| Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. |
|
|
Snap Schott:
Stimulus Bill Spurs Focus on Teachers |
Ed. Dept. Outlines Conditions for Stimulus Use
By Stephen Sawchuk
Obama Outlines Plan for Education Overhaul
By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON — President Obama called for sweeping changes in American education on Tuesday, urging states to lift limits on charter schools and improve the quality of early childhood education while also signaling that he intends to make good on his campaign promise of linking teacher pay to performance. His proposals reflected his party’s belief that education at all levels was underfinanced in the Bush years and that reform should encompass more than demands that schools show improved test scores. But they also showed a willingness to challenge teachers’ unions and public school systems, and to continue to demand more accountability. The president said it was time to erase limits on the number of charter schools, which his administration calls “laboratories of innovation,” while closing those that are not working. He said 26 states and the District of Columbia now had caps. Teachers’ unions have opposed charter schools in some places, saying they take away financing for public schools, while supporting them in others. Putting limits on charter schools, even in places where they are performing well, “isn’t good for our children, our economy or our country,” Mr. Obama said. In his recent budget message, he said that he hoped to double financing for charter schools eventually, another campaign promise, and that the Department of Education would help create “new, high-quality charter schools” while supporting the closing of those guilty of “chronic underperformance.” He called on states to impose tougher curriculum standards, and in an echo of language often used by President George W. Bush, he chided states that he said were “low-balling expectations for our kids.” Saying he would “cultivate a new culture of accountability in America’s schools,” Mr. Obama said states and school districts should weed out bad teachers. But he also pledged to pursue programs that would provide more incentives and support for teachers and indicated he would back a program in up to 150 school districts that would reward teachers “with more money for improved student achievement.” The teacher-pay provision and his support for more charter schools could complicate Mr. Obama’s ability to win support for his plan in Congress and in state legislatures, where teacher unions hold considerable sway with Democrats. Mr. Obama acknowledged the partisan divisions about how to proceed, even as he appealed to all sides to compromise. “For decades, Washington has been trapped in the same stale debates that have paralyzed progress and perpetuated our educational decline,” Mr. Obama said, in a speech here to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom. Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early childhood education, despite compelling evidence of its importance.” Union leaders reacted cautiously to the speech. Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, said his union’s 3.2 million members “welcome the vision” laid out by the president. Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.4-million-member American Federation of Teachers, said her union embraced “the goals and aspirations” outlined by Mr. Obama. “As with any public policy,” Ms. Weingarten said, “the devil is in the details, and it is important that teachers’ voices are heard as we implement the president’s vision.” While unions generally dislike linking pay to specific measures of performance like rising test scores, there have been some successful experiments around the country with plans that take account of performance, especially in districts where unions are deeply involved. The address on Tuesday was the first step in laying out the president’s agenda to improve schools, officials said, with more specifics to be outlined to Congress soon.
Paterson calls off many `annoying' taxes
By MICHAEL GORMLEY | Associated Press Writer ALBANY, N.Y. - Gov. David Paterson said he will use federal stimulus funds to eliminate his proposals to raise taxes and fees covering everyday purchases including music downloads and sugary drinks. The measures had already faced an uncertain future because of strong opposition by Democrats who control the Legislature. Meanwhile the Senate's Republican minority conference tried to use the proposals to cast Paterson and his party as big taxers. Eliminated in Wednesday's deal with Democratic legislative leaders were: A return of the sales tax on clothing, and new taxes on music and pornography downloads, haircuts, manicures, movies, concert and theater tickets, health club memberships, bowling, golf and skiing fees, cable and satellite television manufacturers' coupons, and more. The taxes and fees "really have disturbed a lot of New Yorkers," Paterson said. "I didn't want to do it in the first place." The announcement may have been a great press event judging by the number of legislators attending, but it caused more problems than it solved, said Elizabeth Lynam of the independent Citizens Budget Commission. She said that although the so-called nuisance taxes had made headlines, the federal stimulus money could have gone to replace things such as a proposed health insurance tax that could hit New Yorkers harder. "If the leadership is going to get us through this fiscal crisis, it's not the best use of these funds," she said. Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos' Republican conference had pushed to eliminate all tax increases proposed in Paterson's 2009-10 budget released in December. But Skelos doesn't think much of Wednesday's announcement by the Democratic governor who is suffering his lowest poll ratings. "I guess if my approval rating was 26 percent, I'd eliminate the taxes most troublesome to people," he said. Using $1.3 billion in federal stimulus to avoid the taxes makes a proposed income tax rate increase for households making over $250,000 a year more likely, legislators and lobbyists said. Several similar proposals with strong support among the Democrats who control the Assembly and Senate could bring in billions of dollars. The state's 2009-10 deficit is now projected to be more than $14 billion. "I don't think there's anyone in Albany that, at the end of the day, thinks we can resolve the budget problem without asking people making over $250,000 to pay their share," said Billy Easton, director of the Alliance for Quality Education, a group that lobbies for more school aid. The income tax proposals are boosted by strong support in public opinion polls. But an economist testified recently in a legislative hearing that the "fair tax" proposals would cost the state about 22,000 jobs because employers would leave. Paterson said Wednesday he's still opposed to raising the income tax rate on wealthier New Yorkers, but acknowledged that his view isn't shared by fellow Democrats in the Legislature. Paterson also noted the proposal remains on the table, and a tough budget will require serious compromises. Paterson said that in exchange for taking the taxes and fees off the table, he gained no reciprocal deal from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver or Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. But Paterson said he has what he feels is greater resolve by the legislative leaders to support his funding cuts to hospitals. Paterson insists the cuts are necessary to avoid another fiscal crisis. The health care lobbyists weren't shaking. "There is no rational or responsible reason for the state Legislature to accept any of the health care cuts and taxes the governor has proposed," said Daniel Sisto, president of the Healthcare Association of New York State. He said it's puzzling that the state would eliminate taxes on soda and hair cuts but leave in a gross receipts tax on hospitals that he claims could close hospitals and force layoffs. "People can choose not to download iTunes without a negative impact," said New York Health Plan Association President and CEO Paul Macielak. "We don't want them to be forced to choose not to have health insurance." The 2009-10 budget is due April 1.
Boys and Girls Together, Taught Separately in Public School
By JENNIFER MEDINA Michael Napolitano speaks to his fifth-grade class in the Morrisania section of the Bronx like a basketball coach. “You — let me see you trying!” he insisted the other day during a math lesson. “Come on, faster!” They are not just two teachers with different personalities. Ms. Hudson, who is 32 and grew up near the school, has a room full of 11-year-old girls, while Mr. Napolitano, a 50-year-old former special education teacher, faces 23 boys. A third fifth-grade class down the hall is co-ed. The single-sex classes at Public School 140, which started as an experiment last year to address sagging test scores and behavioral problems, are among at least 445 such classrooms nationwide, according to the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education. Most have sprouted since a 2004 federal regulatory change that gave public schools freedom to separate girls and boys. The nation’s 95 single-sex public schools — including a dozen in New York City — while deemed legal, still have many critics. But separation by a hallway is generally more socially and politically palatable. And unlike other programs aimed at improving student performance, there is no extra cost. “We will do whatever works, however we can get there,” said Paul Cannon, principal of P.S. 140, which is also known as the Eagle School. “We thought this would be another tool to try.” Over the years, Mr. Cannon had experimented with after-school tutoring, playing sports with students and their fathers on weekends, and creating welcoming science and computer labs. Test scores improved enough to remove P.S. 140 from the state’s list of struggling schools, but Mr. Cannon noticed that fifth graders’ results were largely stagnant, a slump common across the city. He heard about a school in North Carolina that had all-girls classes and was inspired. So he decided to try it — under the Bloomberg administration’s philosophy of letting principals run their schools as they wish, it was as simple as that, with no special training or monitoring. A few parents expressed reservations at first, but it was popular enough that this year, the middle school around the corner followed suit with its sixth grade. “Before it was all about showing the girls who was toughest, and roughing up and being cool,” said Samell Little, whose son Gavin is in his second school year surrounded only by boys. “Now I never hear a word from teachers about behavior problems, and when he talks about school, he is actually talking about work.” But Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said separate classrooms reinforce gender stereotypes. “A boy who has never been beaten by a girl on an algebra test could have some major problems having a female supervisor,” she said. While some advocates believe that girls are more likely to participate in class when no boys are present — and that boys, particularly those from low-income families, tend to focus better without girls around — academic research is inconclusive. “The question always must be: What are you trying to accomplish with separating the students and how will you do it?” said