Change.org's Education Blog

No Tolerance for Preteen Doodlers in New York City

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-08T21:31:00-08:00

Yes, I certainly think doodling on a school desk with a Magic Marker is serious crime worthy of calling the cops over and having a 12-year-old led off in handcuff. Tough on crime all the way.

Over on Change.org's Criminal Justice blog, Te-Ping Chen reports on a dangerous student who posed a severe threat to public safety by writing, "I love my friends Abby and Faith" on her school desk. In lime green, no less! That color will not go with the table at all. Fashion crime.

Somehow, I managed to get through the New York City public school system as a child without ending up in handcuffs. But I admit, I'm just as guilty as this latest perp. In fact, I'm a repeat offender: I've lost track of how many times I drew on a desk as a kid.

New York police have a less-than-amazing record on appropriate responses to childhood antics, like tossing a five-year-old who threw a temper tantrum into handcuffs and then a psych ward. For doing, you know, what five-years-olds do. Perhaps it's related to the fact that 5,000 cops are assigned to NYC schools, and they're bored, or trying to justify the existence of their jobs by picking up some truly dangerous criminals.

The Magic Marker will probably wash off. But the damage done to this student, led away in handcuffs before all her peers? Those scars might be invisible, but they aren't so easy to get rid of.

Photo credit: a.drian

Corporate Advertising: Not the Solution to Funding Woes

Lisa Ray — 2010-02-08T15:14:00-08:00

Public K-12 schools all over the country are suffering from economic problems, from budget cuts to funding mismanagement. President Obama’s new budget calls for an overhaul of the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind in the hopes of re-imagining how education is funded. But while waiting for the new budget's proposed $3 billion funding increase, cash-strapped school districts are taking matters into their own hands.

The San Diego Unified School District is considering corporate advertising on school lunch tables, banners, and buildings, hoping to bring in $500,000 of revenue. In Washington state, legislators are considering a proposal to allow advertising on and in school buses. And in Chicago’s Maine Township High School, students protested potential teacher layoffs by offering suggestions on how to increase revenue: Place a giant Nike logo on the school roof and allow local businesses to advertise on in-school televisions.

Seems like a common-sense, all-American-apple-pie solution to the problem. After all, kids these days see advertisements 24/7 anyway -- what's the big deal?

For twelve years, the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at Arizona State University has published reports on commercialism trends in schools. And the news is not good. As channels of marketing and advertising directed at kids multiply, so do the messages of consumer-based values. The most recent report, Click: The Twelfth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2008-2009, states that schools which allow marketing and advertising are also subtly supporting consumerist values, which "include the benefits and positive virtues of free market capitalism, overconsumption, the normalcy of debt, and hypersexuality."

At best, advertising aimed at kids and teens takes advantage of their underdeveloped reasoning skills and age-defined insecurities. We already know that materialism is linked to childhood depression, anxiety, and lower self-esteem, and that exposure to advertising is linked to family discord.

And, as author Naomi Klein points out in Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom, education and advertising do not share the same values. "One is asking students to look deeper to find their own answers, one is providing constant easy answers and solutions and usually that solution involves buying something."

Schools are for teaching and learning. Not for manufacturing new consumers. It should be the one place where kids are free of corporate influence.

Photo credit: jesse.millan

The Best Thing for New Orleans

Jessica Shiller — 2010-02-05T11:31:00-08:00

Recently Arne Duncan claimed that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing to happen to the schools of New Orleans. He has since retracted his offensive comments, claiming that what he meant to say was, "Subsequent to that devastating, devastating tragedy we have seen remarkable progress and that school system has improved so rapidly it’s been amazing to watch.”

Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, including its schools. Children and their families suffered through, and are now back at school -- but they face a new school system, one dominated by the private sector. Without adequate funding from the federal and state governments, the city had little choice but to turn over its system to non-profits and for-profit companies. Now, New Orleans has the largest number of charter schools of any city in the country.

In spite of the enthusiasm for the charters, they are riddled with problems (see Leigh Dingerson's chapter of Keeping the Promise: The Debate Over Charter Schools). Many exclude special education students and are physically inaccessible to the majority of students in the city, leaving them to the regular public schools or poorly-functioning charters. Moreover, low-income families spend much of their time getting their homes and neighborhoods back together, and do not have the time to navigate the school choices, leaving the school system with a few strong schools and still many poorly performing schools.

Arne Duncan wants us to see New Orleans as a model. A city largely dedicated to privately-run charter schools. Race to the Top funds require states to support charter growth, even though there is no research confirming that charter schools are better than public schools. Katrina has enabled private operators to take advantage of what Ken Saltman has called "capitalizing on disaster." Katrina wiped out the school system of New Orleans, and created an opportunity for private operators to come in and remake the schools without rebuilding or consulting the communities that the schools would serve. Indeed, these schools were remade as an essentially privately-run system.

Mr. Duncan, I ask you, who is benefiting from this system? The poor, and largely African-American communities of New Orleans are resilient, but still struggling to put their homes and neighborhoods back together. Some families are benefiting from the new schools, most are not. The charter operators, on the other hand, can open up shop easily and get public funds to run their schools. This does not seem like a model of urban school systems. We need high quality schools for all children, not a bunch of private operators who create good schools for some. Mr. Duncan, can you come up with a better model for urban schools?

