Final thoughts ... for now

There are many divisions on teaching ethics and character in school. Many struggle to define what it means to teach ethics and character, how it should be done, if it should be done and whose standard to use.

Linus Wright, in his 13^th and final point of “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century,” calls for character education.

Intentionally teach core values of respect, responsibility, honesty, self-discipline and citizenship.  

I don’t intend, in this blog post, to get into the definition of teaching ethics and character. What I will say is this. It’s essential for a classroom to function for children to learn respect (in dealing with teachers, peers, administrators), responsibility (homework, belongings, grades, learning), honesty (no, the dog didn’t really eat my homework) and self-discipline (my parents weren’t home last night to make me do my homework). How could a classroom function without these qualities? Citizenship is an excellent practice (even if it evokes thoughts of the 1950s) because it teaches students to look beyond themselves to something bigger – a sense of unity and commitment to each other, to other community members, to the nation and world as a whole (and plays in well with all of the aforementioned character traits).

On this level, I don’t disagree with, and even applaud, character education. What I will say next, I haven’t always agreed with. But recently, I’ve changed my mind. Anything beyond this basic ethics education might be too far. Teachers are to teach students about academics. If a teacher takes the role of ethical trainer, he or she is removing that role from the home, teaching state-approved ethics material (which should raise red flags) and, possibly, influencing students to think more like him and her, as far as ethics go. And while a teacher might see this as a good thing (who doesn’t want others to think like they do), parents certainly won’t agree with this, unless the teacher happens to have the same values and ideals. It’s not the teacher’s job. As mentioned, teachers are to teach academics, and only as much ethics as is necessary to successfully run a classroom.

            Speaking of running a classroom (and moving on to a different subject), Wright’s 12^th point (and the last one I’ve yet to cover of those that I chose to) states this: 

12. Require each school district to undergo an external evaluation every five years to determine effectiveness of operation. Criteria for the evaluation and the personnel conducting such an exercise would be approved by the Texas Education Agency.

As far as Linus Wright’s 12^th point goes, there isn’t much use looking at its many aspects because the crux of it is flawed. Until you change the Texas Education Agency, any external evaluation, every five years or every year, is going to be based on high-stakes standardized testing. That’s how the TEA handles its schools, deciding which ones should be closed and which ones should deserve more funding. As long as the TEA continues to run schools like a business that bases its decisions on flawed results, what will this five-year evaluation accomplish? Administrators and teachers will continue to stress over test results they can’t entirely control and that don’t reflect true learning or how well a teacher teaches. Student achievement and learning will continue to decline as drop out rates continue to rise. Wright suggests some good points, but until some of those things (and some other things) are corrected, this evaluation is, essentially, a moot point. What will it take for his idea to be a valid point?

Thanks for sticking with me over the summer as I’ve looked at Wright’s plan. Now that the fall is sneaking up on us, I’ll be looking at a variety of subjects, including ethics teaching, in a less structured way. Hope to hear from you. 

Are extracurriculars extra important?

I have to open this post by admitting that my favorite aspects of high school were the extracurricular activities. As a student, I loved competing in several UIL events, other academic events and tennis. I enjoyed helping to produce the yearbook, volunteering with the honors group and running track and cross country to stay in shape. I loved working hard on a project and the anxiety of not knowing who won. I especially loved how often all of these activities gave me an excuse to miss class.

Going to a small school meant that our district allowed us a lot of wiggle room if we were involved in a lot of activities. Teachers were made to accommodate students missing class sometimes two or three times a week. Some students’ grades did fall because they were stretched too thin and couldn’t handle the distraction.

Linus Wright challenges this notion in “Restructuring Public Education for 21^st Century” in his seventh points:

7. Explore the amount of time, effort and expense of extracurricular activities in middle and high school relative to value produced and received.

           

I certainly agree with the idea that if something isn’t beneficial, it should be done away with. I’m curious to know how Wright would determine the value produced and received. Many studies suggest extracurricular activity tends to increase student achievement (as far as grades and graduation rates are concerned), but by how much, why or which ones is widely disputed. One study in particular believes that academic and athletic activities and watching TV can improve grades, but that activities that center around music decrease grades. You can see how this could be easily questioned.

            As far as benefits go, extracurricular activities encourage students to show up. It’s true that they miss some school for the particular activity, but they typically attend for the remainder of the time     to know what’s going on with their activity, socialize with other participants and keep their grades up so they can continue to participate (In the same vein, students who show up are more likely to stick it out and graduate). The loss of participation due to low grades can be a valuable lesson for a student that they have to work hard in order to do what they want. This, of course, isn’t helped by those who give grades so stars can participate (ex: coaches who pass star athletes or administrators who forgive athletes of poor grades). This preference of extracurricular activities is more detrimental – student’s academic achievement and honesty should always come first.

Extracurricular activities also teach students traits and skills they might not get in class – team work, perseverance, hard work and socialization, to name a few. They are allowed to try new things, stick them out, and then choose not to continue them the next season if they decide it’s not for them. Often students find passion through competitions and community service. They learn skills, such as hand-eye coordination in sports, that benefit them in the classroom and in life. As far as athletics are concerned, some studies show that students (and adults, for that matter) who work out once or twice a week have increased brain performance and find it easier to pay attention, keep up and engage themselves in the classroom.

            Of course, as with anything, moderation is the key. Perhaps missing class two to three times a week for a month or more at time is too much. When extracurricular activities begin to negate what the teacher does in the classroom, lower a student’s grade or take an undue amount of time from family life, a thin but important line has been crossed. Schools must build safeties into their system to ensure students get the most from extracurricular activities without crossing into negative aspects – this includes safeties that keep coaches, teachers or administrators from abusing power in favor of star performers, as mentioned above. This power is also best left with each individual district, and not to the Texas Education Agency.

Families are encouraged to build safeties themselves with their children.

            If this balance can be struck, I believe most studies and opinions agree extracurricular activities are an excellent way to engage, excite and teach students, as well as boost academic performance and graduation rates. I only hope we use this tool wisely.     

I also want to mention that I have chosen not to explore his eighth and ninth points on auxiliary staff and school facilities simply because I don’t have much to say on the subjects. Perhaps I will explore them in depth in the future, especially if interest is expressed.

Next week I will discuss Wright’s idea for five year external evaluations by the TEA. Hope to hear from you. 

Must we go to school longer?

