Early Childhood Part 2

Last night, I blogged about Secretary Duncan's statement on the new bill that will provide over $8 billion over eight years into states to improve the quality of early-childhood education. This morning, I saw that Education Week had covered it in today's online edition. So for those of you who are interested, here it is.

Early Childhood Part 2

Early Childhood Education

Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, released a statement about the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act that the House has passed recently. This would reallocate money into several initiatives, including the Early Learning Challenge Fund. Duncan stated:

Education and, in many ways, success in life begins with high-quality early learning experiences. We know that increasing the number of high-quality early learning opportunities, especially for low-income families, improves child outcomes. Research shows children who receive such services are less likely to be referred to special education and more likely to graduate and be successful adults. All children deserve these early opportunities to reach their full potential.

I could not agree more with Secretary Duncan. The foundation for education begins at a young age. Oftentimes, students in low-income areas are not afforded the same opportunities prior to formal education and therefore begin school at a disadvantage. I am eager to see what will come out of this.

Early Childhood Education

Aligning Curricula

Is it just me, or is this something that all states should be doing? Shouldn't high school prepare you for college? Especially this day in age, where college is really necessary for many professions. I'm glad that Texas is finally tackling this issue, but I am not sure if aligning the curricula of their high schools and colleges is the best way to lower their remediation rate.It might address the low college-going rates, but I wonder if there are other factors behind the low college-going rates in Texas.

I think that aligning the curricula may increase the retention rate of Texas high school students in college, but I am not sure how it would increase remediation or college-going rates. I believe that there may be other factors that could be attributed to the high remediation rate in Texas. For instance, teacher quality is not mentioned in this article, but may have a big effect on remediation rates. Furthermore, low college-going rates could be attributed to students not applying to colleges, or to inadequate school counselors.

While curriculum alignment is definitely a step in the right direction, I hope that Texas continues to evaluate their education system. I also hope that other states take the same steps in aligning their high school curriculum to college preparedness.

Aligning Curricula

Educating English Language Learners

Considering that English Language Learners (ELLs) are one of the fastest growing groups of students in the United States, I found this article very concerning. According to this, many states are not keeping track of the graduation rates for ELLs. Even though NCLB requires that this data is reported by different subgroups, including ELL status, 13 states still do not report the information to the public or the U.S. Department of Education. Some states don't even report the numbers accurately.

While I believe that graduation rates for ELLs is an important data point, I think it is also important to keep track of other areas of student achievement for ELLs. Achievement data has shown that ELL students lag behind their peers. Comparing achievement by the different methods of language instruction would shed some light on which methods are working the best and for whom.

In 2001, NCLB requires that states have English-language-proficiency standards that are linked to state academic standards to ensure that student improvement in English-language proficiency also results in a better understanding of the academic content. Furthermore, NCLB mandates that states must implement English-language-proficiency tests to ensure that their is progress for ELLs.

At the moment, there are four commonly used teaching methods for ELLs:

• English immersion - instruction is in English


• English as a second language - may be similar to immersion, but also may include some support to the students' native languages (classes can consist of students with different native languages)


• Transitional bilingual education - some subjects are taught in the students' native language for part of the day and the rest of the day is spent on developing English skills (classes consist of students who share the same native language)


• Two-way bilingual education - instruction is in two languages

With the ELL population becoming a higher proportion of the student poplation in the United States, I think it would be beneficial to have a study on which programs have the best student achievement and the highest graduation rates for ELLs. Obviously for this study to occur, we need clearer data. This would especially help the states with little previous experience with immigrants, but now have an increased number of ELL students, such as Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina.