Photo credit: Times Picayune archive

The Teacher Salary Project: Changing the Way We See Teachers

Sara Bernard — 2010-02-04T19:48:00-08:00

With all this talk of teacher effectiveness -- and of research that points again and again to classroom teachers being the most significant factor in student achievement -- it makes sense to take a look at how teachers are compensated. Enter the Teacher Salary Project (TSP), a national campaign and feature-length documentary film-in-progress that examines the impact that low teacher salaries have on schools, students, and communities around the country.

The project is based on the success of the book Teachers Have it Easy, published in 2003 by journalist and teacher Daniel Moulthrop, writer Dave Eggers, and co-founder of the student writing center 826 National, Ninive Calegari. “America’s democracy and economic well-being relies on teachers being excellent,” Calegari said recently during a WNYC interview. “We need to say to them, ‘You are important to our democracy, and we want to honor that.'" A legitimate salary, she says, is part of that message.

The film, directed by award-winning filmmaker Vanessa Roth and produced by Eggers and Calegari, will winnow down a hundred hours of footage into a documentary they plan to premiere on National Teacher Day 2011 (the first week in May). TSP also encourages teachers, students, and community members to submit their own stories to the campaign through video and other media. Some of these will make it into the film, and the rest will add to TSP’s online archive -- all in an effort to generate as much buzz as possible about the importance of the teaching profession.

Partners on the initiative include the Forum for Education and Democracy and Rethink Learning Now; TSP also made GOOD Magazine's 2009 Top 100 Best Ideas of the Year in October. They’ve entered a 60-second short to the Pepsi Refresh Project, too, a grant contest that allows the public to vote on (and therefore fund) grant-worthy ideas (the link is now posted on the TSP website; voting is open all February.)

The point, say TSP advocates, is not to nitpick about how many hours teachers work, how hard they work, or whether they really get summers off. A better question might be: Why is the teaching profession valuable, and how do we as a society demonstrate that value?

I, for one, am pretty tired of that obnoxious cliché still floating around: “If you can’t do, teach.” I’m tired of hearing that Berkeley or Harvard grads ought to consider themselves less ambitious should they choose to put their education to work in education. Teach for America helped change that attitude to some extent; maybe the Teacher Salary Project can make headway, too.

Nothing Is More Important Than Keeping Kids Safe in School

George Miller — 2010-02-04T12:10:00-08:00

Today, the Committee on Education and Labor considered the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and I introduced this bill in December for a simple reason: all children should be safe and protected at school.

Last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office told our Committee about a shocking wave of abusive restraint and seclusion in our nation's classrooms. They told us that hundreds of students in this country have been victims of this abuse. In many cases these victims were our smallest and most vulnerable children: children as young as four and five, and many students with disabilities. And in some instances, children died.

We learned that while restraint and seclusion should be considered emergency tactics used as a last resort, far more often these techniques are abused under the guise of discipline or to force compliance. Last year, in California, districts reported more than 14,300 cases of seclusion, restraint and other "emergency" interventions.

With no federal laws on the books restricting restraint and seclusion in schools, state laws read like the Wild West. Many states have no regulations whatsoever.

We learned that children currently have greater protections from these practices in medical and mental health facilities than in classrooms, where they spend most of their time. We also heard the heartbreaking stories of Cedric and Paige, two young students who were horribly abused by school staff using restraint and seclusion. Like many other victims, Cedric and Paige were not posing a serious threat to their teachers or peers. This hearing opened a flood gate for parents with their stories about their children. Parents from Maine to Missouri who felt like they had nowhere else to turn, called our Committee to share the devastation they experienced when their child was improperly restrained or locked in a seclusion room.

We cannot allow their traumatic stories to be ignored. When these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual victims who suffer. It hurts their peers who witness these traumatizing events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and staff who are trying to give students a quality education. It's a nightmare for everyone involved.

Immediately after our hearing last spring, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced plans to encourage states' to review their policies on seclusion and restraint, and ensure that students are safe at school. I understand the Department plans to release their findings in the coming weeks and I look forward to learning more about states' efforts. But there is no question that basic federal protections are needed to make it clear that restraint and seclusion techniques should be used only as a last resort, when someone is in imminent danger of physical injury and there are no alternatives.

The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act will for the first time establish minimum safety standards in schools, similar to federal protections already in place for children in other facilities that receive federal taxpayer dollars. The bill prohibits mechanical restraints, such as strapping children to chairs, misusing therapeutic equipment to punish students, or duct-taping parts of their bodies. It prohibits chemical restraints, like medications used to control behavior without a doctor's prescription. It prohibits any restraint that restricts breathing. And it prohibits any aversive behavioral interventions that compromise health and safety, like denying students water, food, or clothing, denying access to the bathroom, or using pepper spray.

This bill will prohibit restraint or seclusion from being written into plans for individual student as intentional planned interventions, but allows for schools to plan for appropriate crisis intervention. It will require schools to notify parents after incidents when restraint or seclusion was used, so that parents don't learn about these abuses from a whistle blowing teachers aid or classroom parent - or their own child's bruises.