                We, as a nation, have fallen behind our international peers. Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Linus Wright has made that point many times. He says it is because foreign nations that score higher attend school for longer hours of the day and more days of the year. We have examined that closely, and found that more hours don’t always mean greater success. That some countries attend school for fewer hours and have greater success, at least based on PISA scoring.

                So when Wright says that he wants to restructure schedules and curriculum, you might ask yourself, “How is that going to help?”

                His fourth point states:

4. Restructure elementary, middle and high schools to accommodate (a) flexible scheduling that is parent-friendly, (b) flexible curriculum to meet the needs of students as they achieve at different rates, and (c) longer school days and longer school years.

                There are a few things to notice here.

                First, we’ve talked about how important parent involvement is for student achievement. I would think what Wright means by a parent-friendly schedule is one that starts before their work day starts and ends after their work day ends. This would, mostly, eliminate the need for busses and allow parents to pick up their children on the way home from work. While picking up their children, they could stop in once or twice a week, every other week, a couple times a month, etc., and chat with teachers to see how their children are doing, what problems need to be addressed, what insight can they give the teachers to help them teach their children?

                Second, I think most who have attended public school in the last couple of decades can agree that the quickest learners get bored and the slowest learners get left behind as curriculum and teachers attempt to teach at an average, moderate pace that fails to challenge many of its students. There are methods, such as Montessori, that have disputable success stories, and that allows the student a chance to move at his or her own pace. The Kahn Academy also promotes at-your-own-pace student learning that reverses homework and class work.

                The problem with these methods is your risk students graduating with two different skills sets -- a student who worked hard and learned entire textbooks, etc. and a student who didn’t work hard and learned only several lessons. You can imagine the many scenarios, and you get the point.

                But let me give you an example of something that I believe could work, and that isn’t a radical, costly or risky change. Instead of cramming students, especially elementary students, into blocked periods of limited required math time, the school day is more fluid. Teachers teach lessons at the highest level, and then allow students to complete assignments, asking questions as they need. Students who complete the homework correctly and prove they fully understand the material are allowed to attend fluid classes were they learn hands on skills, the arts, etc. or occasionally get extra recess time.

                You might mention that this seems to favor the quickest learners. That slow learners will not learn hands on skills or the arts, etc. To counter this, teachers could release the slowest learners at a certain point, telling them to finish their assignment as homework. If, as I assume Wright is suggestions, students went to school from, let’s say, about 8:00 to about 5:30, there would certainly be time to fit all the classes in, add hands on learning, extended recesses and a time for meals. And students would learn new skills that would prove beneficial both for daily tasks and the development of their minds (problem solving skills, confidence, etc.).

                Finally, as we’ve mentioned before, longer school days and a longer school year could work, but only if the way we use our time is improved. The amount of wasted learning time and expected time of waste (last week of school, anyone?) is a hindrance, and adding hours and days of this wasted time is, in and of itself, a waste.

                Why waste our children’s futures?

The school board's goal

We live in a society run by professionals. Many feel they need a college degree to get a job, positions ask for degrees and a certain years of experience and most have dealt with the frustrating you-need-experience-to-get-a-job,-but-you-need-a-job-to-get-experience dilemma.

So when I tell you that the group of individuals who run our local schools should be amateurs, you may balk – and I wouldn’t blame you. When I hired people to work for the university newspaper, I looked for experience. Training someone new is a fun challenge, but it’s also a time-consuming, costly challenge that may not work out.

But we have to keep in mind that a school is not a business (despite what popular culture conveys.) Therefore, we should not rely on business practices to dictate how we manage schools.

Linus Wright’s third point states:  

3. A governance model must be developed which includes required qualifications for school board members along with term limits.

His point is vague, but to be fair, he chooses to be vague in order to keep his document under five pages … it’s more likely that the Texas legislature will read and act if it’s brief. Because he is vague, I’ll fill in the gaps on what we should require from our school boards

            To Wright’s notions, I say this. The state and communities do lay out specific qualifications (such as age, etc.) that school board members must adhere to. This is logical. If, by qualifications, he means that they must have taught for so many years, etc. I would have to disagree, for reasons I’ll state below.

            As for term limits, I’m not sure what he plans to accomplish with this. Until more voters take an interest in school boards, this idea will only complicate elections. In many communities, there are few enough citizens willing to serve. If the state limits terms, then some communities may be limited to partial boards or a lack of a board. Surely this isn’t what Wright wants.

In Texas, school boards trustees are elected. The elections have low voter turn out and the federal and state governments have attempted to decrease school board’s power as of late. But, in its purest form, the school board has a lot of influence and power over school policies. Naturally, their priority should be student learning and development.

School boards responsibilities include:

Create policy (this includes setting policies on academics, finances, student conduct and discipline, student transportation, curriculum and textbook approval and personnel)

Manage funds and resources

Appoint superintendent

Evaluate schools, personnel and policies

Handle legal matters

Tax

Hold meetings

            This is a brief, over-arching look at the many complicated tasks the school board oversees. At this point you might ask why amateurs should run such complex matters. But if we look at the purpose of a school board, I think you’ll come to agree.

            A school board is, as some call it, one of the last examples of grassroots democracy.  Individuals that are well-known in their community are elected by people who trust them. School board members are leaders from all walks of life – businessmen, educators, church leaders, farmers, parents, etc. They hail from the days of Congressman Sam Rayburn, who welcomed constituents into his home to hear their issues and problems. They represent the people who elected them, and not the Texas Education Agency or federal education department. I realize there are school board members who abuse their power and don’t adhere to these standards, but a properly functioning school board member would adhere.

Howard Good, a former school board member from New York, puts it this way:

What some consider a major weakness of school boards – that they are directed by well-meaning amateurs – Davies and Hosler (authors of a book on school boards) considered a major strength.

These well-meaning amateurs are considered a strength because of their direct contact and influence with the community. 

            The school board relies on their superintendent and principals to provide details on curriculum and other decisions. This keeps the school board from micromanaging and allows the superintendent to do his or her job while reporting to the board. Of course, this requires the school board to be made of informed individuals who can make decisions. Otherwise you’re left with a superintendent who is forced to run the school board while also answering to them, or a school board who willingly accepts every suggestion from the superintendent, without consideration.

            But a well-informed group of leaders who can represent their community, think critically, juggle the necessary duties, work closely with their superintendent and principals and prioritize student learning and development, regardless of their background, will lead their district to a higher level of learning and achievement.

