By Sarah Carr
September 27, 2009
At first, Aliska Prejean was a little skeptical when school leaders told her a new administration would take over the lower grades at Carver Elementary, where her five children are enrolled.
Without a car, she worried about the logistics of picking up her children at different times. And without much money, she worried about having to buy a bunch of new uniforms.
The educators who visited her house to explain the concept were reassuring, however. And when school started in August, her pre-kindergartener and second-grader happily went off to the new school, Benjamin Mays Prep, located on the same campus as Carver, which her three older children continued to attend.
Carver is one of four campuses across the city where educators have embarked this fall on an unusual method of rehabilitation. Instead of closing the school completely, or handing over the reins to a new leader, they hope to transform the schools gradually:
At the Carver campus, Benjamin Mays Prep, a charter school, took over only the pre-kindergarten through second grades; each year, Mays will add a grade until Carver no longer exists.
"If we can prove this transformation process works, it holds tremendous promise not just for New Orleans, but nationwide, " said Matt Candler, chairman of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools, who helped design the concept.
The strategy comes at a time of intense interest nationally in how to turn around the country's lowest-performing schools. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has charged states with devising ways to reinvent the country's "chronically underperforming" schools, the bottom 5 percent.
So far, three other approaches have dominated: closing the weakest schools; reconstituting them with new faculty and staffs; or handing them over to new operators, like the state or a nonprofit group that manages clusters of charters.
The strategy under way at Carver and the other three campuses is unique in that it blends all three approaches, but takes more time to implement. Its backers say that it's less painful to a community than closing a school outright, and makes it easier to eradicate low expectations and unhealthy school cultures since the new programs start with only the youngest children. Critics call it inefficient to staff one campus with two separate administrations and support staffs, and worry about neglect of the older students.
Regardless of such opinions, the experiment at Carver, Gregory, Wicker and Drew elementary campuses requires unprecedented cooperation among the schools.
"We knew very early on that this marriage had to work, " said Duke Bradley, the leader of Mays Prep.
Education with a drumbeat
Early one morning at the Carver campus, housed in modular units not far from the flood-ravaged original building in the Upper 9th Ward, a handful of Carver students in navy uniforms quietly walked between the buildings. As visitors approached the rear of the campus, the sound of children's voices chanting in unison built to a crescendo.
"Mays Prep! Mays Prep! Mays Prep Knights!!!"
In the small Carver auditorium, the entire student body of Mays Prep sat in a horseshoe pattern around Bradley.
"We're going to count to 50 by fives, " he cried out. "I don't know if Southern University can do that. I don't know if Boston University can do that. I don't know if Smith (College) can do this well." Like many other charter schools, Bradley refers to classes by the alma mater of their teacher, an attempt to instill a college-bound focus in children as young as four.
After revving up the youngsters for 30 minutes, Bradley brought out a drum and played as the children headed back to class.
By the end, he dripped with sweat and the school staff and students stood wide awake, as if from a jolt of caffeine.
Most of Mays Prep's students attended Carver last year, with the exception of the pre-kindergarteners, who usually have older siblings at either Carver or Mays Prep. The schools share gym and auditorium space, but have separate dismissal times and locations, and completely separate staffs and academic programs.
Mays Prep, like the four other new "transformation" schools, is a charter, meaning it is publicly funded and accountable, but privately run. Carver, Drew, Gregory and Wicker -- the four schools that will gradually be replaced -- are all non-charters run by the Recovery School District. In one indication of the different management styles, two of the transformation schools invited a reporter to stop by on the spot, while a leader of one of the traditional schools sought permission from the district before commenting on the arrangement.
Prejean said she loves both schools this year, despite their somewhat different feels. "Usually you can't just stop a principal dead in his tracks and ask him or her a question, but you can do that at both these schools, " she said.
Another parent, who did not want to be named, said she prefers Mays Prep to Carver. She wishes the new charter had taken on more grades, because she has children in the older grades as well.
"Mays Prep does home visits, they make phone calls, " she said. "You don't hear much from Carver."
The takeover strategy
While Candler might try to bring the grade-by-grade transformation model to other communities, some other local educators are taking a different approach to failing schools.
Two New Orleans-based charter management organizations have applied to take over poorly performing schools as soon as next year. They would take control of all the grades at once, a more common model nationally.
"The whole push under Obama is to have turnaround organizations go in and take over the weakest links, " said Gary Robichaux, director of one of the new charter organizations.
The takeover strategy avoids the friction that can result when two different schools coexist, but it can be incredibly challenging unless the new leaders come with in-depth knowledge of the school community, staff and needs.
Louella Givens, a member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, which oversees the RSD, said she's skeptical of the transformation model because of the inefficiencies and unallayed "concerns about what is happening for the children in the upper grades."
"They haven't given us any reports on what's going on in those schools, " she said.
Candler argues that "more often than not, (leaders of both schools) see themselves as accountable to the whole population."
In the past year, the Recovery School District has brought in new leaders at all four of the schools being phased out to ease the transition. At the Drew campus, for instance, both principals have a background working for the Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP network of schools.
"I think it helps when you have similar philosophies, whether it's KIPP or not, " Drew principal Marc Merriman said.
Prejean said the Benjamin Mays/Carver cohabitation is working out better than she had initially thought. Though she can't afford to buy more than one uniform for each of her five children, she takes time to wash all five each night, whether it's the maroon and khaki of Mays Prep, or the navy blue of Carver.
"I guess since Katrina nothing at all is weird to me anymore, " she said. "I've been in church buildings where there was two different churches going on and it worked out fine. That's how Mays Prep inside of Carver feels to me."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
These test-score jitters are a sign of high standards
September 21, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS maintains among the highest academic standards and toughest tests for students in the nation, even at the risk of looking bad on federal measures of “adequate yearly progress.’’ That’s the right course, even when the latest scores on the MCAS tests in math and English push more than half of the state’s schools out of compliance with federal expectations.
The federal No Child Left Behind law sets targets requiring every student to reach “proficiency’’ by 2014. States, which set their own proficiency standards, are expected to reach consistently higher points each year along that federal trajectory. It’s a lot easier for states with lower academic standards and easier tests to hit the annual mark. But that’s not the way of education reform in Massachusetts. State education commissioner Mitchell Chester wisely insists that he is “dead opposed’’ to making the MCAS test easier in order to look good on a federal report card. It’s that attitude that elevates Massachusetts students to the top of comparison charts on national and even international standardized tests.