This is about helping teachers, not punishing them. This is about fixing a system that doesn't properly support teachers and other school staff. That's why this bill asks states to ensure that enough school staff are properly trained to keep students and staff safe, but gives states and local districts the flexibility to determine the training needs of each individual school.

I know we all agree that nothing is more important than keeping our kids safe. It is time to end this abuse in our schools. This legislation offers us that opportunity. I am very proud that we worked in a bipartisan way to introduce this bill. I'd like to thank Rep. McMorris Rodgers for her leadership and partnership in this effort. I'd also like to thank the National Disability Rights Network, for first bringing this abuse to our attention and to the National School Boards Association and the nearly 100 other organizations endorsing the bill.

Adapted from Chairman Miller's statement at today's markup of the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.

Photo credit: Pernell

Charting a Fair Course for the Charters

Sara Bernard — 2010-02-03T13:52:00-08:00

Charter schools have been getting a ton of attention recently. Due to the clear messages the Obama administration is sending in their favor (the Race to the Top budget includes $490 million specifically to expand the charter school system), states are upping their charter school limits to increase the likelihood of grabbing federal dollars. Since Race to the Top is designed to reward states for innovation in education, this is an enormous plug for charter schools; it basically indicates that the Department of Education thinks the flexibility and autonomy given to charters is a straight shot to reform.

Tennessee has upped the charter limits to 90. In Illinois, it's now 120. In Louisiana, they've done away with the limit entirely. In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick just passed some hefty education legislation that will, among other things, double the number of charter schools in the lowest-performing districts.

And it’s not just states, but also students and parents, who are rooting for the charter system. The Center for Education Reform just released the Annual Survey of America's Charter Schools 2010 which reports that waiting lists for charters are gigantic -- an average of 239 students are waiting to enter each charter across the country, with an estimated 40,000 students on waitlists in the state of Texas alone and 8,000 in the city of Boston.

Nevertheless, the benefits of charters remain hotly contested. While at first it seemed that many of the large schools closing in New York City would reopen as small charters -- especially since a bill was on the table that would double the current state limit of 200 -- the New York legislature reached a stalemate and nothing changed. Much of the opposition came from the state teachers' union, who proposed caveats such as requiring community approval before a charter school could move into a traditional school building or mandating that charters make efforts to attract high-needs students. (These things seem awfully legitimate, and yet they created enough controversy to stall the entire bill.)

Some people argue that opposition to charters is a step backward, since charter schools help foster educational innovation and school choice for under-served students. Others maintain that charter school performance is a mixed bag -- even by the numbers, since recent studies don't show consistent leaps in charter student achievement -- and we should stop making the system look like a panacea.

It does seem odd that some publicly-funded schools enjoy certain freedoms while other publicly-funded schools don't. And yet, why stall the high-energy go-getters from revamping education from the ground up?

Photo credit: elemenous

NCLB Overhaul to Abandon Bush's "Utopian Goal"

Rose Garrett — 2010-02-02T08:13:00-08:00

Since its inception eight years ago, the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act has been both panned and praised by educators and policy reformers. Love it or leave it, the Obama administration says NCLB is here to stay. But a major overhaul is in the works that will vastly change the way that NCLB will measure school and student success and distribute resources in the future.

Yesterday, the government revealed the outline of its proposed changes to NCLB, alongside the announcement of its $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year. The most notable change? The new plan would abandon the deadline for every American child to achieve academic proficiency by 2014, which Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has called a “utopian goal.”

Instead, the overhaul would institute a new measure of success: whether students graduating from high school are “college- and career-ready.” This sounds a whole lot better than setting an arbitrary deadline for mass student “proficiency,” but it still seems awfully vague. Just what does it mean to be career ready? And does that align with standards for college readiness, or do the two represent different sets of expectations? For now, the definition of what it means to be college- and career-ready is up in the air, and with it the basis for the success of the nation's entire education system.

Bush’s NCLB was remarkably good at labeling schools and teachers as failing, but a lot less effective when it came to fixing the problems. The new changes to NCLB aim to tweak how school success is measured and provide more allowances for school progress versus straight-up performance. Likewise, it will modify the system by which federal funding is apportioned to encourage competition, much in the way that Race to the Top, the federal grant program, has states competing for $4 billion in stimulus money.

The standards and accountability drive of the past eight years has identified countless problems in our education system, and created a few of its own. Will Obama’s reforms start providing solutions? It will take time (and passage through Congress) to find out.

Photo credit: woodleywonderworks

Girls Learn to Suck at Math from Teacher Insecurities

Alex DiBranco — 2010-02-01T14:12:00-08:00

Girls + math = fail?

This equation is part sexist stereotype (yes, please do click on the link above for an amusing xkcd cartoon on the subject), part real question: why do fewer women emerge as math hot-shots. While the gender gap on mathematics has been closing, women remain underrepresented in math-intensive courses of study, especially doctoral programs, and jobs. Should we blame the guidance counselors who encourage girls to take a nice English class rather than deal with all those troublesome numbers? How about the deterrent of being one of the only girls on the school's math team? Yes, I've had both those experiences as a student.