Educating English Language Learners

Sotomayor on Education

I'm not sure if everyone has been following the confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  If you haven't heard about it, she is President Obama's pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.  Sotomayor is a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If she is confirmed, she would the first Latino justice and the third female justice. She is Puerto Rican from the Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton for her A.B. and received her J.D. from Yale Yale School. She was the ADA in New York, and entered private practice five years later.  She served on the board of directors for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (now called LatinoJustice), the State of NEw York Mortgage Agency, and the NYC Campaign Finance Board. In 1991 is was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush, and was confirmed in 1992. In 1997, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was confirmed in 1998. Sotomayor has ruled on several high-profile cases.

However, she has handled only a small number of K-12 education cases during her 17 years as a federal judge. These cases focused on issues such as special education, racial discrimination, and student freedom of expression.
There are three prominent K-12 education cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which could show what position she would take on education issues is she is confirmed into the Supreme Court.

In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in part from the majority decision of Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education. In this case, the student's family claimed that their son, the only black student in his first-grade class at a Connecticut elemenary school, was subjected to racial slurs by other children and that he was transferred to a kindergarten class to alleviate the racial tension without the family's consent.  Sotomayor agreed with the panel's rejection of the claim that the school reacted with "deliberate indifference" to the alleged racial hostility, but she also argued that the student's race stood out as the "likely reason" for his demotion from first grade to kindergarten.

In 2006, Sotomayor joined a unanimous ruling in Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park. This was a special education case that resembles the Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (2009) case that the Supreme Court just ruled on. Sotomayor joined the unanimous ruling that found that a family could be reimbursed for private school tuition for a child with a learning disability even if the child never received such services from the public district. In Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the Supreme Court made it easier for parents of students with disabilities to get reimbursed for private school tuition, which is aligned with Sotomayor's decision in the Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park.

In 2008, Sotomayor signed on to the decision which found that a Connecticut student's off-campus blog remarks, described in the ruling as "vulgar," had created a "foreseeable risk of substanital disruption" at the student's high school. In Doninger v. Niehoff, the panel did not grant the teenager a preliminary injunction to reverse the school's disciplinary action against her.

Of the 3,000 or so cases that have come before Sotomayor as an appeals court judge, less than 1% have been on schools.  However, some education law experts say the available evidence suggests that she's a moderate on education issues. But at the same time, conservative groups view Sotomayor as a left-leaning activist seeking to use personal viewpoints to create legislation. Others desribe her case record as middle-of-the-road application of legal principles.

While this is similar to what many people are saying about her overall decisions, it seems to me that her decisions do follow a moderate viewpoint. Many are using her speeches to say that she is liberal because of her "wise latina" comment and other such comments made in six of her many speeches. I think it is important to look at her case rulings over her speeches and looking at that, it would appear as though Sotomayor is conservative on education issues. An analysis conducted by Zirkel found that of 26 decisions on "regular education," Sotomayor ruled in favor of school districts 83 percent of the time and ruled in favor of districts 58 percent of the time on her 13 special-education cases.

n Monday that makes it easier for parents of students with disabilities to get reimbursed for private school tuition.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/23/2009-06-23_specialed_activists_hail_supreme_ruling.html#ixzz0LQynMYWP

Sotomayor on Education

What is the Priority? Immigration Reform? Economic Reform? Education Reform?

The Obama administration seems to want to take on everything from education reform to immigration reform. However, many believe that President Obama should be focusing on the current economic crisis. Of course, education reform would make the United States more competitive in the global market in the long run, and therefore it would make sense to address the education issues.  However, there are many people that think that other reforms that the President is pursuing should be placed on the back burner until the United States recovers from the economic crisis.

One such reform deals with immigration. At the beginning of the month, Obama announced that he would be addressing immigration reform this year. In a NYTimes article, it  says that Obama plans to address the public in May on the issue and then work with a group to begin discussing possible legislation. As I said before, the economy is a bigger priority for many politicans and they will focusing on stimulating the economy, and restructuring many public services before they will address immigration reform.  However, some believe that immigration reform is vital to stimulating the economy.

