It'll be interesting to see how this plays out given this is a highly affluent school.
-Patricia
Parents and youths act after testing services nullify 385 students' results because at least 10 cheated and some test proctors were seen sleeping or reading.
By Carla Rivera, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 11, 2008
Calling themselves Justice for 375, a group of Orange County parents and students says it's ready to fight a decision to cancel the high schoolers' Advanced Placement test scores amid allegations of numerous testing violations at the school.
They gathered at a Rancho Santa Margarita park Wednesday evening to protest actions by the College Board and the Educational Testing Service to invalidate the scores of 690 college-level exams taken in May by hundreds of Trabuco Hills High School students.
By the end of the evening, they had a plan to mount public and legal pressure to force the testing agencies to reinstate scores for students who say they are innocent of cheating and fear that the score cancellations will jeopardize years of study.
It is one of the largest AP test imbroglios in a decade, according to the Educational Testing Service, and perhaps the most memorable in Southern California since 1982, when the scores of more than a dozen students in Jaime Escalante's AP calculus class at Garfield High School were invalidated because of suspected cheating. The students retook the exams and passed, and the events were later turned into the film "Stand and Deliver."
Parents and students are pointing fingers at Trabuco Hills High officials for mismanaging the exams taken by 385 students in early May. They say there were insufficient proctors in exam rooms and there was inadequate monitoring of students, who were allowed to sit too close together and face one another. Some proctors were seen reading or sleeping, and some left the rooms, according to students.
Amid the alleged lax attention, 10 students later conceded having cheated on statistics and macroeconomics exams by using cellphones to send text messages. Use of electronic devices is not allowed in rooms.
The Mission Viejo school, meanwhile, has reassigned an assistant principal who had been in charge of administering the exams, and it might mete out more punishment.
The Saddleback Valley Unified School District is weighing its legal options, consulting counsel for the Orange County Department of Education in advance of a third appeal to the testing agencies to reconsider their decision.
In a statement released Thursday, district Supt. Steven L. Fish said that "the arbitrary decision by the Educational Testing Service to cancel all student scores for 10 different Advanced Placement [exams] is of great magnitude and affects nearly 400 students."
"It is overly punitive and devastating to Trabuco Hills High School, the district and this community. While we admit some mistakes were made, to punish innocent groups of students is unprofessional and unnecessary."
Dan McClure, 18, who started a Facebook website group for disgruntled parents and students and was appointed a co-chairman of Justice for 375, said six of his AP scores -- macro and microeconomics, biology, English, chemistry and statistics -- were nullified. AP exams test college-level work in 22 subject areas that can earn students credit and advanced placement at most colleges and universities.
"At first I thought, No, this can't be serious," the UC Berkeley-bound McClure said. "I was mad to say the least; I had to get people together. The only way we can do this is to show them that they can't walk all over us."
But the group will face a tough road. The Princeton, N.J.-based Educational Testing Service, which administers AP exams, the SAT and other tests for the College Board, insisted Thursday that reinstating the scores was off the table, setting up a classic showdown with irate parents who see trusted educational institutions -- in this case the testing agencies and the school -- letting them down.
"For some of these students, it's the difference between entering college as a freshman or a sophomore," said David McClure, Dan's father. "It's a first year of college credits; that's how much it's going to cost these students."
Retesting has been scheduled for the week of Aug. 11. But many parents and students say the dates conflict with long-planned vacations and other commitments. Many say it will be difficult to prepare, again, for the tests.
Roger Faubel said that in a celebratory gesture, his daughter Alex, 18, burned the notes for four exams whose scores were subsequently canceled.
"Nobody has told the students how they're going to get their primary textbooks to study," he said, noting that most school offices are closed and teachers are away for the summer. "If they are going to do something, they need to do something to help the students soon."
It's definitely unfortunate, said Testing Service spokesman Jason Baran. The vast majority of students were honest, he conceded. If there had just been cheating, he said, only those students' scores would be affected. But rampant irregularities at the test site left the agency no choice.
"Because of the overwhelming number of irregularities, the possibility exists that cheating was much more widespread," he said. "When it comes to reporting scores back to students, high schools and universities, we need to have scores that we can confidently stand behind. These students did not test under standardized conditions that were fair and secure."
Robert Schaeffer, public education director of FairTest, a Cambridge, Mass., organization that promotes fair and equal testing, said the Trabuco Hills incident reflected a general weakness in the nation's testing system.
Most test proctors are teachers, guidance counselors and coaches who typically are underpaid for their time and may not take testing too seriously, Schaeffer said. "A basic notion of standardized tests is that the exams are given in the same manner everywhere, and in fact one hears all kinds of stories of huge differences in the quality of proctoring."
Linda Riley, whose daughter Shauna, 18, is headed to the University of San Diego, said parents and students would not go down without a fight.
"It's a sad hit for kids who studied so hard for 13 years and, honestly, don't deserve to be treated this way," Riley said.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Researchers Document High-Stakes Testing Damage, Shortcomings
Fair Test
Issue: Jul 2008
Researchers continue to find that high-stakes testing has damaging consequences such as decreased graduation rates, especially for low-income and minority group students. Survey results show that employers do not find test scores meaningful for evaluating job candidates. And a study evaluated the sources of achievement gaps in part by asking how students chose answers on a fifth grade science exam.
* In January, Rice University’s Linda McNeil and colleagues published "Avoidable Losses: High Stakes Accountability and the Dropout Crisis,” which found that Texas’s accountability system has depressed graduation rates. Most severely affected were African Americans, Hispanics, and English language learners. (Summary and link to article is available HERE
Now Julian Vasquez Heilig and Linda Darling-Hammond have published a complementary study, "Accountability Texas-style: The Progress and Learning of Urban Minority Students in a High-Stakes Testing Context," in the June issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. This study of one Texas district demonstrates how high-stakes testing prompted significant increases in grade 9 retention (grade 10 is tested, 9 is not). Up to 30% of the students were retained in 9th grade; of those "only 12% ever took the TAAS, and only 8% passed it." Up to 40% of each grade cohort "withdrew." Most were not labeled “dropouts” but simply disappeared from the rolls; only 8% transferred to other schools.
The fraudulent result was a soaring reported graduation rate, though the authors' analysis showed only one-third of a cohort graduated in five years or less. African Americans, Latinos and English language learners had the lowest completion rates. This study covers years before the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was enacted but when the Texas model for NCLB was already in full force. The accountability system did not help low-income and minority-group children, but it helped the state pretend its policies were working.
--EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS.2008; 30: 75-110
* Exit exams have no positive impact on academic achievement, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Educational Policy in June. The study, by Eric Grodsky, Demetra Kalogrides and John Robert Warren, compared reading and math scores of students in exit exam states with those in states without exit exams. It found that even the most difficult exams failed to improve performance in reading and math. The researchers analyzed the scores of 13- and 17-year-olds on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams.
-- “State High School Exit Examinations and NAEP Long-Term Trends in Reading and Mathematics, 1971-2004”
* Businesses evaluating potential employees generally do not place a high value on test results, according to a survey of 301 employers by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The survey, released in January, reported that employers see multiple-choice tests as ineffective. They prefer to judge potential workers based on “assessments of real-world and applied-learning approaches,” such as evaluations of supervised internships, community-based projects, and comprehensive senior projects.
-- “How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning?” is available
--A related FairTest fact sheet, “Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas” is available.
* “Left Behind by Design” found differential results for low, middle and high-performing Chicago students on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Illinois State Achievement Test. Derek Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, both University of Chicago economists, examined the performance of Chicago public school students to see how test-based accountability systems influenced the achievement of students at different ability levels. They found that No Child Left Behind and similar district reforms failed to generate score gains for the lowest-performing students. There were gains for students in the middle of the pack, but only mixed evidence of gains among the highest achieving students. The authors said that because of requirements to have more students score proficient, "Schools may find it optimal to ignore students who have little or no chance of reaching proficiency without intensive and costly intervention … and to limit services for gifted children who are likely already proficient.” In addition, "raising standards may actually increase the number of low-achieving children who are ‘left behind’ by increasing the number for whom the standard is out of reach." They did not discuss to what extent the gains by the middle students were score inflation from narrowed curriculum and teaching to the test, consequences found in other studies.
--“Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability” is available at.
* A study of why students chose particular answers on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) 5th grade state science test provides broader insights into achievement gaps and the limitations of standardized tests, particularly for low-income students and English language learners. The test appears to underestimate how much these students know.
The researchers studied measurement error caused when students who know the material nevertheless choose the wrong answer ("false negatives") or when students who don’t know the material get the answer right ("false positives"). The researchers interviewed students as to why they chose the answers they did.
Question wording seemed to cause both false positives and false negatives. On questions and answers with long or complicated wording, more students chose the wrong answer even though they knew the science behind the question. Low-income and English language learner students primarily fell into the false negative error pattern.
The authors wrote that when students, classes or schools do poorly on a test, there is a tendency to assume that the student, teacher or school is at fault. “The results reported here, while preliminary, suggest a far more complicated picture that at the very least casts doubt on the use of scores on MCAS and similar high-stakes tests to make consequential decisions about students, teachers, administrators, and schools.”
--For more information on the study, “Making Sense of Children’s Performance on Achievement Tests: The Case of the 5th Grade Science MCAS,” contact TERC, at www.terc.edu.
Issue: Jul 2008
Researchers continue to find that high-stakes testing has damaging consequences such as decreased graduation rates, especially for low-income and minority group students. Survey results show that employers do not find test scores meaningful for evaluating job candidates. And a study evaluated the sources of achievement gaps in part by asking how students chose answers on a fifth grade science exam.
* In January, Rice University’s Linda McNeil and colleagues published "Avoidable Losses: High Stakes Accountability and the Dropout Crisis,” which found that Texas’s accountability system has depressed graduation rates. Most severely affected were African Americans, Hispanics, and English language learners. (Summary and link to article is available HERE
Now Julian Vasquez Heilig and Linda Darling-Hammond have published a complementary study, "Accountability Texas-style: The Progress and Learning of Urban Minority Students in a High-Stakes Testing Context," in the June issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. This study of one Texas district demonstrates how high-stakes testing prompted significant increases in grade 9 retention (grade 10 is tested, 9 is not). Up to 30% of the students were retained in 9th grade; of those "only 12% ever took the TAAS, and only 8% passed it." Up to 40% of each grade cohort "withdrew." Most were not labeled “dropouts” but simply disappeared from the rolls; only 8% transferred to other schools.
The fraudulent result was a soaring reported graduation rate, though the authors' analysis showed only one-third of a cohort graduated in five years or less. African Americans, Latinos and English language learners had the lowest completion rates. This study covers years before the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was enacted but when the Texas model for NCLB was already in full force. The accountability system did not help low-income and minority-group children, but it helped the state pretend its policies were working.
--EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS.2008; 30: 75-110
* Exit exams have no positive impact on academic achievement, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Educational Policy in June. The study, by Eric Grodsky, Demetra Kalogrides and John Robert Warren, compared reading and math scores of students in exit exam states with those in states without exit exams. It found that even the most difficult exams failed to improve performance in reading and math. The researchers analyzed the scores of 13- and 17-year-olds on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams.
-- “State High School Exit Examinations and NAEP Long-Term Trends in Reading and Mathematics, 1971-2004”
* Businesses evaluating potential employees generally do not place a high value on test results, according to a survey of 301 employers by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The survey, released in January, reported that employers see multiple-choice tests as ineffective. They prefer to judge potential workers based on “assessments of real-world and applied-learning approaches,” such as evaluations of supervised internships, community-based projects, and comprehensive senior projects.
-- “How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning?” is available
--A related FairTest fact sheet, “Why Graduation Tests/Exit Exams Fail to Add Value to High School Diplomas” is available.
* “Left Behind by Design” found differential results for low, middle and high-performing Chicago students on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Illinois State Achievement Test. Derek Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, both University of Chicago economists, examined the performance of Chicago public school students to see how test-based accountability systems influenced the achievement of students at different ability levels. They found that No Child Left Behind and similar district reforms failed to generate score gains for the lowest-performing students. There were gains for students in the middle of the pack, but only mixed evidence of gains among the highest achieving students. The authors said that because of requirements to have more students score proficient, "Schools may find it optimal to ignore students who have little or no chance of reaching proficiency without intensive and costly intervention … and to limit services for gifted children who are likely already proficient.” In addition, "raising standards may actually increase the number of low-achieving children who are ‘left behind’ by increasing the number for whom the standard is out of reach." They did not discuss to what extent the gains by the middle students were score inflation from narrowed curriculum and teaching to the test, consequences found in other studies.
--“Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability” is available at.
* A study of why students chose particular answers on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) 5th grade state science test provides broader insights into achievement gaps and the limitations of standardized tests, particularly for low-income students and English language learners. The test appears to underestimate how much these students know.
The researchers studied measurement error caused when students who know the material nevertheless choose the wrong answer ("false negatives") or when students who don’t know the material get the answer right ("false positives"). The researchers interviewed students as to why they chose the answers they did.
Question wording seemed to cause both false positives and false negatives. On questions and answers with long or complicated wording, more students chose the wrong answer even though they knew the science behind the question. Low-income and English language learner students primarily fell into the false negative error pattern.
The authors wrote that when students, classes or schools do poorly on a test, there is a tendency to assume that the student, teacher or school is at fault. “The results reported here, while preliminary, suggest a far more complicated picture that at the very least casts doubt on the use of scores on MCAS and similar high-stakes tests to make consequential decisions about students, teachers, administrators, and schools.”
--For more information on the study, “Making Sense of Children’s Performance on Achievement Tests: The Case of the 5th Grade Science MCAS,” contact TERC, at www.terc.edu.
An Interpreter Speaking Up for Migrants
By JULIA PRESTON | NY Times
Published: July 11, 2008
WATERLOO, Iowa — In 23 years as a certified Spanish interpreter for federal courts, Erik Camayd-Freixas has spoken up in criminal trials many times, but the words he uttered were rarely his own.
Then he was summoned here by court officials to translate in the hearings for nearly 400 illegal immigrant workers arrested in a raid on May 12 at a meatpacking plant. Since then, Mr. Camayd-Freixas, a professor of Spanish at Florida International University, has taken the unusual step of breaking the code of confidentiality among legal interpreters about their work.
In a 14-page essay he circulated among two dozen other interpreters who worked here, Professor Camayd-Freixas wrote that the immigrant defendants whose words he translated, most of them villagers from Guatemala, did not fully understand the criminal charges they were facing or the rights most of them had waived.
In the essay and an interview, Professor Camayd-Freixas said he was taken aback by the rapid pace of the proceedings and the pressure prosecutors brought to bear on the defendants and their lawyers by pressing criminal charges instead of deporting the workers immediately for immigration violations.
He said defense lawyers had little time or privacy to meet with their court-assigned clients in the first hectic days after the raid. Most of the Guatemalans could not read or write, he said. Most did not understand that they were in criminal court.
“The questions they asked showed they did not understand what was going on,” Professor Camayd-Freixas said in the interview. “The great majority were under the impression they were there because of being illegal in the country, not because of Social Security fraud.”
During fast-paced hearings in May, 262 of the illegal immigrants pleaded guilty in one week and were sentenced to prison — most for five months — for knowingly using false Social Security cards or legal residence documents to gain jobs at the Agriprocessors kosher meat plant in nearby Postville. It was the largest criminal enforcement operation ever carried out by immigration authorities at a workplace.
The essay has provoked new questions about the Agriprocessors proceedings, which had been criticized by criminal defense and immigration lawyers as failing to uphold the immigrants’ right to due process. Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee, said she would hold a hearing on the prosecutions and call Professor Camayd-Freixas as a witness.
“The essay raises questions about whether the charges brought were supported by the facts,” Ms. Lofgren said.
Bob Teig, a spokesman for Matt M. Dummermuth, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, said the immigrants’ constitutional rights were not compromised.
“All defendants were provided with experienced criminal attorneys and interpreters before they made any decisions in their criminal cases,” Mr. Teig said. “Once they made their choices, two independent judicial officers determined the defendants were making their choices freely and voluntarily, were satisfied with their attorney, and were, in fact, guilty.”
Mr. Teig said the judges in the cases were satisfied with the guilty pleas.
“The judges had the right and duty to reject any guilty plea where a defendant was not guilty,” Mr. Teig said. “No plea was rejected.”
The essay by Professor Camayd-Freixas, who is the director of a program to train language interpreters at the university, has also caused a stir among legal interpreters. In telephone calls and debates through e-mail, they have discussed whether it was appropriate for a translator to speak publicly about conversations with criminal defendants who were covered by legal confidentiality.
“It is quite unusual that a legal interpreter would go to this length of writing up an essay and taking a strong stance,” said Nataly Kelly, an analyst with Common Sense Advisory, a marketing research company focused on language services. Ms. Kelly is a certified legal interpreter who is the author of a manual about interpreting.
The Agriprocessors hearings were held in temporary courtrooms in mobile trailers and a ballroom at the National Cattle Congress, a fairgrounds here in Waterloo. Professor Camayd-Freixas worked with one defense lawyer, Sara L. Smith, translating her discussions with nine clients she represented. He also worked in courtrooms during plea and sentencing hearings.