There are a number of forces at stake, but a new study out of the University of Chicago, as Whitney Teal reports on the Women's Rights blog, finds that many gals learn they can't do math from teacher insecurities. Most elementary school teachers, who teach the full range of subjects, are women, so their female students will take them as role models and internalize the messages they send. When women teachers are nervous about doing math problems in front of their students, girls get the message early on that XX chromosomes can't do math. If the girls explicitly buy into the stereotype that girls suck at math, they make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Interestingly, the study doesn't even say that female teachers are necessarily worse than male teachers at math. Rather, it points out that most primary school teachers can go through college math-free, so they're overall more likely to have insecurities with equations. But since women comprise an overwhelming majority of elementary schools teachers, girls are the ones who get the bad-at-math message -- which no doubt combines with recognition of societal stereotypes regarding the math-challenged sex to deprive a world of all the women math mavens we could otherwise have.

Photo credit: Paulette.Sedgwick

Are Public Universities Out of Your Price Range?

Alex DiBranco — 2010-01-29T17:33:00-08:00

Students are supposed to be able to turn to public universities to get a good education at a reasonable price.

But, as Megan points out on the U.S. Poverty blog, many qualified students are denied the chance to even attend a public institution due to the expense. A new study out of the Education Trust, "Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities Are Straying From Their Public Mission," reports on the problems that have priced quality low-income students out of the system.

In an effort to boost their national rankings, many public universities are enticing relatively well-off students to their campuses with merit scholarships, meaning there's less money in the pot for low-income students that don't have any other choices.

On the other hand, student often find that it's easier to afford a private college than a public one. Of course, writing a check for $50,000 a year for private college is outside the price range of the majority of Americans. But, more and more, private universities are basing financial aid on need-only, rather than trying to recruit through merit scholarships -- if you can get into the school, they'll give what you need, and only what you need. Another positive step has been the introduction of need-blind admissions.

However, this isn't an adequate solution. Especially when the economy is hit and endowments shrink, private colleges pull back on their financial aid packages. We shouldn't be relying on them to do the job that public universities are meant to. Any student prepared and willing to go to college should have that opportunity. And investing in higher education should definitely be a government priority, since that will train young people to make bigger and better contributions to the economy.

Photo credit: Photos8.com

Big High Schools Go the Way of the Dinosaurs

Jessica Shiller — 2010-01-28T16:04:00-08:00

New York City used to be home to the big, comprehensive high school. These legendary schools helped generate an image of the urban school as both diverse and exciting (think Fame) as well as chaotic and dangerous (think Lean on Me). But schools like Beach Channel, Columbus, and Jamaica High Schools, which served between three and four thousand students each, are now extinct.

On January 27th, the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP), made up of mayoral and borough president appointees, voted to close these and 17 other schools in the city.

The large high schools did not go down without a fight though. Previously, these decisions could occur without much public input, but when mayoral control of the schools was renewed last July, one change to the law was that the mayor and the PEP board needed to listen to the public regarding policy decisions. Consequently, before the vote, there were public hearings throughout the city regarding the school closings. Teachers, students, parents, principals, and alumni spoke on behalf of their dying schools. To no avail. After a meeting that lasted until 3am, the PEP board voted 9-4 to shut 19 schools down.

On the school closings, the mayor is quoted as saying, "Nostalgia is very nice, but nostalgia is not a reason to let a bunch of kids who we know are not getting a good education continue. The numbers are clear. This wasn't even close." If the schools were not performing, shouldn't we hail this decision? Not necessarily. As a policy decision, closing schools does not guarantee that better ones will replace them. There is no real evidence that this strategy works.

The small schools and charters that will likely replace the big high schools, for example, have not been an overwhelming success. Among the successful small schools, much of the gains can be attributed to the students who enroll, few of whom are special education students or English language learners. The large high schools served many of these students. Now that most have them will be shutting down, what will become of the small schools who will now be forced to serve all students? You do not need a PhD to figure this one out. In a few years we will see the city start closing the small schools, the very schools that serve the students the large high schools once did.

Instead of shutting down schools, we need to help teachers and students teach the students that come to their schools. This is a much tougher road, requiring investment of time and money that the city may not have right now. But, we need to end the cycle of failed reforms in urban schools. I call on urban districts to take the high road. Make the investments in your schools. Make them schools you would want your children to go to. Walk the walk.

Photo credit: Grassroots Education Movement

No Name-Calling Week Draws Homophobic Attacks

Alex DiBranco — 2010-01-27T17:08:00-08:00

Anyone who's ever gone to school should know: bullying is a major problem. It's virtually impossible to make it through school without ever being bullied or called names, usually for something that makes you "different." And since we're not all carbon copies of one another, everybody has something "different" about them.

At its worst, bullying can even lead children to commit suicide.

As Adam writes over on Change.org's Gay Rights blog, this week is GLSEN's No Name-Calling Week, "an annual week of educational activities aimed at ending name-calling of all kinds and providing schools with the tools and inspiration to launch an on-going dialogue about ways to eliminate bullying in their communities." All schools should participate in this event, because bullying is a problem they all face; GLSEN also provides a resource kit and educational materials for schools to use to combat bullying among student.