Rosemary C. Salamone, a law professor at St. John’s University and author of “Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling.” She added, “If you don’t do it thoughtfully, you run the risk of reinforcing stereotypes and playing to students’ weaknesses.” In California, a high-profile governor’s initiative that split six middle schools and high schools into single-sex academies in the late 1990s ended after a few years, and few students showed sizable improvement. At the Bronx’s Eagle School, there is also little evidence so far of improvement, at least of the easy-to-measure variety. Students of both sexes in the co-ed fifth grade did better on last year’s state tests in math and English than their counterparts in the single-sex rooms, and this year’s co-ed class had the highest percentage of students passing the state social studies exam. But these numbers are as much a reflection of who is in which room. In general, struggling students are steered toward the single-sex classes (anyone who objects can opt out). While test scores might not show it, Mr. Cannon and his teachers said there have been fewer fights and discipline issues, and more participation in class and after-school activities, since the girls and boys were split up. Mr. Napolitano, one of four men among the school’s 30 classroom teachers, said he thinks of his students as “23 sort-of sons,” and engages them with Marvel Comics and chess. He proudly held up the book “Patrol Boy,” with a picture of a young man with a large tattoo on his back, as an example of material he would not have used in a co-ed class. There’s an aspect of male bonding, a closeness that we wouldn’t otherwise have,” he said. “I feel more like I am teaching them about right from wrong than I might have normally.” And he said he can “be a little more stern” with his students now. “If I get in the face of a girl, she would just cry,” he said. “The boys respond to it, they know it’s part of being a young man.” Indeed, when asked the best part of being in an all-boys class, Jorge Jimenez, 11, responded confidently, “I am learning how to be a man.” Asked to explain himself, he announced, “To learn how to put on deodorant.” (A few days earlier Mr. Napolitano had handed out small bags of soap and deodorant samples as part of a brief lesson in body odor.) There is a sisterhood equivalent in the girls’ classroom, where a recent assignment was to research influential black women (several wanted to interview Ms. Hudson, but she directed them to the Internet for higher-profile subjects like Harriet Tubman and Michelle Obama). Ms. Hudson often has the students work in small groups, which she said fosters both independence and a sense of community. And, as Guadalupe Bravo, 11, put it, “drama.” Take the recent afternoon when the students were making posters on the Revolutionary War. As the class broke into two-person teams, one girl was left on her own, her face buried in her hands. Ms. Hudson approached the two students at the next desk. “You notice that someone is on their own without a group and you don’t do anything about it?” she asked, mindful of lingering feelings of some perceived slight. “I am surprised at you, really. If someone apologizes, you try to forget about it and move on.” Moments later, the three girls were trading markers and debating what words best described the frustration of the revolutionaries. “Even when there is an argument brewing, they can get past it,” Ms. Hudson said. “The truth is, that’s an important skill, too.”
Obama signs bill sending millions to Western Mass.
By DAN RING BOSTON - President Barack H. Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill on Wednesday that includes important money for health care, education, and public safety in Western Massachusetts. Speaking at the White House, he called the bill "imperfect," partly because it contains thousands of pet projects for lawmakers. Congress inserted into the bill more than 8,500 earmarks, which specify money for certain projects. Obama said that 99 percent of the bill is money needed to keep the government running. Obama, who pledged to work to limit earmarks during his campaign, urged Congress to approve guidelines that he said would require lawmakers to be more transparent about designating money for projects. He also said that earmarks for private companies should come under a bidding process. "The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past," Obama said. "So let there be no doubt. This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability." People in Western Massachusetts on Wednesday praised the work of U.S. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry and U.S. Reps. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, and John W. Olver, D-Amherst. The two senators and two representatives in Washington issued statements defending their earmarks. "I am pleased ... this much needed federal assistance will benefit communities in western and central Massachusetts," Neal stated. "Local officials sought help for projects that included law enforcement, public works, economic development and environmental protection." Said Kennedy, "These funds will create jobs that are desperately needed, and will provide long-lasting benefits for all our citizens long into the future." Kerry said he was proud of his earmarks. "Together with Senator Kennedy and our colleagues in the House, we fight each year to secure federal commitment for programs like these that make a real local impact," he said. Olver said he was pleased with the projects he sponsored. "These are sound, thoroughly vetted projects that will have a positive impact in central and Western Massachusetts," he said. Dr. Paul Friedmann, executive director