Ms. Smith praised Professor Camayd-Freixas’s essay, saying it captured the immigrants’ distress during “the surreal two weeks” of the proceedings. She said he had not revealed information that was detrimental to her cases.
But she cautioned that interpreters should not commonly speak publicly about conversations between lawyers and clients. “It is not a practice that I would generally advocate as I could envision circumstances under which such revelations could be damaging to a client’s case,” Ms. Smith said.
Professor Camayd-Freixas said he had considered withdrawing from the assignment, but decided instead that he could play a valuable role by witnessing the proceedings and making them known.
He suggested many of the immigrants could not have knowingly committed the crimes in their pleas. “Most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security card was or what purpose it served,” he wrote.
He said many immigrants could not distinguish between a Social Security card and a residence visa, known as a green card. They said they had purchased fake documents from smugglers in Postville, or obtained them directly from supervisors at the Agriprocessors plant. Most did not know that the original cards could belong to Americans and legal immigrants, Mr. Camayd-Freixas said.
Ms. Smith went repeatedly over the charges and the options available to her clients, Professor Camayd-Freixas said. He cited the reaction of one Guatemalan, Isaías Pérez Martínez: “No matter how many times his attorney explained it, he kept saying, ‘I’m illegal, I have no rights. I’m nobody in this country. Just do whatever you want with me.’ ”
Professor Camayd-Freixas said Mr. Pérez Martínez wept during much of his meeting with Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith, like more than a dozen other court-appointed defense lawyers, concluded that none of the immigrants’ legal options were good. Prosecutors had evidence showing they had presented fraudulent documents when they were hired at Agriprocessors.
In plea agreements offered by Mr. Dummermuth, the immigrants could plead guilty to a document fraud charge and serve five months in prison. Otherwise, prosecutors would try them on more serious identity theft charges carrying a mandatory sentence of two years. In any scenario, even if they were acquitted, the immigrants would eventually be deported.
Worried about families they had been supporting with their wages, the immigrants readily chose to plead guilty because they did understand that was the fastest way to return home, Professor Camayd-Freixas said.
“They were hoping and they were begging everybody to deport them,” he said.
Ms. Smith said she was convinced after examining the prosecutors’ evidence that it was not in her clients’ interests to go to trial.
“I think they understood what their options were,” she said. “I tried to make it very clear.”
Legal interpreters familiar with the profession said that Professor Camayd-Freixas’ essay, while a notable departure from the norm, did not violate professional standards.
Isabel Framer, a certified legal interpreter from Ohio who is chairwoman of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, said Professor Camayd-Freixas did not go public while the cases were still in court or reveal information that could not be discerned from the record. Ms. Framer said she was speaking for herself because her organization had not taken an official position on the essay.
“Interpreters, just like judges and attorneys, have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the process,” she said. “But they don’t check their ethical standards at the door.”
Published: July 11, 2008
WATERLOO, Iowa — In 23 years as a certified Spanish interpreter for federal courts, Erik Camayd-Freixas has spoken up in criminal trials many times, but the words he uttered were rarely his own.
Then he was summoned here by court officials to translate in the hearings for nearly 400 illegal immigrant workers arrested in a raid on May 12 at a meatpacking plant. Since then, Mr. Camayd-Freixas, a professor of Spanish at Florida International University, has taken the unusual step of breaking the code of confidentiality among legal interpreters about their work.
In a 14-page essay he circulated among two dozen other interpreters who worked here, Professor Camayd-Freixas wrote that the immigrant defendants whose words he translated, most of them villagers from Guatemala, did not fully understand the criminal charges they were facing or the rights most of them had waived.
In the essay and an interview, Professor Camayd-Freixas said he was taken aback by the rapid pace of the proceedings and the pressure prosecutors brought to bear on the defendants and their lawyers by pressing criminal charges instead of deporting the workers immediately for immigration violations.
He said defense lawyers had little time or privacy to meet with their court-assigned clients in the first hectic days after the raid. Most of the Guatemalans could not read or write, he said. Most did not understand that they were in criminal court.
“The questions they asked showed they did not understand what was going on,” Professor Camayd-Freixas said in the interview. “The great majority were under the impression they were there because of being illegal in the country, not because of Social Security fraud.”
During fast-paced hearings in May, 262 of the illegal immigrants pleaded guilty in one week and were sentenced to prison — most for five months — for knowingly using false Social Security cards or legal residence documents to gain jobs at the Agriprocessors kosher meat plant in nearby Postville. It was the largest criminal enforcement operation ever carried out by immigration authorities at a workplace.
The essay has provoked new questions about the Agriprocessors proceedings, which had been criticized by criminal defense and immigration lawyers as failing to uphold the immigrants’ right to due process. Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee, said she would hold a hearing on the prosecutions and call Professor Camayd-Freixas as a witness.
“The essay raises questions about whether the charges brought were supported by the facts,” Ms. Lofgren said.
Bob Teig, a spokesman for Matt M. Dummermuth, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, said the immigrants’ constitutional rights were not compromised.
“All defendants were provided with experienced criminal attorneys and interpreters before they made any decisions in their criminal cases,” Mr. Teig said. “Once they made their choices, two independent judicial officers determined the defendants were making their choices freely and voluntarily, were satisfied with their attorney, and were, in fact, guilty.”
Mr. Teig said the judges in the cases were satisfied with the guilty pleas.
“The judges had the right and duty to reject any guilty plea where a defendant was not guilty,” Mr. Teig said. “No plea was rejected.”
The essay by Professor Camayd-Freixas, who is the director of a program to train language interpreters at the university, has also caused a stir among legal interpreters. In telephone calls and debates through e-mail, they have discussed whether it was appropriate for a translator to speak publicly about conversations with criminal defendants who were covered by legal confidentiality.
“It is quite unusual that a legal interpreter would go to this length of writing up an essay and taking a strong stance,” said Nataly Kelly, an analyst with Common Sense Advisory, a marketing research company focused on language services. Ms. Kelly is a certified legal interpreter who is the author of a manual about interpreting.
The Agriprocessors hearings were held in temporary courtrooms in mobile trailers and a ballroom at the National Cattle Congress, a fairgrounds here in Waterloo. Professor Camayd-Freixas worked with one defense lawyer, Sara L. Smith, translating her discussions with nine clients she represented. He also worked in courtrooms during plea and sentencing hearings.
Ms. Smith praised Professor Camayd-Freixas’s essay, saying it captured the immigrants’ distress during “the surreal two weeks” of the proceedings. She said he had not revealed information that was detrimental to her cases.
But she cautioned that interpreters should not commonly speak publicly about conversations between lawyers and clients. “It is not a practice that I would generally advocate as I could envision circumstances under which such revelations could be damaging to a client’s case,” Ms. Smith said.
Professor Camayd-Freixas said he had considered withdrawing from the assignment, but decided instead that he could play a valuable role by witnessing the proceedings and making them known.
He suggested many of the immigrants could not have knowingly committed the crimes in their pleas. “Most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security card was or what purpose it served,” he wrote.
He said many immigrants could not distinguish between a Social Security card and a residence visa, known as a green card. They said they had purchased fake documents from smugglers in Postville, or obtained them directly from supervisors at the Agriprocessors plant. Most did not know that the original cards could belong to Americans and legal immigrants, Mr. Camayd-Freixas said.
Ms. Smith went repeatedly over the charges and the options available to her clients, Professor Camayd-Freixas said. He cited the reaction of one Guatemalan, Isaías Pérez Martínez: “No matter how many times his attorney explained it, he kept saying, ‘I’m illegal, I have no rights. I’m nobody in this country. Just do whatever you want with me.’ ”
Professor Camayd-Freixas said Mr. Pérez Martínez wept during much of his meeting with Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith, like more than a dozen other court-appointed defense lawyers, concluded that none of the immigrants’ legal options were good. Prosecutors had evidence showing they had presented fraudulent documents when they were hired at Agriprocessors.
In plea agreements offered by Mr. Dummermuth, the immigrants could plead guilty to a document fraud charge and serve five months in prison. Otherwise, prosecutors would try them on more serious identity theft charges carrying a mandatory sentence of two years. In any scenario, even if they were acquitted, the immigrants would eventually be deported.
Worried about families they had been supporting with their wages, the immigrants readily chose to plead guilty because they did understand that was the fastest way to return home, Professor Camayd-Freixas said.
“They were hoping and they were begging everybody to deport them,” he said.
Ms. Smith said she was convinced after examining the prosecutors’ evidence that it was not in her clients’ interests to go to trial.
“I think they understood what their options were,” she said. “I tried to make it very clear.”
Legal interpreters familiar with the profession said that Professor Camayd-Freixas’ essay, while a notable departure from the norm, did not violate professional standards.
Isabel Framer, a certified legal interpreter from Ohio who is chairwoman of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, said Professor Camayd-Freixas did not go public while the cases were still in court or reveal information that could not be discerned from the record. Ms. Framer said she was speaking for herself because her organization had not taken an official position on the essay.
“Interpreters, just like judges and attorneys, have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the process,” she said. “But they don’t check their ethical standards at the door.”
Number of Mexicans gaining citizenship soars in 2007
The figure rise nearly 50% from the year before, a federal report says. Officials cite a campaign by Spanish-language media and community groups, plus a desire to apply before a fee hike kicked in.
By Teresa Watanabe | LA Times
July 11, 2008
The number of Mexican-born immigrants who became U.S. citizens swelled by nearly 50% last year amid a massive campaign by Spanish-language media and immigrant advocacy groups to help eligible residents apply for citizenship, according to a government report released Thursday.
Despite Mexicans' historically low rates of naturalization, 122,000 attained citizenship in 2007, up from 84,000 the previous year, with California and Texas posting the largest gains. Salvadorans and Guatemalans also showed significant increases at a time when the overall number of naturalizations declined by 6%.
At the same time, the number of citizenship applications filed doubled to 1.4 million last year, the report by the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics found.
The surge in naturalization of Mexicans, their largest year-to-year increase this decade, came amid pitched national debate over immigration reform. The report cited the campaign by Spanish-language media and community groups, along with a desire to apply before steep fee increases took effect, as two major reasons for the jump in naturalizations.
"Immigrants are tired of the tone and tenor of the immigration debate, which they feel is humiliating and does not recognize their contributions," said Rosalind Gold of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' Educational Fund in Los Angeles. "That climate has fueled their desire to have their voices heard."
New citizens interviewed Thursday echoed those sentiments. Erika Lorena Rivera, 30, came to Los Angeles from Mexico at age 1, became eligible for naturalization a decade ago but decided to take the plunge -- along with four relatives -- just last October. Rivera, a supervisor for a Los Angeles hair accessory firm, said she was offended by what she perceived as growing anti-immigrant bias and was moved to apply for citizenship after seeing ads about it on TV.
"I became a citizen to have full rights and vote for a president for the first time," said Rivera, adding that she and her family plan to vote for Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
The increase in Latinos with the power to vote could affect the political landscape in November, analysts said. Louis DiSipio, a UC Irvine political science professor, said one of the biggest impacts could be in Florida, a key battleground state that posted 54,500 new citizens last year. Although the ethnic Cuban population there has dominated the Latino political landscape and tended to vote Republican, he said, more of the newer immigrants are coming from South America and trending Democratic. For the first time this decade, more Latinos were registered as Democrats than Republicans, 35% to 33% as of this spring, according to Gold.
Beyond November, the swelling Latino numbers nationwide will continue to recast the political landscape for local elections, DiSipio said. He said that growing Latino naturalizations in the late 1990s, thanks to a 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants, helped California Democrats gain an 800,000-plus voter edge and that similar gains could occur with the newest increase.
Gold said that new Latino citizens have higher voting rates than longtime Mexican Americans and that their political allegiances are shallower. As a result, she said, their votes are still up for grabs for those elected officials willing to work hard to reach them. In addition, she said, the proportion of Latino voters identifying themselves as independents is growing.
Erica L. Bernal-Martinez, senior director of civic engagement for the association of Latino officials, said grass-roots organizations planned to continue their push to encourage naturalizations among the estimated 4 million to 5 million eligible Latinos. Mexicans have historically had low rates of naturalization -- 35% compared with 59% for all immigrants -- but that appears to be changing as media and community organizations pour unprecedented resources and energy into their civic engagement campaigns, Bernal-Martinez and Gold said.
More than 400 community organizations across the country, along with major Spanish-language media, have joined forces in a "Ya Es Hora" (It's Time) campaign to help eligible voters become citizens and register to vote. The campaign plans to hold naturalization workshops in 10 cities Saturday.
"We think with this type of promotion and outreach, we can really rewrite this story of Latino naturalizations," Gold said.
However, steep fee increases last July sharply reduced the overall monthly number of new applicants from August to December. Applications peaked at 457,000 in July, then plummeted to a monthly average of about 30,000 after the application fee increased to $675 from $400.
The new report found that California posted the largest gains in new citizens in 2007, from 153,000 the year before to 182,000; followed by Texas, from 38,000 to 53,000; and Illinois, from 30,000 to 39,000.
After Mexico, the largest number of new citizens came from India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, South Korea and El Salvador.
The overall decrease in the number of naturalizations last year occurred after special congressional funding to process the backlog of citizenship applications ran out. But applications continued to soar in the Latino community because of the targeted citizenship campaigns, experts said.
Jorge-Mario Cabrera, an El Salvador native and Long Beach community activist, finally naturalized last year with his mother; he had been eligible since 1992. He said he had not become a citizen sooner because he wasn't sure why it would matter and he still clung to his allegiances to his native land.
That changed a few years ago when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would have criminalized illegal immigrants and those who aided them. Millions of immigrants and supporters poured into the streets to protest, and community organizations mobilized to urge people like Cabrera to naturalize, register to vote and make their voices heard.
Cabrera, 39, and his 73-year-old mother took the plunge.
"We felt there were millions of voices left unheard every year, so we decided our two votes were needed to make a difference," he said.
By Teresa Watanabe | LA Times
July 11, 2008
The number of Mexican-born immigrants who became U.S. citizens swelled by nearly 50% last year amid a massive campaign by Spanish-language media and immigrant advocacy groups to help eligible residents apply for citizenship, according to a government report released Thursday.
Despite Mexicans' historically low rates of naturalization, 122,000 attained citizenship in 2007, up from 84,000 the previous year, with California and Texas posting the largest gains. Salvadorans and Guatemalans also showed significant increases at a time when the overall number of naturalizations declined by 6%.
At the same time, the number of citizenship applications filed doubled to 1.4 million last year, the report by the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics found.
The surge in naturalization of Mexicans, their largest year-to-year increase this decade, came amid pitched national debate over immigration reform. The report cited the campaign by Spanish-language media and community groups, along with a desire to apply before steep fee increases took effect, as two major reasons for the jump in naturalizations.
"Immigrants are tired of the tone and tenor of the immigration debate, which they feel is humiliating and does not recognize their contributions," said Rosalind Gold of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' Educational Fund in Los Angeles. "That climate has fueled their desire to have their voices heard."
New citizens interviewed Thursday echoed those sentiments. Erika Lorena Rivera, 30, came to Los Angeles from Mexico at age 1, became eligible for naturalization a decade ago but decided to take the plunge -- along with four relatives -- just last October. Rivera, a supervisor for a Los Angeles hair accessory firm, said she was offended by what she perceived as growing anti-immigrant bias and was moved to apply for citizenship after seeing ads about it on TV.
"I became a citizen to have full rights and vote for a president for the first time," said Rivera, adding that she and her family plan to vote for Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
The increase in Latinos with the power to vote could affect the political landscape in November, analysts said. Louis DiSipio, a UC Irvine political science professor, said one of the biggest impacts could be in Florida, a key battleground state that posted 54,500 new citizens last year. Although the ethnic Cuban population there has dominated the Latino political landscape and tended to vote Republican, he said, more of the newer immigrants are coming from South America and trending Democratic. For the first time this decade, more Latinos were registered as Democrats than Republicans, 35% to 33% as of this spring, according to Gold.
Beyond November, the swelling Latino numbers nationwide will continue to recast the political landscape for local elections, DiSipio said. He said that growing Latino naturalizations in the late 1990s, thanks to a 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants, helped California Democrats gain an 800,000-plus voter edge and that similar gains could occur with the newest increase.
Gold said that new Latino citizens have higher voting rates than longtime Mexican Americans and that their political allegiances are shallower. As a result, she said, their votes are still up for grabs for those elected officials willing to work hard to reach them. In addition, she said, the proportion of Latino voters identifying themselves as independents is growing.
Erica L. Bernal-Martinez, senior director of civic engagement for the association of Latino officials, said grass-roots organizations planned to continue their push to encourage naturalizations among the estimated 4 million to 5 million eligible Latinos. Mexicans have historically had low rates of naturalization -- 35% compared with 59% for all immigrants -- but that appears to be changing as media and community organizations pour unprecedented resources and energy into their civic engagement campaigns, Bernal-Martinez and Gold said.
More than 400 community organizations across the country, along with major Spanish-language media, have joined forces in a "Ya Es Hora" (It's Time) campaign to help eligible voters become citizens and register to vote. The campaign plans to hold naturalization workshops in 10 cities Saturday.
