NJ Left Behind: Doing the Math

NJ Left Behind: Doing the Math

Princeton Township Public Schools offers a template on what will most likely occur across many districts on the heels of Gov. Christie’s budget: an effort by school boards to cajole local unions into accepting contract concessions. With cuts of up to 5% of total school budgets, increases in health benefits, and annual salary increases ranging in the mid-4%, there’s no other way to find the money. Other costs – supplies, utilities, transportation – are not fungible.

A few quick facts about Princeton, a 3,500-student school district with sky-high test scores. The annual cost per pupil there is $18,340 compared to a state average of $15,168. (These are 2008-2009 figures from the state database.) The median teacher salary is $69,829 plus benefits. The state median salary is $59,545 plus benefits. Costs of benefits in Princeton come to 23% of each teacher’s salary.

So last week Princeton Superintendent Judith Wilson sent a letter to the Princeton Regional Education Association asking for concessions. (Here’s its 2008-2011 contract.) The union then issued what theTrenton Times calls an “ambiguous statement” saying “they would not be willing to discuss contract concessions but leaving the door open to ‘continuing discussions.’” That’s better than a flat “no,” though School Board President Alan Hegedus noted that “the union was putting its head in the sand in response to the fiscal emergency that the state is in."

While every high-spending district in NJ may not be able to boast Princeton’s academic achievements, every high-spending district in NJ will be able to commiserate with Princeton’s fiscal problems. There’s nowhere else to go but teacher salaries, which is precisely what Gov. Christie had in mind with Proposition 2.5%, and precisely why NJEA Boss Barbara Keshishian is in a lather. NJEA could show some real leadership right now by allow their local affiliates to reopen contract negotiations so that we maintain educational standards in Princeton and elsewhere. Imagine the fount of goodwill erupting from an over-taxed public, the outpouring of gratitude in store for a Union that demonstrates an unequivocal compassion for kids and an astute comprehension of fiscal necessity. It’s just math.

NJ Left Behind: Doing the Math

ESEA/NCLB Blueprint

Since I wrote about the NCLB overhaul two days ago, there has been a lot going on in the world of education. The Obama administration new education plan will drastically change the NCLB law - even the name will change. The most significant change will be moving away from the strict guidelines that use state reading and math tests to identify failing schools. Instead of having every student math and reading proficient, the new law wants to have every kid graduate from high school ready for college and work by 2020. In addition, the Obama administration wants to create a policy to reward successful schools and teachers.

Moving away from the math and reading focus will hopefully broaden the curriculum and allow schools to offer more science, history, and social studies content. Therefore, students would be more well rounded in their education and better prepared for college and work. The Obama administration wants the new law to set the bar high but allow flexibility to reach it. President Obama and Secretary Duncan believe that the federal government should be less involved in decision making and that the decisions should be made at the local level for the schools and the district. 

The Obama administration's $50 billion proposed education budget adds $3 billion in funding to help schools meet the new goals. The money will definitely be needed since the plan would reorganize the nation's education system.  Even if the new uniform standards that have recently been drafted are used in order to meet the new goals, it will take years for the plan to roll out.  In addition, the new plan would measure academic growth and unfortunately many districts are not equipped to monitor this progress as of yet - which will take more time and of course money.

So low performing schools that implement one of the four intervention strategies will be eligible for part of the $3 billion grant. High performing schools will be rewarded with recognition, more money and funding flexibility. But what will happen to the schools that are mediocre? Are those schools left to remain in the middle with no additional funding to make them excellent? 

This isn't the only issue that has been raised. As I mentioned last time, teachers unions are against the Obama administration's overhaul. They believe that the new plan will turn teachers into scapegoats. Randi Weingarten, the head of the AFT, has said that the new plan "appears to place 100% responsibility on teachers and administrators while giving them 0% authority to act". Secretary Duncan has expressed his concern with wanting to work well with the unions and it appears as though changes might be made to make sure that the unions don't completely disagree with the new plan. One change that this plan would implement includes an emphasis on ensuring that school leaders are well prepared and effective. 

From what I've heard about this new plan, it has the same chance of succeeding as NCLB did. In addition, I am waiting to hear how research will play a part in the plan. Research does not get mentioned often in the outline and it doesn't seem to be a high priority for the plan. Hopefully when Congress is vetting out the plan, they will make achieving the new goals realistic. Having all high school graduates prepared for college by 2020 seems a little far fetched to me. 