For instance, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) released a publication titled “Why Enactment of the DREAM Act Would Aid the Ailing Economy and Generate Tax Revenues" outlines how the DREAM Act would impact the economy. Not only would legalized immigrants increase tax revenues, they would also contribute to the Social Security system. Additionally, it would stimulate the economy by increasing productivity in the educated workforce. The publication also makes the point that many of these students have been educated from K-12 through the United States public school system. Their elementary and secondary education has been invested in through both federal and local taxpayers’ money. However, since these students are not allowed to attend public universities, the return on the investment is not seen. The NILC has another brief called the “Basic Facts about In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrant Students.” According to this brief, states that have already passed legislation similar to the DREAM Act have not experienced a substantial cost in its implementation. School revenues have increased because students that would not otherwise be there are now attending.

Additionally, Simon Rosenberg of the Democratic think-tank NDN says that legalizing immigrants would help to end unfair competition for low-wage American workers. At the moment, illegal immigrants are not protected by the same minimum wage rights that citizens are. Therefore, employers will hire undocumented immigrant, pay them under the minimum wage and not report it. This leaves the rest of low-wage American workers without jobs.

According to NPR, Simon also made the same point that NILC made about tax revenues. As more and more illegal immigrants become citizens, they will pay more to federal and state taxes. Furthermore, Rosenberg states:

It means they can start an entry level job, but they can't really make the step to improve their education, get to the next level," he says. "And so you're essentially holding a whole contingent of people back from contributing even more to the economy than they do.

While there are counterpoints to the argument (some of which are in the NPR article), I believe that it is time to address the immigration issue with a reform that will benefit everyone. With the growing numbers of illegal immigrants entering the United States there needs to be more structure around what will happen to them, especially in regards to education.

What is the Priority? Immigration Reform? Economic Reform? Education Reform?

More Data Collection

Secretary Duncan requested better data collection from states as part of the stimulus package. As an education researcher, I completely understand the need for more complete and accessible data from the schools, districts and states in regards to education. And while making it a requirement for more funds seems reasonable, I wonder if states have the capacity to report this data. Are all states even collecting the data that Secretary Duncan is requesting? It seems to me that funds to build the infrastructure for data collection and reporting would be needed.

In addition, it would be great if states were using compatible systems so that data sharing between states would be possible. This would be useful in tracking students that move from state to state. As of right now, if a child moves from one state to another that does not have a compatible data system, a lot of information is lost. This even happens within states, when students move from district to district.  Perhaps an effort to have compatible data analysis systems across districts, states and between K-12 and higher education, so data collection is continuous.

Having this data would inform important policy decisions, such as curriculum, and teaching.To learn more about what Secretary Duncan is requesting, please look at the NYTimes article.

More Data Collection

Higher Education for Illegal Immigrants

(I have to admit that I'm in the middle of writing a paper about this for one of my classes, so a lot of this is from one of the drafts. But since I have been coming across a few articles about the education of illegal immigrants and the funding of it, I thought it was appropriate to say something.)

The United States is a nation of immigrants who have settled in the country looking for better opportunities. Many immigrate in search of the “American Dream,” which refers to the freedom to pursue their goals through hard work. In other words, many people immigrate to the United States in the pursuit of bettering their economic conditions. One way of improving your economic status is through attaining an education. In most cases, the higher level of education you have achieved the more money you will make. Nevertheless, there have been several political debates on the basic rights and privileges of illegal immigrants; one of which is on the access to education of illegal immigrants and the children of illegal immigrants.

Currently there are several state legislatures in the United States are debating whether to allow illegal immigrant students to get in-state rates at state universities and colleges. Since the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is stuck in Congress, a number of states have decided to try to deal with the in-state tuition issue themselves. States including Connecticut and New Jersey would allow any students who graduated from high schools in the state, whether or not they were legal residents, to qualify for lower tuition, while Missouri and Kansas are explicitly banning the practice. The absence of definitive legislation at the federal level regarding the education of illegal immigrants in higher education and the consequences that holds on the state and local levels. California is a great example of a state having to deal with the vagueness of federal legislation with Proposition 187.

