be fully supported in order for us to sustain a quality system for producing a citizenry that will support our democratic ideals long into the future. Having observed the fabric of society change significantly over the past five decades let me add that the public schools and perhaps the religious institutions in this country are the glue that keeps the fabric of our culture alive. Where else are the lessons of virtue, character, and honesty demonstrated and practiced on a daily basis?
Chip away at the foundation of public education and soon the very core of a civil society will erode. Isn't it time to rethink our priorities? Charging students to participate or selling ads on the sides of school busses will not resolve the financial issues in the long run. Let's do some serious thinking about what we want the future of America to look like...then adequately and generously invest in her public schools for the good of all people.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Period of Uncertainty, Change, and Innovation for Public Education
Anyone connected to public education is feeling a bit uncomfortable right now due to the dire state of the economy and the political pressure to reduce budgets at all levels. In most communities public schools represent the largest expenditure for state and local government and are experiencing unprecedented cuts to operational and personnel costs.
The reduced revenue stream to schools has been met with a response by educators to cut programs and instructors all across the nation in order to produce a balanced budget for 2010-2011.
Think about this: No one is presently talking about reduced expectations for public education in spite of these recent record cuts to personnel and programs. In fact, the opposite is true-during a time of drastic cuts in educational resources the expectations for teaching our youth are actually elevated. Another key point: There are very few correlations to the dramatic budget cuts we are experiencing in terms of outputs. In other words, any other industry experiencing such reductions in cash flow would naturally adjust its production rates. For example, a fifteen percent reduction in the revenue stream of a manufacturer who produces light bulbs might be met by a fifteen percent cut in output or product. Not public schools. We are expected to produce the exact same results with many fewer dollars to accomplish this mission.
If you know of Joel Barker’s work with “paradigms” over the past twenty years set your sites on public schools. According to Joel, when the old rules don’t apply that represent the stable or accepted order of things you can count on one thing for certain: new rules take over. Public education is poised for such a paradigm shift that may dramatically alter the way we deliver educational services to youth. In fact, government officials may be counting on this as the frenzy to “privatize” educational delivery models as Charter Schools, Virtual Schools, School Choice programs, and even Home Schools gain increased credibility.
Leave no doubt about it. Public schools will have to embrace accelerated changes in the way we deliver educational services to youth or someone else will step in and do it for us. Oh, and we will have to do this with far less funding. The challenge is daunting given the multitude of unfunded (if not underfunded) federal and state mandates that account for huge parts of school budgets. Union contracts will have to be revisited in states that allow for collective bargaining practices. The existing regulations in place for the thorough and efficient operations of public schools will not make it easy to meet these challenges ahead.
Here’s where innovation fits into the big picture. Schools are embracing changes that were unimaginable just a few years ago but are now up for serious consideration given the pressures of the budget reductions. Recent news accounts in New Jersey point to new programs or initiatives here in the metropolitan area as the school year begins. For example, Toms River schools are incorporating cell phones into the curriculum for students to conduct research, write reports, or download books. In lieu of foreign language teachers some are schools are counting on DVD’s to deliver basic instruction in Spanish at the elementary school level.
Virtual learning classes are becoming a more widely acceptable way for students to earn advanced credits at schools that have eliminated or reduced advanced placement programs. In Mount Olive Township, parents of school-aged children are suddenly being asked to pay for transportation if they live within a two-mile zone of their schools known as subscription bussing. In Sparta, parents of student athletes are being charged a pay-to-play participation fee.
Professional development for teachers appears to be rapidly changing as more and richer content is made available to them via online internet sites. One example is Hopatcong Borough which uses the School Improvement Network’s professional development software to deliver quality enrichment experiences via the internet. Over twenty percent of all advanced degrees for educators nationwide are now earned through virtual colleges such as The University of Phoenix, AspenUniversity, or Walden University (to name just a few).
In a period of accelerated change either public schools will join with others to create innovative opportunities for educational services or step aside as other institutions take over. These are the challenges we must contemplate as the shrinking economy will not allow for additional funding for our public schools. What was once valued as an ideal: low pupil to teacher ratios, is being replaced with much larger than sought after class sizes preK-12. The teacher of the future may be valued for his/her ability to teach students in much larger numbers than the teacher of today. Is this a change that represents an educational improvement? Possibly not, but a function of the new economic realities we must confront.