"We think with this type of promotion and outreach, we can really rewrite this story of Latino naturalizations," Gold said.
However, steep fee increases last July sharply reduced the overall monthly number of new applicants from August to December. Applications peaked at 457,000 in July, then plummeted to a monthly average of about 30,000 after the application fee increased to $675 from $400.
The new report found that California posted the largest gains in new citizens in 2007, from 153,000 the year before to 182,000; followed by Texas, from 38,000 to 53,000; and Illinois, from 30,000 to 39,000.
After Mexico, the largest number of new citizens came from India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, South Korea and El Salvador.
The overall decrease in the number of naturalizations last year occurred after special congressional funding to process the backlog of citizenship applications ran out. But applications continued to soar in the Latino community because of the targeted citizenship campaigns, experts said.
Jorge-Mario Cabrera, an El Salvador native and Long Beach community activist, finally naturalized last year with his mother; he had been eligible since 1992. He said he had not become a citizen sooner because he wasn't sure why it would matter and he still clung to his allegiances to his native land.
That changed a few years ago when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would have criminalized illegal immigrants and those who aided them. Millions of immigrants and supporters poured into the streets to protest, and community organizations mobilized to urge people like Cabrera to naturalize, register to vote and make their voices heard.
Cabrera, 39, and his 73-year-old mother took the plunge.
"We felt there were millions of voices left unheard every year, so we decided our two votes were needed to make a difference," he said.
LULAC Calls for Culture-based Educational Approach and Accountability To Stem Dropout Rate Among Minorities
by Michelle J. Nealy | Diverse Issues in Higher Education
Jul 11, 2008, 23:28
WASHINGTON � Reforming the No Child Left Behind Act to promote higher accountability standards for the nation�s high schools, inclusive and equitable testing and culture-based curricula may help stem the wave of minority high school student dropouts and shrink the achievement gap, a panel of educators and activists said at a LULAC meeting here this week.
Every year, approximately 1.2 million students drop out of high school. The dropout rate for Hispanic students is more than 40 percent, and for Blacks it hovers at 50 percent. Underrepresented minorities, in general, have less than a 58 percent chance of graduating high school with a regular diploma. This inequality can be reversed by reforming No Child Left Behind (NCLB), education advocates say.
Policymakers, educators, civil rights leaders and activists convened this week for a town hall-styled meeting hosted by the League of United Latin Citizens (LULAC) to address NCLB policies that shortchange minority students and fail to hold high schools accountable for poor graduation rates. LULAC, a founding member of the Campaign for High School Equity, a diverse coalition of civil rights organizations committed education equality, is pressing for visible reform in the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act slated to pass sometime next year.
Currently NCLB neither ensures that graduation rates are calculated consistently or accurately nor requires the data collected to be disaggregated by race.
Panelist Holly Kuzmich, deputy chief of staff for policy and programs at the Department of Education, insisted that standardized test scores in mathematics and reading have risen since the passage of NCLB in 2002, particularly among minority and special education children, but admitted the program is flawed.
�In 2002, focus on accountability was really put on elementary schools. High schools are our new focus, [especially] better reporting of graduation rates and dropout rates. There is no uniform definition of dropouts. States get to define that for themselves,� said Kuzmich. �We have proposed a set of regulations to get all states reporting on the same scale by 2013.�
Nearly 5.5 million English Language Learner students are enrolled in America�s public school system. According to LULAC officials, this student population is being left behind. ELL students � 80 percent of whom are Hispanic � are among the country�s lowest-performing students. In 2007, only 4 percent of eighth-grade students scored above �proficient� in reading for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared with 31 percent of ELL students. In addition, only 49 percent of ELL students graduate from high school on time.
Peter Zamora, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund�s Washington, D.C., regional counsel, favors testing in native language to level the playing field. Zamora, a credentialed bilingual educator, says that in teaching 12th-grade English at a California high school he learned that, �most English-language learners are not going to be able to perform well on an English assessment test.�
LULAC is also petitioning for implementing culture-based curricula, an educational approach which is not supported by NCLB. Data from the Nation Indian Education Association reveal that learning in an environment that incorporates native language, culture and traditions increases students� mastery of math and science. Federal education policy that promotes culturally based teaching is critical in shrinking the achievement gap, advocates say.
�School climate is tied to academic achievement,� said Dr. Joel Gomez, associate professor of educational leadership at The George Washington University. �Research shows that when kids feel good about going to school they do better.�
Jul 11, 2008, 23:28
WASHINGTON � Reforming the No Child Left Behind Act to promote higher accountability standards for the nation�s high schools, inclusive and equitable testing and culture-based curricula may help stem the wave of minority high school student dropouts and shrink the achievement gap, a panel of educators and activists said at a LULAC meeting here this week.
Every year, approximately 1.2 million students drop out of high school. The dropout rate for Hispanic students is more than 40 percent, and for Blacks it hovers at 50 percent. Underrepresented minorities, in general, have less than a 58 percent chance of graduating high school with a regular diploma. This inequality can be reversed by reforming No Child Left Behind (NCLB), education advocates say.
Policymakers, educators, civil rights leaders and activists convened this week for a town hall-styled meeting hosted by the League of United Latin Citizens (LULAC) to address NCLB policies that shortchange minority students and fail to hold high schools accountable for poor graduation rates. LULAC, a founding member of the Campaign for High School Equity, a diverse coalition of civil rights organizations committed education equality, is pressing for visible reform in the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act slated to pass sometime next year.
Currently NCLB neither ensures that graduation rates are calculated consistently or accurately nor requires the data collected to be disaggregated by race.
Panelist Holly Kuzmich, deputy chief of staff for policy and programs at the Department of Education, insisted that standardized test scores in mathematics and reading have risen since the passage of NCLB in 2002, particularly among minority and special education children, but admitted the program is flawed.
�In 2002, focus on accountability was really put on elementary schools. High schools are our new focus, [especially] better reporting of graduation rates and dropout rates. There is no uniform definition of dropouts. States get to define that for themselves,� said Kuzmich. �We have proposed a set of regulations to get all states reporting on the same scale by 2013.�
Nearly 5.5 million English Language Learner students are enrolled in America�s public school system. According to LULAC officials, this student population is being left behind. ELL students � 80 percent of whom are Hispanic � are among the country�s lowest-performing students. In 2007, only 4 percent of eighth-grade students scored above �proficient� in reading for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared with 31 percent of ELL students. In addition, only 49 percent of ELL students graduate from high school on time.
Peter Zamora, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund�s Washington, D.C., regional counsel, favors testing in native language to level the playing field. Zamora, a credentialed bilingual educator, says that in teaching 12th-grade English at a California high school he learned that, �most English-language learners are not going to be able to perform well on an English assessment test.�
LULAC is also petitioning for implementing culture-based curricula, an educational approach which is not supported by NCLB. Data from the Nation Indian Education Association reveal that learning in an environment that incorporates native language, culture and traditions increases students� mastery of math and science. Federal education policy that promotes culturally based teaching is critical in shrinking the achievement gap, advocates say.
�School climate is tied to academic achievement,� said Dr. Joel Gomez, associate professor of educational leadership at The George Washington University. �Research shows that when kids feel good about going to school they do better.�
Monday, July 21, 2008
Beyond the Numbers: Understanding California's High School Dropouts
Here's a recent report released by PACE entitled: "Beyond the Numbers: Understanding California's High School Dropouts".
-Patricia
Abstract:
Six of California’s largest urban school districts have joined together in the Partnership for Urban Education Research (PUER), to address the most pressing issues in urban education. The six PUER districts have agreed to work together to increase data availability, enhance internal research capacity, and promote collaboration and information sharing across district lines for the benefit of their students. PUER seeks to build a partnership in which participating districts can use their collective research capacity to carefully evaluate their own instructional programs and practices. In a new report, six PUER school districts—Fresno Unified School District (FUSD), Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD), San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD), and San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)—joined efforts to identify opportunities for improving the current dropout reporting system, and to review district efforts to reduce dropout rates. The PUER districts are working with PACE to review and publish their research.
-Patricia
Abstract:
Six of California’s largest urban school districts have joined together in the Partnership for Urban Education Research (PUER), to address the most pressing issues in urban education. The six PUER districts have agreed to work together to increase data availability, enhance internal research capacity, and promote collaboration and information sharing across district lines for the benefit of their students. PUER seeks to build a partnership in which participating districts can use their collective research capacity to carefully evaluate their own instructional programs and practices. In a new report, six PUER school districts—Fresno Unified School District (FUSD), Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD), San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD), and San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)—joined efforts to identify opportunities for improving the current dropout reporting system, and to review district efforts to reduce dropout rates. The PUER districts are working with PACE to review and publish their research.
AIMS test may have no future in schools
AIMS test may have no future in schools
Task force will weigh merits of exam, explore alternatives
By Rhonda Bodfield
ARIZONA DAILY STAR / Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.15.2008
The days for Arizona's AIMS test may be numbered.
In a little-noticed provision slipped into the budget bill that was passed in the early morning during the final hours of the legislative session, a task force was created to examine the merits of the state's high school exit test and explore alternatives.
The seven-member task force, which will include a principal, a finance officer and a curriculum expert, also will examine whether college-placement exams might be merged with existing AIMS questions as a graduation test, similar to a model used in Michigan, and will look at whether the test should even be a high-stakes test at all.
To make sure Arizona doesn't trot too far down the AIMS path, lawmakers also limited any contracts with the test publisher to one year.
The amendment was supported by an unlikely coalition of conservatives, who fear the test has been "dumbed down" so much that it's an irrelevant measurement of student skills, and moderate-leaning members who worry that the test has bled some of the creativity and innovation from the classroom.
"I think doing away with AIMS is very likely going to be part of the discussion," said John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, which represents teachers. Wright said he found out about the amendment too late to weigh in on it but would have supported it in concept.
"I think there's always value in examining current practice and seeing how to improve our practice, so we have an opportunity in front of us," Wright said.
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards test, which students are required to pass in order to graduate, generally has been problematic, he said, because it has limited utility in helping teachers refine their instructional practices since results for the spring tests come out in the fall.
On the other end of the spectrum, The Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank, is also supporting doing away with the existing testing system.
"I think the Legislature has taken the right approach in saying we need to start over," said Matthew Ladner, vice president for research and a longtime critic of how the state tests are administered and measured.
The federal No Child Left Behind Act sets up a perverse system that gives incentives for states to ratchet down test expectations to meet mandatory benchmarks, Ladner said. Arizona, he maintains, has responded by reducing the passing thresholds so that more students could pass. "Presto chango, we go from being in deep trouble to well, it's not so bad," Ladner said.
Taxpayers can't know, then, how schools are performing, and parents can't readily make educated choices about where to send their kids to school, he said.
"The test scores have gotten to be a bit of a farce," Ladner said. "I think what the Legislature has done is recognize the need for a credible system of testing in the state.
"It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Libertarian or a vegetarian; we all want to see kids succeed, and I applaud the Legislature for the step they've taken," he said.
Despite the initial agreement, there's going to be plenty to argue about. Wright, for example, is leery of the provision to study making college-entrance exams a graduation prerequisite, saying those tests do not match Arizona standards and may test students on things they've never seen in a state classroom.
Ladner, meanwhile, said policymakers can debate the merits of a high-stakes graduation exam but suggested Arizona should follow the lead of other states such as Florida and instead put the emphasis on the lower grades. If students were tested in third grade, he said, and those who couldn't read were retained, it would help dent the dropout rate.
"What we know about literacy is that absent any heroic intervention that schools rarely provide, kids who can't read fall further and further behind, and by late middle school they can't read the textbooks in front of them," he said. "So by putting the emphasis on a test in the 10th grade, we're addressing the problem at the back end instead of at the front end."
At any rate, the potential overhaul isn't sitting well with Republican state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who issued a letter to lawmakers late last week defending the test and saying he was intentionally excluded from "secret" discussions because backers of the amendment feared he would obstruct its passage.
Horne said Arizona was at the end of its current five-year contract and was prepared to send out bids for another five years. The contract cap will make the test inordinately expensive, he maintained.
"Making a policy decision like this, which ties the Board's hands to a one-year contract and thereby makes Arizona's cost skyrocket, at 2 a.m. so that legislators can be kept ignorant of any input from the Department of Education, is not good public policy making," he wrote to lawmakers.
Horne denied that the test was dumbed down, noting that 3,000 students last year had the credits to graduate but couldn't pass the AIMS test after five tries. Those students were ultimately allowed to graduate under a bill that permitted students to use the grades they received in classes to supplement their AIMS scores. "You can't have it both ways," he wrote.
Rep. Pete Hershberger, a Tucson Republican, supported the move. Teachers are teaching to the test, and students are being drilled to memorize factoids instead of applying deeper learning, he said.
Hershberger's bills in the past to look at scrapping AIMS for a different model never got a hearing.
The momentum has clearly shifted.
"I think it's just a higher-profile issue because now we're seeing that kids are not graduating. We had to fight so hard with augmentation that it's starting to sink in that AIMS is a reality and not just hypothetical. There's opposition from the left and the right to the AIMS test now."
The task force is required to make its recommendations to the governor and Legislature by June 2009.
● Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at 806-7754 or rbodfield@azstarnet.com.
Task force will weigh merits of exam, explore alternatives
By Rhonda Bodfield
ARIZONA DAILY STAR / Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.15.2008
The days for Arizona's AIMS test may be numbered.
In a little-noticed provision slipped into the budget bill that was passed in the early morning during the final hours of the legislative session, a task force was created to examine the merits of the state's high school exit test and explore alternatives.
The seven-member task force, which will include a principal, a finance officer and a curriculum expert, also will examine whether college-placement exams might be merged with existing AIMS questions as a graduation test, similar to a model used in Michigan, and will look at whether the test should even be a high-stakes test at all.
To make sure Arizona doesn't trot too far down the AIMS path, lawmakers also limited any contracts with the test publisher to one year.
The amendment was supported by an unlikely coalition of conservatives, who fear the test has been "dumbed down" so much that it's an irrelevant measurement of student skills, and moderate-leaning members who worry that the test has bled some of the creativity and innovation from the classroom.
"I think doing away with AIMS is very likely going to be part of the discussion," said John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, which represents teachers. Wright said he found out about the amendment too late to weigh in on it but would have supported it in concept.
"I think there's always value in examining current practice and seeing how to improve our practice, so we have an opportunity in front of us," Wright said.
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards test, which students are required to pass in order to graduate, generally has been problematic, he said, because it has limited utility in helping teachers refine their instructional practices since results for the spring tests come out in the fall.
On the other end of the spectrum, The Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank, is also supporting doing away with the existing testing system.
"I think the Legislature has taken the right approach in saying we need to start over," said Matthew Ladner, vice president for research and a longtime critic of how the state tests are administered and measured.
The federal No Child Left Behind Act sets up a perverse system that gives incentives for states to ratchet down test expectations to meet mandatory benchmarks, Ladner said. Arizona, he maintains, has responded by reducing the passing thresholds so that more students could pass. "Presto chango, we go from being in deep trouble to well, it's not so bad," Ladner said.
Taxpayers can't know, then, how schools are performing, and parents can't readily make educated choices about where to send their kids to school, he said.
"The test scores have gotten to be a bit of a farce," Ladner said. "I think what the Legislature has done is recognize the need for a credible system of testing in the state.
"It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Libertarian or a vegetarian; we all want to see kids succeed, and I applaud the Legislature for the step they've taken," he said.
Despite the initial agreement, there's going to be plenty to argue about. Wright, for example, is leery of the provision to study making college-entrance exams a graduation prerequisite, saying those tests do not match Arizona standards and may test students on things they've never seen in a state classroom.
Ladner, meanwhile, said policymakers can debate the merits of a high-stakes graduation exam but suggested Arizona should follow the lead of other states such as Florida and instead put the emphasis on the lower grades. If students were tested in third grade, he said, and those who couldn't read were retained, it would help dent the dropout rate.
"What we know about literacy is that absent any heroic intervention that schools rarely provide, kids who can't read fall further and further behind, and by late middle school they can't read the textbooks in front of them," he said. "So by putting the emphasis on a test in the 10th grade, we're addressing the problem at the back end instead of at the front end."
At any rate, the potential overhaul isn't sitting well with Republican state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who issued a letter to lawmakers late last week defending the test and saying he was intentionally excluded from "secret" discussions because backers of the amendment feared he would obstruct its passage.
Horne said Arizona was at the end of its current five-year contract and was prepared to send out bids for another five years. The contract cap will make the test inordinately expensive, he maintained.
"Making a policy decision like this, which ties the Board's hands to a one-year contract and thereby makes Arizona's cost skyrocket, at 2 a.m. so that legislators can be kept ignorant of any input from the Department of Education, is not good public policy making," he wrote to lawmakers.
Horne denied that the test was dumbed down, noting that 3,000 students last year had the credits to graduate but couldn't pass the AIMS test after five tries. Those students were ultimately allowed to graduate under a bill that permitted students to use the grades they received in classes to supplement their AIMS scores. "You can't have it both ways," he wrote.
Rep. Pete Hershberger, a Tucson Republican, supported the move. Teachers are teaching to the test, and students are being drilled to memorize factoids instead of applying deeper learning, he said.