Isn’t that our goal?

           

So how much should a teacher get paid? Part 2

         

I think of a teacher’s worth (in pay, at least) this way. As my wife puts it, there are six things that people need – food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care and legal protection. Restaurants are a booming industry that gets paid well. The fashion industry makes tons of cash. Construction is a money-making and thriving business. Naturally, doctors are known for their wealth, as are lawyers. So why is it that educators, one of the six are paid so little?

         Most think this is an unfair balance. When reports do suggests that teachers are overcompensated, others generally find them faulty. For example, last November the American Enterprise Institute published an article that suggested that teachers overcharge taxpayers $120 billion each year, and that teachers earn 52 percent greater than fair market levels. It doesn’t take long to realize this is based on unfounded claims, though. I first strongly doubted their report when they suggested that teachers are less intelligent than other workers, and therefore deserve less pay. The National Education Policy Center finds that claim unfounded, as well. NEPC also disagrees with AEP’s conclusions that teachers’ benefits calculate at 100.8 percent of pay (The Department of Labor puts it at 32.8 percent, which NEPC calls almost identical to the private sector), that time off is 28.8 percent shorter than the private sectors work year (NEPC says closer to 12 percent shorter), that pension costs are valued at 32 percent (NEPC says closer to 8.4 percent) and that job stability is valued at 8.6 percent (NEPC doesn’t give an alternative, but says the argument is not sustained). In short, NEPC disagrees strongly with AEI, and says AEI’s report is “built on a series of faulty analyses.” NEPC values teacher under compensation at 19 percent.

            NEPC isn’t alone in stating that teachers are undercompensated. The New Republic states that high school teachers in the U.S. earn 65 percent of what their fellow university graduates make after 15 years of work. TNR compares this to countries like Finland, where, after 15 years, teachers make 102 percent of what their fellow university graduates make.

            We’ve established that teachers are underpaid. But why?

            Some attribute the U.S. low teacher salaries to pay schedules. All teachers are familiar with this program, where the years of experience combined with the years of education dictate payment. Michael Podgursky of the University of Missouri-Columbia suggests that if education paid teachers like the private sector pays its employees, teachers would be paid more fairly. He implies that pay should be based on the field (special education would get paid more than English, for example) and success as a teacher. While there is strong logic behind his argument, I am wary to support this idea. We’ve seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the accountability movement?). So far, it really hasn’t worked. Would Podgursky’s ideas be any different?

            Last week I discussed merit-based pay. But what other options have you heard of? Do you support them (or any of these)?  Do you have ideas of your own?

            All in all, I think most can agree teachers should get paid more. Whether you side with the reports mentioned above, which suggests raising the average teachers pay anywhere from 19 to 35 percent, you agree with the six-essentials theory (that suggests teachers should get paid a lot more) or you agree with any number of other theories not mentioned here (and there are a lot out there), the point is, teachers don’t get paid enough. What are the steps needed to improve the situation?

So how much should a teacher get paid? Part 1

So how much should a teacher get paid? That’s the question I asked myself when I set out to write this blog post. And that answer, I found, requires a rather extensive answer. So, this week, I’ll be looking at merit-based pay because it’s a widely popular silver bullet program. Next week, I’ll look at salary schedules and what a teacher should be worth.

           Merit-based pay has a lot of supporters. Entire states are trying their hand at merit-based pay. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the accountability movement. It’s promoted by such people as Bill Gates, who, in defense of merit-based pay, said in the Washington Post, “The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.”

            If that’s the case, merit-based pay could be an answer, some say. Others disagree. They fear that merit-based pay will promote favoritism, because there is not clear definition of what a good teacher is. So far, implementations have based this pay on standardized testing. This is a mistake, in my opinion. Those tests are neither an accurate portrayal of a teacher’s ability or an excellent (or even good) standard to base student learning on.

           Some research also suggests merit-based pay doesn’t work, at least in the realm of standardized testing. Vanderbilt University’s George Peabody College of Education found that student scores did not rise if a teacher knew he or she could earn a bonus. Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives put it this way:

We sought a clean test of the basic proposition: If teachers know they will be rewarded for an increase in their students’ test scores, will the test scores go up? We found that the answer to that question is ‘no.’

As the Knowledge Center reports:

National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said the report’s findings were not surprising. ‘Extra money is not a silver bullet,’ he said. ‘It must be part of a comprehensive system that invests in things that make a difference in teaching and learning, such as experience, knowledge and skills. You have to start with a base of strong, competitive professional salaries and then reward teachers for professional growth and offer mentoring, support and solid feedback to help them improve their craft.’

                I would add that there are no silver bullets in education, and we should be wary when someone says they have found a quick fix. Merit-based pay seems to fit that standard.

               There are reports that show how merit-based pay does improve student test scores. But if we stick to our conclusion that there are no silver bullets, we know that it can’t be merit-based pay alone that improves those test scores – other factors are involved (perhaps the most talented teachers in a school where offered the merit-based pay, and the control group was made of mediocre teachers, etc.) Also, if we remember that standardized testing is a poor way to judge what students learn, then we can conclude that merit-based pay based on standardized testing is an unfair way to decide who gets bonuses.

             

             There are also ethical matters involved with merit-based pay. Take, for example, the scandal in Georgia last year where desperate educators helped their students cheat on standardized testing in order to get the best school ratings and highest pay. Georgia was caught. How many schools cheated that weren’t caught? Is this preventable if we make merit-based pay the system standard?

            I also object to the merit-based pay because it’s based on a business model. We’ve seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the accountability movement?). Why would merit-based pay be any different? I have doubts. Education is a for-profit business. Its practices are not tangible methods you can use in every location and get the exact same results. If education is not a business, why are we trying to run it as one?

            What is a better alternative than merit-based pay? Van Roekel touches on that. And what should a teacher get paid? We’ll pick up on those thoughts next week, and focus more on our end goal (looking at Linus Wright’s 10th point [Determine proper compensation and benefits for all public school employees as compared to similar positions in the private sector] in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.”)

"Those who can't, teach"

                I’ve had some excellent teachers in my life – brilliant people who had a passion for teaching, an ability to connect with students, a deep knowledge of their subject and a drive to improve themselves. They didn't try to be our friends, but they did listen to us, respect us and help us when we were down. I have a lot of respect for these teachers, and wouldn't change a thing about them.

