Cyber Schools Targeting Low Income Communities

                As school districts across the country have laid off teachers, central office staff, closed school, and increased classroom size, cyber schools have been growing at rapid rate.  Currently there are 250,000 students enrolled in cyber schools across the country and the enrollment is growing.  However, one of the areas cyber schools are growing the most is in low income school districts[i].

                The first question that must be asked is a cyber school a viable option for low income public school students?  For low income students who are unable to attend school because they are medically fragile and unable to attend school, a cyber school would be a viable option because it would allow them to work and not over exerting their system.  For low income students who are gifted and their school does not have a gifted program, a cyber school may be viable option allowing the student to work on more advance work.  However, for most low income students, specifically those who struggle with the academic content have sporadic attendance, or behavioral problems, cyber schools are targeting these students. 

The largest cyber school company, K12 has been moving into low income neighborhoods across the country.  K12 was founded by conservative educator William Bennett, and a group of former business moguls.  Cyber schools provide instruction by teachers who communicate with students via the e-mail, the internet or by phone.  This leads us to question number two: can low income students effectively learn by phone, e-mail, or the internet?

If low income public school students are struggling in a classroom with a teacher and classroom assistant, how are they expected to catch up on the learning missed in the classroom and get on track academically with a virtual teacher?  How does a virtual teacher become familiar with the triggers of a student who becomes frustrated when he/she has problems comprehending a lesson?  Teaching and learning is more about understanding the subtle nuances of students, nurturing and building the confidence of fragile psyche.  This can only be done if the student is in the presence of the teacher.

This leads us to the third and final question:  what additional support can a cyber school offer to a low income student who is struggling academically due to family instability?  How can a cyber school recognize if the barrier to learning is due to hunger, domestic violence, or mental and physical abuse.  What if the barrier to learning is due to the loss of a parent, sibling, or close family member?  Lastly, what happens if the student accumulates a number of absences due to loss of internet or phone service?  Does the virtual teacher have access to resources to refer a family to social service agencies that could help stabilize the family?

                Cyber schools can play a very important role in providing an alternative to traditional school settings.  However, targeting low income neighborhoods where academic needs among students is greatest, is not a good match for low income communities.  Since cyber schools are for profit entities, they mostly likely will not provide the resources a low income student needs to academically thrive.  In these tough economic times, the last thing low income districts and communities need is a cyber school that takes funding away from schools and the students do not academically get back on track.  Cyber school would serve low income communities better by offering tutorial services, homework help, and instruction of medically fragile students via home instruction or home bound services for students who are temporarily incapacitated.

---

[i] www.nytimes.com2011/12/03/opinion/virtually-educated

The Bloomberg Plan?

                Last week, New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg made some controversial statements concerning school improvement.  According to Mayor Bloomberg:

                                “If I had the ability to design the system and say this is

                                what we’re going to do, you would cut the number of

                                teachers in half and weed out all of the bad ones[i].”

Mayor Bloomberg further stated that doubling the class size with a better teacher is a good deal for the students.  Claiming that in districts across the country, teachers are no longer hired from the top of their classes, but are instead culled from the bottom 20 percent and not from the best schools[ii].  Mayor Bloomberg later claimed his statements were taken out of context.

                While Mayor Bloomberg’s statements may or may not have been taken out of context, in this current economic environment where there has been unprecedented cuts and layoffs to school districts across the county, Mayor Bloomberg’s statements may provide some insight on a future educational strategy that is being considered if a worst case scenario were to occur. 

                For several months there has been speculation of additional cuts and layoffs to public school districts as states continue to manage their deficits.  As the economy continues to sputter, states will once again have to make tough decisions on how to fund their public school districts.  Mayor Bloomberg’s statements should be considered as a potential strategy for mayors across the country.

                This school year, public school districts across the country petition their states to allow for increases in classroom size and teacher unions agreed to some teacher layoffs in order to offset lost allocations.  Combine these concessions with new teacher accountability measures via the teacher evaluation process; and a strong case can be made for Mayor Bloomberg’s plan. 