Parents in the 937 elementary, middle and high schools cited for failure to make adequate yearly progress shouldn’t be overwrought. In some cases, the citation reflects a failing school. But usually not. In 244 schools from Marblehead to Northampton, for example, the overall student body improved on its MCAS scores. But one or more subgroups of students didn’t - those with special needs, for instance, or limited English skills. That’s a serious situation, to be sure, and federal education officials are right to demand accountability for hard-to-educate students. But placing such schools on a federal watch list doesn’t give parents the complete picture. The problems with the designation can also be seen at the nearly 600 schools that landed in federal hot water despite showing overall improvements on their MCAS English scores.
Chester says that only a few dozen schools require heavy intervention by the state. In those cases, he’ll need the help of the state Legislature, not the federal government, to give his department power to clear out ineffective administrators and teachers without regard to union contracts.
Parents should take a deep breath. Ten years ago, only 24 percent of the state’s 10th graders scored proficient or higher on the math MCAS exam. Today, 75 percent do. There’s no sense in losing sleep over each quiver in the federal government’s hypersensitive needle.
The public should also remember that 90 percent of the Class of 2010 already has met the required passing grade on the MCAS exams, a grade that would probably earn them proficiency ratings in many states. In a few years, these kids will be well along in their college careers and federal education officials might even have figured out a clearer system to measure student progress.
MASSACHUSETTS maintains among the highest academic standards and toughest tests for students in the nation, even at the risk of looking bad on federal measures of “adequate yearly progress.’’ That’s the right course, even when the latest scores on the MCAS tests in math and English push more than half of the state’s schools out of compliance with federal expectations.
The federal No Child Left Behind law sets targets requiring every student to reach “proficiency’’ by 2014. States, which set their own proficiency standards, are expected to reach consistently higher points each year along that federal trajectory. It’s a lot easier for states with lower academic standards and easier tests to hit the annual mark. But that’s not the way of education reform in Massachusetts. State education commissioner Mitchell Chester wisely insists that he is “dead opposed’’ to making the MCAS test easier in order to look good on a federal report card. It’s that attitude that elevates Massachusetts students to the top of comparison charts on national and even international standardized tests.
Parents in the 937 elementary, middle and high schools cited for failure to make adequate yearly progress shouldn’t be overwrought. In some cases, the citation reflects a failing school. But usually not. In 244 schools from Marblehead to Northampton, for example, the overall student body improved on its MCAS scores. But one or more subgroups of students didn’t - those with special needs, for instance, or limited English skills. That’s a serious situation, to be sure, and federal education officials are right to demand accountability for hard-to-educate students. But placing such schools on a federal watch list doesn’t give parents the complete picture. The problems with the designation can also be seen at the nearly 600 schools that landed in federal hot water despite showing overall improvements on their MCAS English scores.
Chester says that only a few dozen schools require heavy intervention by the state. In those cases, he’ll need the help of the state Legislature, not the federal government, to give his department power to clear out ineffective administrators and teachers without regard to union contracts.
Parents should take a deep breath. Ten years ago, only 24 percent of the state’s 10th graders scored proficient or higher on the math MCAS exam. Today, 75 percent do. There’s no sense in losing sleep over each quiver in the federal government’s hypersensitive needle.
The public should also remember that 90 percent of the Class of 2010 already has met the required passing grade on the MCAS exams, a grade that would probably earn them proficiency ratings in many states. In a few years, these kids will be well along in their college careers and federal education officials might even have figured out a clearer system to measure student progress.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Minorities in Higher Education 2008: Twenty-Third Status Report
This report has to be ordered from this website. This is a VERY important report as you can see from this press release.
Angela
Generational Gains in Postsecondary Education Appear To Have Stalled, New ACE Report Finds
Washington, DC (October 9, 2008)—The tradition of young adults in the United States attaining higher levels of education than previous generations appears to have stalled, and for far too many people of color, the percentage of young adults with some type of postsecondary degree compared with older adults has actually fallen, a new report by the American Council on Education (ACE) concludes.
Click here for the Oct. 8 media teleconference on the release of the Status Report
According to the Minorities in Higher Education 2008 Twenty-third Status Report, the percentage of young adults aged 25 to 29 and older adults aged 30 and above with at least an associate degree in 2006 was about the same, approximately 35 percent. For Hispanics and American Indians, young adults have even less education than previous generations.
In 2006, among older Hispanics, 18 percent had at least an associate degree, but just 16 percent of young Hispanics had reached that same educational threshold. Among American Indians, 21 percent of older adults had at least an associate degree compared with 18 percent of young adults.
The postsecondary educational attainment rates of African Americans remained relatively the same for both age groups, at approximately 24 percent. Asian Americans and whites were the only two groups where young adults were more educated than prior generations. Sixty-six percent of young Asian Americans had at least an associate degree compared with 54 percent of older Asian Americans. The percentages for whites were 41 percent for young adults and 37 percent for older adults.
“It appears we are at a tipping point in our nation’s history,” said ACE President Molly Corbett Broad. “One of the core tenets of the American dream is the hope that younger generations, who’ve had greater opportunities for educational advancement than their parents and grandparents, will be better off than the generations before them, yet this report shows that aspiration is at serious risk.”
The examination of postsecondary attainment between young and older adults is one of several new features found in this year’s report. It also contains enrollment rates for Asian Americans and American Indians for the first time. Previous reports were unable to do so because estimates could not be made reliably due to small sample size.
The Minorities in Higher Education 2008 Twenty-third Status Report, made possible with support from the GE Foundation, is widely recognized as the most authoritative national source of information on advances made by students of color in higher education. The report summarizes trends in high school completion, college enrollment, college persistence, degrees conferred and higher education employment. The report uses data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Among the Report’s Key Findings:
Total minority enrollment at the nation’s colleges and universities rose by 50 percent from 3.4 million students to 5 million students between 1995 and 2005. White enrollment increased from 9.9 million to 10.7 million, a gain of 8 percent.
Students of color made up 29 percent of the nearly 17.5 million students on America’s campuses.
Despite significant gains in college enrollment rates for young people from all races, progress was uneven and gaps widened. In 2006, 61 percent of Asian Americans aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in college compared with 44 percent of whites, 32 percent of African Americans, and 25 percent of Hispanics and American Indians respectively.