                On the same note, I know some excellent teachers in Texas’ schools today. So when I say the following, I want it to be clear that I am aware this isn't a blanketed statement. But let’s face it. Many teachers aren’t up to par. There isn't any one person or group to blame. It’s a number of things, and that’s what we’ll look at today.

                Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendent, addresses this problem in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century.”

                "Teacher and administrator academic preparation must become more rigorous, and teacher employment more selective. University requirements for elementary and middle school teacher candidates must require more courses in the content areas and fewer in methodology."

                I have to mostly agree with him on this one.

1. The foundation

                First of all, many future teachers aren't prepared at the most basic level – in grade school. The same problems we have been outlining over the past several weeks contribute to a number of students graduating high school without a deep understanding of literature, certain math skills, the foundations of science and historical knowledge and context. They graduate college and they have somehow missed out on multicultural and fine art experiences. And in all of that, they lacked guidance that should have taught them how to find information they don’t know, to analyze information and to communicate their opinions. They don’t have a love of learning. They don’t know how to study in-depth or think critically.

                 Not to say that these students can’t figure them out for themselves as adults. And, not to say (as mentioned above) that this describes every student. Some have parents or excellent teachers who find ways to supplement what the system's curriculum is mostly void of. But without help, how can we expect children to teach themselves all the things mentioned above. Without this foundation, how could future teachers be prepared to teach?

2. The teaching programs

                As Wright mentions, the teaching programs at many Texas institutions of higher education are not rigorous enough. Some of the programs at the University of Texas (a nationally recognized institution for teaching and arguably the best school for teaching in the state) only require its students to maintain a C. C is average. It isn’t failing, but it isn't exceptional or outstanding. It’s simply average. Grades are not the ultimate indicator of success, it’s true, and many excellent teachers come from UT, but imagine if the best school in the state for education is producing only average teachers. What are all of the other, less rigorous schools producing?

3. The selection

                Wright also mentions that the selection process for employment isn’t selective enough. I’m curious to hear from the teachers how they feel about this. I, personally, have little experience with the selection process. I do know that I had a dozen or more classes in high school where I learned little. In one particular class, my best friend (who was a bright kid and a natural at the subject) took it upon himself to teach us what the teacher couldn't (think Harry Potter and Dumbledore’s Army learning defensive spells, but less secretive). I’m convinced he’s the only reason we passed our TAKS test in that subject. That speaks to all of the problems we've mentioned (concerning the ill-prepared teacher), but it could reflect poorly on the selection process as well.

4. The culture

                One of the biggest problems is the way our culture perceives teachers. I’m sure many of you have heard, more than once, the saying “Those who can’t, teach.” And, hopefully, many of you have thought, that’s rarely true. Many intelligent people give up employment opportunities in their field because they would rather teach. More importantly, teaching is a complex skill on its own. There are many who can’t teach – it certainly isn’t a skill anyone could just pick up because they aren't good at anything else.

                But our culture tells us otherwise, and, in the minds that don’t challenge it, that diminishes our respect for our teachers. It’s harder to teach students who don’t respect your profession. And it affects teachers too. What does it tell future teachers when they only have to maintain a C to get into an education department and get their certificate? It says, pretty much anyone could do this. It says that teachers aren’t important.

                I can’t tell you how many instances in my undergrad I heard of students switching from nursing, biology, math, etc. to become a teacher because they found the subject matter too difficult. I’ve heard students say something like, “I’m getting my degree in English because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life… I’m going to graduate next semester and I still don’t know what I’m going to do with my life, so I’ll get my teaching certificate.” Often, these were the students who partied too much and studied too little.

                This shouldn't be the case. Teachers are an important part of our society, the backbone that gives us the foundations we need to be competent citizens. Shouldn't we expect more from out teachers? Shouldn't our culture give more respect to what teachers do?

                I could add another question to that list. Shouldn't we pay teachers more? And that’s what I’ll be discussing next week. How competitive is a teacher’s salary? And how would higher salaries benefit the field?

                Until then, please, discuss your thoughts in the comments. I’m curious to know what people think. 

Why this is a bad idea...

        Over the past month I have been posting thoughts on Linus Wright’s 13 points covered in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.” I’ve covered three of his points, and plan to cover the rest of them over the next 10 weeks (including today), posting the thoughts on Fridays.

        This week, we’ll look at his sixth point, which suggests taking vocational courses and transferring the cost to community colleges. I’m going to tell you why I think it’s a bad idea – and I’m curious to hear if you think it’s a bad idea, as well. The point says:

        6. Transfer high school vocational courses to the Community College, which can provide more comprehensive courses at much lower cost. Using adjunct instructors at community colleges, the cost is approximately one-fifth the cost for the same instruction in public high schools. The excessive cost for vocational course in the high school is the result of (a) using full-time certified teachers, (b) necessary lab and shop equipment, and (c) the necessity of smaller classes for this type of instruction. Contract with a Community College to teach vocational courses in the existing high school facilities for college credit. Community colleges use adjunct instructors at a cost of approximately $2000-$3000 per semester course as opposed to a high school using a full-time certified teacher at a cost of approximately $40,000-$50,000 per year.

            At a cursory glance, it might seem like a good idea. $4,000 to $6,000 a year compared to $40,000 to $50,000 appears to be a saving a lot of money. But looking closer – as I did over a conversation with my lovely wife, Sarah – I think you’ll see flaws in his argument. I will lay them out in four points.

1. Will this cost students extra money?

The first problem I notice is that duel credit programs generally costs students extra money. They have to earn acceptance into the community college, pay tuition (generally not full tuition, but a much cheaper rate), buy books and possibly other materials. For students who intend to attend college, this can seem like a no-brainer – it’s cheaper credit that will likely transfer. But for students who don’t intend to go to college (often for financial reasons), it can seem like too much hassle to jump through these hoops. Or, worse, their family may not have extra money to pay for these costs. Often the students who benefit most from vocational classes are students from lower class families. These students learn valuable skills that can take them directly into the job market, where they can make a decent living and contribute to society. If they can’t afford these classes, are we doing a service to our students with the greatest need? 

2. Doesn’t this create scheduling problems?

            I’m sure most of you have noticed that a class run by a community college would only meet two or three times a week. If they met every day, they would have to pay their adjunct          professors more. How does this fit into a high school schedule (block schedules exempted) where students have a consistent schedule every day?

