Some Advice For All Juniors?

                Last week I came across an article titled “5 Things High School Juniors Should be Doing[i].”  The title suggested the content of the article is necessary for all juniors.  However in reading the article, it appeared the article made some assumptions that need to be addressed.

The first assumption is that all high school juniors want to enroll in college.  Although I am a firm believer that all high school graduates should attend college or a post-secondary program, I understand the majority of high school students will not attend college or a post-secondary program.  With the costs of tuition continuing to rise, there is growing sentiment that college may not be worth the costs.  As recent graduates struggled to obtain a career in a slow economy, they are forced to take lower paying jobs or they continued to remain unemployed.  A result of being under or unemployed, there is a looming student loan debt problem.

The second assumption is that all juniors receive an equal education that would allow them to utilize the suggested content.  We already know there is inequity among high schools across the country.  There is huge resource and achievement gap among urban, rural, and suburban districts and the gap is widening.  This inequity deprives some juniors the opportunity to consider college because their school may not have the advanced placement courses or prepare them to take the SAT.

The final assumption is the belief that college equates success.  As was stated earlier, the majority of high school students will not attend college or a post-secondary program.  Knowing this, you would think the article would have provided some advice for the majority.  Unfortunately, there tends to be an over-emphasis in secondary education and society towards higher education to the detriment of the majority who will enter the adult workforce. 

At a time when there is compelling evidence that our educational system is a weak link to American productivity and economic recovery, you would think there would be more attention, planning, and implementation to correct this problem.  Combine this with growing sentiment from prominent business leaders that college may not be worth it because it is stifling innovation, more needs to be done to prepare the majority of students who do not go to college for the adult workforce.  For those students, the junior year is important.

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/2102-500395_162-57438276

A Dream Deferred By Greed

                The Princeton Review was recently named in a civil fraud lawsuit filed by the State of New York and the US Department of Education.  The suit alleges that from 2006 to 2010, the company “fraudulently claimed millions of dollars of federal money for tutoring services it never provided to hundreds of underprivileged students in New York City[i].”

                Under the federal Supplemental Education Services program, the Princeton Review was reimbursed for providing tutoring services to low-performing students in underperforming schools.  The civil fraud suit claims that some of the Princeton Review employees forged student signatures, falsified sign-in sheets and provided faked certifications to “deceitfully profit from a well-meaning program.”  The suit further claims there instances where reimbursement was given for school holidays and when students were on vacation[ii].  The Princeton Review does not deny the allegations.

                As the State of New York, Department of Education, and the Princeton Review are working to the resolve the charges, it appears the Princeton Review will get a slap on the risk, pay a fine, take a minor public relations hit, and continue business as usual like nothing happened.  Lost in the resolution of blatant fraud are the children who were cheated and denied access to the tutoring support.  How are they going to be compensated?  How do you recover a students’ frustration over struggling in a subject they were supposed to receive tutoring?  How do students’ recover from failing and having to repeat a class?

                When considering resolution for civil fraud, the impact on children should weigh heavily on the final disposition of the civil fraud suit.  The Princeton Review should have to provide some compensation to the students who were victimized by the fraudulent act.  The company should be mandated to tutor all of the students’ who were fraudulently claimed to have been served for four years at the costs of the company.  Additionally, the schools that participated in the Supplemental Education Services tutoring program should receive four years of SAT Prep (including materials) at cost to the company.  Lastly, as part of the disposition, the company should have to SAT income eligible registration scholarships to the affected schools.

                The alleged fraud conducted by the Princeton Review not only took federal funds, it may have taken the dreams and aspirations of some students.  How many students’ may have decided to drop out?  How many students’ may have decided not to pursue a post-secondary education?  How many students may have lost confidence because they are struggling academically?

                We may never know what students’ dreams have been deferred by this senseless act of corporate greed.  There needs to be a statement that gets the attention of those entities who would take away opportunities from underprivileged, academically struggling youth to achieve the American Dream.

---

[i] www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/princeton-review-sued-by-_n_14716006

[ii] ibid

Study Hall 2.0

            While talking with a high school Math teacher at an event, this weekend the teacher expressed his concern about his inability to meet the needs of academically struggling students in his class.  As with all teachers, they have to walk a tight rope in the dissemination of the lesson.  A teacher cannot dilute the content to aid academically struggling students and lose the rigor at the expense of non-struggling students.  A teacher cannot be too rigorous with the content to enhance the knowledge of non struggling students at the expense of academically struggling students.

One of the many frustrations teachers have is how to help academically struggling students.  The traditional strategies of after school tutoring, extra homework, and peer assistance have provided mixed results.  Other strategies such as partnering with colleges and universities or partnering with for-profit tutoring centers are not sustainable. Academically struggling students and their schools are dependent on the schedules and continued interest of college/university students.  For-profit tutoring centers serve a small amount of academically struggling students and the programs last until the grant or subsidy runs out.  The academically struggling student looks to the school for help, frustrated about the inability to get the he he/she needs.

            Fortunately, with a little creative thinking and better utilization of school resources, academically struggling students might find solace in an archaic concept:  Study Hall.

            The original premise of study hall was to provide students the opportunity to work on class projects and assignments and support students struggling with math, reading and writing.  Over time, study hall became a holding place void of academic support and eventually study hall was phased out.  It is now time to bring back study hall.