of the Pioneer Valley Life Sciences Institute in Springfield, said he was delighted that the institute received more than $1 million in the bill. The institute received $571,000 for new equipment for a planned expansion of its laboratory on the second floor of 3601 Main St., Springfield. The institute also received $475,750 for research. Mark M. Fulco, senior vice president for the Sisters of Providence Health System, said money in the new law would be used toward a planned health clinic that would be part of a new homeless resource center planned by the Friends of the Homeless Inc. in Springfield. Fulco and Friedmann said they were grateful for the work of Kennedy, Kerry, and Neal. Anne S. Awad, president and chief executive officer of the Caring Health Center in Springfield, said the $190,000 in the new law will be used for a new roof and other work at an old furniture store in the city's South End that will be converted into a medical and dental center. The old store is located across the street from the Caring Health Center at 1040 Main St., Springfield. "I'm thrilled," Awad said. "It (the money) would not be in there (the law) without Senator Kennedy." It will take at least another two years to complete the center. It is expected to serve 20,000 medical patients and 10,000 dental patients each year. The current building, which is leased, will continue as a maternal child health center, said Awad.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S speech on education this week offered a nice national nod to Massachusetts's education reform efforts - and presented a distinct challenge to Democrats like his good friend Deval Patrick. First the challenge. Highlighting their success at innovating, the president gave charter schools a ringing endorsement. "But right now, there are many caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they're preparing our students," Obama said. "That isn't good for our children, our economy, or our country." After stipulating that states need a rigorous selection and oversight process for charters, the president urged this bold action: "I call on states to reform their charter rules and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place." Um, Governor Patrick? Lieutenant Governor Murray? Legislative leaders? That's your Democratic president speaking. On charters, Obama is refreshingly willing to put the interests of kids and families first, even though teachers unions are vehemently opposed to the independent academies, where faculties aren't automatically unionized and pay increases are based on performance. Once a pronounced charter skeptic, Patrick has started to come around. He has called for raising the charter cap in the 50 lowest-performing districts, but would require new charters to draw their students disproportionately from demographic groups that lag in academic achievement. Charter advocates contend the governor's strict conditions would be hard to square with the blind lotteries charters use for student selection. Nor is there a good reason to deny charter opportunities to other hopeful families. Given the clear demand for charter slots as evidenced by the long waiting lists, Patrick's requirements would be unfairly restrictive. "We appreciate that the governor has moved on the charter cap issue, but we would prefer it if he simply took the president's advice, at least for the urban districts, and called for lifting the cap outright," says Boston Foundation President Paul Grogan, a leading voice for more choice and innovation in education. So will Patrick accept the president's challenge? Although Secretary of Education Paul Reville hadn't yet discussed the matter with the governor, who has been on vacation, Reville said his guess is that the administration will stick with its current approach to raising the cap, while pushing for charter-like (or is that charter-lite?) readiness schools. "We are trying to skin the cat a different way and not run head on into the midst of what the president has called a stale debate, in which we have been stalled out for a number of years," Reville told me. But that misses the president's point. Obama's message was that we should get beyond long-standing ideological debates by supporting what works. And the best charters are showing impressive results. That's why Patrick should use the president's challenge to move beyond his own limited step. If he doesn't, the governor and the Commonwealth will have missed an important opportunity. Now for the good news. In the same speech, Obama cited Massachusetts's educational standards and mentioned the strong (statistically tied-for-first in the world) performance by our eighth-graders on the science exam portion of the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. While many other states have dumbed down their standards, we haven't. Instead, Massachusetts has defined what students should know and tested them on it. And despite the early caterwauling about the MCAS, the exam has helped make education reform a success, while focusing attention on kids who need academic help. Then there's the matter of extended learning time. Noting that US students spend over a month less in school each year than their South Korean counterparts, Obama said that "the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom." He's right - and there, too, this state is a national leader, thanks in large part to civic activist Chris Gabrieli, who has pursued the cause indefatigably. Twenty-six schools have now adopted more learning time and another 30 hope to. The academic results from that extra school time are encouraging. That's why the Legislature should protect funds for this promising program as it grapples with the budget crisis.