            But there’s a more important scheduling conflict at hand. For students to participate in these vocational classes (and I know many students who take some sort of ag or shops class ever year of high school) they would, as we mentioned, have to earn acceptance into the community college. This excludes freshmen and sophomores, who aren’t old enough to apply, or would have to take a placement tests that likely has material they haven’t had a chance to learn in order to apply. Students learn skills best, hands-on or not, over time. Cut the time they can take vocational classes down to two years, and you’ve decreased the value of your work force.

            On another note, many school districts are not close enough to any type of college to make this plan happen. This suggestions shows preferential treatment to districts in urban centers at the expense of small community districts.

3. What happens to the full-time teachers the adjunct professors are replacing?

            So far we’ve focused on the effects on students, but now we have to ask ourselves how this affects ag teachers and other vocational teachers in high schools. First, that $40,000 to $50,000 a year he mentions isn’t spent entirely on vocational classes. That is only a part of what a full time teacher does, unless he or she only teaches vocational classes and doesn’t have any other duties (such as organizations related to vocational classes). If Wright eliminates these teachers, he is taking focus off of one of his points (one we haven’t covered – that teacher’s pay should be re-evaluated to match market value – which most would interpret to mean they should be paid more) and putting it on a management-focused style to running schools, instead of a curriculum based style. The past couple of decades indicate that curriculum-based management is much more effective than management-based (but that’s a post for another day!). Is eliminating an entire genre of teachers an excellent option?            

4. What should an adjunct professor get paid, anyhow?

            His whole idea brings up another important idea. Do adjunct professors get paid enough as it is? At one university, the most an adjunct professor could make was a little more than $1,200 per class. That certainly doesn’t pay many bills or support a family. When you consider all of the duties an adjunct professor has – prepping for classes, teaching classes, grading papers, handling issues with students, holding office hours, administering tests, other possible faculty duties AND, in this scenario, driving several times a week to one or more high school to teach vocational classes – that’s hardly a fair compensation by most standards. Is it, then, ethical to take advantage of adjunct professors who don’t get paid enough as it is to save school district’s money? I would say, hardly. 

Kissing "are" year goodbye

                I bet you favored your senior year of high school over every other. Everyone gets some pleasure out of homecoming, Prom, pranks, your last year to participate in sports and academics and the beloved Senioritis – whether that pleasure stems from being the star of the football team, winning homecoming Queen or laughing at the pair of them as they trip because her heels are too high is dependent on where you fit in your high school.

                Now, imagine that those moments never happened.

If, instead, your spent your last year of high school (Junior year) preparing to take a standardized test so you can pass, graduate and move on to college, trade school, the work force or your parents’ basement.

                Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendent and the undersecretary of education in the Reagan administration, suggests this measure to reform Texas’ education system in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century.” His fifth recommendation (out of 13) says:  

5. Eliminate 12^th grade from high school, using those funds for full-day schooling for 3 and 4-year-olds. The 12^th grade is the least productive and most expensive. Texas added the 12^th grade requirement in 1940 at the end of the depression, not for educational purposes but to solve an unemployment problem of young people on the streets with nothing to occupy them.

                

               Last week we discussed the pros and cons of public education starting with 3 year olds (feel free to check out those thoughts if you haven’t yet.) I didn’t conclude that argument, though, because I wanted to discuss funding such a program in more detail. That’s what the purpose of today’s blog is.

                In theory, Wright’s proposal to eliminate 12^th grade has a lot of merit. From experience, and listening to others, I can tell that most seniors learn little in 12^th grade. By the end of their Junior year, they know if they have passed the standardized testing needed to graduate. Senior year becomes a time to show up to enough classes to walk. Even for the students who don’t let Senioritis get them down too much, they spend a lot more time filling out scholarship and college applications than mastering new skills. Homework itself is often easier, as some teachers see seniors as group that has earned their degree and too distracted to put much effort into school work. Many students are engaged in duel credit from poorly structured community colleges classes, where they learn virtually nothing. Seniors anticipate senior skip days, and have, as mentioned above, a flurry of social functions to distract them, as well. The last few weeks of school, more than any other, are about putting in your time than learning. It’s easy to see seniors are not a highly productive group.

                At the same time, imagine how much money a school spends on its seniors. We’ve already mentioned all of the social functions the school hosts for them. Graduation is an expensive program. Teachers’ salaries are paid whether seniors learn anything or not.

                The National Center for Policy Analysis, where Wright is a senior fellow, suggests that the senior year is the most expensive and least productive – a bad combination at best. You can see how there is merit for this argument. If you keep in mind that many students drop out before their senior year as it is, the combination goes from bad to worse.

                If you take into account Wright’s argument that Texas created senior year in 1941 to keep students from entering a market of high unemployment, you can see how this is unnecessary (once our present-day unemployment rate drops), especially with the affordability of trade schools, community colleges and even some four-year universities. The 1941 decision served its purpose, but why keep an antiquated system when its use is run dry?

                Despite Wright’s logical conclusion that eliminating senior year rids of our most expensive and least productive reminder of the Great Depression and opens funds for early childhood education, I see a serious flaw in his ideas.

                Most seniors aren’t truly ready to graduate at 18. A surprising amount of 18 year olds drop out because they aren’t mature enough to handle freedom and responsibility or they don’t have proper study skills and the ability to find information for themselves (some students also drop out for lack of funding). This number is pegged at 27 percent at four-year colleges and nearly half (44 percent) at two-year colleges by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster found that only 32 percent of students who graduated high school in 2001 were ready to succeed at a four-year university, in their study “Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States.” To understand the impact of those numbers, you have to keep in mind that about 30 percent of high school students don’t graduate high school, Greene and Forster found. That means only about 25 percent of all 18 and 17 year olds (those who should graduate high school) in any given year are prepared for college.

              Now, I’m not saying that everyone should want to go to college. I am saying that if about 25 percent of the population is ready for college each year, than it stands to reason that about 75 percent of high school graduates or students who should have graduated in any given year are missing important skills that are needed in the work force, in raising a family and in everyday life. Do we, then, believe that 17 and 16 year olds are better prepared to graduate after their Junior year?

