It Takes A Village, But Blame The Public School

                We all know the African saying “it takes a village to raise a child.” However, when it comes to discussing the problems plaguing public education, the rest of the village gets a pass. 

                There is an expectation that public schools are supposed to take children however they come to their door, educate them and turn them into productive citizens.  Absent from this idea is that some children come to school broken and in turmoil with greater things impacting their lives that affect learning.  When children come to school hungry, schools feed them, when children are homeless, schools provide transportation and clothes, and when children have behavior problem, schools provide behavioral assistance.  Schools do more for children than any other entity and sometimes more that the parent(s).

                There is a tendency to forget that parent(s) are a child’s first teacher and children model themselves based on their parent(s) conduct.  When a child comes to school without some preparation for school, the parent is not penalized for their child not being school ready.  When a parent doesn’t read to their child, work on writing, or provide a foundation that encourages learning, the school is blamed for not being able to engage the student to learn. 

                When a child suffers trauma and is in a mental health crisis due to abuse and neglect, the school is expected to keep the child on educational tasks regardless of if the child is unable to perform.  Social Services is not held accountable for ensuring the parent(s) are taking their child to their appointments.  When a child is placed and discharged from a hospitalization program or a residential treatment facility, the school is rarely notified and finds out when the child returns to school.  Many times the school receives no paperwork on how to support the child after the discharge.  The school is not notified about the nature of the discharge.  Lastly, if the child begins to regress and the school informs social services, many times the school is blamed by social services for the child’s regression and the school is left to try and educate a child who is in need mental health services and is not receiving them.

                Finally, when a child bullies and assaults other children and in some cases, assaults the teacher, the school is blamed for not having a safe environment.  Blame is not given to the violence the child may witness in their home or community, blame is not given to parent(s) who do not provide a filter for the child and allow the child to watch violent television shows, movies, and play violent video games.

                It is important to understand that the dislike for learning, inappropriate behavior and violence that occurs in public schools is not created by the school, it is brought to the school by the child.  Unfortunately, with many public schools being in communities in crisis, the school will have a large population of children whose academic, behavioral, and mental health challenges can overwhelm and school and a district. 

Schools are supposed educate children, parents are supposed to raise and nurture children, social services are supposed to protect children.  The school cannot be the only institution held accountable for when parents fail to parent and when social services fail to protect children.

Teachers Who Blog: Freedom of Speech or Violation of Student Confidentiality?

                Over the past two years School Districts across the country have been struggling with how to respond to the growing trend of teachers who use social media to discuss what is happening in their classrooms.

                In February, a teacher in a suburban school district in Pennsylvania was suspended for blogging about her students.  In her blog, the teacher used profanity and other demeaning language about the students in her classroom.  The blog caused a debate in the suburban community where there was support for the teacher and support for the firing of the teacher.  Supporters of the teacher argue the teacher was just telling the truth based on her experiences as a teacher.  Supporters who are in favor of the suspension and eventual firing of the teacher argue it is an attack on children[i].

The dilemma facing school districts is to protect student confidentiality and at the same time recognize a teacher’s constitutional right to freedom of speech.  However, when the boundaries of student confidentiality and freedom of speech become blurred, as the most recent case in Pennsylvania, there is a call to restrict social media use by teachers, while freedom of speech advocates claim placing restrictions on social media use by teachers is a violation of freedom of speech.

Lost in the debate over freedom of speech and student confidentiality, was the message that was not properly conveyed by the teacher.  The message of frustration over the lack of motivation by students is a genuine concern that many teachers face.  Student motivation is a major problem that occurs in classrooms everyday, but very little attention is given to improving motivation.  However, the message was dismissed because the teacher disparaged her students.

Teachers who utilize social media to discuss educational issues must remember that placing their opinions on the internet places those opinions in the public sphere and their right to freedom of speech can be questioned.  Teachers must also understand that writing about their classroom experiences even though students are not named, may be considered a breach of student confidentiality, which could lead to suspension or termination.  However, the most devastating consequence the teacher could face would be to lose the respect of the students and control of their classroom which would make the teacher ineffective and no learning would take place.  Lastly, teachers must understand they may cause irreparable damage to their career and may hinder their ability for promotion or movement to other districts because their electronic footprint is permanently embedded in cyberspace.

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/16/national

State Budget Cuts, Corporate Tax Breaks & The Impact on School Districts

                As the national economy begins to show signs of a recovery, the impact of the recession is still being felt at the local level.  Across the country, Governors have cut school district allotments as part of balancing State budgets. 

                School Districts across the country have planned to close schools and layoff staff in order to offset the lost allocations to their budgets.  We have witnessed the contentious battle in Wisconsin between the Governor and State employees over eliminating the collective bargaining rights of teachers, while proposing a 9 percent cut in educational allotment[i].  In Detroit, up to 50 of the 172 publics were closed to alleviate a $219 million dollar deficit[ii]. In Kansas City, 26 of the 61 public schools were closed at it was forced to sell its District Headquarters, and layoff 285 teachers[iii]. 

The justification made by Governors for cuts in allocations to school districts is that districts are spending too much money for students who are underperforming.  The Governors also argue that allocations to school districts are placing a strain on the State budget.  At the same time, Governors are providing corporate tax breaks without a guarantee from the corporate community to increase hiring or create jobs.

There was an opportunity missed by Governors to lessen the impact of the cuts, assists in the reform of their school districts and maintain jobs.  Governors could have used corporate tax breaks as an incentive for the corporate community to partner with school districts. Corporate partnerships would give districts the opportunity to align the curriculum with the needs of a global economy and demonstrate to students the relevancy of education to their future adult lives.  A partnership could also lead to internship opportunities for students that would further enrich their educational experience.  Lastly, a partnership could give students access to mentors and begin to change the negative perceptions about students who attend public schools. 