ESEA/NCLB Blueprint

NJ Left Behind: Mr. Christie Goes to Trenton

The following is from the NJ Left Behind blog:

NJ Left Behind: Mr. Christie Goes to Trenton

Mr. Christie Goes to Trenton

The Governor just finished his budget address. (Full transcript righthere.) First, the bottom line: a $819 million cut in education with reductions in aid of up to 5% of a school district’s budget; a push for Proposition 2 and ½, a constitutional amendment capping the growth of all local and state spending at 2 ½ percent per year; collective bargain reform.

Here are some highlights regarding school finance reform:

On the disconnect between a rotten economy and public employee benefits:

From 2002 to 2008, pension payments to retirees grew 56%, triple the inflation rate. Our benefits are too rich, most public employees contribute too little, and the taxpayers have had enough enough of out of control pensions to public sector unions while they are losing their own jobs, enough of losing their homes, and then being told by the union bosses that they must pick up the tab for rich pensions at the same time.

Description of union leadership:

Political muscle fueled by intimidation tactics, political bullying and smears of public officials who dare to disagree.

The “dual system” between those who “enjoy” rich benefits and those who pay for it:

My proposal is simple: school district employees should pay for a reasonable portion of their health care costs, just like every other New Jerseyan. If we do not end this dual system, state and local government will have to raise taxes endlessly to pay for it. Teachers are not the problem, they get it.

On NJEA’s “Bosses” vs. hard-working teachers:

The leaders of the union who represent these teachers, however, have used their political muscle to set up two classes of citizens in New Jersey: those who enjoy rich public benefits and those who pay for them. That has created a system that cannot be sustained - a system fueled by mandatory dues of more than $700 a year taken out of every one of the nearly 200,000 teachers' paychecks

On Typical Teacher Salary Increases:

Does a child learn more if the union gets 5% taxpayer funded raises every year for its members? This is nonsensical and self-serving - and we all know it.

Biggest Applause Line/Race To The Top Reference:

Just how arrogant has the union gotten? By refusing to accept merit pay and use it to reward their best members, the union may have cost New Jersey $400 million in race to the top school aid from Washington. They did this in a year when they complain about budget cuts; in a year when we could truly use the money. Ask yourself, just who is putting their personal interests ahead of our children's?

NJ Left Behind: Mr. Christie Goes to Trenton

NCLB Overhaul

Tomorrow, President Obama will give an outline for overhauling the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law that was put in place in 2002 by former President Bush. The new education policy would not require schools to meet annual benchmarks as NCLB now requires. Instead, the plan would provide incentives for the best schools and teachers.

President Obama released a video yesterday that addressed the education issues in the United States. As he stated, "the nation that out-educates us today, will out-compete us tomorrow."



The nation's high school graduation rates have fallen behind that of other nations. President Obama said that he plans to prepare every child for a career and college. And according to the Sam Dillion's NYTimes article,  President Obama's plan will retain some key aspects of the current NCLB law - including its requirement for annual reading and mathematics tests - but the new plan will also propose some far-reaching changes.  According to the article:

The administration would replace the law's pass-fail school grading system with one that would measure individual students' academic growth and judge schools based not on test scores alone but also on indicators like pupil attendance, graduation rates and learning climate. And while the proposal calls for more vigorous interventions in failing schools, it would also reward top performers and lessen federal interference in tens of thousands of reasonably well-run schools in the middle. 

The new plan appears to take a fuller approach to evaluating schools. Including other indicators is a great step toward the broader evaluation. I particular like the fact that students' academic growth will be used. However, the plan is already receiving criticism. The president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi  Weingarten says that the plan puts all of the responsibility on the teachers.

The new proposal would require states to develop new teacher evaluations that are partly based on whether their students are learning. These would replace the current emphasis that NCLB has on certifying that all teachers have valid credentials.

The administration has also added $100 million to the 2011 budget so schools can offer more courses and not only focus on math and reading. It is not clear how effective these proposals will be in broadening the curriculum.

Evidently the President is only providing Congress with an outline and is expecting them to come up with the details. Let's see how this ends up.