Hershberger's bills in the past to look at scrapping AIMS for a different model never got a hearing.
The momentum has clearly shifted.
"I think it's just a higher-profile issue because now we're seeing that kids are not graduating. We had to fight so hard with augmentation that it's starting to sink in that AIMS is a reality and not just hypothetical. There's opposition from the left and the right to the AIMS test now."
The task force is required to make its recommendations to the governor and Legislature by June 2009.
● Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at 806-7754 or rbodfield@azstarnet.com.
The Next Kind of Integration
July 20, 2008
The Next Kind of Integration
By EMILY BAZELON
In June of last year, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, declared the racial-integration efforts of two school districts unconstitutional. Seattle and Louisville, Ky., could no longer assign students to schools based on their race, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his lead opinion in Meredith v. Jefferson County School Board (and its companion case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1). Justice Stephen Breyer sounded a sad and grim note of dissent. Pointing out that the court was rejecting student-assignment plans that the districts had designed to stave off de facto resegregation, Breyer wrote that “to invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown.” By invoking Brown v. Board of Education, the court’s landmark 1954 civil rights ruling, Breyer accused the majority of abandoning a touchstone in the country’s efforts to overcome racial division. “This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret,” he concluded.
Breyer’s warning, along with even more dire predictions from civil rights groups, helped place the court’s ruling at the center of the liberal indictment of the Roberts court. In Louisville, too, the court’s verdict met with resentment. Last fall, I asked Pat Todd, the assignment director for the school district of Jefferson County, which encompasses Louisville and its suburbs, whether any good could come of the ruling. She shook her head so hard that strands of blond hair loosened from her bun. “No,” she said with uncharacteristic exasperation, “we’re already doing what we should be.”
Todd was referring to Louisville’s success in distributing black and white students, which it does more evenly than any district in the country with a comparable black student population; almost every school is between 15 and 50 percent African-American. The district’s combination of school choice, busing and magnet programs has brought general, if not uniform, acceptance — rather than white flight and disaffection, the legacy of desegregation in cities like Boston and Kansas City, Mo. The student population, which now numbers nearly 100,000, has held steady at about 35 percent black and 55 percent white, along with a small and growing number of Hispanics and Asians.
With its decision in Meredith, the court was forcing Louisville to rethink the way it would assign elementary-school students and, in the process, to confront some tricky questions. Is the purpose of integration simply to mix students of different colors for the sake of equity or to foster greater familiarity and comfort among the races? Should integration necessarily translate into concrete gains like greater achievement for all students? If so, is mixing students by race the most effective mechanism for attaining it?
In Louisville, the achievement gap between whites and blacks is 20 percentage points at many grade levels. For Todd and her team, whatever their reservations about the decision in Meredith, coming up with an alternative assignment plan was an opportunity to think about a new kind of integration and what it might accomplish. In Louisville, integration would no longer focus solely on race but also on the barriers of class, of advantage and disadvantage. Other cities have been thinking along these lines. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, four other districts — Des Moines, Burlington, Vt., Omaha and Beaumont, Tex. — announced a switch to class-based integration. Seattle, too, is discussing setting aside 5 to 15 percent of the spots (a relatively small percentage) in desired high schools for low-income students. Some of the plans go into effect this fall; others, including Louisville’s, begin a year from September.
The chief justice didn’t address the idea of class-based integration in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy did, in a separate concurrence. And because Kennedy cast the fifth vote for the majority, his view controls the law. Though he agreed with Roberts that public school districts should not make school assignments based on the race of individual students, he added that the court’s ruling “should not prevent school districts from continuing the important work of bringing together students of different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds.”
How were schools to do this? Around the country, school-district lawyers studied Kennedy’s opinion and came to a rough consensus. In its amicus brief before the court, the Bush administration cited socioeconomic integration as a “race neutral” alternative to race-based assignment plans. Kennedy picked up on this, and no other justice wrote to contradict him. As a result, the school-district lawyers concluded that districts could assign an individual child to a school based on any kind of socioeconomic measure they chose — income, assets, parental education attainment. Districts could also be “race conscious,” according to Kennedy, when they drew school boundaries, chose sites for new schools and directed money to particular programs. But in these situations, they would usually be limited to taking into account the racial composition of a neighborhood rather than the race of an individual student.
In terms of the court’s jurisprudence, this is a major change. Race has been the organizing principle of integration since Brown v. Board of Education. At the time of the court’s ruling in Meredith, hundreds of districts were pursuing some sort of racial integration, with or without a court order, while only a few dozen at most were trying any form of socioeconomic integration. Over the years, racial integration has proved to have tangible benefits. Amy Stuart Wells, an education professor at Columbia Teachers College, has found that going to school with substantial numbers of white students helped black students to form cross-racial friendships and, by giving them access to white social networks, eventually to find work in jobs higher up the economic ladder.
However important these gains are, they are long-term and cannot be easily or quickly assessed. And increasingly, schools are held to a standard of immediately measurable outcomes. The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002, demands student test scores that climb ever upward, with a mandate for all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Test scores may not be the best way to assess the quality of a teacher or a school, but the pressure to improve scores, whatever its shortcomings, is itself on the rise. And if high test scores are the goal, it turns out, class-based integration may be the more effective tool.
Researchers have been demonstrating this result since 1966, when Congress asked James S. Coleman, a Johns Hopkins sociologist, to deliver a report on why the achievement of black students lagged far behind that of white ones. The expected answer was that more than a decade after Brown, black kids were still often going to inferior schools with small budgets. But Coleman found that the varying amount of money spent on schools didn’t account for the achievement gap. Instead, the greater poverty of black families did. When high concentrations of poor kids went to school together, Coleman reported, all the students at the school tended to learn less.
How much less was later quantified. The Harvard sociologist Christopher Jencks reanalyzed Coleman’s data in the 1970s and concluded that poor black sixth-graders in majority middle-class schools were 20 months ahead of poor black sixth-graders in majority low-income schools. The statistics for poor white students were similar. In the last 40 years, Coleman’s findings, known informally as the Coleman Report, have been confirmed again and again. Most recently, in a 2006 study, Douglas Harris, an economist at the University of Wisconsin, found that when more than half the students were low-income, only 1.1 percent of schools consistently performed at a “high” level (defined as two years of scores in the top third of the U.S. Department of Education’s national achievement database in two grades and in two subjects: English and math). By contrast, 24.2 percent of schools that are majority middle-class met Harris’s standard.
There are, of course, determined urban educators who have proved that select schools filled with poor and minority students can thrive — in the right circumstances, with the right teachers and programs. But consistently good education at schools with such student bodies remains the rare exception. The powerful effect of the socioeconomic makeup of a student body on academic achievement has become “one of the most consistent findings in research on education,” Gary Orfield, a U.C.L.A. education professor, and Susan Eaton, a research director at Harvard Law, wrote in their 1996 book, “Dismantling Desegregation.”
Most researchers think that this result is brought about by the advantages that middle-class students bring with them. Richard Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation lays them out in his 2001 book, “All Together Now”: more high-level classes, more parent volunteers and peers who on average have twice the vocabulary and half the behavioral problems of poor students. And, especially, more good teachers. Harris, the economist, says that poor minority students still don’t have comparable access to effective teachers, measured by preparation and experience. The question, then, is whether a plan that integrates a district by class as well as by race will help win for all its schools the kind of teaching that tends to be linked to achievement. “The evidence indicates that it would,” Harris says.
Ronald Ferguson, an economist at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is less persuaded. His research highlights the nagging persistence of a racial achievement gap in well-off suburbs. “What happens with the achievement gap in a place like Louisville,” he says, “will depend on how vigilant their leaders are to make sure high-quality instruction is delivered across the board.” Such teaching is more likely in a school with a critical mass of middle-class parents, he concedes. But he stresses that to reap the benefits, poor kids have to be evenly distributed among classrooms and not just grouped together in the lowest tracks. “To the degree a district takes the kids who struggle the most academically and spreads them across different classrooms, they’re making teachers’ work more doable,” he says. “And that may be the biggest effect.”
Once they started looking for them, Todd and her colleagues saw the effects of class division and poverty in the Jefferson County schools. Thorough racial desegregation had not, it seemed, led to thorough class desegregation. At 40 of 90 elementary schools in the district, 75 percent or more of the students came from low-income homes. And the effects of these high concentrations of poverty were striking: poor students in Louisville, black and white, fared worse when they attended schools filled with other poor kids. In elementary school, 61 percent of poor students at mostly low-income schools scored proficient in reading, compared with 71 percent of poor students at majority-middle-class schools. For math, the comparative proficiency rates were 52 percent to 63 percent. Because black students were disproportionately poor, they were more likely to attend high-poverty schools, and this was contributing to the district’s pronounced black-white achievement gap.
Todd and her planners wanted to tackle the problem, she says, but they were mindful of going too far in their efforts and losing the support of parents. In other districts — including Cincinnati, Evanston, Ill., Bibb County, Ga., and Madison, Wis. — the reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling had been to move to dismantle racial-integration programs. Todd and other school officials didn’t want integration redefined to turn into no integration all. To get a handle on a new plan, Todd turned to an heir of James Coleman: the researcher John Powell.
In the 1960s, Powell was one of the only African-American students in his advanced high-school classes in Detroit; when he became the class valedictorian, a teacher told him he wasn’t the smartest student. He now directs the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, and he says he still thinks that race is a category with singular power. But he also appreciates the stark effects of segregating poor kids. “Ever since the Coleman Report, we’ve seen that there’s a high correlation between good schools and schools that are integrated socioeconomically as well as racially,” he says. “I think everyone agrees that what we need are more good schools.”
In Louisville, Powell lent his expertise to Todd and her team. They came up with a computer-generated map that shows what Powell defines as the district’s areas of “low opportunity.” Todd, who is 61 and taught every grade in the Louisville schools before becoming an administrator, went over the map with me one day last December. The map used two different measures of class to identify Jefferson County’s areas of disadvantage: income level and the educational attainment of adults. (To gauge disadvantage, districts embarking on class-based integration often use who among their students receives free or reduced lunch; Powell, however, contends that this is a relatively crude measure.) Using census data, Todd’s team identified the zones in the district in which households fall below the average income and education levels, with fewer adults who have finished high school or gone to college or beyond. Finally, the team added one more factor: a higher-than-average number of minorities, almost all of them African-Americans or Hispanics.
The map’s class-plus-race formula revealed a major partition. One region, which Todd’s team called Geographic Area A, is a mermaid-shaped swath of blue, with its head in Louisville’s West End, just south of the Ohio River, and its tail to the south. The region encompasses the parts of the district with a higher-than-average minority population, lower-than-average median income and lower-than-average adult educational attainment. In Geographic Area A live about 30 percent of Jefferson County’s students. The rest of the county, colored yellow, included everyone else — the better off, better educated and whiter Geographic Area B.
What if the district were to use this map as a guide for school integration? Instead of maintaining each school as no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent black, Todd’s team could propose that each school have no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent of students from Geographic Area A. By distributing students from the district’s residential zones of disadvantage, the new plan would integrate the schools by class. There would no longer be 40 elementary schools with heavily poor-student populations. There could potentially be no such schools.
Given the presumed boost to test scores resulting from distributing poor students more widely, you might wonder why Todd’s team retained race as an admissions factor at all. To answer this, it’s worth considering the country’s existing examples of purely class-based integration. The best known is in Wake County, N.C. With 134,000 students, the Wake County school district ranks 19 among the country’s 20 largest, spanning 800 square miles that include bleak tracts in the city of Raleigh, mansion-filled suburban cul-de-sacs and rural roads ending in the fresh earth of a new subdivision. The student population is about half white, one-quarter African-American and one-quarter Hispanic, Asian and multiracial. The district voluntarily pursued race-based integration in the 1980s and ’90s. In 2000, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit began to frown on the use of race in student assignment — a harbinger of the Supreme Court’s stance last year — the district began assigning kids to schools based on the income level of the geographic zone they lived in. The aim was to balance the schools so that no more than 40 percent of the students at each one come from a low-income area. (This year, the district added another goal: to have no more than 25 percent of students at any one school for whom English is a second language.)
Wake County adopted class-based integration with the hard-nosed goal of raising test scores. The strategy was simple: no poor schools, no bad schools. And indeed, the district has posted striking improvements in the test scores of black and low-income students: in 1995, only 40 percent of the black students in Wake County in the third through eighth grades scored at grade level in state reading tests; by last year, the rate had almost doubled, to 82.5 percent. Statewide scores for black students also got better over the same time period, but not by as much. Wake County’s numbers improve as students get older: 92 percent of all eighth graders read at or above grade level, including about 85 percent of black students and about 80 percent of low-income students. (Math scores are lower, following a statewide trend that reflects a change in the grading scale.) The district has achieved these results even as the share of low-income students over all has increased from about 30 percent a decade ago to about 40 percent today.
But the lessons of Wake County, Powell and Todd argue, don’t apply everywhere. “In different districts, you have different geographic patterns,” Powell says. “So you need different integration models to shop around.” To begin with, Louisville is less affluent — more than 60 percent of its elementary school students receive free or reduced lunches, compared with Wake County’s 40 percent. In Wake County, the vast majority of the poor students are black and Hispanic, and so mixing kids by class tightly correlates to mixing them by race. But in Jefferson County, more than a third of the kids who receive free or reduced lunches are white. As a result, redistributing students by class alone might still isolate them by race.
This is a limitation of class-based integration that holds true elsewhere. The city of San Francisco, for instance, has undergone substantial racial resegregation since retooling its diversity plan to emphasize socioeconomic factors. Even in Wake County, the fraction of students in racially segregated schools has climbed a bit over the last decade, from 25 percent to 32 percent. A 2006 paper by the education researchers Sean Reardon, John T. Yun and Michal Kurlaender crunched census data across the country and concluded that “given the extent of residential racial segregation in the United States, it is unlikely that race-neutral income-integration policies will significantly reduce school racial segregation, although there is reason to believe that such policies are likely to have other beneficial effects on schooling.”
Many big cities have a different problem. Simple demographics dictate that they can’t really integrate their schools at all, by either race or class. Consider the numbers for Detroit (74 percent low-income students; 91 percent black), Los Angeles (77 percent low-income; 85 percent black and Hispanic), New York City (74 percent; 63 percent), Washington (64 percent; 93 percent), Philadelphia (71 percent; 79 percent), Chicago (74 percent; 88 percent) and Boston (71 percent; 76 percent). In theory, big cities can diversify their schools by class and race by persuading many more middle-class and white parents to choose public school over private school or by combining forces with the well-heeled suburbs that surround them. But short of those developments, big cities are stuck. “The options have shrunk,” says Tom Payzant, a former superintendent of schools in Boston.
Notably, there are a good many districts that have evaded this predicament. They are particularly found in the South, in part because of a historical accident. Because it was predominantly rural for longer, the South has more countywide school districts than the North. An unintended consequence was to ease the way to integration. Instead of city schools filled with poor black and Hispanic kids separated from a burgeoning ring of suburban districts stocked with affluent whites (and in some places, Asians), one district controls student assignment for the region.
Even in school districts with a mix of students of different races and income levels, however, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to socioeconomic integration, as underscored by the differences between Wake County and Jefferson County. Wake County’s demographics entail that mixing kids by class, on its own, produces a fair degree of racial integration. Jefferson County’s demographics don’t necessarily work this way. And so civil rights lawyers suggest that districts configured like Jefferson County should continue to pursue racial diversity directly. They point to cities like Berkeley, Calif., which has an assignment plan that primarily relies on socioeconomics, but like Geography Area A also factors in the racial composition of a neighborhood to guard against resegregation along racial lines. “It’s not either-or,” says Anurima Bhargava, an education lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
In addition, there’s a tacit liberal constitutional agenda at work in hybrid class-race approaches to integration: better to test Kennedy’s opinion, with its support for the drawing of “race conscious” school boundaries, than to retreat further than is in fact required. “For Kennedy, there are ways of taking race into account,” John Powell says. “It’s just the method that’s in question. How do you do it? We need to find out what’s still permitted.” He also points out that African-Americans are more likely than whites to be poor over generations — a bigger hurdle than a short stint in a low-income bracket.
The continuing attention to race aligns with the internal politics of Louisville and its suburbs. Many of today’s parents grew up there and tend to remember and care about overcoming their county’s Jim Crow legacy. In 1975, when a federal judge first ordered the city and its suburbs to desegregate, the Ku Klux Klan demonstrated, and the next day about 150 white protestors attacked eight school buses filled with black students. “We had tough times here when the buses burned,” says Ann Elmore, a black member of the Jefferson County School Board. “We can still include race as a factor in our plan, and let me say I think it’s important that we do.”
Elsewhere in the United States, it is too soon to tell how the politics of class-based integration (Wake County) or class-plus-race (Jefferson County) will play out. Richard Kahlenberg makes the case for shifting integration policies primarily or solely to being class-based over the next decade or two. What’s fair, he asks, about giving a spot in a coveted magnet program to the son of a South Asian college professor or an African-American politician over the daughter of a white waitress? Over time, such injustices threaten to sour white parents on the whole diversity enterprise, whereas giving poor kids a boost, whatever their color, is far less controversial. Polls at the time of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which concerned affirmative action at public universities, showed public support running 2 to 1 for giving poorer kids a leg up in going to college, as opposed to 2 to 1 against race-based preferences. In her majority opinion in the case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor famously said she thought that racial preferences would continue only for another 25 years. Barack Obama has said, looking ahead to his daughters’ college applications, that they don’t deserve an admissions break — an acknowledgment that the mix of race, affirmative action and privilege is a complicated one.
