Paying Students Not to Skip School?

            Today (8/24/11) the City of Camden in New Jersey announced it will be paying about 70 high school students $100 each to attend the first three weeks of the school year.  The city will be paying the students from a grant that will expire on September 30^th.  The city is trying to bring attention to its new truancy program called I Can End Truancy as known as ICE-T.

            As expected, there were a number of critics who thought paying students was a ludicrous idea, especially as the city had to layoff almost half of its police and firefighter force.  The city justified this incentive by claiming it is trying to meet the required state minimum attendance rate.  According to the Mayor, Dana Reed, “we have talked about truancy for a long time, we wanted to come up with an innovative model[i].”

            Using money as an incentive to increase student participation in school is not an innovative concept.  There have been school districts that have paid students for earning good grades as well as parents who provide monetary and material incentives to their children to work hard to achieve academic excellence.  The Camden plan sends the wrong message to truant and non-truant students. 

            The Camden plan is not an incentive, but a bribe.  It rewards truant students who have shunned their education and removes the responsibility of the parent for allowing their teenager to skip school.  The plan is also a slap in the face of every student who is doing the right thing in school, every parent who take responsibility to make sure their child is going to school and giving their best effort in school, and lastly for every educator who works to keep students on track in their education.  If the city wanted to provide an incentive to truant students, the students who are attending and giving their best effort academically should be monetarily rewarded.

            The Camden plan is also a concession to the current economic factors that guide city services.  The city understands that school attendance equates to additional or lost state allocations.  In an effort to add, maintain or not lose state allocation to its school ditricts, the city has sent the message that it is interested in the bodies of truants and not the minds of the truants.  If this were not the case, academic incentives would have been included in the plan. 

Lastly, what happens at the end of 3 weeks when the grant money is spent?  Since the truant students were being paid to attend school, once they get paid and the incentive is no longer in place, what prevents them from being truant again?

            With the city’s financial problems, one would think the city would have considered charging $100 fines to parents of truant students instead of giving truant students $100.  Other penalties that could be considered are community service or suspension of privileges such as not being able to apply for a learners permit or work permit.  Instead of wasting $7000 on bribing truant students to attend the first 3 weeks of school, the money could be used in another capacity to achieve the desired goal.  The city of Camden needs to rethink its truancy plan.

---

[i] www.msnbc.com/id/44256731/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/#

Teaching Sex Education in New York City Schools

                Last week New York City Public Schools decided to mandate all middle and high school students be taught sex education.  The timing of the mandate coincided with Mayor Bloomberg’s three year  $130 million initiative to improve the lives of African-American and Latino teenagers.

               

               The decision to mandate sex education stems in part from the high rate of teenage pregnancy and HIV among African-Americans and Latinos teenagers who according to city statistics:

                                “…are far more likely than their white counterparts to have

                                unplanned pregnancies and contract sexually transmitted

                                diseases…when we look at the biggest disadvantages that

       kids in our city face, it is African-Americans and Latinos that

       are most affected by the consequences of early sexual

       behavior and unprotected sex[i].”

Students are already receiving HIV education as part of a state mandate and there were some schools prior to this recent mandate that taught sex education from the abstinence perspective without discussing the use of contraception as an alternative.  The new mandate will require schools to teach a semester of sex education in the 6^th or 7^th grade and in the 9^th or 10^th grade. 

Students will be taught from two suggested curriculum:  HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk which have been used in the past by some middle schools.  Schools would also have the opportunity to partner with state and city approved health and human service agencies for sex education training and instruction.  The semester long class will be a mixture of lecture, role playing exercises, and utilization of statistics to dispel false perceptions and opinions with researched-based data.  There will also be candid discussions about the risks of unprotected sex.  Parents will be able to opt their child out of the instructions on birth control[ii].

As one of the cities with the highest rates of HIV cases and teenage pregnancy among African-American and Latino men and women, New York City Public Schools is following in the footsteps of 20 other states and the District of Columbia who have mandated sex education as a tool to decrease the number of new HIV cases and teenage pregnancy.  According to a 2008 study by the CDC, the number of new HIV infections among African-American males ages 13-29 is growing[iii].  Additionally, among Western/developed countries, the US and Great Britain have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy[iv].

In order for future generations of African-American and Latinos to have a chance to succeed, using sex education to remove health and lifestyle barriers is a strategy with enormous potential.  While there are many critics against teaching sex education in schools from religious and parent groups, hopefully over time, public perception will change and understand the necessity of teaching sex education in schools.  The argument that teaching sex education in schools will cause young adults to become sexually active cannot be the primary reason for withholding potentially lifesaving information from young adults who are exposed to mixed or one-sided messages about sex.

---

[i] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/nyregion/in-new-york-city-a-new-mandate-on-sex-education.html?