NCLB Overhaul

Curriculum Standards - Changes and Debate

Finally! Uniform standards across states for K-12 education. The standards do not outline curriculum, only the concepts that need to be learned in each grade. The NYTimes article stated that "a panel of educators convened by the nation's governors and state school superintendents proposed a uniform set of academic standards on Wednesday, laying out their vision for what all the nation's public school children should learn in math and English, year by year, from kindergarten to high school graduation."

While the Obama Administration is endorsing the effort, states are not required to participate in the uniform standards either. But most are, with Texas and Alaska choosing to decline in the standards-writing effort. Gov. Rick Perry (TX) stated that only Texans should decide what children there learn. States who are participating are receiving 40 points toward the 500 points possible for the Race to the Top initiative.  

It's not perfect, but its a start. Ideally, the standards should address all areas of the curriculum, but they are focused on English and Mathematics.  Apparently issues of evolution education would be too touchy to address for science curriculum, and I'm sure that social studies curriculum would face similar issues depending on region. Just look at what Texas has been doing with social studies curriculum and textbook choices.



Yesterday, the Texas Board of Education approved a very conservative social studies curriculum that will effect history and economics textbooks. According to today's NYTimes article, the curriculum stresses "the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light".  There were various meetings in the past week debating the standards. Conservatives wanted to remove references to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot, and list Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership.

Obviously not all states are as conservative as Texas, and many would have a big issue with aligning their social studies curriculum with the one that Texas has newly proposed. So, it stands to reason that if common standards are being created that educators would start off with these two subjects.

I am eager to see how the roll out occurs from state to state and if students will in fact benefit from this change. I think it would make transferring schools between states an easier process since schools would all be learning the same standards.

Curriculum Standards - Changes and Debate

Who is really guiding students??

I came across this article in many of the listservs that I am signed up on via e-mail. I couldn't help but read both the article and the blog on the NYTimes website.  I can't say that I am surprised about this. In the work that I do, we survey our students at the end of their senior year of college and one of the questions that we ask is similar to this topic - who provided you with graduate school advise. In my work, the students often say parents, family members and/or employers.

I suppose that this sort of interaction is to be expected at the college level when you are supposed to be reaching out to your advisor on your own. But it is not expected in high schools. Although I am from NYC, I did not go to public high school. Instead, I went to a private school. We had two college counselors in addition to the advisors we saw every morning - like homeroom. If I remember correctly, there were approximately 120 students in each grade, so that means that each counselor had 60 students. This isn't bad. Especially when the article says that 100:1 is optimal and that nationally the average is 265:1.

But do I think that my college counselor had a lot to do with my college choice and/or my future career choices? Not really. Of course the teachers that I saw every day for the four years of high school had a greater influence on me than my counselor who I met at the end of my junior year. Wouldn't that be obvious? In my opinion, it is the counselors job to help get you to where you want to go. By the time that high school students meet with their college counselors, they should have a pretty good idea of what they are interested in.  Wouldn't the teachers notice if one of their students excels in their class and push them to study it in college and suggest types of careers they could go into? I know that happened with me.

However, I do think that counselors should make sure that students are familiar with the application process at the very least.  Students should not feel as though they "are another face in the crowd" when they are with their counselors. I think that schools need to hire an appropriate amount of counselors for their school size. A ratio of 265:1 is simply unacceptable.

I completely agree with the response to the report by a veteran high school counselor:

The challenge for school counselors, as noted in this report, is first and foremost a math problem. Parents and education advocates are up in arms when the student-to-teacher ratio in the classroom starts to creep up. But student-to-school-counselor ratios have historically been completely out of line. With the average high school having a ratio of 400 students for every counselor, no wonder many young adults reported unsatisfying relationships with their counselors. This part of the problem is easily addressed by putting more counselors into our schools.

If policymakers, educators, parents, etc. want to continue to see their students succeed, this issue needs to be addressed.

Who is really guiding students??

Teacher Salaries and Contracts

I'm not sure if this has been a trend across the country, but I couldn't help but notice that while the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is negotiating teacher contracts in NYC, the new Governor of New Jersey and the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) are already at odds after the Governor announced a $475 million cut in aid to schools.  I think that it is interesting that everyone wants to hold teachers accountable for the success of schools through student academic performance on standardized test scores (see: previous post), but when cuts have to be made to state and/or city budgets, teacher pay is often the target of the cuts. 