Additional Findings:
High School Completion
The high school completion rate for African Americans aged 18 to 24 remained relatively flat over the past two decades at about 76 percent.
Despite improving their rate of high school completion from 59 percent to 68 percent, Hispanics still had the lowest rate among all racial/ethnic groups.
Asian Americans had the highest rate of high school completion at 91 percent.
College Enrollment
College enrollment among African Americans rose by 46 percent between 1995 and 2005 to nearly 2 million students.
The increase in Hispanic enrollment led all racial/ethnic groups, up by 66 percent to more than 1.7 million students. Hispanic enrollment grew faster at four-year institutions than at two-year institutions.
Asian-American enrollment increased to more than 1 million over the 10-year period between 1995 and 2005, up 37 percent.
American Indian enrollment grew by 31 percent in the 10-year period, up from nearly 127,000 in 1995 to nearly 167,000 in 2005.
Regardless of race, the gender gap in the college enrollment rate continued among young people aged 18 to 24. Thirty-six percent of young men were enrolled in college in 2006 compared with 44 percent of young women.
“This report demonstrates that educational progress, while significant, is not keeping pace with the changing demographic realities,” said Mikyung Ryu, assistant director in ACE’s Center for Policy Analysis and author of the report.
“The Status Report is an important resource to increase perspective and enlighten dialogue about the progress that has been made in access to education,” said GE Foundation President Bob Corcoran. “The GE Foundation applauds ACE’s research in this area.”
College Persistence
College persistence rates declined slightly, and these declines were more pronounced for students who began at two-year institutions, especially for Hispanics.
Among students who began at two-year institutions in 1995 and 2003, 55 percent of the 2003 freshmen were still enrolled or had attained a certificate or degree anywhere in higher education three years later, compared with 60 percent for the 1995 cohort. For Hispanics, this rate dropped sharply from 62 percent to 54 percent.
Among students who began at a four-year institution in 1995 and 2003, 81 percent of the 2003 cohort persisted, compared to 83 percent of the 1995 cohort.
Degrees Conferred
Minorities outpaced whites in the percentage change in total degrees awarded at all levels over the past decade. Minority women showed stronger gains than minority men at all degree levels.
The number of minorities earning associate degrees between 1995 and 2005 grew 84 percent to just over 201,000. The number of minorities earning bachelor’s degrees over the same period grew 65 percent to 355,000.
Hispanics nearly doubled the number of bachelor’s degrees received over the last decade to more than 105,000. Hispanics also made dramatic gains in doctoral degrees earned, rising from 950 in 1995 to more than 1,700 in 2005, an increase of 83 percent.
African Americans more than doubled the number of master’s degrees earned from nearly 25,000 in 1995 to nearly 53,000 in 2005. During the same period, the number of doctoral degrees earned by African Americans increased 84 percent from nearly 1,600 to nearly 2,900.
During the past decade the number of Asian-American men receiving doctoral degrees dropped by 10 percent, while the number of Asian-American women receiving these degrees increased by 74 percent.
Degrees Conferred by Field
In recent years, minorities and whites both experienced declines in the number of bachelor’s degrees earned in computer sciences. They also lost ground in engineering over the decade at the doctoral degree level.
Employment in Higher Education
Although minorities have made gains as college faculty, administrators and presidents over the last decade, whites still fill the overwhelming majority of these positions.
In 2005, minorities represented 17 percent of all college administrators; 16 percent of full-time faculty and 13 percent of college presidents.
For the fifth year, the Status Report includes a CD-ROM which features data tables and highlights from the report as well as charts suitable for use in presentations. The full report will be available later this month. Advance orders can be placed via the ACE web site.
Founded in 1918, ACE is the major coordinating body for all the nation's higher education institutions, representing more than 1,600 college and university presidents, and more than 200 related associations, nationwide. It seeks to provide leadership and a unifying voice on key higher education issues and influence public policy through advocacy, research, and program initiatives.
The GE Foundation, the philanthropic organization of the General Electric Company, works to solve some of the world's most difficult problems. In coordination with its partners, it supports U.S. and international education, the environment, public policy, human rights and disaster-relief around the globe. In addition, the GE Foundation supports GE employee and retiree giving and involvement in GE communities around the world. In 2007, the GE family including businesses, employees, retirees and GE Foundation contributed more than $225 million to community and educational programs, including $93 million from the GE Foundation. For more information, visit www.gefoundation.com.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
To Order a Copy of the Report:
Minorities in Higher Education 2008: 23rd Status Report
Product #: 311884
Member Price: $35.95
Non-Member Price: $39.95
Available for Pre-Order Sales by Calling 301.632.6757
The 2008 edition of Minorities in Higher Education analyzes the latest racial/ethnic and gender trends in high school completion, college enrollment, persistence, the awarding of degrees, and the hiring of college faculty, administrators, and presidents. Produced with support from the GE Foundation, the report finds that the long-term trend of young adults attaining higher levels of education than older adults appears to have stalled. Other key findings include a record high minority enrollment in higher education as a result of the increased enrollment rates and population growth.
Angela
Generational Gains in Postsecondary Education Appear To Have Stalled, New ACE Report Finds
Washington, DC (October 9, 2008)—The tradition of young adults in the United States attaining higher levels of education than previous generations appears to have stalled, and for far too many people of color, the percentage of young adults with some type of postsecondary degree compared with older adults has actually fallen, a new report by the American Council on Education (ACE) concludes.
Click here for the Oct. 8 media teleconference on the release of the Status Report
According to the Minorities in Higher Education 2008 Twenty-third Status Report, the percentage of young adults aged 25 to 29 and older adults aged 30 and above with at least an associate degree in 2006 was about the same, approximately 35 percent. For Hispanics and American Indians, young adults have even less education than previous generations.
In 2006, among older Hispanics, 18 percent had at least an associate degree, but just 16 percent of young Hispanics had reached that same educational threshold. Among American Indians, 21 percent of older adults had at least an associate degree compared with 18 percent of young adults.
The postsecondary educational attainment rates of African Americans remained relatively the same for both age groups, at approximately 24 percent. Asian Americans and whites were the only two groups where young adults were more educated than prior generations. Sixty-six percent of young Asian Americans had at least an associate degree compared with 54 percent of older Asian Americans. The percentages for whites were 41 percent for young adults and 37 percent for older adults.