I've posted on the issue of bullying in schools, and the terrible consequences it can have, over on the Women's Rights blog before, where I called attention to a number of suicides in the past couple years by kids as young as a result of slut-shaming or homophobic bullying. In a post about the frenzied media attention blaming sexting for the suicide of two teenage girls, I spelled out, "Sexting: the Problem is Bullying, Not Sex."

But Linda Harvey of Mission:America would say: the problem is homosexuality, not bullying.

I share Adam's surprise that anyone could turn a week against name-calling into a bad thing, but that's what she does. (I guess it's the same way President Obama encouraging kids to stay in school and work hard can be seen as brainwashing and indoctrination.)

Harvey rants: "The truth is, homosexuality itself is hateful. ... It is poison in any human life and it is poison in schools. ... Christians are not the oppressors, nor the creators of division in schools. This horrendous behavior is. And it will not end, even if Christians were to leave. Actually, all that’s restraining total barbarism is the few true Christians left. When they go, all hell, literally, will break loose." Wow. I don't have anything nice to say, so I'm just not going to say anything at all.

No student should be subjected to bullying and name-calling when they go to a place of learning, whether it's based on their sexual identity or anything else.

Photo credit: GLSEN

Dictionary Definitions: Too Sexy for Schools?

Rose Garrett — 2010-01-26T15:31:00-08:00

In an act of censorship that might be upsetting if it weren’t so quaint, Menifee Union School District in Riverside, California, has pulled its dictionaries from school shelves. The reason? The copies of Merriam-Webster’s 10th edition contain a definition for the term “oral sex.”

The move came after a parent lodged a complaint and administrators agreed to review the term, as well as to comb through the offending volume for more potentially scandalous entries. "It's hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we'll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature," stated district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus. Just how graphic is the dictionary entry in question? It reads: Main Entry: oral sex Function: noun Date: 1973: oral stimulation of the genital.

Now, perhaps there are people who find the arid language of dictionary definitions to be stimulating. But could there be a less graphic definition of this term?

While a meticulously compiled reference tool is being pulled from classrooms, picked over by parents, and prodded for salacious definitions by school administrators, let's not forget that the year is 2010, not 1910. There is something called the Internet, and if curious kids are discouraged from using the right resources to get answers, they can (and will) search online. When they do, they'll find a phantasmagoria of sexually explicit words and images that have absolutely nothing to do with defining or educating.

Sure, there are settings that can be installed to make the Internet “child safe.” But fourth- and fifth-graders are already wondering about sex and all the mysterious activities that go along with it, and it doesn't take much to enter a term into a search engine. Which would you rather a child do: consult her school dictionary when she hears the term “oral sex,” or Google it?

Schools need to be providing education, not censoring information. And if you believe that blocking "inappropriate" terms from school dictionaries will keep kids in the dark about sex, you may need to do a little Googling of your own.

Update 1/27/10: A committee has decided to return the dictionaries to district schools, but parents will need to sign a permission slip before kids can peruse them. "The dictionary will go back to the classroom but the parents will be given the option to determine if they want their kids to have access to that dictionary," said Betti Cadmus. Consequently, the "O" section of Merriam-Webster's 10th edition may soon receive more hype among fourth- and fifth-graders than Lady Chatterley's Lover did among housewives in the early '60s. File that under another censorship fail.

Photo credit: Hammer51012

Tightening Belts Without Going Hungry: Better Spending in Public Education

Sara Bernard — 2010-01-25T16:16:00-08:00

How’s this for vomit-inducing? According to reporting by Education Week, “education has enjoyed a ‘privileged’ position for many years, consistently taking in more revenue than the rate of inflation,” said James W. Guthrie, a senior fellow and director of educational policy studies at –- are you surprised? -– the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas, TX. Really? Privileged?

Regardless of what’s happened in the past, no one will argue about what’s happening today: even elitist conservatives concede that education funding is going down the tubes to a frightening degree.

On January 11, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research gathered in Washington, D.C. to host “A Penny Saved: How Schools and Districts Can Tighten Their Belts While Serving Students Better.” (C-Span also covered this event.) Though the message here might well justify the snarky undertones of Education Week’s headline for the story (“Experts Urge Districts to Do More with Less”), this convergence of money-minded thinkers is nevertheless a worthy endeavor. To use money wisely, not just acquire more money, is the cornerstone of school success (and, naturally, the success of any business or nonprofit).

Among suggestions from the ten white papers presented at the conference are to transfer school-day elective classes to after-school activities, reduce teacher-absence rates, expand online earning options, and strategically eliminate old initiatives rather than layer on new ones just to avoid political warfare. Other suggestions, however, fly in the face of what public education advocates and teachers’ unions have been battling for years, such as -- heaven forbid -- increasing already astronomical class sizes.

As personnel costs take up the largest percentage of public school spending (despite a teacher’s meager salary), one way of looking at this might be to consider a public school employee's job quality -- just as teacher-absence rates cost schools money, so does the rate of teacher turnover: 46 percent leave the job after five years, costing the education system a whopping $7 billion annually. Of course, people are casting about frantically for quick-fixes, not long-term wish lists. But if only there was a way to marry the two, public schools would be a lot better off.

Photo credit: Photos8.com

Junk Food Unwelcome in Canadian Schools, Eh?

