Education Week 12/01/2010 issue

Class-Size Limits Targeted for Cuts, p. 1

As schools cope with budget shortfalls, some are considering increasing class sizes.  This would be a step in the opposite direction from the long-term national trend.  Nationally, average class size has gone from  17.6 in 1980 to 15.8 in 2008.  These figures may be deceptive, however, in that they include special education classes and other specialized classes, the number of which have increased since 1980 and which typically have small classes.  The U.S. Department of Education estimates actual class size to be closer to 25 students.

Those who push for smaller class sizes argue it is the simplest way to increase student achievement.  A 1984 study in Tennessee that tracked over 7,000 K-3 students over four years compared students who were placed in classes of 13-17 students vs. those in classes of 22-25.  It showed higher student performance in the smaller classes, including poor and minority students.  Follow up studies years later indicated that the small-class students went to college, got married, and bought houses at higher rates than their large-class peers.  Results like this make small classes a popular idea with teachers and parents.

When other states have tried to replicate Tennessee’s experiment, however, there have been mixed results, leading to skepticism on the part of some researchers and policy makers.  Some critics contend that small class sizes are too expensive for the minimal improvement in achievement.  Japan and South Korea both have higher average class sizes than the U.S., although their students out-perform American students.   Federal funding for reducing class sizes, common in the 1990’s, was left out of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has proposed that targeted increases in class sizes could be combined with programs such as varying class sizes by teacher expertise, or bringing in part-time staff to help with larger classes.  Some school districts have experimented with different approaches.  One of the more interesting approaches is the one tried at New York’s Generation Schools Network, where instructors where hired to fill some administrative positions.  Each morning, almost everyone jumps in to help teach 90-minute blocks of basic courses, keeping the class sizes small.  In the afternoon, the regular teachers concentrate on electives, with larger class sizes.  Overall, teacher loads are smaller than at other New York schools, while operating costs are slightly cheaper.

Some school districts have accepted larger class sizes simply to maintain existing programs in tight times, such as music programs.  Some schools have willingly traded smaller class sizes to find funding for other reforms.  In the Nogales school district in Arizona, for example, they have added more math and reading specialists as class sizes rose, and test scores have risen each year in spite of larger classes.

[My thoughts:  tight budgets may require us to become more experimental and innovative, which can be a good thing in itself.  But how much better to have both small classes and innovative programs.  I cannot help but think that, although the public has to re-think its priorities in tough times, education has got to be at the top of anyone’s priority list.  Our children’s futures are at stake.]

Education Week 11/17/2010 issue

New Tack on NCLB: Regulatory Relief, p. 1

School districts struggling under the mandatory provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act are hoping for a reprieve from the Department of Education.  They argue that financially-strapped school districts should not spend money to meet the requirements of a law that may be re-written by a new Congress.  The DOE is pushing for renewal of the law, while saying that it is taking these concerns “into consideration.”  Looming on the horizon is the 2013-2014 deadline for bringing all students up to proficiency in reading and math.  Schools will be hit by sanctions for not meeting these targets, which will impact school district and state finances.

The school districts are calling for “regulatory relief” in this matter, which may resonate with the incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives, many of whom ran on a platform of “slimmed-down” government.  Civil rights groups who are focused on improving education for disadvantaged students are leery of watering down the law’s core principles, however.  They do not want to abandon accountability goals at the heart of NCLB.  And the Obama administration may conclude that it too wants to avoid the prospect of Republican criticism that it has caved in on accountability.

Education groups (the AASA and the NSBA, for example) are pushing for concessions, such as suspending sanctions for schools that do not meet NCLB achievement targets until a new law is in place.  Some have proposed two-year testing of students as opposed to annual testing.  Others point out that we need annual testing to track students’ progress, and giving flexibility to the states will only allow them to “game” the system one more time.  Those wanting changes hope that this will come in a reauthorization of the bill in 2011.  The Obama administration is hoping for a renewal, but the Republican House may want to look at it all over again.  There could be a full-blown renewal, or a targeted “patch,” which might make targeted changes but without changing the basic structure of NCLB.

[My thoughts: “Regulatory relief” is the perfect term to present to a Republican House of Representatives if you want to circumvent government mandates, in education or any other area.  The question should be whether or not it is in the students’ best interests that schools be held to these standards.  Are these NCLB standards appropriate and meaningful, or are they arbitrary and possibly counterproductive?  These are the questions we ought to be debating.  There should be no Republican view of education vs. a Democratic view of education.  Yes, teachers typically support Democrats, who typically are willing to spend more money on education.  Political coalitions aside, we should all want what is best for our kids and we should be willing to pay for it.]