To catch on nationwide, however, class-based integration would have to generate momentum that it has so far lacked. In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush urged action “to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.” And yet a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that theoretically allows students to transfer depends on the availability of open spaces elsewhere and has barely been utilized. The administration may have advocated class-based integration to the Supreme Court, but Bush officials haven’t used their signature education law to make it happen.
If Congress were to revise No Child Left Behind to encourage more transfers of poor students to middle-class schools, would poor students drag down their better-off peers? In the end, the prospects of class-based integration will probably rise or fall on the answer to this question. Socioeconomic integration may be good for the have-nots, but if the haves think their kids are paying too great a price, they will kill it off at the polls. Richard Kahlenberg argues that the key is to ensure there is a solidly middle-class majority at as many schools as possible. That majority will then set the tone, he argues. Kahlenberg says that more research is needed to pin down the percentage of middle-class kids that a school needs to have to serve all its students well. Maybe a school can go as high as 50 percent low-income without losing ground. Or maybe it’s telling that in Wake County, a proposal to increase the ceiling for low-income students from 40 percent to 50 percent died a swift death last fall after concerted protest.
Whatever the exact answer, there is some support for the view that schools can handle a substantial fraction of poor students without sacrificing performance. In Wake County, test scores of middle-class students have risen since instituting income-based integration. Additionally, Kahlenberg points out that middle-class students are generally less influenced by a school’s environment because they tend to learn more at home, and that the achievement of white students has not declined in specific schools that experienced racial (and thus some class) desegregation.
Would schools need to track students by ability to protect middle-class students, who are more often higher-achieving than their low-income peers? Perhaps not. In a 2006 longitudinal study of an accelerated middle-school math program in Nassau County, N.Y., which grouped students heterogeneously, the authors found that students at all achievement levels, as well as minority and low-income students, were more likely than the students in tracked classes to take advanced math in high school. In addition, the kids who came into the program as math whizzes performed as well as other top-achievers in homogenous classes.
This study underscores Ronald Ferguson’s point about the value of seating students of different backgrounds and abilities in class together, as opposed to tracking them. Still, it’s worth noting that less than 15 percent of the students studied in Nassau County were low-income. So the math study doesn’t tell us what happens to the high-achieving middle-class kids when close to half of their classmates aren’t as well off.
At the end of February, Todd started showing the map of mermaid-shaped Geographic Area A, which she hoped to use to implement the new assignment system, to the parents of Jefferson County. Todd would start her presentation with quotes from Justice Kennedy and from Justice Breyer’s dissent; she especially wanted to remind her audiences of the sentiment Breyer expressed by quoting former Justice Thurgood Marshall: “Unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.”
Todd’s first stop was at a forum sponsored jointly by the Urban League and the N.A.A.C.P., groups associated with Louisville’s black establishment. Most of their members supported the school district, but some clergy members who worked with the city’s black youth spoke against it. The Rev. John Carter, associate minister at Green Street Baptist Church, pointed to the district’s black-white achievement gap and called for a return to neighborhood schools and an earlier era of black self-reliance.
As more forums followed in high-school auditoriums across the county, white parents asked a different question: How would the new assignment plan affect their kids? Would they be forced to switch schools in second, third or fourth grade? “We like the diversity,” a white parent named Niki Noe told me the next morning at her son’s elementary school, St. Matthews. “But if we have to go to Chenoweth” — a school with lower test scores — “we’ll pull out and go to private school.”
That’s a serious threat to the district’s well-being, but one that Todd anticipated. She designed a grandfather clause for kids like Noe’s, so that the new assignments would apply almost entirely to new students. Meanwhile, at every meeting, Todd polled parents on whether they cared about maintaining diverse schools. The University of Kentucky also conducted a telephone survey with 654 parents of elementary schoolers. In April, Todd called me, elated and relieved, with the results: 88 percent of parents supported enrollment guidelines “to ensure that students learn with students from different races and backgrounds.” Todd said she had dropped Breyer’s dissent in Meredith from her presentation; she was no longer feeling frustrated with the court. “It’s been a personal emotional trek, but I think we’ve come out better for it,” she said in May.
Carter, the proponent of black-self reliance, was feeling more at ease, too. He had come to see the virtue of mixing kids by income level. “Once I did the research, I was pretty impressed by the economic part of it,” he said. Carter had taken note of the district’s data showing that a switch to neighborhood schools, as he had first advocated, would mean that median household income would range from a high of more than $100,000 at the wealthiest school to about $8,300 at the poorest. A split between rich students and poor schools, he agreed, was the wrong path.
It is, of course, the path taken by most of the country. And yet at the end of May, the Jefferson County School Board voted unanimously to make Geographic Area A the basis for integrating elementary schools for the 2009 school year, a new chapter in the district’s history. As the schools shift to the new class-plus-race formula, the district will closely watch the test scores of black students and poor students, hoping for an upsurge, and those of middle-class students, hoping to see achievement hold steady. And if they do, maybe the court’s decision in Meredith will come to seem less like a cause for regret and more like an unexpected opportunity.
Emily Bazelon is a senior editor at Slate who writes frequently about legal issues. Her last article for the magazine was about autistic girls.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
The Next Kind of Integration
By EMILY BAZELON
In June of last year, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, declared the racial-integration efforts of two school districts unconstitutional. Seattle and Louisville, Ky., could no longer assign students to schools based on their race, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his lead opinion in Meredith v. Jefferson County School Board (and its companion case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1). Justice Stephen Breyer sounded a sad and grim note of dissent. Pointing out that the court was rejecting student-assignment plans that the districts had designed to stave off de facto resegregation, Breyer wrote that “to invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown.” By invoking Brown v. Board of Education, the court’s landmark 1954 civil rights ruling, Breyer accused the majority of abandoning a touchstone in the country’s efforts to overcome racial division. “This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret,” he concluded.
Breyer’s warning, along with even more dire predictions from civil rights groups, helped place the court’s ruling at the center of the liberal indictment of the Roberts court. In Louisville, too, the court’s verdict met with resentment. Last fall, I asked Pat Todd, the assignment director for the school district of Jefferson County, which encompasses Louisville and its suburbs, whether any good could come of the ruling. She shook her head so hard that strands of blond hair loosened from her bun. “No,” she said with uncharacteristic exasperation, “we’re already doing what we should be.”
Todd was referring to Louisville’s success in distributing black and white students, which it does more evenly than any district in the country with a comparable black student population; almost every school is between 15 and 50 percent African-American. The district’s combination of school choice, busing and magnet programs has brought general, if not uniform, acceptance — rather than white flight and disaffection, the legacy of desegregation in cities like Boston and Kansas City, Mo. The student population, which now numbers nearly 100,000, has held steady at about 35 percent black and 55 percent white, along with a small and growing number of Hispanics and Asians.
With its decision in Meredith, the court was forcing Louisville to rethink the way it would assign elementary-school students and, in the process, to confront some tricky questions. Is the purpose of integration simply to mix students of different colors for the sake of equity or to foster greater familiarity and comfort among the races? Should integration necessarily translate into concrete gains like greater achievement for all students? If so, is mixing students by race the most effective mechanism for attaining it?
In Louisville, the achievement gap between whites and blacks is 20 percentage points at many grade levels. For Todd and her team, whatever their reservations about the decision in Meredith, coming up with an alternative assignment plan was an opportunity to think about a new kind of integration and what it might accomplish. In Louisville, integration would no longer focus solely on race but also on the barriers of class, of advantage and disadvantage. Other cities have been thinking along these lines. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, four other districts — Des Moines, Burlington, Vt., Omaha and Beaumont, Tex. — announced a switch to class-based integration. Seattle, too, is discussing setting aside 5 to 15 percent of the spots (a relatively small percentage) in desired high schools for low-income students. Some of the plans go into effect this fall; others, including Louisville’s, begin a year from September.
The chief justice didn’t address the idea of class-based integration in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy did, in a separate concurrence. And because Kennedy cast the fifth vote for the majority, his view controls the law. Though he agreed with Roberts that public school districts should not make school assignments based on the race of individual students, he added that the court’s ruling “should not prevent school districts from continuing the important work of bringing together students of different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds.”
How were schools to do this? Around the country, school-district lawyers studied Kennedy’s opinion and came to a rough consensus. In its amicus brief before the court, the Bush administration cited socioeconomic integration as a “race neutral” alternative to race-based assignment plans. Kennedy picked up on this, and no other justice wrote to contradict him. As a result, the school-district lawyers concluded that districts could assign an individual child to a school based on any kind of socioeconomic measure they chose — income, assets, parental education attainment. Districts could also be “race conscious,” according to Kennedy, when they drew school boundaries, chose sites for new schools and directed money to particular programs. But in these situations, they would usually be limited to taking into account the racial composition of a neighborhood rather than the race of an individual student.
In terms of the court’s jurisprudence, this is a major change. Race has been the organizing principle of integration since Brown v. Board of Education. At the time of the court’s ruling in Meredith, hundreds of districts were pursuing some sort of racial integration, with or without a court order, while only a few dozen at most were trying any form of socioeconomic integration. Over the years, racial integration has proved to have tangible benefits. Amy Stuart Wells, an education professor at Columbia Teachers College, has found that going to school with substantial numbers of white students helped black students to form cross-racial friendships and, by giving them access to white social networks, eventually to find work in jobs higher up the economic ladder.
However important these gains are, they are long-term and cannot be easily or quickly assessed. And increasingly, schools are held to a standard of immediately measurable outcomes. The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in 2002, demands student test scores that climb ever upward, with a mandate for all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Test scores may not be the best way to assess the quality of a teacher or a school, but the pressure to improve scores, whatever its shortcomings, is itself on the rise. And if high test scores are the goal, it turns out, class-based integration may be the more effective tool.
Researchers have been demonstrating this result since 1966, when Congress asked James S. Coleman, a Johns Hopkins sociologist, to deliver a report on why the achievement of black students lagged far behind that of white ones. The expected answer was that more than a decade after Brown, black kids were still often going to inferior schools with small budgets. But Coleman found that the varying amount of money spent on schools didn’t account for the achievement gap. Instead, the greater poverty of black families did. When high concentrations of poor kids went to school together, Coleman reported, all the students at the school tended to learn less.
How much less was later quantified. The Harvard sociologist Christopher Jencks reanalyzed Coleman’s data in the 1970s and concluded that poor black sixth-graders in majority middle-class schools were 20 months ahead of poor black sixth-graders in majority low-income schools. The statistics for poor white students were similar. In the last 40 years, Coleman’s findings, known informally as the Coleman Report, have been confirmed again and again. Most recently, in a 2006 study, Douglas Harris, an economist at the University of Wisconsin, found that when more than half the students were low-income, only 1.1 percent of schools consistently performed at a “high” level (defined as two years of scores in the top third of the U.S. Department of Education’s national achievement database in two grades and in two subjects: English and math). By contrast, 24.2 percent of schools that are majority middle-class met Harris’s standard.
There are, of course, determined urban educators who have proved that select schools filled with poor and minority students can thrive — in the right circumstances, with the right teachers and programs. But consistently good education at schools with such student bodies remains the rare exception. The powerful effect of the socioeconomic makeup of a student body on academic achievement has become “one of the most consistent findings in research on education,” Gary Orfield, a U.C.L.A. education professor, and Susan Eaton, a research director at Harvard Law, wrote in their 1996 book, “Dismantling Desegregation.”
Most researchers think that this result is brought about by the advantages that middle-class students bring with them. Richard Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation lays them out in his 2001 book, “All Together Now”: more high-level classes, more parent volunteers and peers who on average have twice the vocabulary and half the behavioral problems of poor students. And, especially, more good teachers. Harris, the economist, says that poor minority students still don’t have comparable access to effective teachers, measured by preparation and experience. The question, then, is whether a plan that integrates a district by class as well as by race will help win for all its schools the kind of teaching that tends to be linked to achievement. “The evidence indicates that it would,” Harris says.
Ronald Ferguson, an economist at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is less persuaded. His research highlights the nagging persistence of a racial achievement gap in well-off suburbs. “What happens with the achievement gap in a place like Louisville,” he says, “will depend on how vigilant their leaders are to make sure high-quality instruction is delivered across the board.” Such teaching is more likely in a school with a critical mass of middle-class parents, he concedes. But he stresses that to reap the benefits, poor kids have to be evenly distributed among classrooms and not just grouped together in the lowest tracks. “To the degree a district takes the kids who struggle the most academically and spreads them across different classrooms, they’re making teachers’ work more doable,” he says. “And that may be the biggest effect.”
Once they started looking for them, Todd and her colleagues saw the effects of class division and poverty in the Jefferson County schools. Thorough racial desegregation had not, it seemed, led to thorough class desegregation. At 40 of 90 elementary schools in the district, 75 percent or more of the students came from low-income homes. And the effects of these high concentrations of poverty were striking: poor students in Louisville, black and white, fared worse when they attended schools filled with other poor kids. In elementary school, 61 percent of poor students at mostly low-income schools scored proficient in reading, compared with 71 percent of poor students at majority-middle-class schools. For math, the comparative proficiency rates were 52 percent to 63 percent. Because black students were disproportionately poor, they were more likely to attend high-poverty schools, and this was contributing to the district’s pronounced black-white achievement gap.
Todd and her planners wanted to tackle the problem, she says, but they were mindful of going too far in their efforts and losing the support of parents. In other districts — including Cincinnati, Evanston, Ill., Bibb County, Ga., and Madison, Wis. — the reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling had been to move to dismantle racial-integration programs. Todd and other school officials didn’t want integration redefined to turn into no integration all. To get a handle on a new plan, Todd turned to an heir of James Coleman: the researcher John Powell.
In the 1960s, Powell was one of the only African-American students in his advanced high-school classes in Detroit; when he became the class valedictorian, a teacher told him he wasn’t the smartest student. He now directs the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, and he says he still thinks that race is a category with singular power. But he also appreciates the stark effects of segregating poor kids. “Ever since the Coleman Report, we’ve seen that there’s a high correlation between good schools and schools that are integrated socioeconomically as well as racially,” he says. “I think everyone agrees that what we need are more good schools.”
In Louisville, Powell lent his expertise to Todd and her team. They came up with a computer-generated map that shows what Powell defines as the district’s areas of “low opportunity.” Todd, who is 61 and taught every grade in the Louisville schools before becoming an administrator, went over the map with me one day last December. The map used two different measures of class to identify Jefferson County’s areas of disadvantage: income level and the educational attainment of adults. (To gauge disadvantage, districts embarking on class-based integration often use who among their students receives free or reduced lunch; Powell, however, contends that this is a relatively crude measure.) Using census data, Todd’s team identified the zones in the district in which households fall below the average income and education levels, with fewer adults who have finished high school or gone to college or beyond. Finally, the team added one more factor: a higher-than-average number of minorities, almost all of them African-Americans or Hispanics.
The map’s class-plus-race formula revealed a major partition. One region, which Todd’s team called Geographic Area A, is a mermaid-shaped swath of blue, with its head in Louisville’s West End, just south of the Ohio River, and its tail to the south. The region encompasses the parts of the district with a higher-than-average minority population, lower-than-average median income and lower-than-average adult educational attainment. In Geographic Area A live about 30 percent of Jefferson County’s students. The rest of the county, colored yellow, included everyone else — the better off, better educated and whiter Geographic Area B.
What if the district were to use this map as a guide for school integration? Instead of maintaining each school as no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent black, Todd’s team could propose that each school have no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent of students from Geographic Area A. By distributing students from the district’s residential zones of disadvantage, the new plan would integrate the schools by class. There would no longer be 40 elementary schools with heavily poor-student populations. There could potentially be no such schools.
Given the presumed boost to test scores resulting from distributing poor students more widely, you might wonder why Todd’s team retained race as an admissions factor at all. To answer this, it’s worth considering the country’s existing examples of purely class-based integration. The best known is in Wake County, N.C. With 134,000 students, the Wake County school district ranks 19 among the country’s 20 largest, spanning 800 square miles that include bleak tracts in the city of Raleigh, mansion-filled suburban cul-de-sacs and rural roads ending in the fresh earth of a new subdivision. The student population is about half white, one-quarter African-American and one-quarter Hispanic, Asian and multiracial. The district voluntarily pursued race-based integration in the 1980s and ’90s. In 2000, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit began to frown on the use of race in student assignment — a harbinger of the Supreme Court’s stance last year — the district began assigning kids to schools based on the income level of the geographic zone they lived in. The aim was to balance the schools so that no more than 40 percent of the students at each one come from a low-income area. (This year, the district added another goal: to have no more than 25 percent of students at any one school for whom English is a second language.)
