“The revised No Child Left Behind Act that passed out of the Senate education committee last week goes too far in relaxing state accountability and federal oversight of student achievement. The business community, civil rights groups and advocates of disabled children are rightly worried that the rewrite of the law would particularly hurt underprivileged children.”

The bill’s main sponsors — Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat of Iowa, and Senator Mike Enzi, a Republican of Wyoming — should take the criticism to heart and go back to the drawing board.

The original No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is far from perfect. The Obama administration recognized that in September when it said that it would waive some of the law’s requirements for states that agree to several reforms, like creating new programs to overhaul the worst schools and comprehensive teacher evaluation systems.

The waiver plan would allow states to be rated on student growth on math and reading tests instead of simply counting up the percentages of students who reach proficiency on those tests. It would also require states to set goals for all schools and plan for closing achievement gaps and end the pass-fail system under which high-performing schools are rated as needing improvement if one racial or economic subgroup fails to reach the achievement target.

The plan encourages states to embrace data-driven systems and teacher-evaluation systems that take student achievement into account. But it has not been well received in the Senate, where some lawmakers seem to feel as if it usurps legislative power.

The Harkin-Enzi bill lowers the bar for reform and reduces federal pressure on the states. It focuses only on the bottom 5 percent of schools, essentially allowing states to do as they please with the rest. It backs away from requiring states to have clear student achievement targets for all schools, and does not require most schools to evaluate teachers rigorously.

Lawmakers are right that No Child Left Behind needs to be overhauled. But Congress needs to do this carefully, without retreating from core provisions that require states to do better by children in return for federal aid.”

The New York Times has gotten it wrong.   The testing process in NO Child virtually guarantees that all schools will be low performing by 2014.  The US Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan has said as much.  I am not opposed to testing – school teachers use them all of the time. What I am opposed to is a single test, given to all students to measure achievement.  All students, special education as well as foreign students are expected to reach the same bar as more advantaged students.  The results have been pre-ordained. We know that low-income, minority students will perform less well than students with the advantages of two-parent, suburban education.  Schools, not students or their parents are held accountable.  Besides the tests measure change and not improvement.  If we wanted to measure improvement, we would give the same test given in the 4th to the 5th grade students and measure their growth or lack of growth.  Instead, we give a different test, to different students with different parents.  We are really measuring apples and oranges.

“Compassionate-driven-purposeful- Improving Student Lives” D. Townsend, Guidance Counselor

“Franklin calls it how it is in education and what we can do to improve it.” S. Hayes, School Counselor

“Powerful!  Thank you for reawakening our minds, spirits and souls.” Special Educator Associate

“Thought provoking information is provided in an an audience friendly format.”  Caseworker

“A fun leaning experience!  The time flew.”  Teacher

“I think Franklin’s program is both inspiring and informative.  The balance between wisdom of experience and documented empirical strategies were so helpful.”  S. Halvorson, At-risk Associate

“Inspiring,  made me believe I can make a difference.”  Dean of Students

“A must for ALL educators.”  Gear Up Advisor

“The REAL message about education!” J. Kerns, High School Coordinator

“Educational, entertaining, emotional and informative – something for anyone who cares about children.”  At-risk coordinator

“You bring back the real truth about what is really in the best interest of children.”  J. Ellenbecker, Juvenile Court School Liaison”

“Franklin understands and relates to what we do everyday!” B. Bockes, Instructor

“Franklin confirms that our current education system need to be redesigned.  Now I understand why the system is failing my daughter.”  D. Townsend, Guidance Counselor

“I am a future teacher currently in college, Franklin’s presentation challenged me to really take a look at my purpose for teaching in the future.  Thank you for the inspiration.” S. Peel, Associate

“An honest account of the clear vision needed to improve education for society’s future.”  Transition Coordinator

“Your love for helping students and teachers is obvious and over whelming.” B. Sterns

“This presentation is totally engaging and chuck full of information.” K. Cole, District Resource Teacher

“Franklin exemplifies teaching – excellent teaching.  He truly improving the world for our children.” Post-Secondary Transition Consultant

“Informative, inspiring, excellent presentation.” J. Brown, Jr. Director of Education

“Powerful! Very empowering for educators at all levels.  Applicable knowledge that jsut makes good sense!” G. Beasley