The future for pubic education may look entirely different than we imagine today. These are the times and challenges we face and like it or not we must be accepting of them. The educational leader of tomorrow will have to first usher in a period of transition and uncertainty as public schools that were once the bedrock of American society for the past hundred years reshape themselves for the profoundly different future ahead.
The reduced revenue stream to schools has been met with a response by educators to cut programs and instructors all across the nation in order to produce a balanced budget for 2010-2011.
Think about this: No one is presently talking about reduced expectations for public education in spite of these recent record cuts to personnel and programs. In fact, the opposite is true-during a time of drastic cuts in educational resources the expectations for teaching our youth are actually elevated. Another key point: There are very few correlations to the dramatic budget cuts we are experiencing in terms of outputs. In other words, any other industry experiencing such reductions in cash flow would naturally adjust its production rates. For example, a fifteen percent reduction in the revenue stream of a manufacturer who produces light bulbs might be met by a fifteen percent cut in output or product. Not public schools. We are expected to produce the exact same results with many fewer dollars to accomplish this mission.
If you know of Joel Barker’s work with “paradigms” over the past twenty years set your sites on public schools. According to Joel, when the old rules don’t apply that represent the stable or accepted order of things you can count on one thing for certain: new rules take over. Public education is poised for such a paradigm shift that may dramatically alter the way we deliver educational services to youth. In fact, government officials may be counting on this as the frenzy to “privatize” educational delivery models as Charter Schools, Virtual Schools, School Choice programs, and even Home Schools gain increased credibility.
Leave no doubt about it. Public schools will have to embrace accelerated changes in the way we deliver educational services to youth or someone else will step in and do it for us. Oh, and we will have to do this with far less funding. The challenge is daunting given the multitude of unfunded (if not underfunded) federal and state mandates that account for huge parts of school budgets. Union contracts will have to be revisited in states that allow for collective bargaining practices. The existing regulations in place for the thorough and efficient operations of public schools will not make it easy to meet these challenges ahead.
Here’s where innovation fits into the big picture. Schools are embracing changes that were unimaginable just a few years ago but are now up for serious consideration given the pressures of the budget reductions. Recent news accounts in New Jersey point to new programs or initiatives here in the metropolitan area as the school year begins. For example, Toms River schools are incorporating cell phones into the curriculum for students to conduct research, write reports, or download books. In lieu of foreign language teachers some are schools are counting on DVD’s to deliver basic instruction in Spanish at the elementary school level.
Virtual learning classes are becoming a more widely acceptable way for students to earn advanced credits at schools that have eliminated or reduced advanced placement programs. In Mount Olive Township, parents of school-aged children are suddenly being asked to pay for transportation if they live within a two-mile zone of their schools known as subscription bussing. In Sparta, parents of student athletes are being charged a pay-to-play participation fee.
Professional development for teachers appears to be rapidly changing as more and richer content is made available to them via online internet sites. One example is Hopatcong Borough which uses the School Improvement Network’s professional development software to deliver quality enrichment experiences via the internet. Over twenty percent of all advanced degrees for educators nationwide are now earned through virtual colleges such as The University of Phoenix, AspenUniversity, or Walden University (to name just a few).
In a period of accelerated change either public schools will join with others to create innovative opportunities for educational services or step aside as other institutions take over. These are the challenges we must contemplate as the shrinking economy will not allow for additional funding for our public schools. What was once valued as an ideal: low pupil to teacher ratios, is being replaced with much larger than sought after class sizes preK-12. The teacher of the future may be valued for his/her ability to teach students in much larger numbers than the teacher of today. Is this a change that represents an educational improvement? Possibly not, but a function of the new economic realities we must confront.