                By increasing class size and cutting teaching staff by “weeding out” the bad teachers, districts could increase class size to 25 to 30 students, add an additional teacher and one (possibly two) classroom assistants.  The money saved by weeding out bad teachers (who mostly likely receive a higher salary), hiring first year teachers and more classroom assistants could actually save money that could be utilized for additional support for students.

                With the current economic turmoil projected not to end for another couple of years, Mayor Bloomberg’s plan may not be the ideal plan for advocates of small class size and staffing, but in these economic times, unpopular measures may have to be taken in the short term to ensure our public education system doesn’t fully implode due to budgetary problems.

---

[i] www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/michael-bloomberg-in=mit-_n_1125737.html

[ii] ibid

Internet for All

In this era of No Child Left Behind and high stakes testing, the digital divide between the “haves” and “have not’s” has gotten greater.  As the country became primarily focused on academic achievement through prescribed scores, lost due to rote memorization and an emphasis on fragmented pieces of knowledge was learning and how to apply what is learned to access the world.  The most glaring loss however was the integration and utilization of technology to assists learning.  While No Child Left Behind legislation was being crafted, absent from the legislation was the integration of technology into the teaching and learning experience to reflect the needs of the global economy.

Understanding this oversight and the need to reduce the digital divide, the Obama administration has begun an initiative to provide families with affordable access to the internet. With a third of American homes not having the internet, the federal government partnered with internet providers and non-profit agencies to develop “Connect to Compete.”  Connect to Compete is a national pilot program whose mission is to provide low cost internet at $9.95 per month and $150 laptops to families who are eligible for free and reduced school lunches[i].

In this current global economy, this initiative could provide a huge boost to significantly reducing the digital divide.  Providing affordable internet and laptops to income eligible families gives them access to the global economy.  However for public education, we may finally see the integration and utilization of technology that is occurring in private schools and wealthier districts.

In private schools and wealthier districts, technology is integrated into the teaching and learning experience.  Teachers utilize the internet to post classroom assignments, notes, schedules and other class related materials for students and parents to access from their home computers.  Students can submit assignments to teachers, submit questions, and view their grades.  However, a majority of public school students do not have this opportunity due to several barriers.

The lack of internet and a computer in the home is one of the barriers facing many public school students.  Compounding this problem is that most public school districts have not developed the systems to integrate technology into the teaching and learning experience.  With all of the needs of a public school district, integrating technology into the curriculum to prepare students for the global economy is a low priority when there are infrastructure, staffing, and other needs to be addressed.  Since most public school districts do not have the integration of technology into the teaching and learning experience as part of their district wide strategic plan, having access to the internet will partially address the mission of Connect to Compete.

In order for Connect to Compete to fulfill its mission of providing income eligible families with access to affordable internet and laptops to decrease the digital divide and to provide access to the global economy, public school districts will have to do their part to support this initiative. 

Having access to affordable internet is not enough to prepare and compete in the global economy.  Students in poorer districts need to be taught how to utilize the internet as their counterparts in wealthier districts and private schools provide to their students.  This can only be accomplished if public school districts place in their strategic plan the integration of technology into the teaching and learning experience.

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/2102-502303_162-57321326

The Root Causes for an Underachieving Public Education System

                For a while, I have been thinking about what are the root causes of our underachieving public schools and can they be fixed?  With all the reforms that have taken place in public education over the decades, why do these reforms produce results that cannot be sustained overtime or results that produce a modicum of success? 

It must be stated that the root causes are systemic, which will make them harder to fix.  The first root cause is our country’s undervalue of education.  It is well known and documented that countries in Europe and Asia consider their public educational system a national priority.  In Europe and Asia, teachers are valued and respected for the role they play in preparing the next generation to become productive members of society.  Students are provided with clear pathways to employment via apprenticeships or higher education via college preparatory track.  In the US, public education is not a national priority.  Teachers are not valued or respected, the US does not have a national apprenticeship program and the pathway to higher education is through graduation, not a national college prep curriculum.  In Europe and Asia, public education adapts to the changes and needs of the economy,while public education in the US is slow to adapt and at times, resistant to change.