Alex DiBranco — 2010-01-22T20:31:00-08:00

In the land where maple syrup pours from trees, a new law in Ontario will take junk food off the cafeteria menu.

As Katherine reports on our Sustainable Food blog, Ontario noticed that the young 'uns were getting past cute pudgy -- after all, they need some buffer fat to keep warm against that Canadian cold -- to an unhealthy overweight or obese state. To save the children, they told soda and candy manufacturers to peddle their tempting wares elsewhere.

Kids can say good-bye to deep-fried sticks of potato (also known as French fries), candy, and "pop," which schools will no longer be able to sell. The Health Food for Schools Act also requires 20 minutes of physical activity a day -- this while U.S. schools are doing away with recess.

But, oh children of America, never fear: your collective sweet tooth is safe. High-fructose corn syrup remains on the menu in most public schools across the country, so that one in three children can retain their overweight or obese figures. Unfortunately, while it's healthy to have a little meat on your bones, being overweight is tied in with a number of health risks, including asthma, diabetes, and heart disease. And, of course, overweight or not, a diet high in sugar and grease isn't best for anybody's overall well-being.

Once again, when it comes to health, it'd pay off for us to take some pointers from our neighbors up north.

Photo credit: colros

Toxic Schools: Does Yours Make the List?

Rose Garrett — 2010-01-22T08:17:00-08:00

Last week, government regulators found high levels of manganese, a chemical element with brain-damaging effects, near LaCroft Elementary in East Liverpool, Ohio. This week, high levels of radon, a radioactive carcinogenic gas, were detected at Blue Ridge Elementary School in Walla Walla, Washington. Last fall, the EPA found acrolein, once weaponized during World War I, at levels 100 times higher than what the government considers safe outside 15 schools in eight states.

What's going on? Across the country, chemicals known to be toxic are being identified in the air in and around schools. But what's more alarming is that, while just a handful of schools are being tested, thousands more could present a similar threat to children who spend most of their days in the classroom.

The air quality findings come after a large-scale investigation by USA TODAY in 2008, which uncovered disturbingly high levels of toxic chemicals outside many of the 95 schools it monitored. The report spurred the EPA to take action and begin a monitoring program of 63 schools to assess the levels and impact of dangerous chemicals in the air. But your neighborhood school could well be making the list of toxic schools, without the knowledge of students, administrators, or government regulators.

The findings underscore a serious problem with the way industrial chemicals are regulated, not only around schools, but in residential neighborhoods and rural areas. Why did it take a high-profile media investigation to get the EPA to do its job? What about the thousands of other schools around the country? And what's the long-term consequence for children exposed to chemicals such as radon, manganese, and acrolein?

It's unclear how these chemicals may affect kids as opposed to adults, but rising rates of asthma among children have many pointing to airborn toxins as a possible cause. And it's not just the air outside that can pose a danger. Indoor air quality is another problem for schools, especially older buildings. This week, New York City school officials vowed to study and address unsafe concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls found in old caulking in city schools. The city estimates that hundreds of school buildings could have the same problem.

In reality, the average public school building in the United States is over 40 years old. Many were built cheaply, and even those that weren't are largely starved for maintenance money. Inattention to facility upkeep over several decades has created a host of possible threats to student safety, from defunct ventilation systems to deteriorating construction materials that are no longer in use due to safety concerns.

The American Society of Civil Engineers rated the state of schools as a "D" on their 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, noting that the NEA's best estimate to bring the nation's schools into good repair is $322 billion. And as states tighten belts and slash budgets, schools won't be seeing significant improvements anytime soon.

Photo credit: Conspirator

Test Scores Low? Blame Your Teacher

Sara Bernard — 2010-01-21T10:25:00-08:00

As Mike Smith noted in November, slight changes to the rules of controversial $4.35 billion federal funding program, Race to the Top, indicate that student test scores will not be the only measure used to determine teacher and school success among state applicants. (For instance, student test score growth over time can now be factored into teacher and principal evaluation programs –- not just absolute scores in a given testing period.)

This is better than nothing, of course, but does little to shift the dominant paradigm –- that standardized tests are the premier indicator of student learning and teacher effectiveness.

Naturally, in an effort to secure these grants, states are scrambling to shift their policies in time for the application deadline. In many cases, this means implementing programs that reward or boot teachers and administrators based on their students’ test scores.

In Tennessee, for instance, state legislators just approved a bill that “for the first time would allow student achievement scores to be factored into a teacher’s job rating.” In Illinois, according to the New York Times, “Governor Quinn signed a measure last week that ties teacher evaluations to improvements in student performance.” In Iowa, the state board of education voted on January 14th to require school districts to develop teacher evaluations based on their students’ performance, too -- at least in part.

Of course, teachers and administrators need high-stakes performance evaluation like all other employees in all other industries, and standardized tests are one way of measuring something as difficult to quantify as student learning. But when are we going to strop inextricably linking a teacher’s performance to his or her students’ scores? Isn’t there a way to moderately factor it in, without making billions of federal dollars, and now state dollars, reward teachers and students for a narrow, binding indicator of what it means to be educated?

Who is responsible for a student’s success or failure on such tests, anyway? Is it his second grade teacher, who taught him English grammar in an exciting way and encouraged him to read every night, or his third grade teacher, who administered some tests that suddenly reflected the pieces he’d put together over the last year?