“It appears we are at a tipping point in our nation’s history,” said ACE President Molly Corbett Broad. “One of the core tenets of the American dream is the hope that younger generations, who’ve had greater opportunities for educational advancement than their parents and grandparents, will be better off than the generations before them, yet this report shows that aspiration is at serious risk.”
The examination of postsecondary attainment between young and older adults is one of several new features found in this year’s report. It also contains enrollment rates for Asian Americans and American Indians for the first time. Previous reports were unable to do so because estimates could not be made reliably due to small sample size.
The Minorities in Higher Education 2008 Twenty-third Status Report, made possible with support from the GE Foundation, is widely recognized as the most authoritative national source of information on advances made by students of color in higher education. The report summarizes trends in high school completion, college enrollment, college persistence, degrees conferred and higher education employment. The report uses data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Among the Report’s Key Findings:
Total minority enrollment at the nation’s colleges and universities rose by 50 percent from 3.4 million students to 5 million students between 1995 and 2005. White enrollment increased from 9.9 million to 10.7 million, a gain of 8 percent.
Students of color made up 29 percent of the nearly 17.5 million students on America’s campuses.
Despite significant gains in college enrollment rates for young people from all races, progress was uneven and gaps widened. In 2006, 61 percent of Asian Americans aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in college compared with 44 percent of whites, 32 percent of African Americans, and 25 percent of Hispanics and American Indians respectively.
Additional Findings:
High School Completion
The high school completion rate for African Americans aged 18 to 24 remained relatively flat over the past two decades at about 76 percent.
Despite improving their rate of high school completion from 59 percent to 68 percent, Hispanics still had the lowest rate among all racial/ethnic groups.
Asian Americans had the highest rate of high school completion at 91 percent.
College Enrollment
College enrollment among African Americans rose by 46 percent between 1995 and 2005 to nearly 2 million students.
The increase in Hispanic enrollment led all racial/ethnic groups, up by 66 percent to more than 1.7 million students. Hispanic enrollment grew faster at four-year institutions than at two-year institutions.
Asian-American enrollment increased to more than 1 million over the 10-year period between 1995 and 2005, up 37 percent.
American Indian enrollment grew by 31 percent in the 10-year period, up from nearly 127,000 in 1995 to nearly 167,000 in 2005.
Regardless of race, the gender gap in the college enrollment rate continued among young people aged 18 to 24. Thirty-six percent of young men were enrolled in college in 2006 compared with 44 percent of young women.
“This report demonstrates that educational progress, while significant, is not keeping pace with the changing demographic realities,” said Mikyung Ryu, assistant director in ACE’s Center for Policy Analysis and author of the report.
“The Status Report is an important resource to increase perspective and enlighten dialogue about the progress that has been made in access to education,” said GE Foundation President Bob Corcoran. “The GE Foundation applauds ACE’s research in this area.”
College Persistence
College persistence rates declined slightly, and these declines were more pronounced for students who began at two-year institutions, especially for Hispanics.
Among students who began at two-year institutions in 1995 and 2003, 55 percent of the 2003 freshmen were still enrolled or had attained a certificate or degree anywhere in higher education three years later, compared with 60 percent for the 1995 cohort. For Hispanics, this rate dropped sharply from 62 percent to 54 percent.
Among students who began at a four-year institution in 1995 and 2003, 81 percent of the 2003 cohort persisted, compared to 83 percent of the 1995 cohort.
Degrees Conferred
Minorities outpaced whites in the percentage change in total degrees awarded at all levels over the past decade. Minority women showed stronger gains than minority men at all degree levels.
The number of minorities earning associate degrees between 1995 and 2005 grew 84 percent to just over 201,000. The number of minorities earning bachelor’s degrees over the same period grew 65 percent to 355,000.
Hispanics nearly doubled the number of bachelor’s degrees received over the last decade to more than 105,000. Hispanics also made dramatic gains in doctoral degrees earned, rising from 950 in 1995 to more than 1,700 in 2005, an increase of 83 percent.
African Americans more than doubled the number of master’s degrees earned from nearly 25,000 in 1995 to nearly 53,000 in 2005. During the same period, the number of doctoral degrees earned by African Americans increased 84 percent from nearly 1,600 to nearly 2,900.
During the past decade the number of Asian-American men receiving doctoral degrees dropped by 10 percent, while the number of Asian-American women receiving these degrees increased by 74 percent.
Degrees Conferred by Field
In recent years, minorities and whites both experienced declines in the number of bachelor’s degrees earned in computer sciences. They also lost ground in engineering over the decade at the doctoral degree level.
Employment in Higher Education
Although minorities have made gains as college faculty, administrators and presidents over the last decade, whites still fill the overwhelming majority of these positions.
In 2005, minorities represented 17 percent of all college administrators; 16 percent of full-time faculty and 13 percent of college presidents.
For the fifth year, the Status Report includes a CD-ROM which features data tables and highlights from the report as well as charts suitable for use in presentations. The full report will be available later this month. Advance orders can be placed via the ACE web site.
Founded in 1918, ACE is the major coordinating body for all the nation's higher education institutions, representing more than 1,600 college and university presidents, and more than 200 related associations, nationwide. It seeks to provide leadership and a unifying voice on key higher education issues and influence public policy through advocacy, research, and program initiatives.
The GE Foundation, the philanthropic organization of the General Electric Company, works to solve some of the world's most difficult problems. In coordination with its partners, it supports U.S. and international education, the environment, public policy, human rights and disaster-relief around the globe. In addition, the GE Foundation supports GE employee and retiree giving and involvement in GE communities around the world. In 2007, the GE family including businesses, employees, retirees and GE Foundation contributed more than $225 million to community and educational programs, including $93 million from the GE Foundation. For more information, visit www.gefoundation.com.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
To Order a Copy of the Report:
Minorities in Higher Education 2008: 23rd Status Report
Product #: 311884
Member Price: $35.95
Non-Member Price: $39.95
Available for Pre-Order Sales by Calling 301.632.6757
The 2008 edition of Minorities in Higher Education analyzes the latest racial/ethnic and gender trends in high school completion, college enrollment, persistence, the awarding of degrees, and the hiring of college faculty, administrators, and presidents. Produced with support from the GE Foundation, the report finds that the long-term trend of young adults attaining higher levels of education than older adults appears to have stalled. Other key findings include a record high minority enrollment in higher education as a result of the increased enrollment rates and population growth.