            With diminishing resources and a steady increase of academically struggling students, the study hall concept could be revamped to help support academically struggling students.  This could be accomplished in two ways:  First make, study hall a first period rostered class that rotates on a weekly basis.  For example, a student who is struggling in multiple subjects (i.e. Math, Science, English) would be rostered for first period study hall.  Week one would be rostered in Math, week two, Science, week three English, week four would begin again with Math.  At the end of each marking period/semester, the academically struggling student would be assessed to determine if the study hall should continue with the same subjects, new subjects, or the study hall could be discontinued. 

            Second, teachers would be able to provide academically struggling students with the extra help they need and end their frustration over not having enough time in the school day.  Academically struggling students will gain confidence in their ability to understand the subjects they are struggling.  Lastly, parents will begin to feel confident the school is doing everything it can to help their child overcome their academic struggles.

            Sometimes getting back to the basics could lead to breakthroughs in reversing poor achievement trends.  Study Hall 2.0 could be a solution. 

Should The School Day Start Later?

            Over the past couple of years, educational reform advocates (educators, legislators, parents, etc.) have argued unsuccessfully for changing the start of the school day. Basing the foundation of their arguments on anecdotal evidence and loosely based empirical evidence, advocates could not make a compelling argument for changing the start of the day, until now.

            This week, the Harvard Education Review will publish the research of Colby College professor, Finley Edwards.  Edward’s study is supposed to produce the empirical evidence to construct the case for changing the start of the school day.  According to Edwards, “start times really do matter[i].”  Claiming that starting the school day one hour later increases academic performance and standardized test scores, Edwards’s references a school district in North Carolina. 

The school district changed the start of the school day one hour later.  The results of this change to the school day produced a standardized test score of 2.2 percent in math and a 1.5 percent in reading.  Additional benefits were students spending twelve fewer minutes per day of watching television, nine more minutes of devoted to homework and 1.3 fewer absences per student[ii]. 

            However, the most promising results confirmed the largely ignored biological research that correlated the affects sleep has on school work.  Edward’s study bolstered an earlier Brown University study that found as children become older, they receive less than seven hours sleep for school preparation[iii].

            If Edward’s study proves to be the springboard for changing the start time of the school day, the change could mutually benefit schools, teachers and students.  A later start time would allow teachers extra time to prepare for the school day instead of feeling rushed in the morning, students would come to school having more sleep and hopefully mentally prepared for the school day.  The school could use the extra time to have parent conferences, provide academic supports such as tutoring/enrichment, or staff development.

The downside to changing the start of the school day, are factors out of the control of a school district.  The first is getting concessions from the teachers and other support unions to change their start and end time.  Teacher and support staff unions collectively bargain specific hours of the work day.  Second, how to accommodate parents.  There are some parents whose work schedule revolves around their child’s school day.  A later start to the school day could force parents to be late to work due to ensuring their child gets to school on time.  While high school age youth may not be affected by the later start time, younger children who are more dependent on their parents to get to school on time may be adversely affected by the change in time. 

            The debate on changing the start of the school day should begin and end with: “what is in the best interest of the children.”  If the children’s needs are given priority over the adults, everyone wins. 

---

[i] www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/school-sleep-student-performance_n_1472440

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

When Teachers are the Bullies

            Over the last several years school bullying has received national attention.  Across the country states and school districts have developed anti-bullying policies and have campaigned to spread the anti-bully message to its students. 

While the anti-bullying campaign has produced mixed results in the education and elimination of bullying, the campaign is slowly gaining traction as a serious barrier to learning.  The old notions and belief systems of bullying being a rites of passage, part of growing up, or youthful indiscretion is being replaced with the affects of bullying from the victims perspective.  As more media attention from the victims’ perspective is being presented and the nation is learning how children are being irreparably damaged to the point where they are taking their own lives. The culmination of this media attention is witnessed in the critically acclaimed movie “Bully,” which chronicles several youth across the country who are victims of bullying.

In the discussion on bullying, there is always debate on the responsibility of the parents whose children bully other children.  Should parents be accountable for their child who bullies?  Should the parents who condone or fail to monitor their child’s aggressive behavior against other children be reported to child services?  Should parents of bullies have to pay fines, perform community service with their child, or mandated to family therapy?  In the discussions on the accountability of the child offender/bully, should they be charged with a criminal act?  Should “repeat “offenders of bullying be removed from their homes by child services and placed in temporary foster care or in juvenile detention until the child is “reformed?”  These are extreme ideas, but when countless victims’ lives are being ruined or taken away, harsh thing may have to be done for bullies and parents of bullies get the message bullying must stop now!

Unfortunately, the attention of bullying must turn to teachers.  Recent high profile incidents across the country, teachers may have to be added as offenders of student bullying.  Over the past year, there have been some disturbing incidents where teachers have been the allege perpetrators of bullying students with special needs.  The most recent case was in New Jersey where a teacher and assistants were allegedly caught on a recording device verbally bullying a 10 year old student with Autism.  This incident is on the heels of other allegations of teachers in other states who have been accused of bullying special needs kids. 

The idea of a teacher or staff member bullying a student is perplexing. Teachers are the adults in the school building who educate and protect all children.  Teachers are provided with anti-bullying training and in most schools have a bullying plan in their building.  Teachers are the staff where students’ who are bullied go to for help and safety.  If a teacher or a staff member is accused of bullying a student(s), disciplinary and criminal investigations should be conducted.  If the results of the investigations should determine the allegations are true, the teacher or staff member should be terminated, their teaching license, suspended for up to 1 school year, and restitution should be made (community service, fine, etc). 

There is no excuse for bullying by anyone, but there should be severe consequences as a deterrent for any teacher or staff member for bullying a student.  States and school districts may not be able to enforce parents to be better parents or desire to criminalize bullying and create a generation of youth offenders; they can do something about teachers who bully students.