The second root cause is the role of the teachers union.  Throughout the history of public education in the US, the teachers union has been perceived as either a positive agent of change, or a hindrance to change.  However, with the problems in the economy and the mediocrity of the public education system, unions have come under scrutiny.  While concessions were being made by the federal and state government and other unions, the refusal of teachers unions to accept changes to collective bargaining and accept a payroll freeze, many have begun to question the viability or need for a teachers union. 

Current perceptions of teachers unions are they protect and reward teachers who produce mediocre students that are jeopardizing the America’s position as leader of the global economy.  Teachers unions have also been perceived as being out of touch with the changes and demands of the workforce.  They have been criticized for fighting against changes to the work day, tenure and teacher evaluations.  The scrutiny teachers unions are under is similar to what the auto workers union went through several years ago when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. 

The final root cause is the affects of poverty.  Poverty continues to be a destabilizing entity in our society.  The affects of poverty are well documented, but for education, the affects are devastating.  Schools whose mission is to educate, have become social service centers to children who come from unstable environments.  Schools have to educate children who are hungry, homeless, abused (victim or witness), frustrated and angry.  In some instances before a school can educate, a school will have to rebuild a child’s self-esteem and confidence so the child can begin to learn. 

                Until we seriously address the root causes of our underachieving public school system, our country will continue to underachieve.  We can no longer continue to implement reforms that cannot be sustained and produce mediocre results.  It is time for our country to make education a national priority and to genuinely consider a national educational model that develops clear pathways for employment and higher education.  It is time for our country to consider how to better prepare and evaluate teachers and how to make teaching a respected and sought after profession.  Lastly, it is time to renew the war on poverty with the singular intensity and funding that occurred with the war on terror.  

The Promise Neighborhood

                With the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone, the federal government awarded 21 planning grants of $500,000 across the country.  The grants were part of the government’s Promise Neighborhood initiative.   The purpose of the grant was to bring together the resources of all the agencies and organizations that provide services for children and families in order to make services more efficient and to close procedural gaps which delay services to children and families.  The grant is supposed to be the conduit for collaboration, coordination, better communication and identifying areas of need to develop better “wraparound services[i]”

                Promise Neighborhoods seek to replicate the “cradle-through-college-career” approach that was first developed by the Harlem Children’s Zone.  The approach was to aggressively address and dismantle the barriers in a child’s life that affected learning.  By removing or greatly diminishing barriers, it allowed families to focus on their child’s education.  The Promise Neighborhood belief is

“when families spend so much time trying to make ends meet,

they rarely focus on improving their situation[ii].”

By supporting families from the time of conception, barriers such as the access to health care are removed and the child is less likely to suffer from lack of prenatal care.  As the child grows, having the supports in place to address potential educational and social service needs could lessen the impact on learning when the need occurs.

The Promise Neighborhood initiative is attempting to implement the idea that it “takes a whole village to raise a child.”  While the end product is to help children graduate from high school, enroll and graduate from a post-secondary education program and become adults that contribute to society, the family unit is stabilized and strengthened.  By focusing on children, the whole family is helped.

We know the needs of families in economically distressed neighborhoods.  If the Promise Neighborhood grants can replicate what the Harlem Children’s Zone has done to stabilize and strengthen families, children across the country will be able to focus on being children and their education.  If a family is struggling with stable employment, the resources of the Promise Neighborhood would connect the parent(s) with an agency that assists adults with training and finding stable employment.  If a family is struggling with childcare for younger non-school age siblings, Promise Neighborhood resources would assists the family with finding affordable childcare. 

Whatever the need of a family are, healthcare, housing, GED, etc, Promise Neighborhood resources will be at a family’s disposal to support and remove barriers that affect a child’s learning. Hopefully this will be the initiative that transforms income distressed neighborhoods and stabilizes families.

---

[i] Relph, Azriel, Lui, Richard (10/25/11). An Outside-In Effort to Help the Poor Achieve. www.msnbc.com/id/45022229/ns/today-education_nation

[ii] ibid

Putting an End to the IQ Debate

                There has been a recent breakthrough in IQ research.  For a long time, the accepted and controversial belief that IQ was fixed and could never change has dominated the fields of neuroscience, child development, assessment, and the education of minorities.  However, a recent study at University College in London found that significant changes in IQ can occur in the adolescence and teenage years[i].