By giving away corporate tax breaks without securing partnerships for school districts, Governors have given away the only leverage they had to get the corporate community to partner with their districts.  Districts without the normal State allocations will be forced to educate students with fewer resources, possibly have larger classroom sizes, less staff, and will still be required to achieve the same state and federal testing standards. 

Cutting allotments to school districts may seem like a fiscally responsible thing to do in the midst of an economic recovery, however lost in the rationale for the cuts are the youth who will be severely impacted by these cuts.  The strategy to force change by portraying teacher unions as the problem places youth in the middle of an adult “tug of war.”

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/01/politics. 

[ii] www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/national. 

[iii] www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/national

Waiting For Superman: A Brief Analysis

                Last Friday I watched the documentary “Waiting for Superman.”  The documentary is credited as the spark which has ignited the current debate on education.  The documentary material reminded me of a cinematic version of Jonathan Kozol’s (1992) book, “Savage Inequalities”, which chronicled some of the worst cases of inequality in schools across the country. 

                The recurrent theme of the documentary was there are not enough quality public schools in districts across the country for low income children.  Therefore, parents have to rely on the few quality charter schools that have a limited number of seats.

The documentary claims the reason why there are not enough quality schools is due to barriers such as: 1) an outdated bureaucratic system based on an industrialized model and 2) a powerful Teacher Union that has the ability to impede reform efforts such as teacher accountability, merit pay, and changes to the tenure process.  However, the documentary oversimplifies the systemic issues imbedded in public education and leads the audience to believe that if these barriers are removed, public education will improve, but that may not be the case. Missing from the documentary are two glaring factors that were downplayed: 1) the role of the parent and 2) the economic devastation of job loss in urban communities.  These factors are contributing to the lack of school preparedness and lack of positive attitudes towards learning among many youth in urban communities.

The documentary failed to directly address the vital role parent (s)(or guardian) play in the development of positive attitudes towards learning.  A child’s first teacher is their parent.  This was evident in the portrayal of the parent(s)/guardians the documentary followed.  However, the documentary downplayed the struggles families (single & nuclear) and guardians face raising young children and keeping them educationally motivated.  The documentary provided a glimpse of the struggles (paying tuition, keeping informed on progress, etc), but failed to address issues such as the lack of education of the parent/guardian, and the inability to move to a neighborhood with a better school system.

Finally, the documentary failed to address the loss of jobs in urban communities and the devastating impact this has had on families.  The loss of jobs in urban communities has been responsible for the erosion of the tax base which funds local districts.  The loss of jobs in urban communities has also impacted the family unit, and the loss of jobs has led to the increase in crime, delinquency, and poverty.  When the documentary discussed failing high schools and how many can be considered “drop out factories,” the documentary failed to address how the exorbitant unemployment rate in these communities contributes to the hopelessness and apathy towards education many youth in these so called drop out factories feel. 

“Waiting for Superman” can be commended for bringing the plight of youth in urban public schools to the forefront of the national education debate.  Unfortunately, the documentary failed to provide the audience with a true picture of the systemic barriers in public education and in the urban communities where a majority of failing districts reside.

Being Left Behind: America’s Emerging Adults Students in a Recession Economy

As the economy continues its slow recovery and the unemployment rate hovers around 9.5 percent (9.4% as of January 2011), substantive discussions on how to help the emerging adult student population prepare for a global economy when jobs are scarce is absent from the discussions at the federal and state government level.

            When the unemployment rate reached 9.5% in 2009, there was outrage about how high would the rate reach and what the federal government must do to lower the rate and get unemployed Americans back to work.  However, when the youth unemployment rate reached 53.4%, in the summer of 2009, its highest since World War II (Wilner, 2009), there was no outrage or sense of urgency from federal and state government to intervene on behalf of emerging adult students to lower their rate unemployment. Wilner further stated:

“…millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their

                                lifetime earning potential will be diminished and…their transition

                                into productive members of society could be put on hold for an

                                extended period of time” (www.newyorkpost.com/dead_end_kids).

For those emerging adult students who chose not to pursue a post-secondary education program and are looking to enter the workforce when they leave school (via graduation or drop out), this data can be disheartening.  Since they are not receiving the skills they need to compete for jobs in a global economy upon leaving school, they may find their development into adulthood severely delayed because of they are unable to find work.  The lack of skills combined with the inability to find work upon leaving school may have long term affects on the occupational opportunities of many emerging adult students and their ability to access the American Dream. 

The educational debate should begin with how public education can provide emerging adult students with the skills to compete in a global economy and access the American Dream.  However, the debate at the federal and state level continues to be a rehashing of the same ideas: increasing standards, standardized testing, and investment in math and science. 

Note: The author considers high school students ages 16-21 (including early leavers and recent graduates) as emerging adults because while in high school and upon leaving high school many will be actively looking to enter the workforce on a permanent basis and will be competing with experienced adults who have participated in the workforce.

References

Doane, Seth . “Recessions’s High Schoolers Scale Back Life Goals.  CBS News Online.

24 June. 2010. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/24/eveningnews

Wilner, Richard . “Dead End Kids.”  New York Post Online. 29 June 2009.  www.nypost.com/dead_end_kids

Welcome

Welcome to Strange Ideas On Education

This is a place for people who are concerned about a Public Education system that is continuing to underperform. While our country is in a vigorous debate about Public Education, missing from these debates are the opinions of people like you and me, people who serve children because we understand education is the gateway to accessing the "American Dream."

I hope my blog will become a mechanism that sparks change in Public Education and provides our children with the quality education they deserve.

Alton C. Strange, Ph.D.