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (and one of Change.org's Changemakers), is proposing a comprehensive teacher-evaluation system that uses test scores, but also adds classroom observations, written work, portfolio and lesson plan reviews. An effective compromise? Let’s hope.

Photocredit: neuezukunft

NYC to Public School Students: Pay Your Own Way

Jessica Shiller — 2010-01-20T16:29:00-08:00

For New York City public school students, there is nothing but bad news for 2010. Seventeen public schools are being closed down this year, there are across the board budget cuts, students will have to start getting higher scores on the required Regents exams, and, to top it off, they may have to start paying for public transportation to get to school.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) recently announced that their budget shortfall will necessitate asking students to pay for buses and subways -- the way that the majority of public school students get to school. Students and their families have not been silent, protesting these detrimental school policies. But the mayor, the MTA, and state have not backed off.

Just like when the city appealed to Washington for help in 1975 with its budget crisis, and then-president Gerald Ford refused to bail the city out, current political leaders seem to be unsympathetic to city students and families. Why are the city’s pubic school students getting treated this way? City students have always had to do more with less, but making them pay to get to these under-resourced schools? That may be crossing the line.

In this economy, we are all doing some belt tightening, but this is no way to improve the education of city kids. If we want to improve urban public schools, the first step is to do right by the students. Support them by funding their schools, helping struggling schools improve, and, if nothing else, making sure all students can get to school for free. You can make your voice heard by signing a petition which will ask the MTA to restore monies to make the subways and buses free to students in New York City.

Photo credit: gothamschools.org

Why Kids Learn Less When Schools Get Rid of Recess

Rose Garrett — 2010-01-19T13:41:00-08:00

Most adults remember recess as an essential part, if not the highlight, of each school day. But recess has become an increasingly endangered element of a child’s time at school. As federal standards force kids to stuff more studying into each day, school administrators say there just isn’t time to “play around.” What they aren't saying is that eliminating recess may be the worst thing schools can do for a child’s education.

In 2006, The National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) reported that nearly 40 percent of American elementary schools have eliminated or are considering eliminating recess. Reasons range from budgetary and staffing problems to the crushing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, which set unprecedented standards for student achievement and requires drilling for test prep that cuts into the time previously spent doing art and science, as well as breaking for recess.

One Pennsylvania school eliminated recess for no better reason than that it had become a logistical challenge after the school grew to 1,100 fourth- through sixth-graders. District administrators cited questions such as how long the recess would be, where it would fall during the school day, who would supervise it and where it would be held in bad weather as issues standing in the way of reinstating recess. Isn't the logistics of student supervision a school administrator's job?

But while school administrators make excuses for why they just can’t handle recess anymore, education and child development researchers are making the case for why it needs to stay. As it turns out, forcing a child to sit inside for hours on end, with no physical or social outlet, causes a host of behavioral and learning problems, not to mention an inactive lifestyle that could contribute to childhood obesity.

A growing body of research supports the idea that physical exercise is essential for learning. For one thing, recess provides the opportunity for peer interaction, which can increase social skills and creative problem-solving. Recess also provides a much-needed break from focused academic activity, which can improve attention and retention of information, especially for kids pegged with attention problems for fidgeting and disruptive behavior in class (can you really blame them?).

A study published in January by the journal Pediatrics indicated that, among 8- to 9-year-oldchildren, having one or more daily recess periods of at least 15 minutes inlength was associated with better teacher rating of classbehavior scores, and concluded that recess should be part of the school day. “We should understand that kids need that break because the brain needs that break,” said the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Romina M. Barros.

Childhood obesity and attention-deficit problems are being declared “epidemics” of the school-age generation. But one possible solution is also the simplest: what kids really need is the space to be kids, at least for 15 minutes out of the day.

Photo credit: wsilver

Rebuilding and Strengthening America's Middle Class

George Miller — 2010-01-13T06:41:00-08:00

Representative George Miller is part of Change.org's Changemakers network, comprised of leading voices for social change. Change.org asked Representative Miller to respond to questions to provide context for his work and the causes he supports.

Change.org: What cause or causes would you most like to promote as a Changemaker and why?

As the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, no cause is more important that the need to rebuild and strengthen America's middle class. I am dedicated to improving our nation's schools and making college more affordable and accessible, so that every student has the opportunity to succeed. I am committed to rebuilding a clean energy economy that will create millions of good-paying jobs and reestablish America's technological leadership. As we regain jobs through this new investment, I will fight to restore workers' rights, so that every American can benefit from economic opportunity. And we will make the preservation and strengthening of retirement savings a priority, so that all Americans can enjoy a secure retirement after a lifetime of hard work.

Together, we can rescue our economy, restore the promise of the American Dream, and ensure that, in a nation as great as ours, the interests of students, workers, families and retirees are at the heart of our nation's priorities.

Change.org: What are you most proud of about your work for social change?

There are many things I’m proud of during my years of public service, but I’m very proud of our committee’s work this past year to improve the lives of all Americans. Last January, I was thrilled to stand by President Obama’s side with Lilly Ledbetter as he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law – an issue that our committee first began working on in 2007. At the same time, the House also passed the Paycheck Fairness Act that would help end the discriminatory practice of paying a woman less than a man for performing the same job by strengthening the landmark Equal Pay Act.