According to an article in the NYTimes, the Mayor of NYC is not only trying to cut sick days in half and link pay more closely to performance, but is also proposing a limit to teacher raises to 2 percent a year (in contrast to annual raises of 4 percent to the majority of the city's unions). Now, I can already see the issue with this. If the rest of the city workers are receiving a 4 percent increase, they have 4 percent more to spend; whereas, teachers will only have 2 percent more. When you take inflation into account, this becomes an even bigger issue. 

In New Jersey, the cuts are not only effecting teacher salaries, but also teacher pensions. The Governor is also pushing for higher health insurance contributions (thereby reducing net pay) and pushing merit pay.  Merit pay would give even more weight to standardized test scores - unless of course, merit pay will be based on something else. 

If you were a teacher, and your pay was not increasing at the same rate as inflation and/or your benefits (sick days, pension, and health insurance) were being cut, what would you do? Do people really wonder why there is a shortage of teachers? The pay is already low enough considering that most districts, if not all, require that teachers are not only certified, but also have a relevant Master's degree. Now, they want to keep pay from increasing as much as other fields? 

I am sure that new teachers are put off by these cuts. It all comes down to how low a teacher is willing to be paid. At what point will the majority of teachers begin to look for other opportunities? Or at what pay point will the older teachers, who are near retirement, decide to retire instead of continue to teach? I think that people who are negotiating teacher contracts should realize that some of their most effective teachers may decide to leave the profession because of these cuts. Aren't there other areas in the school system that could be cut instead? 


How do people expect teachers to be held accountable for student academic achievement if teachers are not being supported?? I want to see what NYC and NJ contracts look like at the end of their respective negotiations. I would also love to analyze data that looks at teacher retention that highlights key contract changes. 

Teacher Salaries and Contracts

The Use of Standardized Tests

Last night, when I finished my last blog entry, I began to think about the implications that standardized test scores have on almost everything. Who is to say that students who are failing tests are not learning? Perhaps they have not learned how to properly take tests. As I am sure most of you realize, test taking is not always about what you know but how well you can tackle an exam. If you are a student who just can't deal with standardized tests, then you will not be able to pass the exam - even if you do know the material.

I am also sure that you know that many standardized exams are accused of being racial biased.  Exams often include questions that are not culturally relevant to African American and Latino students. For instance, not all inner-city students would know what a yacht is and a question about that would confuse them (think about those analogy questions on all standardized exams). So while the student have known the response if it read "boat" or "large boat", they automatically become confused because they are unfamiliar with the word "yacht". Questions such as these bring down the test scores of inner-city children.

If there are obviously issues with using standardized test scores as a way of measuring academic achievement, why use them at all? Well, obviously there is nothing better at the moment. How else would you compare a student at one school with another. Grades are subject to be different based on the teacher and even more so if the curriculum is not the same at all schools in the state. But even though it is the only way, does it make it right?

Probably not. Especially when districts are using standardized test scores to determine whether or not schools are failing. Are standardized tests destroying the education system - especially for inner cities? Also, who is to say that teachers alone are responsible for test scores? If students are unwilling to learn, what can teachers do? If parents are not supportive of their children and do not help their students with homework, how can teachers be truly effective?

Ironically enough, I woke up this morning to an e-mail from EducationNews.org. One of the articles that was listed in this e-mail was titled "Ravitch: The Death and Life of the Great American School System". The article is a review of a book with the same title "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Test and Choice Are Undermining Education" by Ravitch.

The author quotes the book by stating "Schools do not exist in isolation. They are part of the larger society. Schooling requires the active participation of many, including students, families, public officials, local organizations, and the larger community." Therefore, we cannot hold only teachers accountable for test scores. In the final chapter of the book, a series of statements are made. Two of which are "Schools will not improve if we value only what tests measure." and "Schools will not improve if we rely exclusively on tests as the means of deciding the fate of students, teachers, principals, and schools."

I could not agree more and I am adding this book to my must-read list.

The Use of Standardized Tests

Closing Failing Schools

Here is an issue that I have with a lot of the big public school districts, especially since the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. Districts are closing their lowest performing schools - schools that have failed to meet the annual benchmarks for standardized test scores and high school graduation rates under NCLB. In most cases, schools are closed for a year and restructured. The curriculum is changed, ineffectual teachers are replaced and the administration is replaced (i.e.: principals and vice-principals). These schools are then reopened in a year.