This past Wednesday, Colorado has passed a bill that will allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition. The bill violates a federal law that bars states from offering illegal immigrants any benefits that are not offered to citizens from other states. However, ten states, including Texas and Utah, have already passed similar laws. Although several states have moved toward granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, many states still do not even allow illegal immigrants to matriculate at their public universities. These states do not even allow illegal immigrants to pay the out-of-state tuition for the public universities.

In a time where many universities are losing money and many students are unable to pay for college because of the lack of financial aid available, it would make sense to allow anyone who can be accepted, to attend, regardless of immigrant status.  The News and Observer released an article on the 20th of March which stated that "it's cheaper to admit illegal immigrants than to keep them out." Revenue would increase not only because of illegal immigrants paying out-of-state tuition, but also because schools would spend less money on verifying immigrant status.

While an increase in revenue for colleges would be great in this economy, I am concerned with the lack of interest in providing higher education to illegal immigrants. In the past, laws that restricted the access to education to illegal immigrants and/or their children have been found to be unlawful.  For example, in 1982, in Plyler v Doe, the Supreme Court decided that illegal immigrants and their children, although not citizens of the United States, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The law that the Supreme Court overturned in this case had disadvantaged the children of illegal immigrants by denying them the right to an education.

Isn't the unequal access to higher education also a violation of the fourteenth amendment? I am interested in seeing what happens with the DREAM Act. Last week, the DREAM Act was reintroduced to House and Senate.  I hope that when they are voting for or against the act, they consider all sides of the issue and figure out how illegal immigrants will be able to gain access to higher education within the United States if the DREAM Act is not passed.

Higher Education for Illegal Immigrants

Revamped School Schedules

We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day. That calendar may have once made sense, but today, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy. That is why I’m calling for us not only to expand effective after-school programs, but to rethink the school day to incorporate more time – whether during the summer or through expanded-day programs for children who need it.

-President Barack Obama's
Remarks on a Complete and Competitive American Education
at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Two weeks ago, I shared a brief commentary of President Obama's education policy speech at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The above quote is from that speech. I listed longer school day/year in the key topics that he addressed. That being said, I think it is interesting that many school districts are considering shortening the school week in order to save on money. School districts are expecting to face large cuts in their budgets.

What should districts do in the wake of budget cuts?

• Option 1: Fire teachers?
  Of course getting rid of teachers is not an option since it would just lead to overcrowding. Many districts are already dealing with overcrowding, so getting rid of more teachers would make the problem worse. Children in overcrowded classrooms will not get the necessary attention from their teacher and this will harm their educational achievement.


• Option 2: Decrease teacher pay?
  How many teachers do you know will allow a pay cut? As the child of a NYC public school teacher, I can recount the numerous times that teachers have threaten to strike in order to receive new contracts that included pay increases. Also, teachers are already underpaid, so a pay cut may cause many teachers to pursue other occupations that will pay them more.


• Option 3: Shorten the school week?
  One article in USA Today says that shortening the school week to Monday through Thursday, and adding an hour to each day, will allow districts to save on heating schools, maintenance, buses, substitutes, cafeteria and custodial staff.

I have so many problems with option three that it is hard to know where to start. But here goes:

• What are parents going to do with their children on Fridays? Hire nannies/babysitters? Enroll them in Friday programs? All of which costs money. This is a huge burden on low-income parents.


• A few of the ways that they are cutting costs require salary cuts to blue collared workers, like the bus drivers, cafeteria staff and custodial staff.


• What happens in the event of a snow day? What about national holidays that fall on a Monday, such as President's Day?  Three day week? How will schools make up for those lost hours now that there is even more pressure on each day a student comes in. Which will also be problematic is students miss a day or two of school for any reason.


• Also, there has been a lot of research done on students' academic abilities worsening over the summer. While the three day weekend is not two months off, it is something to think about, especially for the weakest students.