The future for pubic education may look entirely different than we imagine today. These are the times and challenges we face and like it or not we must be accepting of them. The educational leader of tomorrow will have to first usher in a period of transition and uncertainty as public schools that were once the bedrock of American society for the past hundred years reshape themselves for the profoundly different future ahead.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Complex World of Internet Speech and Student Expression
The world of instant communications via the internet and instant messaging services has created an environment that schools find increasingly difficult to regulate or influence. Complicating the issue is the limited authority of schools and the individual rights of teens and children to express freely their thoughts and comments on social media. This area deserves much judicial attention and in fact will take many years of litigation in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the ability of school officials to intervene when student speech reaches a broad audience via cyberspace.
A review of fundamental issues regarding student free speech rights reveal how little school officials can control the content of student online expression especially if the student speech originates off campus. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as granted by the United States Constitution. The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and applies this concept to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In my home state of New Jersey, the free speech clause is found in Article I, paragraph 6, and states that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…” The freedom of expression encompasses non-verbal and verbal speech, including expressive conduct which conveys a particularized message that must generally be understood by those viewing it. When expressed views are controversial the government must be tolerant of the rights of individuals to express their views. Students cannot be disciplined or even punished for expressing their personal views on school property unless school officials have reasons to expect that the speech or expressive conduct will substantially interfere with the operation of the school and this becomes more complex when student views are expressed off school property.
A school district can restrict certain speech depending on the forum in which the speech or expression occurs. This becomes clear if the speech originates on school grounds or at a school sponsored function when that speech is lewd, vulgar or profane, or if the speech advocates for the illegal use of drugs. When an observer would view student speech as that of the school’s own speech on the basis of legitimate pedagogical concerns, or if the speech were powerful enough to cause a substantial disruption to the educational process or the rights of other students at school, school officials may act to limit or restrict such speech. Three types of forums exist: open forums, limited public forums, and closed public forums. The open forum is a traditional place with a long-standing tradition of free expression such as sidewalks, streets, parks, shopping malls, and generally any public venue like the Internet. Limited pubic forums and closed public forums allow governmental limits to certain types or forms of public speech as long as government policies are reasonable and do are not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint nor can such policies discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker.
School policies are generally designed to control student speech and conduct attributable to actions occurring when students attend school or school sponsored events. It is wise to note that most children and young adults attend school only about one-sixth of their lives from birth to eighteen years of age. The other five-fifths in the lives of youth occur in public settings, communities, or homes and these actions generally are not within reach of school officials. This is an important component for consideration given that the majority of student speech originates in the public or private sector of society and not in school buildings.
School officials are confronted these days with complex questions when asked to deal with the phenomenon of what has become to be known as “Cyberbullying”. This area of student speech is largely unregulated and often results in what researchers have characterized as “willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers toward other children or students. Remember that cell phones have just recently evolved into tiny computers with internet capabilities including not only texting but photographic and video sharing of content. Often, school disciplinary codes of conduct define very little about the authority of educators to regulate online student speech and expression due to the lack of authority that school officials actually have regarding these matters. Whether the responsibility for regulating student conduct online falls to the family, the police, or the schools remains an open question for modern society to explore.
The issues of student speech and content of online speech will remain problematic for school officials unless such speech materially and substantially interferes with maintaining discipline and the general safe operation of the school. One example would be an off campus threat of violence made by a student such as a bomb threat or “hit list” against specific individuals. The more complex issues revolve around non-violent, non-threatening speech that may simply be vulgar, offensive or harassing. Courts are clearly divided on the ability of school officials to regulate or even react to student online speech that originates off campus. Numerous cases have risen in various circuit courts and the overwhelming majority of cases have been found in favor of the free speech rights of students or children.
It is increasingly more apparent that the Internet has created a revolution in the manner in which society communicates. Students will use the Internet as a vehicle for social interaction, communication, and information. Young people will use the online forum to criticize, attack, humiliate, embarrass and even anger other students or school officials. With respect to the type of speech that occurs on the Internet, the central question of whether such speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school will determine the appropriate reaction of school officials nationwide in future months or years. The facts or circumstances that may lead a reasonable person to conclude that the result of such speech will lead to classroom disruptions, acts of violence such as fights, defiant student behavior, and truancy, will be the determining factor guiding the actions of schools. The “materially and substantially interferes” threshold of law that applies to the appropriate discipline and operation of schools will continue to guide school officials in this confusing and complex area of student speech regulation. Until the courts have provided sufficient guidance to school officials, the Internet remains a wide-open public forum for expression that will evade restrictions or regulations due in part to the freedoms provided by the United States Constitution for all individuals in society including our youngest citizens.