“One size fit all does not fit anyone. Great summary”. S. Wilson

“Authentic self-reflection aimed at improving student success.” M. Renda, School Counselor

“I felt energized to return to my building committed to empower my staff to find joy in being educators again.” B. Backman, Principal

“A truly inspiring and motivational presentation for the novice and veteren educator alike.” School Counselor

“This is one of the most real-world, humorous, factual and concise presentations I have seen in a long time.  I would recommend it to everyone.” P. Schwartz, Reading Specialist

“Extremely informative and engaging.  I was surprised at how the presentation aligned to similar problems in my school.  I only wished the presentation would have been longer.” H. Nelson, Education Coordinator

When people talk about the “dropout problem”, I believe that they are focusing on the wrong thing.  It is not just that the nation’s dropout rate must be lowered but that the “achievement gap” must be narrowed.  One of the positive things that No Child Left Behind requires is that graduation rates must be disaggregated. 

The performance gap between minority and white high school students continues to expand across the United States, with minority teenagers performing at academic levels equal to or lower than those of 30 years ago according to a report from the Education Trust.  While achievement levels have improved considerably for Latino and African-American elementary and middle school students, educators say their academic performance drops during high school years. On average, African-American and Latino high school seniors perform math and read at the same level as 13-year-old white students.

The Education Trust says African-American and Latino students have made little to no progress in 12th-grade reading scores since 1994, continuing to lag behind white students. Math achievement has also remained flat, with the gap between white students and those of color widening.

Educators cite these causes for the disparity in performance:

• Lowered expectations for students of color
• Growing income inequality and lack of resources in low-income school districts
• Unequal access to experienced teachers
• An increased number of “out of field” teachers instructing minority students in subjects outside their area of expertise
• These factors, experts say, produce an opportunity gap for students of color.

• Students of color are also less likely to be given advanced-level coursework.

School advocates say students of color, regardless of class, are frequently met with lowered expectations from teachers and administrators. With such expectations come lowered requirements in the classroom, they say. Students in low-income schools are more likely to be given an “A” for work that would receive a “C” in a more affluent school, according to “Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Groups: Lessons from Schools and Districts on the Performance Frontier,” an Education Trust study released last November.

Research from the Education Trust study indicates that more white high school graduates were enrolled in college prep courses than were their African-American, Latino and Native American counterparts. Often, schools attended by those minorities do not offer advanced classes.

Many middle-class black youngsters are placed in less competitive classes, and a black child with high fifth-grade math scores is less likely to be enrolled in algebra in eighth grade, according to the Education Trust study.

Another obstacle for poor and minority students is that they are more likely than white students to have inexperienced and “out of field” teachers. Minorities at high-poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by “out of field” teachers — for instance, a math instructor teaching English or a science instructor teaching history.

Low-income minority students are also more likely to have newly minted teachers, many of who aren’t equipped to help underperforming students get on track. According to the Education Trust, low-performing students are more likely to be assigned to ineffective teachers.

Poverty also hampers minority student achievement. Blacks and Latinos have been disproportionately affected by the economy, with more and more children falling into poverty.

Minority students typically attend schools that lack resources. They are also more likely to attend schools where the student-teacher ratio is high, books and computers are outdated and teacher aides aren’t available to provide extra help for those who need it most.

The sluggish economy has forced many school districts to slash budgets, eliminating after-school programs and arts instruction. Many schools are underfunded, even in more affluent districts.  Poor parents working two and three jobs often don’t have the wherewithal to advocate for their children, education experts say. Often, the parents themselves received a substandard education. This creates a dynamic in which generations of families are stuck in a cycle of underachievement.

The Federal Government has with its support of No Child and Race for the Top has endorsed narrowing of the achievement gap.  Yet state governors who would like to eliminate tenure and put less experienced teachers into minority classrooms are feeding into the enlarging of the achievement gap.

No child has risen to low expectations. All students should be thrown into vigorous classes and be given proper academic support to ensure their success. If they don’t have access to those classes, they won’t be adequately prepared for college.

Public education represents the best chance of escaping from poverty.  Yet many in America seem to have forgotten this.

Franklin will be presenting 3 sessions at this conference:

A pre-conference dealing with applying the 15 Effective Strategies to meet the cultural value to meet the needs of Native Students.