                No, before we consider eliminating 12^th grade, we need to first consider how to give more than 14 percent of our population the skills they need to succeed upon graduation. What would those measures be? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

                In all fairness, Wright addresses that issue in “Restructuring ….” After all, we only covered one point today. He wants to eliminate 12^th grade to fund early childhood education, which could give students some of the needed skills to succeed. His arguments also include making requirements to become a teacher more rigorous and selective, restructuring all grade levels so parents can be more involved and teaching core values. But, I would like to see specifics on how curriculum and teacher selectivity can change to better prepare students to graduate. Once specifics are laid out, then talks of eliminating 12^th grade can commence, if the specifics help solve the problem enough.

                I haven’t decided which of his 13 points I’ll cover next week. I named a few in the previous paragraph, and if there’s one in particular you’d like for me to cover, please, let me know. Thanks for reading.  

The end of summer?

I still haven’t had a chance to read “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell, but in preparation of reading the book, I want to give some preliminary thoughts.

“Outliers,” as I understand it, discusses the problems with summer break, especially for economically disadvantaged students. He’s not the first person I’ve heard of that wants to lengthen the summer break. Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Linus Wright advocates this change, as well as longer school days.

The argument is that summer break is outdated. It stems from our predominantly agricultural days when farming families needed all hands in the field in the afternoons and summers. Students often dropped out of school when their family decided they had enough to pass as a farmer (or needed full-time help). As anyone could infer, students don’t need summer breaks and afternoons to work on the farm – if anything, many complain that unsupervised time off (such as from 3 to 5 p.m. when parents are still at work, or most of summer break) allows students time to find and make all sorts of trouble.

The RAND Corporation says that economically disadvantaged students slip, on average, a month behind their achievement level in the spring. Trying to catch those students up from a month’s worth of learning keeps teachers from teaching, hypothetically, a different month’s worth of skills and information.

The National Summer Learning Association says the solution is summer school. It says that this program would be different from regular school (more hands-on, more field trips, Socratic teaching methods, etc.). Duval County Public Schools in Florida cites research suggesting hands-on summer elementary programs help involved students improve from Fs and Ds to As and Bs, and helps close the gap gained over the summer break.



I see a different problem, though. In theory I agree with the idea that if students spent more time in school, they might learn more (or forget less) and get into less trouble over the break. But in practice, one could argue that a lot of time is wasted every day in school as it is. Most students see the last week of school as a time to watch movies or go on earned trips to Six Flags or the theater, not to mention time wasted throughout the school year.

U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Our students today are competing against children in India and China. Those students are going to school 25 to 30 percent longer than we are. Our students, I think, are at a competitive disadvantage. I think we're doing them a disservice.”

If you go by those numbers, you might argue the U.S. is at a competitive disadvantaged (some, such as the Center for Public Education, don’t – they believe that Duncan’s sources use elementary figures, or that if you look at the number of hours spent in instructional time, the U.S. spends more time learning).

I don’t believe that looking at how long a country is in school is looking at the whole picture. Wouldn’t we learn more by analyzing China and India’s curriculum? What do they teach their students? How do they spend their time (regardless of whether it’s less or more)?

After all, 16 countries scored higher on the Program for International Student Assessment in reading literacy, 30 countries scored higher mathematics literacy, and 22 scored higher in science literacy, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Doesn’t it make more sense to learn what these 14 to 30 countries teach about literacy, science and math and how they teach them? How long they are in school is important; but, it’s certainly not the most important factor.

Finland (who scored 3nd in reading literacy on the PISA, 6th in mathematics literacy and 2nd in science literacy) spends less time in school than Texas does and performs better on international tests. Finland spends about 777 hours in instruction in an average middle school year, according to CPE. Texas, in comparison, spends around 1,260 hours.

It’s important to understand that the U.S. has a highly different situation than China, India, Finland or any of the other countries that perform better than we do. We would need to analyze and test any ideas we glean from their methods. It’s also important to note that the PISA isn’t a perfect indicator of a countries achievement – many other countries only test their brightest students. But the U.S. isn’t close to the top in any comparison – something needs to change.

What do you think? Should summer break be shortened or eliminated? How could we make the time we already attend school more productive? And what can we learn from the countries who perform better than us?

Positive and detrimental values

                Sarah’s ethics in education class recently asked her to communicate two values: one of the most important we can teach and one of the most detrimental. I’m trying to talk her into guest writing on this blog to tell you her answer, which was thoughtful, well-communicated and intriguing, so I won’t tell you what she said. But she asked me what I would have answered were I in that class and I wanted to get other’s opinions on my answer.

               

                I believe one of the most detrimental values we teach our students is how to work the system. More specifically, students learn how to cram for a test the night before (or morning of) and then promptly forget the information as soon as the test is over. Trust me, I’ve been there. And at the time, it seemed like a smart idea. After all, a lot of students think if you’re smart enough to beat the system, why not. Beating the system can be a skill all its own.

                But having been there and graduated, I can also tell you this system of learning hurts students in the long run. Whatever information they were supposed to have learned, they have to relearn in college, or in the real world. I’m currently studying for the GRE, and let me tell you, I wish I had paid more attention in math (and taken college algebra, but that’s a different story).

               

                To counter this value, I chose teaching the benefits and importance of knowledge. If students valued knowledge, this cramming-and-forgetting culture could be replaced with people who are prepared for college, trade school or the work force, and adults who are prepared to teach any subject to others, or especially, their children. This would be particularly beneficial if you paired a love of learning with the ability to find information for yourself. Knowing how to and where to look for what you don’t know (and having the patience to do it) could give any student the tools to succeed. Cramming-and-forgetting culture does not.

                I have to admit, I don’t know how you would shape the education culture to fit this. The only idea I have stems from my high school Spanish class. Dr. V (I know, who has a PhD in a 1A school?) required a lot from us. She expected us to study daily and to understand the material thoroughly, and her tests were comprehensive. If I’m not mistaken, students regularly failed her classes. Perhaps if we expected more of our students, we would have better results. But I’m not sure if that promotes the culture of valuing knowledge. I’m not sure what would.

                I’m interested to know how others would have answered the question in Sarah’s class. What is one of the most important values we teach, and what is one of the most detrimental values we teach?

                

An early start

If you didn't put your 3 year old in day care, you might be appalled by the idea of handing him or her over to a non-degreed employee of the state. But that is, in fact, what  Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendant and author of “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century,” suggests.

Did you know around 4,500,000 children between the ages of zero and 11 live in Texas, and around 2.7 percent of them are in childcare, according to ChildCareAware of America, a national child care advocate?  