Wake County adopted class-based integration with the hard-nosed goal of raising test scores. The strategy was simple: no poor schools, no bad schools. And indeed, the district has posted striking improvements in the test scores of black and low-income students: in 1995, only 40 percent of the black students in Wake County in the third through eighth grades scored at grade level in state reading tests; by last year, the rate had almost doubled, to 82.5 percent. Statewide scores for black students also got better over the same time period, but not by as much. Wake County’s numbers improve as students get older: 92 percent of all eighth graders read at or above grade level, including about 85 percent of black students and about 80 percent of low-income students. (Math scores are lower, following a statewide trend that reflects a change in the grading scale.) The district has achieved these results even as the share of low-income students over all has increased from about 30 percent a decade ago to about 40 percent today.
But the lessons of Wake County, Powell and Todd argue, don’t apply everywhere. “In different districts, you have different geographic patterns,” Powell says. “So you need different integration models to shop around.” To begin with, Louisville is less affluent — more than 60 percent of its elementary school students receive free or reduced lunches, compared with Wake County’s 40 percent. In Wake County, the vast majority of the poor students are black and Hispanic, and so mixing kids by class tightly correlates to mixing them by race. But in Jefferson County, more than a third of the kids who receive free or reduced lunches are white. As a result, redistributing students by class alone might still isolate them by race.
This is a limitation of class-based integration that holds true elsewhere. The city of San Francisco, for instance, has undergone substantial racial resegregation since retooling its diversity plan to emphasize socioeconomic factors. Even in Wake County, the fraction of students in racially segregated schools has climbed a bit over the last decade, from 25 percent to 32 percent. A 2006 paper by the education researchers Sean Reardon, John T. Yun and Michal Kurlaender crunched census data across the country and concluded that “given the extent of residential racial segregation in the United States, it is unlikely that race-neutral income-integration policies will significantly reduce school racial segregation, although there is reason to believe that such policies are likely to have other beneficial effects on schooling.”
Many big cities have a different problem. Simple demographics dictate that they can’t really integrate their schools at all, by either race or class. Consider the numbers for Detroit (74 percent low-income students; 91 percent black), Los Angeles (77 percent low-income; 85 percent black and Hispanic), New York City (74 percent; 63 percent), Washington (64 percent; 93 percent), Philadelphia (71 percent; 79 percent), Chicago (74 percent; 88 percent) and Boston (71 percent; 76 percent). In theory, big cities can diversify their schools by class and race by persuading many more middle-class and white parents to choose public school over private school or by combining forces with the well-heeled suburbs that surround them. But short of those developments, big cities are stuck. “The options have shrunk,” says Tom Payzant, a former superintendent of schools in Boston.
Notably, there are a good many districts that have evaded this predicament. They are particularly found in the South, in part because of a historical accident. Because it was predominantly rural for longer, the South has more countywide school districts than the North. An unintended consequence was to ease the way to integration. Instead of city schools filled with poor black and Hispanic kids separated from a burgeoning ring of suburban districts stocked with affluent whites (and in some places, Asians), one district controls student assignment for the region.
Even in school districts with a mix of students of different races and income levels, however, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to socioeconomic integration, as underscored by the differences between Wake County and Jefferson County. Wake County’s demographics entail that mixing kids by class, on its own, produces a fair degree of racial integration. Jefferson County’s demographics don’t necessarily work this way. And so civil rights lawyers suggest that districts configured like Jefferson County should continue to pursue racial diversity directly. They point to cities like Berkeley, Calif., which has an assignment plan that primarily relies on socioeconomics, but like Geography Area A also factors in the racial composition of a neighborhood to guard against resegregation along racial lines. “It’s not either-or,” says Anurima Bhargava, an education lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
In addition, there’s a tacit liberal constitutional agenda at work in hybrid class-race approaches to integration: better to test Kennedy’s opinion, with its support for the drawing of “race conscious” school boundaries, than to retreat further than is in fact required. “For Kennedy, there are ways of taking race into account,” John Powell says. “It’s just the method that’s in question. How do you do it? We need to find out what’s still permitted.” He also points out that African-Americans are more likely than whites to be poor over generations — a bigger hurdle than a short stint in a low-income bracket.
The continuing attention to race aligns with the internal politics of Louisville and its suburbs. Many of today’s parents grew up there and tend to remember and care about overcoming their county’s Jim Crow legacy. In 1975, when a federal judge first ordered the city and its suburbs to desegregate, the Ku Klux Klan demonstrated, and the next day about 150 white protestors attacked eight school buses filled with black students. “We had tough times here when the buses burned,” says Ann Elmore, a black member of the Jefferson County School Board. “We can still include race as a factor in our plan, and let me say I think it’s important that we do.”
Elsewhere in the United States, it is too soon to tell how the politics of class-based integration (Wake County) or class-plus-race (Jefferson County) will play out. Richard Kahlenberg makes the case for shifting integration policies primarily or solely to being class-based over the next decade or two. What’s fair, he asks, about giving a spot in a coveted magnet program to the son of a South Asian college professor or an African-American politician over the daughter of a white waitress? Over time, such injustices threaten to sour white parents on the whole diversity enterprise, whereas giving poor kids a boost, whatever their color, is far less controversial. Polls at the time of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which concerned affirmative action at public universities, showed public support running 2 to 1 for giving poorer kids a leg up in going to college, as opposed to 2 to 1 against race-based preferences. In her majority opinion in the case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor famously said she thought that racial preferences would continue only for another 25 years. Barack Obama has said, looking ahead to his daughters’ college applications, that they don’t deserve an admissions break — an acknowledgment that the mix of race, affirmative action and privilege is a complicated one.
To catch on nationwide, however, class-based integration would have to generate momentum that it has so far lacked. In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush urged action “to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.” And yet a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that theoretically allows students to transfer depends on the availability of open spaces elsewhere and has barely been utilized. The administration may have advocated class-based integration to the Supreme Court, but Bush officials haven’t used their signature education law to make it happen.
If Congress were to revise No Child Left Behind to encourage more transfers of poor students to middle-class schools, would poor students drag down their better-off peers? In the end, the prospects of class-based integration will probably rise or fall on the answer to this question. Socioeconomic integration may be good for the have-nots, but if the haves think their kids are paying too great a price, they will kill it off at the polls. Richard Kahlenberg argues that the key is to ensure there is a solidly middle-class majority at as many schools as possible. That majority will then set the tone, he argues. Kahlenberg says that more research is needed to pin down the percentage of middle-class kids that a school needs to have to serve all its students well. Maybe a school can go as high as 50 percent low-income without losing ground. Or maybe it’s telling that in Wake County, a proposal to increase the ceiling for low-income students from 40 percent to 50 percent died a swift death last fall after concerted protest.
Whatever the exact answer, there is some support for the view that schools can handle a substantial fraction of poor students without sacrificing performance. In Wake County, test scores of middle-class students have risen since instituting income-based integration. Additionally, Kahlenberg points out that middle-class students are generally less influenced by a school’s environment because they tend to learn more at home, and that the achievement of white students has not declined in specific schools that experienced racial (and thus some class) desegregation.
Would schools need to track students by ability to protect middle-class students, who are more often higher-achieving than their low-income peers? Perhaps not. In a 2006 longitudinal study of an accelerated middle-school math program in Nassau County, N.Y., which grouped students heterogeneously, the authors found that students at all achievement levels, as well as minority and low-income students, were more likely than the students in tracked classes to take advanced math in high school. In addition, the kids who came into the program as math whizzes performed as well as other top-achievers in homogenous classes.
This study underscores Ronald Ferguson’s point about the value of seating students of different backgrounds and abilities in class together, as opposed to tracking them. Still, it’s worth noting that less than 15 percent of the students studied in Nassau County were low-income. So the math study doesn’t tell us what happens to the high-achieving middle-class kids when close to half of their classmates aren’t as well off.
At the end of February, Todd started showing the map of mermaid-shaped Geographic Area A, which she hoped to use to implement the new assignment system, to the parents of Jefferson County. Todd would start her presentation with quotes from Justice Kennedy and from Justice Breyer’s dissent; she especially wanted to remind her audiences of the sentiment Breyer expressed by quoting former Justice Thurgood Marshall: “Unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.”
Todd’s first stop was at a forum sponsored jointly by the Urban League and the N.A.A.C.P., groups associated with Louisville’s black establishment. Most of their members supported the school district, but some clergy members who worked with the city’s black youth spoke against it. The Rev. John Carter, associate minister at Green Street Baptist Church, pointed to the district’s black-white achievement gap and called for a return to neighborhood schools and an earlier era of black self-reliance.
As more forums followed in high-school auditoriums across the county, white parents asked a different question: How would the new assignment plan affect their kids? Would they be forced to switch schools in second, third or fourth grade? “We like the diversity,” a white parent named Niki Noe told me the next morning at her son’s elementary school, St. Matthews. “But if we have to go to Chenoweth” — a school with lower test scores — “we’ll pull out and go to private school.”
That’s a serious threat to the district’s well-being, but one that Todd anticipated. She designed a grandfather clause for kids like Noe’s, so that the new assignments would apply almost entirely to new students. Meanwhile, at every meeting, Todd polled parents on whether they cared about maintaining diverse schools. The University of Kentucky also conducted a telephone survey with 654 parents of elementary schoolers. In April, Todd called me, elated and relieved, with the results: 88 percent of parents supported enrollment guidelines “to ensure that students learn with students from different races and backgrounds.” Todd said she had dropped Breyer’s dissent in Meredith from her presentation; she was no longer feeling frustrated with the court. “It’s been a personal emotional trek, but I think we’ve come out better for it,” she said in May.
Carter, the proponent of black-self reliance, was feeling more at ease, too. He had come to see the virtue of mixing kids by income level. “Once I did the research, I was pretty impressed by the economic part of it,” he said. Carter had taken note of the district’s data showing that a switch to neighborhood schools, as he had first advocated, would mean that median household income would range from a high of more than $100,000 at the wealthiest school to about $8,300 at the poorest. A split between rich students and poor schools, he agreed, was the wrong path.
It is, of course, the path taken by most of the country. And yet at the end of May, the Jefferson County School Board voted unanimously to make Geographic Area A the basis for integrating elementary schools for the 2009 school year, a new chapter in the district’s history. As the schools shift to the new class-plus-race formula, the district will closely watch the test scores of black students and poor students, hoping for an upsurge, and those of middle-class students, hoping to see achievement hold steady. And if they do, maybe the court’s decision in Meredith will come to seem less like a cause for regret and more like an unexpected opportunity.
Emily Bazelon is a senior editor at Slate who writes frequently about legal issues. Her last article for the magazine was about autistic girls.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
SPELLINGS DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE 2008 HIGHER EDUCATION SUMMIT "A TEST OF LEADERSHIP" IN CHICAGO
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 18, 2008
Contact: Samara Yudof, Elissa Leonard
(202) 401-1576
U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION MARGARET SPELLINGS DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE 2008 HIGHER EDUCATION SUMMIT "A TEST OF LEADERSHIP" IN CHICAGO
U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today delivered remarks on the progress that her Commission on the Future of Higher Education helped to facilitate, as well as discussed global competitiveness and the workforce needs of the 21st Century in Chicago, Ill. Following are her prepared remarks:
(Introduced by Charles Miller, chairman, Meridian National, Inc.)
Thank you, Charles, for introducing me.
Charles has been a great friend and a trusted mentor and adviser. One of the first pieces of advice he gave me was that changing higher education wasn't going to be easy. You've heard of the "third rail"?
My Commission couldn't have done its great work without Charles. Their report was a test of leadership not only for the academy, but also for my department. And I want to thank my Under Secretary Sara and her team for passing the test with flying colors.
Most importantly, I thank the pioneers from within the higher ed community who have embraced and advanced the commission's recommendations. Your commitment and dedication are encouraging. We may "agree to disagree" on some issues. But we agree on a whole lot more.
Now, while I still have the bully pulpit, I want to speak frankly to you about what I think needs to be done. And I'm going to turn to history to help make my case.
History shows us that transformative change in higher education has often been driven by external events.
Take the GI Bill: millions of soldiers returning to America as civilians, looking for the opportunity to achieve the American Dream they fought so hard to protect.
At first, University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins warned that by opening the ivory tower to 10 million World War II veterans, the legislation would convert colleges into "intellectual hobo jungles."
Harvard President James Conant initially predicted that the bill would allow "the least capable among the war generation to flood the facilities for advanced education." Later, he described the same soldiers as "the most mature and promising students Harvard has ever had."
Of course, now we all know the true value of the bill. After so much controversy, the GI Bill produced 450,000 more engineers, 240,000 more accountants, 238,000 more teachers, 91,000 more scientists, 67,000 more doctors, 22,000 more dentists, plus one million other college-educated citizens within a single decade.
A few years later, another event spurred change. This time it was a satellite called Sputnik. People today forget how worried America was about that little beeping ball in space.
In response, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. President Eisenhower called it an "emergency undertaking."
The law would provide loans to more than 1.5 million college students, producing 15,000 new PhD's a year over the next 10 years. High school math and science curriculum was strengthened. And a new agency was formed, what we now know as DARPA. It would lead to the creation of the Internet.
The most recent crisis that sparked change was 9-11. Security concerns loomed as barriers to openness, student exchange, and scholarly endeavor. But now, as the system recovers and adjusts, it's becoming even stronger.
Similarly, after the tragedy of Virginia Tech, we have built better plans to keep students safe and to protect their privacy.
The point is, we do not have to wait for an external threat to accomplish change.
Is it acceptable that students graduate from inner-city high schools, only to find that their curriculum was so watered-down and irrelevant that few colleges will accept them, without costly and time-consuming remedial courses?
Is it acceptable that the financial aid system is so confusing, complex and inefficient, that many young people, and their parents, simply throw up their hands and walk away?
Is it acceptable that the average graduating student is saddled with $20,000 in debt? $20,000 farther away from buying a home and starting a family. $20,000 less likely to give back to their country through teaching or public service.
That's why, once again, we must change and adapt and respond. And we must do so immediately.
Time and again, we've proven that consumer needs and demands are not threats to quality. They are catalysts for innovation.
The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems estimates that to keep up with international competition, at least 20 million more Americans must access higher education by 2025. 20 million people! That's twice as many as the GI Bill aimed to serve.
To meet this challenge, we must improve the "Three A's" access, affordability, and accountability.
My commissioners produced a provocative report. Where other reports are quickly shelved and forgotten, theirs hit a nerve. They provoked strong reactions and thoughtful discourse in the finest tradition of academic debate.
They found that one of the biggest barriers to change is a lack of coordination between high schools and higher ed. Too often, high school coursework is not rigorous or varied enough to act as a springboard to success in college.
On Tuesday, a coalition including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other leading business groups reiterated that we are far from meeting their needs. We're nowhere near the goal of doubling the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the STEM fields-science, technology, engineering, and math.
The problem is not a lack of resources. My department recently returned more than 500 million dollars in AC/SMART grants to the U.S. Treasury. Why? Because we could not find enough college-ready students from low-income families to take them. That's 500 million dollars that has gone unused, and countless more untapped human potential.
As the Secretary of Education, I'm obligated to speak for students and families, and for we federal taxpayers who are one-third investors in higher education.
They rightly expect us to knock down barriers to progress - like an opaque accreditation process that often inhibits innovation instead of encouraging it, or discourages new players from entering the system.
They rightly expect us to build human capital by educating more people from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds.
They rightly expect us to use technology and innovation to advance change and empower students.
And, they rightly expect us to continue our traditional emphasis on excellence in research and scholarship, as well as to nurture and cultivate partnerships with private and philanthropic sectors.
Simply put, higher ed must become more agile, transparent, and student-centered.
We at the federal level are doing more.
Pell grantees in 2008 will benefit from the largest increase in their annual award in 30 years. In addition, all students will benefit from new tools to help them choose a college and apply for financial aid. Like College dot gov, the FAFSA4caster, the College Navigator and the Federal Aid First brochure that Under Secretary Tucker discussed yesterday.
In addition, I'm heartened that a pioneering band of innovators are embracing the commission's recommendations many of them in this room.
I've seen the fruits of their labors. In May I saw students from more than 150 nations graduate from Miami Dade College. Under the leadership of my friend Eduardo Padron, Miami Dade has become the nation's leader in graduating low income and minority students, and students who are the first in their family to earn a degree.
We see the tremendous potential of increased transparency in MIT's new free open courseware, and in Stanford's podcasts of hundreds of free courses.
We see it at James Madison University, a leader in sharing information to help families make wise choices. As their web site says, "Some say their education programs are successful at JMU, we can prove it!" I love that.
We owe it to students and families to reinforce these efforts. As one of my critics has said: "We're educators if you feel that there is not enough information out there, well, by golly, we'll give it to you."
That promise is what American universities are all about. We're not in the business of containing information or knowledge. We're in the business of sharing it!
At the same time, I am disappointed that many challenges of leadership remain unmet. After all, American universities assemble some of the finest minds in the world, and your intellectual capacity is unbounded.
Rigorous debate and analysis are the hallmarks of the academy. And your ability to question traditions and challenge assumptions has made our system the finest in the world.
Yet there is often real hesitancy to turn that critical thinking inward.
I have been proud to lead delegations of university presidents to nations around the world. Everywhere I go, I tell students about the unmatched benefits of the American system of higher education. I am your number one advocate.