What then happens to the students who used to attend these schools? These students have to go to another school that has room for them within their district. The majority of schools that are failing are in underserved areas where children need the most amount of support (think Detroit, Chicago and New York City). Switching schools for a year does not seem like it will actually help any of these students - even if the students were actually doing well.

Now, what happens when the school that the students are transferred to closes the following year because it failed to meet the NCLB guidelines as well? Are students bouncing from school to school? This is a problem that Chicago Public School parents are protesting. According to an article in the NYTimes, parents are upset that the process of closing schools is not more transparent and there is not proof that the disruptions are actually helping their children.

Personally, I do not understand how this process helps the students. Not only is it disruptive to the students' education, but I do not see how schools can realistically revamp themselves in a year during the time they are closed. If it were that easy, why not just get rid of the low performing teachers and hire new ones and keep the schools open?

The whole thing seems contrary to what NCLB is trying to achieve. Especially since students in these closing schools are predominately African American or Latino. The disruption will most likely negatively effect their test scores if not increase their chances of dropping out. I would love to see the data on the students that have been effected by these school closures. If anyone knows of a research study doing so, please send me the information.

Closing Failing Schools

SCOTUSBlog Examines Brown v. Board of Education

I came across this on one of the blogs on Edweek.

SCOTUSBlog Examines Brown v. Board of Education

By Mark Walsh on February 12, 2010 2:46 PM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

As part of its "Race and the Court" program during Black History Month,SCOTUSBlog next week has a slate of podcasts and articles examining the legacy of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case striking down racial segregation in the schools.

The blog's goal with the program is "to reflect on the lasting impact the Supreme Court has had on race, both in law and in American society."

The lineup, scheduled for Feb. 15-19, is as follows:

Podcast: "The Unexpected Consequences of Brown v. Board of Education on African American Schools and Education in the South"
-David Cecelski, historian and author of Along Freedom Road: Hyde County, North Carolina, and the Fate of Black Schools in the South

Podcast on Brown v. Board of Education
-Nina Totenberg, legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio

"The Global Impact of Brown v. Board of Education"
-Mary Dudziak, professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and founder of the Legal History Blog

"What Can Brown Do For You?: The Court's Struggle Over the Meaning of Equal Protection"
-Pamela Karlan, professor at Stanford Law School

Podcast: Interview on Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent litigation over black civil rights
-Jack Greenberg, professor at Columbia Law School and former director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund

Podcast: The separate and unequal schools resulting from the Supreme Court's decisions
-Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law

SCOTUSBlog Examines Brown v. Board of Education

Does failing an AP exam benefit students?

The number of high school students taking an AP exam before they graduate is increasing. Last May's graduating class had twice as many students take an AP exam as the 2001 class did. However, the number of students failing is increasing as well (from 39 percent to 43 percent). In a report released by the College Board, they note that there are more 1s and 2s (failing grades) scored on the exams, but that the number of 3s, 4s and 5s (scores that would earn a student college credit) has increased so much so that it outweighs the increase in the failing scores.

The report also noted that the share who took at least one AP exam last year was a third larger than it was for the class of 2004, while the share who got a passing grade was only a quarter higher than in the class of 2004.  The College Board recognized the gap and said that students who got a 2 or higher were more likely to earn a bachelor's degree in 4 years than other students.


Are there any benefits for students who take an AP exam but do not receive a passing grade? Are students who are exposed to college-level work benefiting even if they fail their AP exam? If not, should educators take steps to ensure that students that will not pass do not take the exam? Could failing have an negative influence on the student? Will they think that they are not prepared for college or not doing college level work in that area and stop trying?

Many schools are increasing the number of AP courses that they offer so their students have a more rigorous curriculum and are more appealing to colleges. But in light of the increase in the percentage of students failing exams, should schools do more than just offer AP courses? Should they also make sure that teachers are delivering the material properly and that students who are enrolling in the courses are capable of doing well?

However, if it is true that students are benefiting no matter the score then I believe that schools need to start offering these courses to students who would not normally take them. AP courses are normally offered in higher SES schools and to middle and upper class students. The report mentions that schools have increased access to AP courses among traditionally underserved students and there is a table that shows the demographics of test takers is comparable to that of the nation. There is also a table in the appendix that shows the test score breakdown by test subject and race. I am eager to go over this data to see the differences in passing rate by race.