A breakout session dealing with school leadership and another breakout session dealing with school culture.

The conference will be held at the Sheraton Crescent in Phoenix Arizona.  Additional information and registration can be found at www.dropoutprevention.org

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Franklin will be presenting a series of workshops at the 2012 MAEO Conference to be held at the Bay Valley Resort & Conference Center in Bay City MI.  Check their website for additional information.

 I have mixed feelings about this proposal.  I believe all students should stay in school until they graduate. I understand the reasons for the President’s concern.  If America is to be globally competitive, it must have a high performing, highly trained, highly-technologically prepared workforce.  And today’s demands for a highly skilled workforce require, at minimum, a high school diploma.

 There is little data to indicate that raising the age of graduation will result in lower dropout rates.  According to a report by the Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy, Raise the Age, Lower the Dropout Rate?  Considerations for Policymakers, “our review revealed that there is little research to support the effectiveness of compulsory attendance laws in achieving these goals [of lowering the dropout rate].” (p.12)

 Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the United States. It is states and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation.  The Federal Government presently provides only 10.8 percent of educational financing.

 Twenty-one states require students to attend high school until they graduate or turn 18.  Some of those states include:  Nebraska (87.8 percent graduation rate) and Wisconsin (86.7 percent graduation rate) which are high performing states.  Other states that are high performing have a compulsory school age of 16 including: Maryland (76 percent graduation rate), Massachusetts (76 percent graduation rate), Iowa (86.6 percent graduation rate), Vermont (86.5 percent graduation rate), North Dakota (86.3 percent graduation rate).   Some other states with an 18-year-old requirement have high dropout rates including New Mexico, and the District of Columbia.  (Source: ww.all4ed.org)  So it is not the age of mandatory attendance which determines the dropout rate but other factors.  Simply mandating that young people remain in school without addressing the causes for their leaving will accomplish little.

 Why children leave school prior to graduation:

·      The Silent Epidemic:  Perceptions of High School Dropouts, a report issued by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation indicated that one of the primary reasons that children leave school is because they are bored.  How will holding a student where they do not want to be until age 18 lessen the boredom?

·      Others leave because they feel that the curriculum has no relevance in the real world.

·      Students dropout because of teenage pregnancy.

·      Some students leave school because there are trying to meet their family’s financial obligations.

 Expecting states to add additional costs during this recession is foolhardy especially when so many have made cuts into the marrow of education.  There will be added costs include adding more classrooms, providing additional teachers, providing additional support personnel such as counselors and paying for alternative on-line courses.  Finally, add in the additional costs of enforcing the law.

 The President, in his well-intentioned proposal, has provided a sound-bite, simplistic solution to this highly complex problem.

There isn’t a charge.

Collaborative Web Project: Doors to Diplomacy is a collaborative project, where small teams are formed consisting of two to four student members and up to two adult “coaches.” Research can be conducted both online and offline, and then the findings are assembled to produce an educational web project. Students are also encouraged to become spokespersons for their projects.

Project Narrative: Each Doors to Diplomacy project also includes a Project Narrative that explains how the project has been organized, what challenges had to be overcome, and how the project supported local content standards.  Many wonderful community building success stories often emerge from these “behind the scenes” narratives.

Peer Review Process: As part of the competition, teams must also participate in a Peer Review activity, in which they evaluate at least four other projects, using a web-based evaluation rubric.

Awards:  Each student team member of the winning “Doors to Diplomacy” Award team receives a $2,000 scholarship, and the winning coaches’ schools each receive a $500 cash award.

PROJECTS ARE DUE BY MARCH 15.

Each team who submits a completed project receives a special Doors to Diplomacy certificate. Winners are announced in May.

Competition Organizers

Now in its 9th year, the Doors to Diplomacy Award is funded by the United States Department of State. The educational portion of the competition is managed by Global SchoolNet Foundation (GSN).

Global SchoolNet Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational organization, which has been linking classrooms around the world since 1984. GSN creates educational programs that engage students in meaningful content and personal exchanges with people around the world — in order to develop literacy and communication skills, create multi-cultural understanding, and prepare youth for full participation as productive and effective citizens in an increasing global economy.