Languages fill the melting pot
Languages fill the melting pot
Census data show big jump in Spanish - and many other foreign - speakers
By Leslie Berestein
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
and Danielle Cervantes
STAFF DATA SPECIALIST
September 24, 2008
At the San Diego Farmers Market, a sprawling complex of small businesses in Logan Heights catering mostly to Latinos, it's uncommon for customers to hear "May I help you?"
NELVIN C. CEPEDA / Union-Tribune
Francisco Lopez worked on pants yesterday at the Jedgga's Bridal and Alteration Center in the San Diego Farmers Market on Imperial Avenue in Logan Heights.
"We'll usually say, 'Te ayudo?' or 'Te puedo ayudar?' " said Janeth Herrera, co-owner of Red Hot Fashion Shoes, located in one of the stalls.
An analysis of U.S. census data shows that the number of foreign-language speakers, particularly Spanish speakers, has grown dramatically in San Diego County since 1990 in relation to the county's population growth.
While the number of county residents 5 and older has increased 19 percent since then, the census data released this week show a 78 percent increase in residents who say they speak Spanish at home.
The number of self-identified Spanish speakers has risen to more than 661,000 last year from 370,000 in 1990.
The 2007 American Community Survey sampled 3 million randomly selected U.S. households throughout 2007.
Though their numbers are far smaller and have fluctuated in recent years, there also have been significant increases since 1990 in Tagalog, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean speakers in the county. For example, there are more than three times as many Korean speakers today as there were then.
Overall, at least one in three county residents speaks a language other than English at home; since 1990, the total number of county residents who speak a language other than English has gone up 66 percent.
All of this is evidence of the county's growing polyglot identity over two decades, said Ana Celia Zentella, a professor emeritus of ethnic studies at University of California of San Diego.
"There is this misperception that San Diego is merely bilingual, that is, Spanish and English, when in fact it is very multilingual," Zentella said.
Of course, Spanish speakers dominate the region's multilingual landscape, making up 69 percent of the county's other-than-English speakers, and their influence is felt everywhere, from health care to schools to local radio.
Spanish-language billboards line Imperial Avenue outside the San Diego Farmers Market. One day last week, a Radio La Nueva 106.5 van was parked across the street, emblazoned with an ad for the morning show starring Eduardo "Piolin" Sotelo, a popular Los Angeles-based host whose show was recently rated the most listened to in San Diego County.
While Tagalog-speaking health care workers are plentiful in the county thanks to English-language nursing programs in the Philippines, where programs are structured around placing graduates in U.S. jobs, the situation is different for Spanish speakers, said John Cihomsky, a spokesman for Sharp HealthCare.
"There is a real need in the community for more Spanish-language physicians and nurses," said Cihomsky, who said there have been efforts to recruit Spanish-speaking staff, including nurses in Tijuana as part of a pilot program for Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, where as many as 40 percent of patients are Spanish-speaking.
About 50 percent of the students in the San Diego Unified School District speak a language other than English at home, and nearly 80 percent of those are Spanish speakers, said Teresa Walter, director of the Office of Language Acquisition for the district.
About 30 percent of the district's students are considered English learners, and the percentage has remained relatively fixed for five to eight years, Walter said.
This is consistent with census data that indicate greater English fluency among school-age children: Between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of children ages 5-17 from Spanish-speaking households in San Diego County who speak English "very well" has jumped to 70 percent from 60 percent.
During this time, older Spanish speakers reported declining English fluency.
Zentella, who has studied bilingualism in local high schools, said that although Spanish continues to be spoken in the county by new immigrants, older generations and border residents with ties to San Diego and Tijuana, Spanish fluency is being lost at a high rate by young people.
With few bilingual programs still running in local public schools, the rate at which young Latinos continue to speak Spanish depends on how long their parents have been in the United States, how often they return to their native country and their social networks, Zentella said.
Leslie Berestein: (619) 542-4579 ; leslie.berestein@uniontrib.com
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080924-9999-1m24spanish.html
---
Projections of Education Statistics to 2018
National Center for Education Statistics has issues a wide range of figures, including demographic , teacher and student spending, etc. that we should heed as we make plans for public education into the future.
Check out this pdf document http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009062.pdf
Check out this pdf document http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009062.pdf
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Van De Putte Among Five New Leaders Appointed to National Assessment Governing Board
Congratulations to Sen. Van de Putte, she's a perfect leader for this position.
-Patricia
WASHINGTON
(October 2, 2009)—Five leaders from around the country representing
fields that include education, science, and policymaking have been appointed to
the National Assessment Governing Board to serve a four-year term, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced today. He also announced a new Board chair—David P. Driscoll, former Commissioner of Education for Massachusetts who has served as a Board member since 2006.
Terms for all members began October 1, 2009. The five appointees, which include one
incumbent member, will help set policy for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly known as The Nation's Report Card. The
assessment makes objective information on student performance available to
policy-makers and the public at the national, state, and local levels, and has
served an important role in evaluating the condition and progress of American
education since 1969.
"NAEP is an invaluable tool for measuring how well our students are prepared to
compete in the global economy," Secretary Duncan said. "I am grateful
for David Driscoll's leadership and the other board members' service on NAGB.
Their hard work ensures that NAEP remains a truly independent assessment of our
nation's educational progress."
In overseeing The Nation's Report Card, the 26-member Governing Board—a
group of governors, state legislators, local and state school officials,
educators and researchers, business representatives, and members of the general
public—determines subjects and content to be tested and the achievement
levels for reporting scores, and works to inform the public about the results.
"I am honored to be selected by Sec. Duncan as Governing Board Chair, as his call
for high standards for all states has been something we are proud to have
accomplished in Massachusetts," said Driscoll, an education consultant who
served as the 22nd Commissioner of Education in Massachusetts from 1998 to
2007. In a career in public education and educational leadership that spans 45
years, Driscoll also was past president of the Council of Chief State School
Officers. "I look forward to working with the Secretary and ensuring the
Board continues to set the course for strong rigor in American education."
The Board members and the categories they will serve under include:
· Alan J. Friedman (general public, New York City ); a current Board member who has served since 2006. Friedman is a consultant in the areas of museum development and science communication, having worked with more than sixty institutions around the
world. From 1984 to 2006, he was the director and CEO of the New York Hall of
Science.
·Doris Hicks (elementary principal, New Orleans ); principal
and CEO of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School for Science and
Technology in New Orleans
. After her school was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hicks was instrumental
in rebuilding King—the first public school to open in the city's
devastated Lower Ninth Ward.