[ii] ibid

[iii] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States

[iv] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenagae_pregnancy

Teaching the Contributions of Gay Americans

            Last month, the State of California passed a ground-breaking bill that required its public schools to teach students the contributions of gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans[1]. 

            According to governor, Jerry Brown, the intent of the bill is to

“ensure that the important contributions of Americans

                        from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in

                        our history books[2].”

The bill adds to the existing law that requires schools to teach about the contributions of African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans.  In addition to requiring schools to teach the contributions of gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, the bill also included the contributions of people with disabilities.

While this bill went virtually un-noticed nationally the implications of this bill could impact public education on a national level.  As word of this bill gains more notoriety, advocates of the lesbian, gay and transgender community (LGBT) may petition other states to pass similar laws.  If a significant number of larger states such as Texas, New York, and Florida pass similar bills, the landscape of education would change dramatically.  The ripple effects would go beyond public education.  The textbook industry and teacher pedagogy would change significantly.

Being a conservative organization, the textbook industry has used its political power to maintain a singular truncated version of contributors to history, math, and science.  The contribution of women and minorities in these fields has been used as supplemental information, devaluing their contributions.

Since the 1960s, the textbook industry has been able to fend off appeals to have textbooks become more inclusive and representative of a diverse society.  However, the California bill has mandated that by 2015, textbooks will be updated to reflect the contributions of LGBT and disabled Americans.  If the larger states follow California’s lead, the textbook industry would have to capitulate and offer textbooks that present the contributions of human beings regardless of race, gender, disability or sexual preference.

As the textbook industry is affected, so will be the teaching pedagogy.  Teachers will finally have acknowledge and teach from a multicultural point of view.  This means that school districts will have to provide professional development on the utilization of pedagogy from a multicultural lens, as well as cultural sensitivity training.  Teachers will have to have to instruct from a curriculum that encompasses a true “We the People” perspective.  Teaching from a multicultural lens allows students to see themselves as well as the others as contributors to society and not as second class citizens or leeches that drain society.

            Whatever your feeling are about LGBT people, their contributions to society should be not be absent from the contributions all human beings have made to society and their contributions should be taught in schools.

---

[1] www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.lgbt.education/index.html

[2] ibid

Starting the School Year With A Black Eye

            As the start of a new school year approaches, students and parents begin to experience a gambit of emotions from anxiety to elation, from resentment to anticipation, and from denial to acceptance.  At the high school level, these emotions are intensified for students and parents of incoming freshmen and rising seniors.

            Parents and students of incoming freshmen will have to worry about the transition from middle school, familiarizing themselves with the faculty and the academic work load, and fitting in and finding their place within the hierarchy of high school.  Parents and students of seniors will have to worry about college applications, getting faculty recommendations, taking the SAT/ACT, deciding who to ask or take to the prom, and enjoying the last year of protected young adulthood.

            Unfortunately, for one high school in Central Bucks County, Pennsylvania, controversy and unwanted national attention may over shadow the start of the school year.  Last year, a high school teacher wrote disparaging remarks on her blog about her students.  The teacher called some of her students’ as “frightfully dim,“ “whiny,” and “utterly loathsome[i] (these were the less derogatory comments).  The teacher was placed on suspension for her comments and during the summer and waited for the district to decide the consequences for her public disrespect of her students.

            Last week the district reinstated the teacher (who showed no remorse) and she was assigned back to the school and where the incident occurred.  The teacher was also given the same grade and class schedule as last year.  According to the teachers attorney: “there is nothing different than before[ii]”

            I am sure there are a number of school staff, parents and students who will disagree with the attorney’s statement.  Whether they agree or disagree with their colleagues comments, there will be some tension among staff.  Tension between those who support the rights of the teacher’s free speech and non-supporters who feel the teacher crossed the unspoken line of professional conduct where you do not publically denigrate your students.  More importantly, there will be parents who will not want their child to be assigned to the teacher’s class.  Those parents will vocalize their concern about their child being assigned to a class where the perception is the teacher does not like children.  There will also be some parents who will scrutinize everything the teacher does and challenge every grade and comment that is made against their child.

            Finally, there will be students who may use the situation to their advantage and threaten to complain to the principal, their parents, or the district about the teacher in order to get a good grade without actually earning it.  These students understand the teacher is powerless, has no credibility, and has lost the respect of her students.  These students will make it their mission to be disruptive.

The district did not discuss the rationale of its decision.  However, they must understand the results of their decision was a slap in the face to the students.  The decision sent the message that public disparagement of students by a teacher is acceptable.  This decision could destroy the delicate balance of the teacher student relationship and hinder learning.  If students are skeptical about their teachers intentions, they will not respond positively to what the teacher is trying to teach.  Districts are supposed to protect students from antagonistic staff members and prevent them from crossing the unspoken line of professionalism that all educators must follow.

---

[i] www.philly.com/philly/education/201107/28_Central_Bucks_East_Teacher_returning...

[ii] Ibid.