Finally getting smart about investing in learning
EARLY-CHILDHOOD advocates are pinching themselves. Plans to invest in early childhood are now part of the Democratic and Republican platforms. More important, needed funding is coming through the stimulus package. In his recent address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama explained that "we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life." He's right. Numerous evaluation studies show that early education works. Children who attend quality early-childhood programs score higher on achievement tests, and quality is all about teaching. Young children thrive when they have sensitive and responsive teachers who offer a curriculum that is cognitively stimulating, developmentally appropriate, and engaging. There is mounting evidence that the effect of early education matters more for children with less. Eric Dearing from Boston College and I have demonstrated that poor children who attend quality early-education programs outperform other poor children on achievement tests. Some of these effects last through fifth grade. This is important from a policy perspective - given scarce resources, programs that target low-income children make the most sense. The so-called achievement gap is really a schooling gap. Everyone knows that children from poorer families and poorer communities do not receive the same education as other children. That is why property values are so highly correlated with school performance. With serious investments in early education, we could begin to level the playing field. Citizens deserve to know that investments in early education pay off. Some economists argue that programs pay for themselves and then some. For every dollar invested in early education, states would save about $4 because children would be less likely to require expensive services, including special education. Funding the status quo would be a mistake. Currently, early-education programs are supported through myriad funding streams, some administered from the Department of Education, such as Title I, and others from the Department of Health and Human Services, such as Head Start. California relies on 22 different programs to support early education. No wonder experts call the current state of early education "fantastically fragmented" or "a patchwork quilt" of programs. We need to create an early-childhood system that makes sense. Doing so will require an expansion of programs and facilities, incentives for accreditation, professional development for a mostly untrained workforce, the creation of curriculum standards and assessment tools, and hard decisions, such as: Should districts offer universal pre-kindergarten? Should Head Start and Early Head Start offer full-day programs to meet the needs of working parents? What is the role of the for-profit sector? Massachusetts is off to a good start through the creation of the Department of Early Education and Care. Its new commissioner, Sherri Killin, can't let funding streams determine policy. She will have her work cut out for her, as she prods agencies to collaborate. Obama has pledged to establish a Presidential Early Learning Council, modeled on the Illinois Early Learning Council, which he helped to create. This Council should include all stakeholders - educators, parents, researchers, advocates, and policymakers. Their task will be to design a system that is in the best interests of young children and not the best interests of the industry. Education Secretary Arne Duncan will need to provide incentives to states. When he led the Chicago Public Schools, Duncan increased access to pre-kindergarten programs to children from low-income families. It wasn't easy. As a practitioner, he understands the benefits of early education as well as the challenges. It is common for advocates to use economic arguments to justify investments of public resources in education; in today's parlance, we now hear that education increases our economic productivity and our global competitiveness. In the context of a $5 billion stimulus for early-childhood education, some will no doubt argue that investing in early education will stimulate our economy through the construction of new facilities and the creation of new jobs. All true, but there is another reason to invest in education: It is the civil rights issue of our time. Education affords each citizen access to the American dream - to pursue one's life goals through hard work and free choice.
MARY L. REED: System keeps youngest learners at disadvantage
Posted Mar 05, 2009 Imagine, if you can, a pre-school teacher in a program that attempts to educate children from low-income families. Though this teacher desperately wants to advance her own education, and thus benefit the children under her care, her pay is as minimal as her opportunity to become a better teacher. There’s a good chance that she will soon move on to a job, probably outside the field, that pays better. Another novice will take her place, move on before long for similar reasons, and only the children will remain, certainly no better for the experience. Studies will continue to show that their vocabulary levels are perilously low, especially when compared to children of a similar age from better economic backgrounds. The lack of consistency in the workforce responsible for these kids guarantees perpetuation of the problem. We at the Bessie Tartt Wilson Children’s Foundation have long championed the cause of increased funding for early childhood education – a long-neglected area burdened by low-paying jobs and an equally low opportunity for members of the workforce to advance their own education. At a time when this nation’s economy has been placed under a record strain, it is up to every educational advocate to ensure that the needs of these children aren’t forgotten. And that’s a problem, considering the universal competition for funding and support that is guaranteed to only grow. Innumerable studies have proven that there is a strong link between compensation and access to higher education. This equation is in turn connected to the quality of early education for our children. But until this connection can succeed, the men and women in the field have to clear the hurdle of low-income jobs. They require financial assistance, increased wages, career advisement and mentoring. Unfortunately, Massachusetts lags well behind the national standard in this area. As incomprehensible as it might be – especially for a state with such a powerful academic heritage – Massachusetts has fallen well behind when it comes to retaining quality workers in early childhood education. The state has a 26 percent turnover rate in the early childhood education workforce – a shocking number when compared to the national turnover rate of 9.8 percent. But there are solutions. There are ways to improve that retention rate. A loan forgiveness or amnesty program would ease a familiar problem – stultification of those in the field unable to pursue higher education due to previous loan defaults, and a lack of flexibility in funds like the Early Educators Scholarship. This workforce needs career counseling, which in turn needs funding to be effective. Educational and professional materials need a wider circulation in languages other than English. Above all, compensation and benefits have to improve. If not, the gap between the development of low-income children and those in the middle class will continue to grow. It’s time that more people who can make a difference in Massachusetts take action.
Dr. Jackson will be a featured speaker at the following events. Please contact Marcela Castrillon Velez if you are interested in attending or would like more information. |
|
The Snap Schott is distributed by the Schott Foundation for Public Education. For more information, please visit www.schottfoundation.org. |
|