• The research shows that students in the United States are falling behind students in other nations and one of the reasons is the fact that students in the US spend less time in school. Why would it make sense to shorten the week? I worry about the effects on already low performing students who are traditionally low-income, minorities, and/or English language learners. Low performing students already need more time in school in order to get to grade level and if they are low-income, they will not be able to afford tutors or after school programs. And the unfortunate fact is, many parents are not helping their children when they are home; either because they don't know how, they don't have time or they are not interested in doing so. What happens to these students? Will this cause the gap in educational achievement to widen? I do realize that this change in schedule will be temporary, but we all know that the effects will be carried on to the next grades.


• Let's do the math: One extra hour a day over four days = four hours. Four hours does not equal the number of hours of teaching in one school day. Therefore, they would be losing teaching hours. Something that many students can not afford to lose. So are schools adding extra days? If so, doesn't this defeat the purpose?


• Many curricula require a certain amount of minutes a day. How will this be effected by the extended day/shortened week? Getting new curricula requires purchasing and then professional development for teachers, both cost money. Will this cost counteract the savings that they are attempting to receive through the new schedule?

I think a new option is needed to address school budget cuts. Can someone look at overspending in other areas of the system? I think an analysis of school spending would help to access what really can be done to save money, because the shortened school week will not allow our students to succeed.

Revamped School Schedules

The Link Between Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality

Does teacher pay have an effect on teacher quality? Are people foregoing the teaching profession because of the pay? Would incentive pay improve teacher quality? These questions have all be studied and analyzed ad nauseam. Many studies show that teachers will remain in the system longer if there are better financial incentives. There are currently programs that pay teachers more in order to attract better teachers. For instance, there is a new charter school in the Washington Heights section of New York City that promised to pay its teachers $125K. To read more about the school, check their website or this article.

As I mentioned in my last post, President Obama discussed merit pay as part of the education policy reform in his speech at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. It will be interesting to see how that is carried out on the national level, if it is. In many cases, merit pay is done at charter schools. The structure of charter is often quite different than that of the rest of the public educational system, which may include the lack of unions and teacher contracts. Furthermore, many studies on teacher merit have been by state level. So, if there is a national reform on merit pay, it would provide data on the effectiveness of merit pay on the national level.

The Link Between Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality

President Obama's First Education Policy Speech

This past Tuesday, President Obama gave a speech at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on education and discussed his vision for the education system. Of the points that he made, the ones that stood out for me were: 1) merit pay for teachers,  2) better data collection, 3) higher standards, 4) longer school day/year, 5) more support to early childhood education, and 6) better assessments. The President noted that America's student achievement has not been as successful as that of other countries and noted South Korea as an example. Because of the lag in educational achievement, America is at a disadvantage in the world's economy.



Transcript

The plan to invest in K-12 education will ensure that we have the workforce needed to ensure the future of the United States.  Obama stated that he wanted to raise standards in education because "by 2016, four out of every ten new jobs will require at least some advanced education or training." In order for the United States to be a competitor in the global marketplace, it is essential for our schools to do better, for our graduation rates to be increased, and for schools to have qualified teachers in all subjects.

Obama made an interesting point about the programs in which Hispanics are enrolled.

Some children are enrolled in mediocre programs. And some are wasting away their most formative years in bad programs. That includes the one-fourth of all children who are Hispanic, and who will drive America's workforce of tomorrow, but who are less likely to have been enrolled in an early childhood education program than anyone else.

I think that this was a very important point. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the United States; however, the proportion of Hispanics in higher education does not equal that of college age Hispanics. Hispanic upward social mobility is not increasing as fast as it should. This is not just a problem that faces Hispanics. African Americans and Native Americans are not receiving the proportionate number of degrees in higher education. In order for the United States to succeed in the international market, education policies and programs need to target these populations.

President Obama's First Education Policy Speech