Education Week 11/10/2010 issue

Public Schools Taking Lessons from Charters, p. 1

Proponents of charter schools view the role of these schools as promising research-and-development sites for traditional public schools.  But so far there has not been much cooperation between charter schools and public schools.  In 2009 the U.S. Department of Education spent $6.7 million on grants to encourage charter schools to share what they’ve learned with other schools, and it is hoping to promote the spread of promising charter school practices.  There seems to be some disagreement over how much charter schools have to share, however.  Some of the charter school ionnovations, such as extended school schedules and small school size, had already been introduced in some public schools, for example.

There have been some examples of charter school-public school collaboration.  In a troubled school district in Rhode Island, for example, the district contracted with the charter school to provide professional development for some of its reading teachers.  This collaboration was credited with improved student reading scores for the district.  And a school district in Tacoma, Washington, has borrowed some charter-school practices, resulting in improved test scores.  At one of its high schools, almost one-fourth of its students attend a special school-within-a-school (Lincoln Center) modeled after specific charter schools and incorporating some of their practices.  Lincoln Center is open from 7:30am-5:00pm Monday through Friday, plus two Saturdays a month.  Its academic standards for  students are more rigorous than state standards.  It also is selective in its choice of teachers, picking those with successful classroom experience.  Teachers work extra hours as needed, but they are also compensated for this above and beyond their union contract.

The Tacoma district is working with Harvard University economist Roland Fryer.  Fryer has identified five tenets of successful schools:  investing in human capital, providing extensive tutoring, extending time for learning, creating a culture of high expectations, and using results-based instruction.  The district is working in competition with charter schools, however, not in collaboration with them.  Whether public schools will be able to benefit from charter school innovations seems to depend on whether conditions in a particular district are ripe for collaboration.

[My thoughts:  the bottom line ought to be what practices are most beneficial to students’ learning, not where did they come from.  There should be a free exchange of ideas and an open dialog about what works best.  Students in all schools, charter or traditional, should benefit from successful experimentation.]

Education Week 11/03/2010 issue

Funds Fuel Graduation Initiatives, p.1

The U.S. Department of Education is providing almost $50 million in grants to states and school districts to fund a high school graduation initiative.  This was the first installment, with hopefully more to come in five-year grants.  The current overall high school graduation rate is 70%, but this figure drops to 50% in poor communities.  This high school completion strategy ties in with one of President Obama’s goals, to make the U.S. the leader in college completion.

The funding is aimed at both helping schools keep students from dropping out and bringing back students who had already dropped out.  The new emphasis is on monitoring student attendance, behavior, and coursework in middle school, looking for warning signs.  The focus will be on helping individual students rather than demographic groups of students.  The program will enlist the aid of social service groups and community groups to help returning dropouts make up lost ground, using school “acceleration institutes” and community-based “re-engagement specialists” such as social workers.

The new initiative provides a welcome focus on improvement in high school graduation rates as part of the push to increase college graduation rates.  The future of the initiative is uncertain, however, given funding uncertainties due to the financial crisis.

City’s Black Males Stay in School, p. 1

Baltimore school leaders have been working with a program over the past three years to keep more students in school and on track to graduation.  One result:  Black male students’ graduation rate has increased from 51% in 2006-2007 to 57.3% in 2009-2010.  Overall graduation rates went from 60% to 66% over the same time span.  Blacks make up 87.8% of enrollment in city schools.  Comparable national figures for 2006-2007:  46.7% of African American males graduated versus 73.7% of white males.  The district has also scored higher on National Assessments (83.6%) than would be expected in a high-poverty area.  The emphasis of the program has been on reducing absenteeism and suspensions, providing students with more public school choice options, and enlisting community partnerships.  One strategy has been the “Great Kids Come Back Campaign,” with volunteer s knocking on doors to try to bring back dropouts.

One key has been to change the expectations of adults—it was always assumed that a certain percentage of students would be lost, based on practices such as showing the door to students who came infrequently, who had discipline problems, or who were old but had too few credits.  Instead, an “intervention period” was created for such students while efforts were made to help get them back on track.

Student mindsets had to change as well.  Community group leaders, who “speak a language the community understands,” have been used to help bring defiant and disruptive students into the program.