A lot more children – ages three and four – than 2.7 percent would benefit from structured child care, Wright believes. His first point (of 13) states:

         Early childhood education – full day for all non-English speakers and children of poverty. Non-   

        degreed teachers with strong development training have proven to be very effective with 3- and 4-year 

        old children. Research is available showing that students taught full-day by these teachers show greater  

        academic progress (and at considerable less cost per student) than students taught half-day by degreed 

        teachers. Educational First Steps, a non-profit agency in Dallas, Texas, provide a replicable model of 

        what can be done and how to do it. They provide training for teachers and parents and age-

        appropriate academics for 4,500 3 and 4 year olds in 95 different preschools at a cost of  

        approximately $500 per student.

The Problem

        Wright sites several reasons he believes this idea will work.
        First of all, as I’m sure you noticed, he places a lot of emphasis on “children of poverty.” He states that most impoverished children have a vocabulary of around 400 words at age six (when most enter public schools). Children with more affluent parents have vocabularies of 2,000 to 4,000 words by age six.
        He argues that the children who know only 400 words have a significantly harder time learning to read in first grade, and that the gap between the impoverished children and affluent children grows every year. This same idea would apply to children who don’t know English well coming into the first grade. Wright insinuates that this is a cause of America’s high drop out rate, a number he cites at 30 to 40 percent.

The Plan

        He counters this problem with early childhood education. He says that 3- and 4-year-old children “at these early ages are like sponges — they eagerly receive, process and retain information of lasting value.” He also states that impoverished mothers and fathers often work outside the home, therefore necessitating child care for the safety of the children. He argues that combining child care with education for 3 and 4 year olds, such as the Educational First Steps based in Dallas, will provide a cost-effective program (in part, because the teachers won’t have degrees) that gives economically disadvantaged students a chance to start on a level playing field.

The Benefits

        What will this accomplish? Other than the level-playing-field concept, Wright argues that: “Early childhood education will greatly reduce the later expense associated with remedial classes, high school dropouts, etc.” He also cites statistics stating that the U.S. imprisons more people than any other nations, that 70 to 80 percent of those inmates can’t read above a fourth grade level and that the U.S. spends five times more to incarcerate said inmates than to educate them. You can see how these statistics lend to the idea that if students were on the same level before they are six, they will be less expensive citizens in the long run. He adds that, in 2010, 80 percent of high school graduates could not pass a simple mental test to qualify for the armed forces. Through these numbers he is attempting to relate that these less expensive citizens will also be more informed and more productive.

The Counter Points

        Will this idea work?
        First of all, you have to keep in mind that he cited problems associated with statistics without proving early childhood education can solve those problems. For example, he says 70 to 80 percent of inmates can’t read above a fourth grade level, but he doesn’t give an explicit reason to believe that’s the reason they are imprisoned or his program would solve this expensive problem. The same could be said about most of his statistics.
        Some reasons some suggests early childhood education would not work:

        1. It would be too expensive, especially in today’s economic climate (Wright provides his solution on this, and we’ll get to that next week).
        2. Not all students who go through already-established early childhood education programs (such as Head Start) finish high school. In fact, some say these programs only benefit students for the first couple of years of elementary school.
        3. These programs don’t pull impoverished kids’ parents out of poverty, so they still face many of the challenges. Some argue that the benefits of these programs aren’t enough in face of the challenges.
        4. Some say that 3- and 4-year-old children are more intellectually stimulated by staying at home with the parents, and that early childhood development may in fact be detrimental to this age group. (I would argue that this won’t matter in most lower-income families because both parents are likely working).

        Most of these opponents recognized that there are typically long-term effects for children in early childhood education.
        This is not a complete list of pros or cons. I’m sure you could think of many more, and I encourage you to comment.

        In regard to the “too expensive” argument against early childhood education, you might ask yourself how a cash-strapped state is going to afford two more years of school. Wright provides his solution for this, as well.

         Many would call it a radical idea – eliminating the senior year of high school and using those funds to afford early childhood education for 3 and 4 year olds. I’ll look at this idea next week. Until then, a friend of mine suggested I read the book “Outliers” by Malcom Gladwell. As soon as I get a chance, I plan to read this book and solicit your opinions on decreasing the length of summer break (the premise of Gladwell’s book, as I understand it – an idea Wright eludes too, as well). And I’m still working through “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” by Diane Ravitch – which I’m finding has fascinating thoughts on “A Nation at Risk” (as does Jonathan Kozol’s “Illiterate America”). Has anyone else read Ravitch’s book?
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for reading!

1. Early childhood education—full day for all non-English speakers and childrenof poverty. Non-degreed teachers with strong child development traininghave proven to be very effective with 3 and 4-year-old children. Research isavailable showing that students taught full-day by these teachers show greater academic progress (and at considerableless costper student) than studentstaught half-day by degreed teachers. Educational First Steps, a non-profitagency in Dallas, Texas, provides a replicable model of what can be done andhow to do it. They provide training for teachers and parents and age-appropriate academics for 4500 3 and 4-year-olds in 95 different pre-schoolsat a cost of approximately $500 per student.

I just couldn't wait...

            I’m sure most of you can remember a time that you read or heard something and were so impressed you had to share. I didn’t intend on blogging about a book I’m reading until I finished it, but I am so impressed after reading the first chapter, I want to share.  

The book is “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” by Diane Ravitch. Within her first chapter she is strikingly and refreshingly open, so much so, you feel that she is an intimate friend who is bearing her soul.

            She impresses me with her bravery. It takes a strong person to admit that the public policy she adamantly advocated is wrong. (She heralded the No Child Left Behind initiative while working under the Bush Administration.)

            But, she said, after seeing NCLB in practice, she decided it only works in theory.

“I kept asking myself why I was losing confidence in these reforms. My answer: I have a right to change my mind.”

In the process of explaining the situation she revealed some dominant traits that complement her bravery.

First of all, she displayed honesty and humbleness. She states that throughout her life, she has spoken out against what she calls “the lure of ‘the royal road to learning,’” or the idea that there can be an easy solution to educational problems. But she openly admits that while working for the federal government, she fell for the “royal road” in NCLB. In doing this, she opens critics to accuse her of an unfair proportion of the blame for any failures NCLB has. But more importantly, admitting mistakes like this is an admirable way to communicate, and allows her to influence others in a special way.