·Tonya Miles (general public, Mitchellville, Md.); the chief departmental administrator in the Office of the General Counsel for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Miles is also a former member of the Maryland State Board
of Education and a long-time PTA member
· W. James Popham (testing and measuring expert, Wilsonville , Ore. );
a professor and expert in assessment and instruction for nearly 50 years. Since
1991, he has served as professor emeritus of the Graduate School of Education
and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles .
· Leticia Van de Putte (state legislator-Democrat, San Antonio); a fifth-term Texas State Senator for District 26, which represents a large portion of San Antonio. Van
de Putte has also served as a pharmacist for 30 years.
More information about the Governing Board and its work can be found at http://www.nagb.org. More information about The Nation's Report Card™ can be found at http://nationsreportcard.gov
-Patricia
WASHINGTON
(October 2, 2009)—Five leaders from around the country representing
fields that include education, science, and policymaking have been appointed to
the National Assessment Governing Board to serve a four-year term, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced today. He also announced a new Board chair—David P. Driscoll, former Commissioner of Education for Massachusetts who has served as a Board member since 2006.
Terms for all members began October 1, 2009. The five appointees, which include one
incumbent member, will help set policy for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly known as The Nation's Report Card. The
assessment makes objective information on student performance available to
policy-makers and the public at the national, state, and local levels, and has
served an important role in evaluating the condition and progress of American
education since 1969.
"NAEP is an invaluable tool for measuring how well our students are prepared to
compete in the global economy," Secretary Duncan said. "I am grateful
for David Driscoll's leadership and the other board members' service on NAGB.
Their hard work ensures that NAEP remains a truly independent assessment of our
nation's educational progress."
In overseeing The Nation's Report Card, the 26-member Governing Board—a
group of governors, state legislators, local and state school officials,
educators and researchers, business representatives, and members of the general
public—determines subjects and content to be tested and the achievement
levels for reporting scores, and works to inform the public about the results.
"I am honored to be selected by Sec. Duncan as Governing Board Chair, as his call
for high standards for all states has been something we are proud to have
accomplished in Massachusetts," said Driscoll, an education consultant who
served as the 22nd Commissioner of Education in Massachusetts from 1998 to
2007. In a career in public education and educational leadership that spans 45
years, Driscoll also was past president of the Council of Chief State School
Officers. "I look forward to working with the Secretary and ensuring the
Board continues to set the course for strong rigor in American education."
The Board members and the categories they will serve under include:
· Alan J. Friedman (general public, New York City ); a current Board member who has served since 2006. Friedman is a consultant in the areas of museum development and science communication, having worked with more than sixty institutions around the
world. From 1984 to 2006, he was the director and CEO of the New York Hall of
Science.
·Doris Hicks (elementary principal, New Orleans ); principal
and CEO of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School for Science and
Technology in New Orleans
. After her school was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hicks was instrumental
in rebuilding King—the first public school to open in the city's
devastated Lower Ninth Ward.
·Tonya Miles (general public, Mitchellville, Md.); the chief departmental administrator in the Office of the General Counsel for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Miles is also a former member of the Maryland State Board
of Education and a long-time PTA member
· W. James Popham (testing and measuring expert, Wilsonville , Ore. );
a professor and expert in assessment and instruction for nearly 50 years. Since
1991, he has served as professor emeritus of the Graduate School of Education
and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles .
· Leticia Van de Putte (state legislator-Democrat, San Antonio); a fifth-term Texas State Senator for District 26, which represents a large portion of San Antonio. Van
de Putte has also served as a pharmacist for 30 years.
More information about the Governing Board and its work can be found at http://www.nagb.org. More information about The Nation's Report Card™ can be found at http://nationsreportcard.gov
MALDEF & TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID DECRY SCHOOL DISTRICTS’ EFFORTS TO KEEP CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOLS
An update on MALDEF's stand against the violation of children's rights to an education. A sentence that stands out and is oftentimes forgotten:
"Denying students an education implicates the important constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, as well as a number of other state law protections. School districts, especially those on the U.S.-Mexico border where families and friends often live on both sides of the border, should be mindful of those rights."
-Patricia
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
October 2, 2009
CONTACT:
David Hinojosa, MALDEF: 210-224-5476
Pedro S. Cruz, TRLA: 956-423-3111
SAN ANTONIO, TX – Today, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA) strongly criticized Texas school districts seeking to exclude students from enrollment based on allegations that the students do not reside within school district boundaries. MALDEF and TRLA are working to inform parents, students and educators of the legal rights of students attending public schools in Texas and the state and local requirements that school districts must adhere to governing student enrollment.
Earlier this school year, the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District (SFDR) stopped parents at the border coming from Mexico to the U.S. and gave those parents a letter informing the parents that their children were being withdrawn from school because the school district assumed those children did not live within the district’s boundaries. Ignoring the bi-national community ties between Del Rio, Texas and Ciudad Acuña, Mexico, SFDR’s sole basis for this charge of non-residency was that the children were seen coming from Mexico that particular morning. Reports indicate that SFDR may not have removed students from school but allegedly did continue to ask parents for additional documentation proving residency within the district, documents that were above and beyond the district’s own policy. Most recently, the Laredo Times reported that United I.S.D. is also considering other extreme measures to keep children from attending school, including possible home inspections.
In 1982, MALDEF won a historic victory in the U.S. Supreme Court case,
Plyler v. Doe. The Plyler decision held that undocumented children who live in the U.S. have a constitutional right to attend schools here in the U.S. School districts
that attempt to circumvent the Plyler ruling by targeting certain students with “admission” policies that violate state enrollment residency laws or the spirit of
Plyler may also be violating the U.S. Constitution.
MALDEF and TRLA have attached to this press release a statement of the rights of parents and guardians to enroll their children in Texas public schools. You can also find this document by going to:
http://maldef.org/assets/pdf/TXParentsRights.pdf?window_id=3
Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal civil rights organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships. For more information on MALDEF, please visit:
www.maldef.org.