Does failing an AP exam benefit students?

Early College

Early College High Schools allow students to get their high school degree and their two-year Associates degree in five years. High schools partner with local community colleges to create these five year programs which are offered to students at no cost. In the past, students who took community college courses while they were in high school wanted either the extra edge in the college application process or a few extra credits before attending a four-year institution. However, Early Colleges target students who would traditionally not go on to college or even complete high school.

Early Colleges The NYTimes has recently published an article about Early Colleges. The article says that Early Colleges may be a good way to help at risk students. While the schools have not been open long enough to effectively analyze the benefits of the extra costs, there are some positive highlights which include a high graduation rate. The article states:

"A recent report from Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit group that is coordinating the Gates initiative, found that in 2008, the early-college schools that had been open for more than four years had a high school graduation rate of 92 percent — and 4 out of 10 graduates had earned at least a year of college credit.
With a careful sequence of courses, including ninth-grade algebra, and attention to skills like note-taking, the early-college high schools accelerate students so that they arrive in college needing less of the remedial work that stalls so many low-income and first-generation students."

While these results are impressive, the article does not address how students are applying to these Early Colleges and the demographics of the districts and schools. I am curious to see if the demographics of the schools reflect the target population or if Early Colleges are just "creaming" from the districts top performers. Are students who are graduating with at least a year of college credit the same students that would have done so without the assistance of the Early College? If this is the case, what are districts gaining from the extra costs to the schools? 

Early College

Lower Standards for High School Diploma

Sounds wrong? That's probably because most people talk about improving standards to increase success at the college level. Many students are entering colleges unprepared, and yet some states are lowering their standards for a high school diploma? Education is supposed to improve the position of the United States in the global economy and also improve the socioeconomic status of individuals. If standards are lowered, doesn't that mean that the United States will be taking a step back in the global marketplace and that the individuals in these states will not fare as well as the rest of the country?

States Lower Test Standards for a High School Diploma

An article in the NYTimes this week states that Pennsylvania adopted a new state law that is supposed to ensure that students are graduating high school prepared for college, but many say that the law is watering down the requirements.

The rules in Pennsylvania require students to pass at least four courses, with the end-of-course exams counting for a third of the course grade. If students fail an exam or a section of an exam, they will have two chances to retake it. If they cannot pass after that, they have the option of doing a subject-specific project that is approved by district officials.

Theoretically, a student would be able to graduate from high school without having mastered the required curriculum. I am not sure how that prepares students for college. You are not allowed to retake certain parts of finals that you fail in college. So why would doing so in high school prepare you for college?

The new system in Pennsylvania is not the only one receiving criticism. Other states, like NJ, NY, Texas, Arkansas, and Massachusetts, are being criticized as well. States have eliminated parts of the test so that students would be able to pass at higher rates. If you ask me, these new tests are not preparing more students for college, they are just ensuring that more students complete high school by watering down exams. This will do nothing but put these students at a disadvantage to their peers.

Lower Standards for High School Diploma

Education Week: Obama Unveils Projects to Bolster STEM Teaching

via Education Week: Obama Unveils Projects to Bolster STEM Teaching.

This article is very interesting. As someone who works at a national non-profit in the STEM education field, I am happy to see that the President has announced that there will be more that $250 million (more than double the amount that Obama announced in November) in private investments to help attract and prepare new teachers for STEM. The money will also help to improve instruction in STEM by teachers that are already practicing.

The article notes that the government can not address the STEM problem alone. Therefore, a partnership between the federal government, companies, foundations, nonprofit groups and science and engineering societies will work with young people across the United States to excel in STEM. However, I think that the partnership should include other entities such as post secondary institutions (both two-year and four-year colleges) with science and engineering programs. These schools prepare students for careers in engineering and would know what is needed for them to succeed at the post secondary level.

In addition, education graduate schools would also be able to further assist in developing adequate professional development of teachers in the STEM areas.

I would also like to see more involvement from the multicultural STEM nonprofits and foundations. As the demographics of the country continue to change and Latinos become a dominant portion of the population, it is important that education to workforce development program include and reach out to all cultures.

Education Week: Obama Unveils Projects to Bolster STEM Teaching