In opening her book this way, she is also asking others to judge what she has done, even if only in their own minds. The opinions that reach her, though, she can use to further form her opinion and act upon. This openness to criticism and ideas makes her an exceptional scholar and person.

I was especially impressed by her obvious dedication to facts. She quotes economist John Maynard Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind.” She states that doubt and skepticism, even of our own beliefs, are the marks of a rationale mind.

“When we are too certain of our opinions, we run the risk of ignoring any evidence that conflicts with our views. It is doubt that shows we are still thinking, still willing to reexamine hardened beliefs when confronted with new facts and new evidence,” she said.

She didn’t let past actions or thoughts dictate who she is or what she says. She wasn’t swayed by the possibility that some might ridicule her for changing her mind. She looked at the facts and attempted to accept them without bias.

Finally, she revealed a clear writing style and direct approach to voice that I admire. So far, she’s taken what could be a complicated, bureaucratic and dry subject (education policy) and transformed it into a relevant, engaging topic that’s easy to understand, and still retains its complex tendencies. I am not an expert on education policy, and I’ve had no trouble understanding her words. She speaks out against a program she helped create – and yet she writes so clearly. Clear writing takes clear thinking, a hard to find trait that I can only hope to achieve.

As for the content of the chapter, she surfaces some interesting thoughts that I’m sure she’ll cover in more detail. In particular, she argues for an emphasis on curriculum and instruction as opposed to markets and choice. This goes back to NCLB ideas she bought into that education could be run by focusing on management and accountability (such as standardized testing), instead of focusing on curriculum and instruction.

She emphasizes that “in education, there are no shortcuts, no utopias, and no silver bullets.” She cites NCLB a silver bullet. Instead, she hopes people will focus on what she calls the essentials of education – a strong curriculum, the knowledge to understand politics and science, a responsibility to democracy, well-educated teachers, standards of learning, and standards of behavior, to summarize.

I am looking forward to continuing this book. 

A child's insurance

            When I was in school, I remember that, in most cases, the students who performed the best had involved parents. I usually knew their parents by name or face (as well as a number of awkward stories they told about my friends); and I knew friends who complained because they didn’t get to watch their favorite cartoon because of “first homework, then T.V.” rules and other acts of parental involvement (we’ll call them APIs).

            My mom performed regular APIs. I can’t remember if she had a “first homework…” rule, but I do remember she helped me with my homework, willingly attended teacher-parent-student conferences (even if they were uncomfortable, as mentioned in my previous post), and – when her work schedule allowed – volunteered for field trips.         

I had other friends, too – students whose parents, for both reasonable and unreasonable reasons, seldom performed regular APIs. While some of these students excelled in spite of this, many of them didn’t.

Would you agree that the parents' role was a crucial factor in who succeeded and who didn’t?  Parents have to provide and support their children emotionally, physically, mentally and financially, ensuring they are safe, fed, nurtured, happy and well-educated. And a parent’s role should go a step (or several) further than that. From a young age, parents should be setting a foundation to ensure their children can survive school.

Let me explain it a different way. Shortly before graduating college (let’s say, a-day-before short) I married my then-fiance. It was a fun day that led to a fun week in Corpus Christi that led to a fun, frantic month of searching for a home and job. 

            Once we had all of that worked out, we entered the unlooked-for world of realizing and acquiring everything we needed insurance for – health insurance, dental insurance, renter’s insurance, vehicular insurance, insurance on my prized “the Office” DVDs (OK, not really…).

            It was a little overwhelming (not to mention expensive), and I was glad when we got it all worked out.

             

            A parent has a similar role. When they have a child, they have to consider what they need to do to “insure” their child. Just as health insurance allows you to pay medical bills should your health not be completely satisfactory, a firm foundation helps “insure” a child should his or her education system not be completely satisfactory. 

            Who else is able to make sure that a child has a strong moral compass, firm critical thinking skills and the tools to find what they need to complete tasks? Who else can best teach a child how to learn, not to mention to love to learn?  

            On another side of this argument is the parent-teacher relationship. 

            In former Dallas ISD’s Superintendent Linus Wright’s “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century” his eleventh point is to, “Require every school to develop and implement a parent involvement plan, i.e. PTAs, PTOs, Advisory Committees, mandated parent/guardian/teacher conferences.”
           Statewide, PTA membership has dropped from 713,217 to 523,859 in the past 10 years, according to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. The same publication reports that PTA membership has dropped more than a million people nationally.
           Some might argue this trend is a shame. While PTA isn't the only avenue with which parents and teachers can work together (i.e. parent-teacher conferences, etc.), as a team, parents and teachers can provide information the other entity doesn’t know to get a clear picture of what hinders their child from succeeding and how to improve their situation.

Kathleen Porter-Magee of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute puts the teacher-parent relationship this way.

‘A lot of education activists, like Alfie Kohn and Diane Ravitch, like to argue that urban schools should copy the instructional practices of elite private schools …

… What they are missing is what happens outside the classroom: the heavy reliance on parent involvement to help teach their students the key skills, knowledge and abilities they need to succeed. Teachers in these schools can, after all, assign hefty reading and writing assignments as homework because the typical middle class or affluent student goes home to a place where homework is valued and where parents can serve as a teacher-in-residence. That allows for much more flexibility in the school day and takes the pressure off getting every transition perfect or focusing every discussion toward an instructional end.”

            Now, I need to clarify. Some parents are what you might call “helicopter parents.” When I mention supportive parents, I’m not referring to this. I certainly don’t approve of parents who are so overbearing they hinder their child’s social growth or education. And these types of parents would certainly get in a teacher’s way of helping a child. These parents get in their own way of raising their children.
          But with the right balance in every district, it is possible education could improve. What do you think?

         Now, you might observe that some parents don’t have time to commit, and for good reasons. They are typically among the lower class, have long commutes to and from work and physically taxing jobs. Sometimes, these people also have trouble providing food or other essentials for themselves, and can barely gather the energy to get their kids to school in the morning. These barriers can keep parents from providing stimulation for growth, and from actively playing a role in their child’s school district.

            These parents might also speak English as a second language, or do not speak English at all. This barrier can keep parents from helping children with schoolwork and communicating effectively with teachers.

            Wright has provided his solution for these scenarios, and I’ll touch on pros and cons of that plan next week.

            Until then, feel free to comment, or email me at jscott.dykowski@gmail.com with thoughts and questions.