Established in 1970, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. (TRLA) is a nonprofit organization that provides free legal services to low-income and disadvantaged clients in a 68-county service area. TRLA’s mission is to promote the dignity, self-sufficiency, safety and stability of low-income Texans by providing high-quality legal assistance and related educational services. For more information on TRLA, please visit: www.trla.org
PARENTS’ RIGHTS TO ENROLL CHILDREN IN TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Residency Law in Texas for Public School Enrollment
Although the general rule is that in order to attend a public school a child and his/her parent, guardian or custodian must live within the school district’s boundaries, there are many exceptions under Texas law. For example, children may attend the school where their grandparent resides if the grandparent provides substantial afterschool care for the children. Children who live with one parent
in one district, but whose noncustodial parent resides in another, may attend school in the noncustodial parent’s district. Homeless and foster children, among others, are also covered by exceptions to the general rule.
Documentation to Prove Residency
School districts cannot circumvent Texas residency laws by requiring parents to present unreasonable documentation to prove residency. Instead, districts must offer alternative ways to prove residency. For instance, some families live with other families and therefore cannot produce a utility bill in the parent’s name; in such situations, districts should accept statements from the parents indicating where they live and with whom they live. For separated or unmarried parents, districts should not require parents to present a child custody court order, which would force parents to file for divorce or custody. For children who live with nonparents or non-legal guardians, districts should accept powers of attorneys as proof that the nonparent or non-legal guardian has control over the child’s education.
Parents, however, should be aware that falsely claiming residency within a district could result in grave criminal and civil penalties.
Wasting Tax Dollars to Defend Lawsuits
Taxpayers should not have to foot the legal bills in the event a lawsuit is filed to protect the rights of students and parents
who have valid grounds for attending schools within a district. School officials and members of boards of trustees subject their school districts to substantial legal fees when they violate the rights of children and parents under state and federal law.
Rights of Parents, Guardians, Custodians and Children
No child should be withdrawn or denied an education without being afforded an opportunity to be heard, especially in light of the fact that parents and guardians must enroll students in school to comply with state compulsory attendance laws (with limited exceptions such as home-schooled students). In addition, parents have no obligation to stop at a school district checkpoint at the border and provide school officials with any information. Border Patrol and Customs officials also should not assist school districts or direct parents to stop at the checkpoints. Parents, guardians and custodians of students further are not required to allow school officials into their homes for an inspection of the premises.
Denying students an education implicates the important constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, as well as a number of other state law protections. School districts, especially those on the U.S.-Mexico border where families and friends often live on both sides of the border, should be mindful of those rights. MALDEF invites SFDR, United and other school districts to discuss reasonable residency policies and practices that will ensure that the rights of students, parents, and guardians are protected.
Should you have any questions, you may want to contact MALDEF’s Southwestern Regional Office at 210-224-5476 or TRLA at 888-988-9996.
"Denying students an education implicates the important constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, as well as a number of other state law protections. School districts, especially those on the U.S.-Mexico border where families and friends often live on both sides of the border, should be mindful of those rights."
-Patricia
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION
October 2, 2009
CONTACT:
David Hinojosa, MALDEF: 210-224-5476
Pedro S. Cruz, TRLA: 956-423-3111
SAN ANTONIO, TX – Today, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA) strongly criticized Texas school districts seeking to exclude students from enrollment based on allegations that the students do not reside within school district boundaries. MALDEF and TRLA are working to inform parents, students and educators of the legal rights of students attending public schools in Texas and the state and local requirements that school districts must adhere to governing student enrollment.
Earlier this school year, the San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District (SFDR) stopped parents at the border coming from Mexico to the U.S. and gave those parents a letter informing the parents that their children were being withdrawn from school because the school district assumed those children did not live within the district’s boundaries. Ignoring the bi-national community ties between Del Rio, Texas and Ciudad Acuña, Mexico, SFDR’s sole basis for this charge of non-residency was that the children were seen coming from Mexico that particular morning. Reports indicate that SFDR may not have removed students from school but allegedly did continue to ask parents for additional documentation proving residency within the district, documents that were above and beyond the district’s own policy. Most recently, the Laredo Times reported that United I.S.D. is also considering other extreme measures to keep children from attending school, including possible home inspections.
In 1982, MALDEF won a historic victory in the U.S. Supreme Court case,
Plyler v. Doe. The Plyler decision held that undocumented children who live in the U.S. have a constitutional right to attend schools here in the U.S. School districts
that attempt to circumvent the Plyler ruling by targeting certain students with “admission” policies that violate state enrollment residency laws or the spirit of
Plyler may also be violating the U.S. Constitution.
MALDEF and TRLA have attached to this press release a statement of the rights of parents and guardians to enroll their children in Texas public schools. You can also find this document by going to:
http://maldef.org/assets/pdf/TXParentsRights.pdf?window_id=3
Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal civil rights organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships. For more information on MALDEF, please visit:
www.maldef.org.
Established in 1970, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. (TRLA) is a nonprofit organization that provides free legal services to low-income and disadvantaged clients in a 68-county service area. TRLA’s mission is to promote the dignity, self-sufficiency, safety and stability of low-income Texans by providing high-quality legal assistance and related educational services. For more information on TRLA, please visit: www.trla.org
PARENTS’ RIGHTS TO ENROLL CHILDREN IN TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Residency Law in Texas for Public School Enrollment
Although the general rule is that in order to attend a public school a child and his/her parent, guardian or custodian must live within the school district’s boundaries, there are many exceptions under Texas law. For example, children may attend the school where their grandparent resides if the grandparent provides substantial afterschool care for the children. Children who live with one parent
in one district, but whose noncustodial parent resides in another, may attend school in the noncustodial parent’s district. Homeless and foster children, among others, are also covered by exceptions to the general rule.
Documentation to Prove Residency
School districts cannot circumvent Texas residency laws by requiring parents to present unreasonable documentation to prove residency. Instead, districts must offer alternative ways to prove residency. For instance, some families live with other families and therefore cannot produce a utility bill in the parent’s name; in such situations, districts should accept statements from the parents indicating where they live and with whom they live. For separated or unmarried parents, districts should not require parents to present a child custody court order, which would force parents to file for divorce or custody. For children who live with nonparents or non-legal guardians, districts should accept powers of attorneys as proof that the nonparent or non-legal guardian has control over the child’s education.
Parents, however, should be aware that falsely claiming residency within a district could result in grave criminal and civil penalties.
Wasting Tax Dollars to Defend Lawsuits
Taxpayers should not have to foot the legal bills in the event a lawsuit is filed to protect the rights of students and parents
who have valid grounds for attending schools within a district. School officials and members of boards of trustees subject their school districts to substantial legal fees when they violate the rights of children and parents under state and federal law.