A review of fundamental issues regarding student free speech rights reveal how little school officials can control the content of student online expression especially if the student speech originates off campus. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as granted by the United States Constitution. The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and applies this concept to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In my home state of New Jersey, the free speech clause is found in Article I, paragraph 6, and states that “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…” The freedom of expression encompasses non-verbal and verbal speech, including expressive conduct which conveys a particularized message that must generally be understood by those viewing it. When expressed views are controversial the government must be tolerant of the rights of individuals to express their views. Students cannot be disciplined or even punished for expressing their personal views on school property unless school officials have reasons to expect that the speech or expressive conduct will substantially interfere with the operation of the school and this becomes more complex when student views are expressed off school property.
A school district can restrict certain speech depending on the forum in which the speech or expression occurs. This becomes clear if the speech originates on school grounds or at a school sponsored function when that speech is lewd, vulgar or profane, or if the speech advocates for the illegal use of drugs. When an observer would view student speech as that of the school’s own speech on the basis of legitimate pedagogical concerns, or if the speech were powerful enough to cause a substantial disruption to the educational process or the rights of other students at school, school officials may act to limit or restrict such speech. Three types of forums exist: open forums, limited public forums, and closed public forums. The open forum is a traditional place with a long-standing tradition of free expression such as sidewalks, streets, parks, shopping malls, and generally any public venue like the Internet. Limited pubic forums and closed public forums allow governmental limits to certain types or forms of public speech as long as government policies are reasonable and do are not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint nor can such policies discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker.
School policies are generally designed to control student speech and conduct attributable to actions occurring when students attend school or school sponsored events. It is wise to note that most children and young adults attend school only about one-sixth of their lives from birth to eighteen years of age. The other five-fifths in the lives of youth occur in public settings, communities, or homes and these actions generally are not within reach of school officials. This is an important component for consideration given that the majority of student speech originates in the public or private sector of society and not in school buildings.
School officials are confronted these days with complex questions when asked to deal with the phenomenon of what has become to be known as “Cyberbullying”. This area of student speech is largely unregulated and often results in what researchers have characterized as “willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers toward other children or students. Remember that cell phones have just recently evolved into tiny computers with internet capabilities including not only texting but photographic and video sharing of content. Often, school disciplinary codes of conduct define very little about the authority of educators to regulate online student speech and expression due to the lack of authority that school officials actually have regarding these matters. Whether the responsibility for regulating student conduct online falls to the family, the police, or the schools remains an open question for modern society to explore.
The issues of student speech and content of online speech will remain problematic for school officials unless such speech materially and substantially interferes with maintaining discipline and the general safe operation of the school. One example would be an off campus threat of violence made by a student such as a bomb threat or “hit list” against specific individuals. The more complex issues revolve around non-violent, non-threatening speech that may simply be vulgar, offensive or harassing. Courts are clearly divided on the ability of school officials to regulate or even react to student online speech that originates off campus. Numerous cases have risen in various circuit courts and the overwhelming majority of cases have been found in favor of the free speech rights of students or children.
It is increasingly more apparent that the Internet has created a revolution in the manner in which society communicates. Students will use the Internet as a vehicle for social interaction, communication, and information. Young people will use the online forum to criticize, attack, humiliate, embarrass and even anger other students or school officials. With respect to the type of speech that occurs on the Internet, the central question of whether such speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school will determine the appropriate reaction of school officials nationwide in future months or years. The facts or circumstances that may lead a reasonable person to conclude that the result of such speech will lead to classroom disruptions, acts of violence such as fights, defiant student behavior, and truancy, will be the determining factor guiding the actions of schools. The “materially and substantially interferes” threshold of law that applies to the appropriate discipline and operation of schools will continue to guide school officials in this confusing and complex area of student speech regulation. Until the courts have provided sufficient guidance to school officials, the Internet remains a wide-open public forum for expression that will evade restrictions or regulations due in part to the freedoms provided by the United States Constitution for all individuals in society including our youngest citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)