But as the mother of a teenager, I also believe in what some people call "tough love."
So, I feel honor-bound to remind you that in the absence of continued leadership in education, others will step in. When public demand reaches critical mass, policymakers are compelled to act whether they're in the Congress or on state boards or in state legislatures.
I suspect their solutions will likely not be as informed or sophisticated as what you would propose. Because while terms like "access, affordability, and accountability" are abstract concepts to many in Washington, they represent real-life challenges to students and faculties. And policymakers are pressured and obligated to respond.
In Washington, even as we speak, the Congress is contemplating actions that many in the Academy view as micromanagement and mandates. For example, there are proposals that would ask you to regulate Internet piracy, to report the number of fire drills you hold each year, and to keep track of any student leaving campus for more than 24 hours.
To meet our need for 20 million, 20 million by 2025, we must broaden and elevate the conversation.
Let's start by giving ourselves a deadline to reach the halfway point by the next Presidential election in 2012.
We have only just begun to tap the potential of the American population a population with strengths and talents even more diverse and abundant then those of our universities. Transforming to meet their needs will take time, resources, and sustained effort. And I challenge the next administration no matter what party they represent to carry forward the progress we've made so far.
I know we can reach our goal because we've done it many times before.
The GI Bill was signed into law on June 22, 1944. Within the next 12 years, nearly 8 million veterans took advantage of its education benefits.
Sputnik flew through the sky on October 4, 1957. Within the next 10 years, we tripled the number of math and science PhDs awarded annually.
I formed my commission in October 2005. By educating 20 million more people over 20 years, we will increase our Gross Domestic Product by 500 billion dollars. Half a million more people will be employed. 20 million people will be much more likely to vote and engage in their communities. 20 million will be more likely to live longer, healthier, more prosperous lives.
Together, our leadership can and will make this dream a reality. So let's get to work!
Thank you. I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 18, 2008
Contact: Samara Yudof, Elissa Leonard
(202) 401-1576
U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION MARGARET SPELLINGS DELIVERS REMARKS AT THE 2008 HIGHER EDUCATION SUMMIT "A TEST OF LEADERSHIP" IN CHICAGO
U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today delivered remarks on the progress that her Commission on the Future of Higher Education helped to facilitate, as well as discussed global competitiveness and the workforce needs of the 21st Century in Chicago, Ill. Following are her prepared remarks:
(Introduced by Charles Miller, chairman, Meridian National, Inc.)
Thank you, Charles, for introducing me.
Charles has been a great friend and a trusted mentor and adviser. One of the first pieces of advice he gave me was that changing higher education wasn't going to be easy. You've heard of the "third rail"?
My Commission couldn't have done its great work without Charles. Their report was a test of leadership not only for the academy, but also for my department. And I want to thank my Under Secretary Sara and her team for passing the test with flying colors.
Most importantly, I thank the pioneers from within the higher ed community who have embraced and advanced the commission's recommendations. Your commitment and dedication are encouraging. We may "agree to disagree" on some issues. But we agree on a whole lot more.
Now, while I still have the bully pulpit, I want to speak frankly to you about what I think needs to be done. And I'm going to turn to history to help make my case.
History shows us that transformative change in higher education has often been driven by external events.
Take the GI Bill: millions of soldiers returning to America as civilians, looking for the opportunity to achieve the American Dream they fought so hard to protect.
At first, University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins warned that by opening the ivory tower to 10 million World War II veterans, the legislation would convert colleges into "intellectual hobo jungles."
Harvard President James Conant initially predicted that the bill would allow "the least capable among the war generation to flood the facilities for advanced education." Later, he described the same soldiers as "the most mature and promising students Harvard has ever had."
Of course, now we all know the true value of the bill. After so much controversy, the GI Bill produced 450,000 more engineers, 240,000 more accountants, 238,000 more teachers, 91,000 more scientists, 67,000 more doctors, 22,000 more dentists, plus one million other college-educated citizens within a single decade.
A few years later, another event spurred change. This time it was a satellite called Sputnik. People today forget how worried America was about that little beeping ball in space.
In response, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. President Eisenhower called it an "emergency undertaking."
The law would provide loans to more than 1.5 million college students, producing 15,000 new PhD's a year over the next 10 years. High school math and science curriculum was strengthened. And a new agency was formed, what we now know as DARPA. It would lead to the creation of the Internet.
The most recent crisis that sparked change was 9-11. Security concerns loomed as barriers to openness, student exchange, and scholarly endeavor. But now, as the system recovers and adjusts, it's becoming even stronger.
Similarly, after the tragedy of Virginia Tech, we have built better plans to keep students safe and to protect their privacy.
The point is, we do not have to wait for an external threat to accomplish change.
Is it acceptable that students graduate from inner-city high schools, only to find that their curriculum was so watered-down and irrelevant that few colleges will accept them, without costly and time-consuming remedial courses?
Is it acceptable that the financial aid system is so confusing, complex and inefficient, that many young people, and their parents, simply throw up their hands and walk away?
Is it acceptable that the average graduating student is saddled with $20,000 in debt? $20,000 farther away from buying a home and starting a family. $20,000 less likely to give back to their country through teaching or public service.
That's why, once again, we must change and adapt and respond. And we must do so immediately.
Time and again, we've proven that consumer needs and demands are not threats to quality. They are catalysts for innovation.
The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems estimates that to keep up with international competition, at least 20 million more Americans must access higher education by 2025. 20 million people! That's twice as many as the GI Bill aimed to serve.
To meet this challenge, we must improve the "Three A's" access, affordability, and accountability.
My commissioners produced a provocative report. Where other reports are quickly shelved and forgotten, theirs hit a nerve. They provoked strong reactions and thoughtful discourse in the finest tradition of academic debate.
They found that one of the biggest barriers to change is a lack of coordination between high schools and higher ed. Too often, high school coursework is not rigorous or varied enough to act as a springboard to success in college.
On Tuesday, a coalition including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other leading business groups reiterated that we are far from meeting their needs. We're nowhere near the goal of doubling the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the STEM fields-science, technology, engineering, and math.
The problem is not a lack of resources. My department recently returned more than 500 million dollars in AC/SMART grants to the U.S. Treasury. Why? Because we could not find enough college-ready students from low-income families to take them. That's 500 million dollars that has gone unused, and countless more untapped human potential.
As the Secretary of Education, I'm obligated to speak for students and families, and for we federal taxpayers who are one-third investors in higher education.
They rightly expect us to knock down barriers to progress - like an opaque accreditation process that often inhibits innovation instead of encouraging it, or discourages new players from entering the system.
They rightly expect us to build human capital by educating more people from diverse economic and cultural backgrounds.
They rightly expect us to use technology and innovation to advance change and empower students.
And, they rightly expect us to continue our traditional emphasis on excellence in research and scholarship, as well as to nurture and cultivate partnerships with private and philanthropic sectors.
Simply put, higher ed must become more agile, transparent, and student-centered.
We at the federal level are doing more.
Pell grantees in 2008 will benefit from the largest increase in their annual award in 30 years. In addition, all students will benefit from new tools to help them choose a college and apply for financial aid. Like College dot gov, the FAFSA4caster, the College Navigator and the Federal Aid First brochure that Under Secretary Tucker discussed yesterday.
In addition, I'm heartened that a pioneering band of innovators are embracing the commission's recommendations many of them in this room.
I've seen the fruits of their labors. In May I saw students from more than 150 nations graduate from Miami Dade College. Under the leadership of my friend Eduardo Padron, Miami Dade has become the nation's leader in graduating low income and minority students, and students who are the first in their family to earn a degree.
We see the tremendous potential of increased transparency in MIT's new free open courseware, and in Stanford's podcasts of hundreds of free courses.
We see it at James Madison University, a leader in sharing information to help families make wise choices. As their web site says, "Some say their education programs are successful at JMU, we can prove it!" I love that.
We owe it to students and families to reinforce these efforts. As one of my critics has said: "We're educators if you feel that there is not enough information out there, well, by golly, we'll give it to you."
That promise is what American universities are all about. We're not in the business of containing information or knowledge. We're in the business of sharing it!
At the same time, I am disappointed that many challenges of leadership remain unmet. After all, American universities assemble some of the finest minds in the world, and your intellectual capacity is unbounded.
Rigorous debate and analysis are the hallmarks of the academy. And your ability to question traditions and challenge assumptions has made our system the finest in the world.
Yet there is often real hesitancy to turn that critical thinking inward.
I have been proud to lead delegations of university presidents to nations around the world. Everywhere I go, I tell students about the unmatched benefits of the American system of higher education. I am your number one advocate.
But as the mother of a teenager, I also believe in what some people call "tough love."
So, I feel honor-bound to remind you that in the absence of continued leadership in education, others will step in. When public demand reaches critical mass, policymakers are compelled to act whether they're in the Congress or on state boards or in state legislatures.
I suspect their solutions will likely not be as informed or sophisticated as what you would propose. Because while terms like "access, affordability, and accountability" are abstract concepts to many in Washington, they represent real-life challenges to students and faculties. And policymakers are pressured and obligated to respond.
In Washington, even as we speak, the Congress is contemplating actions that many in the Academy view as micromanagement and mandates. For example, there are proposals that would ask you to regulate Internet piracy, to report the number of fire drills you hold each year, and to keep track of any student leaving campus for more than 24 hours.
To meet our need for 20 million, 20 million by 2025, we must broaden and elevate the conversation.
Let's start by giving ourselves a deadline to reach the halfway point by the next Presidential election in 2012.
We have only just begun to tap the potential of the American population a population with strengths and talents even more diverse and abundant then those of our universities. Transforming to meet their needs will take time, resources, and sustained effort. And I challenge the next administration no matter what party they represent to carry forward the progress we've made so far.
I know we can reach our goal because we've done it many times before.
The GI Bill was signed into law on June 22, 1944. Within the next 12 years, nearly 8 million veterans took advantage of its education benefits.
Sputnik flew through the sky on October 4, 1957. Within the next 10 years, we tripled the number of math and science PhDs awarded annually.
I formed my commission in October 2005. By educating 20 million more people over 20 years, we will increase our Gross Domestic Product by 500 billion dollars. Half a million more people will be employed. 20 million people will be much more likely to vote and engage in their communities. 20 million will be more likely to live longer, healthier, more prosperous lives.
Together, our leadership can and will make this dream a reality. So let's get to work!
Thank you. I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
California mandates testing every eighth-grader in algebra -- ready or not
Critics say the expected three-year time frame for implementing the rule is unrealistic. School districts will need help to prepare students, they add.
By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2008
Every California eighth-grader will be tested in algebra -- ready or not -- under a policy approved Wednesday that could make the state the first in the nation to require an upper-level math class before high school.
The state Board of Education voted for the change under pressure from federal officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who broke months of silence by siding this week with advocates who want algebra to become mandatory in eighth grade within three years.
Proponents say the new policy will push school districts to ensure that eighth-graders are ready for the demands of algebra. Critics say the anticipated three-year time frame is unrealistic. The new mandate, they contend, overlooks the real need to help school districts better prepare students.
Lucila Zetino, a summer school student at Monroe High in North Hills, typifies both the state's aspirations and its failings.
Zetino, 18, was part of an early push to get all students into Algebra 1 in eighth grade. Zetino flunked the class and has been flunking it ever since. Now she is attending classes after her senior year -- giving it another try, determined to earn her high school diploma.
Zetino's struggles demonstrate the depth of the challenge. Her math slide began at Millikan Middle School in seventh grade, she said. Then came eighth-grade algebra, when her teacher quit and was followed by several long-term substitutes. "I don't think I was prepared. I think they just, like, pushed me into algebra. . . . Math was like a different language I never understood. I felt hopeless."
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, more than half of eighth-graders, along with more than 2,000 seventh-graders, took algebra in 2007. But only 21% of eighth-graders tested proficient. About two-thirds of those who failed the class passed on their second try.
At many low-performing campuses, the picture is more dire. At Gompers Middle School in Watts, for example, only 30% of eighth-graders took algebra, and only 15% of those scored proficient. Moreover, only 1% of students in general math, an easier course, tested proficient.
The state's curriculum for eighth grade has long included algebra, and schools get penalized on their own report card, the state's Academic Performance Index, for every eighth-grader who doesn't take the algebra test.
The next step, the state board decided, was to force all students to take the test -- and thus an algebra course -- at a younger age. Under the likely terms of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, the state would have three years to make the transition.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell had proposed instead a second, easier, algebra test as a fallback for some students. That test, already in development, would have been ready in spring 2010.
Requiring all students to take algebra "will hurt kids and contribute to other problems; I pray that I'm wrong," O'Connell said after the vote. "Absent additional resources, we're setting our students up for failure."
Statewide, only 24% of students, regardless of age or grade, scored proficient in algebra in 2007.
In eighth grade, 38% tested proficient -- a number virtually unchanged since 2003. But more students are taking algebra: less than a third in 2002 and more than half today.
For months, O'Connell's two-test option had considerable support. The governor's office raised no objection, and state board President Ted Mitchell co-signed a letter to federal officials with O'Connell.
"Board members were uncomfortable with a second test that would create the appearance of mastery of algebra but not actually do that," said Mitchell, explaining why he and other board members altered their positions.
Federal officials have complained that California established algebra as eighth-grade material but didn't require students to take the algebra test. Instead, they could take the more basic general math test. The requirements and the test have to match under federal law.
Washington couldn't tell California exactly how to comply with the law, said Holly Kuzmich, deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. "But education policy is leading us to getting kids access to algebra by the eighth grade, and we know that's what leads kids to jobs and college."
She added: "We are delighted at the governor's push for high standards." Kuzmich said she knew of no other state that required algebra as early as eighth grade.
For months, advocates lobbied against O'Connell's approach.
"This $1-million proposed 'algebra light' alternative test will be a disaster for California kids and teachers," said Jim Lanich, president of California Business for Education Excellence, before the vote. "It will be a watering down of academic standards. . . . It will institutionalize a lower expectation for minority and low-income kids."
There also were critics from a nearly opposite perspective who wanted a test that matched the state's new "algebra readiness" curriculum. Some of these advocates wanted the state to wait out the Bush administration.
For them, even the easier algebra test was "meaningless and cruel" for students who, because they weren't ready, hadn't taken algebra, testified Charles T. Munger Jr., a math curriculum expert.
The state board postponed the decision in May and also punted in June, but had to act this month to avoid possible sanctions.
The federal government could have stripped away several million dollars that the state uses to oversee programs for students from low-income families. The state also could have lost flexibility for developing reforms.
The approved solution creates another problem. If 95% of eighth-graders don't take the algebra test, a school could be judged as "failing" under federal rules and subject to penalties.
Schwarzenegger stayed out of the debate until 24 hours before trustees were to act.
"We must set our goals higher," the governor wrote to the state board. "Algebra is the gateway to critical thinking, pivotal for success in science, engineering and technology."
To graduate, California students must pass two years of high school math, including Algebra 1, and the high school exit exam. To enter the California State or University of California systems, students need a C or better in three years of high school math, which usually takes them at least through Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2.
In L.A. Unified, as in other urban districts, students will need more help before eighth grade. The district has had trouble attracting and keeping qualified and effective math teachers.
Its teaching corps needs training in imparting the concepts of math as well as skills that will lead to algebra, said Jeanne Ramos, director of secondary mathematics.
Zetino's current teacher, Brian York, is taking part in a new effort among schools in his area to coordinate early math instruction.
"You can't just say, 'Eighth-graders, you're taking algebra,' " York said.
Despite clear explanations, good humor and words of encouragement, York can expect only about 50% of his class of algebra repeaters -- some of whom barely speak English -- to make it through, based on past experience. But he's going to keep trying.
So is Zetino, who wants to be a cosmetologist or find a job in the arts.
"I really want to graduate from high school," she said. "I'm hoping I do good in this class."
By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2008
Every California eighth-grader will be tested in algebra -- ready or not -- under a policy approved Wednesday that could make the state the first in the nation to require an upper-level math class before high school.
The state Board of Education voted for the change under pressure from federal officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who broke months of silence by siding this week with advocates who want algebra to become mandatory in eighth grade within three years.
Proponents say the new policy will push school districts to ensure that eighth-graders are ready for the demands of algebra. Critics say the anticipated three-year time frame is unrealistic. The new mandate, they contend, overlooks the real need to help school districts better prepare students.
Lucila Zetino, a summer school student at Monroe High in North Hills, typifies both the state's aspirations and its failings.
Zetino, 18, was part of an early push to get all students into Algebra 1 in eighth grade. Zetino flunked the class and has been flunking it ever since. Now she is attending classes after her senior year -- giving it another try, determined to earn her high school diploma.
Zetino's struggles demonstrate the depth of the challenge. Her math slide began at Millikan Middle School in seventh grade, she said. Then came eighth-grade algebra, when her teacher quit and was followed by several long-term substitutes. "I don't think I was prepared. I think they just, like, pushed me into algebra. . . . Math was like a different language I never understood. I felt hopeless."
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, more than half of eighth-graders, along with more than 2,000 seventh-graders, took algebra in 2007. But only 21% of eighth-graders tested proficient. About two-thirds of those who failed the class passed on their second try.