                The University College study tested 33 British adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 years old.  The students were tested and four years later were given the same test.  The results of the study found that some teens improved their IQ scores by as much as 20 points. This was a surprise to the research team because they expected a change of a few points they were not expecting a significant rise in scores among some of the participants.  According to Lead Researcher Cathy Price:

                                “We were very surprised…we had individuals that changed

                                from being on the 50^th percentile with an IQ of 100 all the way

                                up to being in the top 3^rd percentile, with an IQ of 127[ii]

                To confirm their findings, researchers used brain scans to confirm the significant rise in scores was not a mistake.  Comparing brain scans from age 12 and age 16, the researchers were able to see which different parts of the brain changed as a result of the changes in IQ.

                Although the study did not explain the causes for the increase in IQ score, its results have re-affirmed a long dismissed idea that IQ is not fixed.  Proponents of this belief argue that a child’s home and educational environment influences IQ.  They further argue that changes to those environments could lead to increased scores. 

                The University College study provides a compelling argument for reform in public school educational assessment.  The ideology of fixed IQ is woven in the fabric of public education.  This ideology has been used by school psychologist, teachers and administrators to permanently label and direct the educational path of students whose IQ score falls below a certain number.  Once the student has been labeled with a disability and placed on the educational path, the expectation level among school staff is based on a deficit model and a generalized biased that ignores a student’s individuality.  The student becomes viewed in by the lens of their disability.  The findings of the University College study should finally put an end to the IQ debate and begin the discussion on how to reform the educational assessment of students in public education. 

Now that we know IQ can be increased, there needs to be a change in the ideology in public education that reflects a student-centered approach whereby school staff focus educational programming on increasing IQ scores among students’ with low IQ.  By changing the expectation level, and generalized biased among school staff, the lens of their disability becomes a lens of availability that provides greater inclusion, opportunity and access that was once never considered.

---

[i] www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/10/20/141511314/iq-isnt-set-in-stone-suggests-stud....

[ii] ibid

Diversity and its Impact on the SAT

            A recent report by the College Board found that scores on the critical reading section on the SAT exam fell by 3 points to its lowest point on record, while combined reading and math scores fell to its lowest point since 1995[i].

            The report claims the reason for the drop in scores is due to the growing diversity of the test taking pool.  According to the College Board, the growing diversity in the test taking pool primarily by Latinos whose native language is not English and an increase among African-American students due outreach efforts has led to the decrease in scores. 

            Increased diversity cannot be completely blamed on low test scores.  While it is convenient to blame increased participation of minorities and English Language Learners for the decline in overall scores, there are other reasons to consider. 

            Critics of the SAT have long claimed the test is biased against minorities.  They argue the test content was developed for students who come from upper and middle class backgrounds.  Critics argue that knowing there is a great chasm between affluent and poor districts, the test places students from poorer districts at a disadvantage because they may not have been exposed or properly prepared by their schools.  Since colleges and universities place a heavy emphasis on SAT scores, students from poorer districts are limited to where they can apply. 

            Critics also claimed the ability of upper and middle class families to pay for test preparation services, provides an unfair advantage over families who cannot afford to pay for test preparation services.  Providing students who can afford it with strategies on how to do well on the test provides a false portrayal to colleges and universities of a student’s academic ability because their scores are inflated. 

If the College Board is going to stick with their poorly construed explanation for the drop in overall test scores, then the solution for the College Board is to make the test more accessible to the increasing minority pool.  The College Board has not adapted test to address the needs of English Language Learners and other minorities.  The test does not consider language adaptations or cultural situations when test questions and scenarios are being developed. 

By not acting on the results of their study, the College Board has acknowledged minorities will be used as the scapegoat for the shortcomings of the SAT.  Scapegoating minorities deflects the attention away from a test that is considered by many to be culturally biased and unfair because for a fee, a student can be taught how to do well on the test.

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/2102-201_162-20106069 . SAT Reading Scores Fall to record low