In a historical step, the House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act in November that would extend affordable health insurance to millions more Americans. Creating good paying jobs has been a key focus for this Congress. To that end, I worked with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would save and create millions of jobs and lay the foundation for sustainable, long-term economic growth. Just before we adjourned in December, the House passed the Jobs for Main Street Act, to continue generating new jobs in every sector possible and get Americans back to work.

Paying for college and retirement are top worries among working families, which is why our committee passed the 401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act to ensure workers have basic, clear information about the fees associated with their 401(k) plans.

In September, the House passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. This legislation provides students and families with the single largest investment in federal student aid ever and makes landmark investments to improve education for students of all ages – and all without costing taxpayers a dime.

I was present when the President signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, ushering in a new era of service and volunteerism that will help our nation emerge stronger from this crisis. We’re empowering new generations of Americans to meet growing needs in their communities, to learn skills for the jobs of the future, and to become part of the solution to the key challenges we face – health care, energy and education. This law will make Americans of all ages, from middle school through retirement, the backbone of our nation’s recovery and revival.

It was a tremendously busy 2009 and we’ve got much more to do in 2010, including getting our health insurance reform bill to the President’s desk. However, our work over the last year will help get our economy back on track and lay the groundwork for a stronger future.

Change.org: When did you first know you wanted to dedicate your life to public service?

Growing up in a politically active family helped me see that politics could make a difference in people’s lives. My father, a California State Senator for over twenty years, dedicated himself to improving the lives of children and Californians from all walks of life, protecting the environment, supporting the rights of workers, and improving education. He would hold meetings in our living room that could get pretty loud sometimes as issues were hotly debated. It was his influence and seeing the real difference he made in our community and in our state that led me to believe I wanted to help make a difference too and that I could be good at it.

Change.org: Who are other Changemakers who you look to for inspiration?

I look to Senator Ted Kennedy’s spirit, passion and remarkable lifetime of work. Senator Kennedy was always a personal hero of mine. Over the past 35 years, the opportunity to work with him, to have him as a mentor, and a friend was immensely valuable to me. I have great respect for his commitment, his courage, and his leadership in fighting for the most important causes of our time. At the core of everything Senator Kennedy fought for was a profound sense of justice. In foreign and domestic policy, he was grounded by a fundamental sense of right and wrong, and our country is better for it. Not every injustice he fought against has been righted, but his dreams and his legacy live on. Now it’s time for the rest of us to pick up where he left on and see them through.

Photo credit: AFCIO

A Fair Living Wage And Benefits For All Workers

Randi Weingarten — 2010-01-12T23:48:00-08:00

Randi Weingarten is part of Change.org's Changemaker network, comprised of leading voices for social change. Change.org asked Ms. Weingarten to respond to questions to provide context for her work and the causes she supports.

Change.org: What cause or causes would you most like to promote as a Changemaker and why?

I would like to promote two interconnected causes, one educational and the other economic: to ensure that every child in this country receives a high-quality public education, and to ensure that every worker has access to a job that pays a living wage. More than the minimum wage, a living wage is one that allows workers to obtain the basics of food, shelter, health care and transportation for themselves and their families. The American Dream is a false promise if the reality is that millions of Americans can get an education and work hard for 40 hours a week and still not be able to afford basic necessities. As our country works to rebound from the economic collapse, we should focus on creating good jobs in which workers are respected, have a voice in their workplace, and earn a decent wage that enables them to provide for themselves and their families.

Change.org: If you could ask 1 million people to all do one thing to advance causes that matter to you, what would it be?

I would ask that they become fully engaged citizens of their communities and of their country-to realize the vision of being a service nation. Specifically, we know our schools and our communities need support. Get to know-and engage regularly with-your child's school and teacher. Take time to mentor a child who, with just a bit of added attention, would stay in school.

Change.org: If you could ask President Obama and the U.S. Congress to do one thing to advance your cause, what would it be?

What this country needs right now are jobs, jobs and more good jobs. The work that President Obama and this Congress have done in the past year to create jobs-even in the face of a sour economy-is critically important. But the fact is that, sometimes, just having a job is still not enough for an individual or a family to get by. I would encourage our federal leaders, when they talk about creating jobs, to also push for a fair living wage and benefits for all workers.

Change.org: What are the greatest obstacles to change on your issue?

We need to create an environment that is a race to the top, and move beyond the bleak reality of today. President Franklin D. Roosevelt put Americans to work through the Work Projects Administration, which created jobs for public works projects that truly benefited communities, individual workers and their families. Although our nation is in a tough situation, we have a golden opportunity to make things better. The current labor law system is broken. The Employee Free Choice Act holds the key to leveling the playing field for America's workers. Workers should be able to unite with their fellow co-workers and bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

While families may need a running start from government programs like the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid and school free-lunch programs, part of the dignity of work, and in particular public sector work, is that it helps people become self-reliant. Good jobs also benefit the economy-as more folks enter the middle class and pay taxes, we are creating a stronger revenue base and a stronger America.

Photo credit: The WB