Archive for the ‘Alliance to Reclaim our Schools’ Category

Money, Money, Money, Money 

Saturday, October 27th, 2018

Rose in LAToday’s New York Times posted an article about New York schools’ Renewal program, an attempt to improve 94 failing public schools is failing to raise the scores and reduce absenteeism enough. So, after 3 years (2015-2018), only one-third of the schools improved out of the program. Why?

Renewal based its model on the idea that a student’s academic achievement would increase if the schools “were given a wide array of school services and teachers were better trained.” New York Times, “New York Kept Children in Schools Likely to Fail”, October 26, 2018. And the services were substantial – mental health clinics, dentists, and food pantries at the site – which studies show are needed to improve student achievement in impoverished communities.

So, why stop now? Is it the money spent and what is the result? “We should stop ourselves from spending money on things that don’t work,” said James Kemple, the executive director of the New York University’s Research Alliance for New York City Schools (Ibid).

Students, however, still must attend school. Wouldn’t it serve them better if the Renewal project people went over the model, looked at more research, and make changes to spend money on things that DO work.

Look at California schools which have had to make do with less money since 1978 when the infamous Proposition 13 was passed. At that time schools reaped the money from local property taxes that placed California high on the U.S. list of funding per public school. Once the proposition passed, money decreased significantly, and now the state provides 60%, local funds provide only 30% and federal money (mostly from Title I) provide 10% to some schools.

In an attempt to find out how to improve the California public school situation, an October 2018 study from American Institutes for Research (AIR) shows that, from all resources, California in 2017 actually spends $12, 204 per student. An adequate amount per student is $16,890. The actual amount spent per student places California 41st of all public schools in the nation.

An “adequate” amount is quantified from the average California school enrollment and demographics like numbers of free-reduced price lunches, English Learners, special education students.

The “adequate” amount is also computed by including teacher support for sufficient planning and training; hiring experienced, flexible teachers; student opportunities outside the classroom (STEM, arts, other extra-curricular activities); high quality early childhood education; engagement for families at the school; English language Learning with home-language support; and, most important, social-emotional support for students and families.

For schools with high numbers of EL, special ed, and free/reduced price lunch students, additional amounts to retain small class size, richer special education programs, and extra professional development for teachers, early childhood education programs, and extended day/year (for remediation and enrichment) are necessary.

After every ‘extra’ program was eliminated in schools because of the decrease in funding, the consequences of the passage of Proposition 13 in California is that every adult lost confidence in public schools. In fact, you can see the video A Rose in LA from the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) about the systematic disinvestment even in 2018 in Los Angeles public schools serving black, brown, and low-income students.

The conclusion of the AIR report reminds us that the actual expenditure per student doesn’t account for central administration, maintenance, transportation, or food service needs for a school district. The report also identifies the other multiple factors that define how students learn including their socio-emotional feelings and physical health.

The AIR findings tell us what must be done to truly improve student achievement from California to New York. Recognize that just throwing money at a school may not lead to success but deciding the programs that each school needs and funding those programs is the key. It is a model that takes far more than three years of relentless, consistent attention.

A model that does show promise of using money on something that works is the Schott Foundation for Public Education-supported Community Schools – a model with most of the needs described above that can succeed and is worthy of the attention. The Partnership for the Future of Learning has put out the Community Schools Playbook for anyone to see.

Also the W.K.Kellogg Foundation with the Schott Foundation supports a program to reduce racial bias, reduce harsh discipline policies, and support positive school climate.

Two models that are available to New York’s Renewal and California to begin the road to recovery and success for every student.

 

What Has the DOE Done this Month? 

Saturday, September 29th, 2018

mailDo you remember? On September 28, 1979, Congress under President Carter established the United States Department of Education. Lots of change since then at the DOE.

Just beginning this month, Betsy DeVos, the current Superintendent, has proposed that students defrauded by for-profit colleges “show they have fallen into hopeless financial straits or prove that their colleges knowingly deceived them.” Erica L. Green, The New York Times, “DeVos Proposes Curtailing Loan Forgiveness for Defrauded Students,” July 26, 2018. The proposal, worked out by the education department, now stocked with for-profit executives and criticized as releasing the industry from oversight, is set to go into effect by July 2019.

Next, DeVos is finalizing policies to reshape the Obama guidelines which were seen to better specify the procedures to address sexual misconduct on school campuses, especially colleges and universities.  Now, the policies will strengthen the rights of students accused of sexual harassment, rape, and assault. At the same time, the rules will reduce liability for institutions, but encourage greater victim support. Surprising, since the policies narrow the definition of sexual harassment.

Take Care Schools outlined this proposal last fall when the Obama letter was rescinded. Considering the conflict in the Senate this week about the very issue of sexual misconduct and how it is viewed when each side has a completely different vision, the policy DeVos wants will continue to be inflammatory.

Last, Betsy DeVos has offered another ludicrous proposal as part of the deliberations of the Commission on School Safety. Although she said the commission was not going to consider gun issues, the proposal would allow schools to use taxpayer $$ to buy guns and pay for firearms training to teachers and staff. Her department team is examining an obscure federal policy to get around the Congress’ legislation that no taxpayer funds can be used to purchase arms, ammunition, or firearms training for schools.

What to do with Congressional funds instead? Think about protocols (which have been developed by the DOE) that address “school climate.” For instance, how to respond to student outbursts of belligerence, how to penalize without suspending or expelling. Unfortunately, there is no requirement that schools implement the protocols, nor funding to do so yet.

What about funding for more mental health services? According to numbers in the September 28, 2018 Alliance to Reclaim our Schools (AROS) newsletter, New York City, for example, has only one counselor for every 407 students. If you want school safety, reduce the school to prison numbers, and prevent school shootings, it’s a no-brainer that more counselors and psychologists available are necessary.

How about implementing ‘threat assessment teams’ in schools? Virginia K-12 schools have such teams. There are good results that show fewer student threats to injure others. Besides federal gun safety and control legislation, these reforms can provide school safety.

Why no funding support for these issues? The Schott Foundation for Public Education has figured that between 2005-2017, the United States has spent $580 billion on public school education, but the net worth of the 400 richest Americans is $1.5 trillion.

Does that make sense? No wonder Colorado has an initiative on the November ballot to raise corporate taxes and personal income tax for people making more than $150,000 and use the $1.6 billion for public schools. No wonder Maryland has a measure on the November ballot to use additional dollars raised from gambling industry funds for public schools. No wonder an Arizona initiative is on the ballot to overturn education savings accounts that allow families to draw on public school funds to pay tuition to private schools.

Another AROS newsletter (September 21, 2018) reports that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that one/half of the states in the union provide fewer total dollars to education than in 2008, the start of the Great Recession. In the meantime, the Senate passed the FY2019 appropriation bill and sent it to the House of Representatives for a vote. It only slightly increases funds to Title I, IDEA, and Pell Grants, still a big gap in funding since 2010.

For explanation, download and read Confronting the Education Debt to learn how, even with the U.S. increase to 51 million public schools, one in five students live in poverty.

Seems to Take Care Schools, the DOE should be working on how to implement the true school climate and safety issues that will increase academic success in school. Congress better implement policies and funding to decrease the number of impoverished communities.