At many low-performing campuses, the picture is more dire. At Gompers Middle School in Watts, for example, only 30% of eighth-graders took algebra, and only 15% of those scored proficient. Moreover, only 1% of students in general math, an easier course, tested proficient.
The state's curriculum for eighth grade has long included algebra, and schools get penalized on their own report card, the state's Academic Performance Index, for every eighth-grader who doesn't take the algebra test.
The next step, the state board decided, was to force all students to take the test -- and thus an algebra course -- at a younger age. Under the likely terms of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, the state would have three years to make the transition.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell had proposed instead a second, easier, algebra test as a fallback for some students. That test, already in development, would have been ready in spring 2010.
Requiring all students to take algebra "will hurt kids and contribute to other problems; I pray that I'm wrong," O'Connell said after the vote. "Absent additional resources, we're setting our students up for failure."
Statewide, only 24% of students, regardless of age or grade, scored proficient in algebra in 2007.
In eighth grade, 38% tested proficient -- a number virtually unchanged since 2003. But more students are taking algebra: less than a third in 2002 and more than half today.
For months, O'Connell's two-test option had considerable support. The governor's office raised no objection, and state board President Ted Mitchell co-signed a letter to federal officials with O'Connell.
"Board members were uncomfortable with a second test that would create the appearance of mastery of algebra but not actually do that," said Mitchell, explaining why he and other board members altered their positions.
Federal officials have complained that California established algebra as eighth-grade material but didn't require students to take the algebra test. Instead, they could take the more basic general math test. The requirements and the test have to match under federal law.
Washington couldn't tell California exactly how to comply with the law, said Holly Kuzmich, deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. "But education policy is leading us to getting kids access to algebra by the eighth grade, and we know that's what leads kids to jobs and college."
She added: "We are delighted at the governor's push for high standards." Kuzmich said she knew of no other state that required algebra as early as eighth grade.
For months, advocates lobbied against O'Connell's approach.
"This $1-million proposed 'algebra light' alternative test will be a disaster for California kids and teachers," said Jim Lanich, president of California Business for Education Excellence, before the vote. "It will be a watering down of academic standards. . . . It will institutionalize a lower expectation for minority and low-income kids."
There also were critics from a nearly opposite perspective who wanted a test that matched the state's new "algebra readiness" curriculum. Some of these advocates wanted the state to wait out the Bush administration.
For them, even the easier algebra test was "meaningless and cruel" for students who, because they weren't ready, hadn't taken algebra, testified Charles T. Munger Jr., a math curriculum expert.
The state board postponed the decision in May and also punted in June, but had to act this month to avoid possible sanctions.
The federal government could have stripped away several million dollars that the state uses to oversee programs for students from low-income families. The state also could have lost flexibility for developing reforms.
The approved solution creates another problem. If 95% of eighth-graders don't take the algebra test, a school could be judged as "failing" under federal rules and subject to penalties.
Schwarzenegger stayed out of the debate until 24 hours before trustees were to act.
"We must set our goals higher," the governor wrote to the state board. "Algebra is the gateway to critical thinking, pivotal for success in science, engineering and technology."
To graduate, California students must pass two years of high school math, including Algebra 1, and the high school exit exam. To enter the California State or University of California systems, students need a C or better in three years of high school math, which usually takes them at least through Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2.
In L.A. Unified, as in other urban districts, students will need more help before eighth grade. The district has had trouble attracting and keeping qualified and effective math teachers.
Its teaching corps needs training in imparting the concepts of math as well as skills that will lead to algebra, said Jeanne Ramos, director of secondary mathematics.
Zetino's current teacher, Brian York, is taking part in a new effort among schools in his area to coordinate early math instruction.
"You can't just say, 'Eighth-graders, you're taking algebra,' " York said.
Despite clear explanations, good humor and words of encouragement, York can expect only about 50% of his class of algebra repeaters -- some of whom barely speak English -- to make it through, based on past experience. But he's going to keep trying.
So is Zetino, who wants to be a cosmetologist or find a job in the arts.
"I really want to graduate from high school," she said. "I'm hoping I do good in this class."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Educators wrestle with digital-equity challenges
An important mention of the "essential conditions" for digital inclusion by UT's Paul Resta:
(1) basic literacy skills
(2) access to information and communications technology (ICT) devices, software, and connectivity
(3) access to culturally relevant content in the student's local language
(4) the ability to create, share, and exchange digital content
(5) access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources in pedagogically sound ways
(6) access to effective leadership in policy and planning.
-Patricia
By Dennis Pierce, Managing Editor, eSchool News
July 7, 2008
Summit addresses key question: How to ensure access to digital learning opportunities for all students
Despite gains in the number of households that are online and the number of computing devices in the hands of students, making sure all learners have equitable access to technology resources continues to be a challenge in the United States and worldwide, said panelists at a recent summit.
"We've made a lot of progress, but we've got a lot more work to do," said Link Hoewing, vice president of internet and technology policy for Verizon Communications.
Hoewing was speaking at a Digital Equity Summit held July 1 at the National Educational Computing Conference in San Antonio, Texas, where participants discussed ways to close the gaps between those who have easy access to digital tools and resources and those who don't.
Students who lack this access to technology are at a disadvantage, ed-tech advocates say, because they are missing out on opportunities to learn and to become participants in an increasingly digital workforce and society.
At the summit, panelists shared the latest research on digital inequities in the United States and abroad, as well as possible solutions. One thing they agreed on was that the nature of the problem appears to be changing--and policy makers and education leaders must expand how they view and respond to this challenge in turn.
Thanks to a program in Brazil through which the government offers special-finance loans for people to buy computers, an estimated 36 million Brazilian children reportedly will be using Linux-based machines by the end of this year. Low-cost laptops such as Intel's Classmate PC and the One Laptop Per Child Foundation's XO computer have reached nearly a million students worldwide. And cell-phone use in Africa has exploded in the last few years; coupled with the convergence in wireless devices, this trend has important implications for students in developing countries.
Yet, while there are many more digital devices now available to students, there seems to be a narrowing of the content they can use, said Joyce Pittman, director of the Center for Learning and Teaching with Technology at United Arab Emirates University.
Paul E. Resta, director of the University of Texas at Austin's Learning Technology Center, framed the digital-equity challenge as one of providing not just technologies, but "digital opportunities," for students.
"The digital divide is traditionally defined in terms of internet access," he said, "but it is really part of a broader divide that contributes to the social and economic exclusion of people."
Resta listed six things that he called "essential conditions" for digital inclusion: (1) basic literacy skills; (2) access to information and communications technology (ICT) devices, software, and connectivity; (3) access to culturally relevant content in the student's local language; (4) the ability to create, share, and exchange digital content; (5) access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources in pedagogically sound ways; and (6) access to effective leadership in policy and planning.
n other words, closing the so-called digital divide is about much more than providing access to computers and the internet, he said; it's about providing all the opportunities for learning that technology affords.
"The digital divide helps widen an even more alarming problem," Resta said--"the knowledge divide."
There are significant efforts under way to provide access not just to digital tools and devices, but also to digital content. The emergence of open educational resources, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare project, and the rapid growth of digital libraries such as Google's book-scanning project are a few examples.
Yet, the amount of digital content that is available only in English is still overwhelming. Eighty percent of the web sites on the internet are in English, but only 10 percent of the world's population understands English, said Laura Sujo de Montes, educational technology program coordinator for New Mexico State University.
Besides needing content that is easily accessible, students and families on the wrong side of the digital divide also need training in how to use technology tools and resources.
Ashanti Jefferson, technology integration senior analyst for the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), talked about a program in her district that addresses this need. CPS has teamed up with Intel Corp. to offer free technology literacy tutorials that are available online in multiple languages through a low-bandwidth internet connection. These free tutorials work on multiple computing platforms and include resources for parents as well as students, Jefferson said.
‘Thrashing around'
Even though a growing number of students now have access to computers, software, and the internet both in the United States and abroad, there is still a great deal of work to be done in this area, too, panelists said.
Computer refurbishing programs are helping to reduce digital inequities worldwide, Resta said--the top 1,000 companies in the world have an estimated 70 million machines they are trying to dispose of--and so is the open-source software movement.
Any company that develops proprietary software that works only on a single platform "is serving the platform, not the student," said David Thornburg, founder and director of the Thornburg Center, which helps schools deliver inquiry-driven, project-based instruction in science, math, and technology.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a goal of connecting villages, schools, hospitals, and libraries to the internet, ensuring than at least half of the world's population has access to modern technology by 2015, Resta said. But one of the key challenges to this effort is the cost of broadband services.
Resta showed a graphic that indicated the average annual cost of broadband service is only 2 percent of the total income for high-income populations--yet it's more than 900 percent of the annual income for low-income populations.
And though the average per-capita income of families in the United States far exceeds that of families in developing nations, the challenge of bringing broadband internet access into homes isn't limited to the rest of the world.
Sujo de Montes showed a slide listing the characteristics of those affected by the global digital divide: they typically live in rural areas, are uneducated, and many are unskilled laborers. "Don't these criteria apply to the poor in America?" she asked, to great applause.
Resta noted that the United States has fallen to 15th in broadband penetration among industrialized nations, according to rankings compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--down from fourth in 2001.
He said most countries have set a goal of universal broadband service, much like electricity, telephone service, or any other utility. But in the United States, "we really don't have much of a [national] policy--we're thrashing around," Resta said, and it's incumbent on educators to help push for a national broadband strategy.
Verizon's Hoewing described the efforts his company is making to ensure that all students have equitable access to high-speed internet service.
New developments in fiber-optic technology now give internet providers the ability to bend fiber lines into an "L" shape without interfering with how light waves travel along the lines, Hoewing said--which has important implications for delivering fiber-optic service to city apartments and other hard-to-wire places.
Verizon also aims to reach traditionally underserved populations by offering broadband wireless to people's cell phones. The company's EV-DO service now reaches an estimated 228 million people, Hoewing said.
He noted that 82 percent of Americans now own a cell phone, and there is not much of a gap in cell-phone use among racial demographics: 74 percent of white Americans, 71 percent of African-Americans, and 84 percent of Hispanics reportedly own phones. And even faster "4G" wireless service should be available by 2010, he said.
Still, new research from the Pew Internet & American Life Project suggests that attitude, rather than availability, might be the main reason more Americans don't have high-speed internet access. (See accompanying story: "Study: Many dial-up users don't want broadband.")
Hoewing acknowledged that convincing some families to subscribe to broadband service is a key challenge. He said he's heard from some parents that they're not online because they're afraid of the dangers lurking on the web. In response to these concerns, he said, Verizon now offers free online protection tools for families.
He also agreed that cost is still an issue for many families, even in the United States.
(1) basic literacy skills
(2) access to information and communications technology (ICT) devices, software, and connectivity
(3) access to culturally relevant content in the student's local language
(4) the ability to create, share, and exchange digital content
(5) access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources in pedagogically sound ways
(6) access to effective leadership in policy and planning.
-Patricia
By Dennis Pierce, Managing Editor, eSchool News
July 7, 2008
Summit addresses key question: How to ensure access to digital learning opportunities for all students
Despite gains in the number of households that are online and the number of computing devices in the hands of students, making sure all learners have equitable access to technology resources continues to be a challenge in the United States and worldwide, said panelists at a recent summit.
"We've made a lot of progress, but we've got a lot more work to do," said Link Hoewing, vice president of internet and technology policy for Verizon Communications.
Hoewing was speaking at a Digital Equity Summit held July 1 at the National Educational Computing Conference in San Antonio, Texas, where participants discussed ways to close the gaps between those who have easy access to digital tools and resources and those who don't.
Students who lack this access to technology are at a disadvantage, ed-tech advocates say, because they are missing out on opportunities to learn and to become participants in an increasingly digital workforce and society.
At the summit, panelists shared the latest research on digital inequities in the United States and abroad, as well as possible solutions. One thing they agreed on was that the nature of the problem appears to be changing--and policy makers and education leaders must expand how they view and respond to this challenge in turn.
Thanks to a program in Brazil through which the government offers special-finance loans for people to buy computers, an estimated 36 million Brazilian children reportedly will be using Linux-based machines by the end of this year. Low-cost laptops such as Intel's Classmate PC and the One Laptop Per Child Foundation's XO computer have reached nearly a million students worldwide. And cell-phone use in Africa has exploded in the last few years; coupled with the convergence in wireless devices, this trend has important implications for students in developing countries.
Yet, while there are many more digital devices now available to students, there seems to be a narrowing of the content they can use, said Joyce Pittman, director of the Center for Learning and Teaching with Technology at United Arab Emirates University.
Paul E. Resta, director of the University of Texas at Austin's Learning Technology Center, framed the digital-equity challenge as one of providing not just technologies, but "digital opportunities," for students.
"The digital divide is traditionally defined in terms of internet access," he said, "but it is really part of a broader divide that contributes to the social and economic exclusion of people."
Resta listed six things that he called "essential conditions" for digital inclusion: (1) basic literacy skills; (2) access to information and communications technology (ICT) devices, software, and connectivity; (3) access to culturally relevant content in the student's local language; (4) the ability to create, share, and exchange digital content; (5) access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources in pedagogically sound ways; and (6) access to effective leadership in policy and planning.
n other words, closing the so-called digital divide is about much more than providing access to computers and the internet, he said; it's about providing all the opportunities for learning that technology affords.
"The digital divide helps widen an even more alarming problem," Resta said--"the knowledge divide."
There are significant efforts under way to provide access not just to digital tools and devices, but also to digital content. The emergence of open educational resources, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare project, and the rapid growth of digital libraries such as Google's book-scanning project are a few examples.
Yet, the amount of digital content that is available only in English is still overwhelming. Eighty percent of the web sites on the internet are in English, but only 10 percent of the world's population understands English, said Laura Sujo de Montes, educational technology program coordinator for New Mexico State University.
Besides needing content that is easily accessible, students and families on the wrong side of the digital divide also need training in how to use technology tools and resources.
Ashanti Jefferson, technology integration senior analyst for the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), talked about a program in her district that addresses this need. CPS has teamed up with Intel Corp. to offer free technology literacy tutorials that are available online in multiple languages through a low-bandwidth internet connection. These free tutorials work on multiple computing platforms and include resources for parents as well as students, Jefferson said.
‘Thrashing around'
Even though a growing number of students now have access to computers, software, and the internet both in the United States and abroad, there is still a great deal of work to be done in this area, too, panelists said.
Computer refurbishing programs are helping to reduce digital inequities worldwide, Resta said--the top 1,000 companies in the world have an estimated 70 million machines they are trying to dispose of--and so is the open-source software movement.
Any company that develops proprietary software that works only on a single platform "is serving the platform, not the student," said David Thornburg, founder and director of the Thornburg Center, which helps schools deliver inquiry-driven, project-based instruction in science, math, and technology.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a goal of connecting villages, schools, hospitals, and libraries to the internet, ensuring than at least half of the world's population has access to modern technology by 2015, Resta said. But one of the key challenges to this effort is the cost of broadband services.
Resta showed a graphic that indicated the average annual cost of broadband service is only 2 percent of the total income for high-income populations--yet it's more than 900 percent of the annual income for low-income populations.
And though the average per-capita income of families in the United States far exceeds that of families in developing nations, the challenge of bringing broadband internet access into homes isn't limited to the rest of the world.
Sujo de Montes showed a slide listing the characteristics of those affected by the global digital divide: they typically live in rural areas, are uneducated, and many are unskilled laborers. "Don't these criteria apply to the poor in America?" she asked, to great applause.
Resta noted that the United States has fallen to 15th in broadband penetration among industrialized nations, according to rankings compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--down from fourth in 2001.
He said most countries have set a goal of universal broadband service, much like electricity, telephone service, or any other utility. But in the United States, "we really don't have much of a [national] policy--we're thrashing around," Resta said, and it's incumbent on educators to help push for a national broadband strategy.
Verizon's Hoewing described the efforts his company is making to ensure that all students have equitable access to high-speed internet service.
New developments in fiber-optic technology now give internet providers the ability to bend fiber lines into an "L" shape without interfering with how light waves travel along the lines, Hoewing said--which has important implications for delivering fiber-optic service to city apartments and other hard-to-wire places.
Verizon also aims to reach traditionally underserved populations by offering broadband wireless to people's cell phones. The company's EV-DO service now reaches an estimated 228 million people, Hoewing said.
He noted that 82 percent of Americans now own a cell phone, and there is not much of a gap in cell-phone use among racial demographics: 74 percent of white Americans, 71 percent of African-Americans, and 84 percent of Hispanics reportedly own phones. And even faster "4G" wireless service should be available by 2010, he said.
Still, new research from the Pew Internet & American Life Project suggests that attitude, rather than availability, might be the main reason more Americans don't have high-speed internet access. (See accompanying story: "Study: Many dial-up users don't want broadband.")
Hoewing acknowledged that convincing some families to subscribe to broadband service is a key challenge. He said he's heard from some parents that they're not online because they're afraid of the dangers lurking on the web. In response to these concerns, he said, Verizon now offers free online protection tools for families.
He also agreed that cost is still an issue for many families, even in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)