Rights of Parents, Guardians, Custodians and Children
No child should be withdrawn or denied an education without being afforded an opportunity to be heard, especially in light of the fact that parents and guardians must enroll students in school to comply with state compulsory attendance laws (with limited exceptions such as home-schooled students). In addition, parents have no obligation to stop at a school district checkpoint at the border and provide school officials with any information. Border Patrol and Customs officials also should not assist school districts or direct parents to stop at the checkpoints. Parents, guardians and custodians of students further are not required to allow school officials into their homes for an inspection of the premises.
Denying students an education implicates the important constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, as well as a number of other state law protections. School districts, especially those on the U.S.-Mexico border where families and friends often live on both sides of the border, should be mindful of those rights. MALDEF invites SFDR, United and other school districts to discuss reasonable residency policies and practices that will ensure that the rights of students, parents, and guardians are protected.
Should you have any questions, you may want to contact MALDEF’s Southwestern Regional Office at 210-224-5476 or TRLA at 888-988-9996.
Hold On, ESEA Reauth is Coming
Nice short summary of recent developments in the reauthorization of NCLB from the EduFlack blog.
Here's the link to stay on top of the great work being done by Sam and the members of the Forum for Education and Democracy as well as the link to The Forum's Statement on ESEA Reauthorization mentioned below.
-Patricia
Likely one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, DC, the U.S. Department of Education is now hard at work on draft language for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. EdSec Arne Duncan started the ball bouncing last week, bringing together the education blob to talk about his reauth priorities, including increasing funding for key NCLB components, taking some of the nastiness out of the current law, and codifying some of the policies that have been moved forward under the stimulus package.
As Eduflack has heard from many folks this week, the plan is to introduce ESEA reauthorization in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in January 2010. The goal will be final passage of the federal ed law before the Memorial Day recess. House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) will likely serve as the lead dog moving the bill through Congress in Q1 of next year.
Why is this significant? For months now, those opposed to NCLB have been wishing, hoping, and projecting that reauthorization wouldn't move until 2011. They offered up a host of reasons for this misguided belief, most of which aren't worthy of dissection here. The simple fact is that NCLB opponents need reauthorization to be put off until 2011 because they simply aren't ready to fight the good fight on federal ed policy in a few months. The "loyal opposition" is not gathered around a few key points. They haven't adopted a common language of change. They don't necessarily have reccs on how to improve the law to meet their needs. They know they don't like NCLB, and likely won't like NCLB 2.0. They know what they are opposed to, but don't necessarily know what to stand for ... at least not yet.
Most presume that the new ESEA will not be a major change from the current law. The new bill will still emphasize accountability and student achievement, but will provide greater flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to achieve it. The stick of AYP will be whittled down to a nub before all is said and done. Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) will be redefined, focusing on the effective teachers emphasized in Race to the Top and de-emphasizing the checklist of what is needed simply to enter a classroom. New Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will ensure that special education, RtI, and IDEA will get greater attention than in the previous iteration. Charter schools will continue to remain strong. Teacher incentives will see increased funding. And we may even see Reading First transformed from an elementary grades program to a more comprehensive effort focused on middle and secondary students. While the law will most likely be bucketed around the priorities of standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround, the details will be a reorganization of NCLB components, not a reinvention.
When the EdSec outlined these priorities (and emphasized the need for equity in public education) his remarks were well-received in most corners of the education community. The strongest voice of opposition came from the Forum for Education and Democracy, who took Duncan to task for seeking to narrow the curriculum, lacking details on real teacher quality, and staying true to current accountability provisions. The comments from Forum head Sam Chaltain were even distributed under the header, "you can't just invoke MLK, Jr. - you have to really address fairness and equity." So it is clear where they shake out with regard to the future of ESEA. And at the end of the day, the Forum speaks for more than itself (at least in terms of philosophy).
National Education Association's strong response to the draft Race to the Top RFP guidance still serves as the best primer for those who want to make significant change to ESEA, particularly if they want to move the law back to where it stood in the 1990s. In fact, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel upped the ante yesterday when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he called for a better distribution of exemplary teachers in struggling schools (with additional pay for such moves likely to be the second shoe to drop in his noble pursuits).
Barring the completely unforeseen, Chairman Miller is going to get this reauthorization through before this time next year. And if I were taking bets, the current line is that the draft legislation dropped in January is going to be pretty darned close to the final that will be passed (with some additional dollars thrown into the mix for some to swallow the policy priorities). If folks think they are truly going to influence ESEA and shape federal education policy for the next decade, now is the time to act. Now is the time to have voices heard at ED and on the Hill about priorities and lines in the sand. Now is the time to make clear what support or opposition will be based on. Now is the time to form those alliances and determine what the truly make-or-break issues may be.
ESEA reauthorization is going to be a fast-tracked affair. The first five months of 2010 are going to be spent winning folks over to the proposed law, not looking for alterations, changes, and overhauls to months of work at ED and in Chairman Miller's office. Those waiting to engage after the draft legislation is introduced will likely miss the show before the curtain is even raised.
Here's the link to stay on top of the great work being done by Sam and the members of the Forum for Education and Democracy as well as the link to The Forum's Statement on ESEA Reauthorization mentioned below.
-Patricia
Likely one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, DC, the U.S. Department of Education is now hard at work on draft language for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. EdSec Arne Duncan started the ball bouncing last week, bringing together the education blob to talk about his reauth priorities, including increasing funding for key NCLB components, taking some of the nastiness out of the current law, and codifying some of the policies that have been moved forward under the stimulus package.
As Eduflack has heard from many folks this week, the plan is to introduce ESEA reauthorization in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in January 2010. The goal will be final passage of the federal ed law before the Memorial Day recess. House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA) will likely serve as the lead dog moving the bill through Congress in Q1 of next year.
Why is this significant? For months now, those opposed to NCLB have been wishing, hoping, and projecting that reauthorization wouldn't move until 2011. They offered up a host of reasons for this misguided belief, most of which aren't worthy of dissection here. The simple fact is that NCLB opponents need reauthorization to be put off until 2011 because they simply aren't ready to fight the good fight on federal ed policy in a few months. The "loyal opposition" is not gathered around a few key points. They haven't adopted a common language of change. They don't necessarily have reccs on how to improve the law to meet their needs. They know they don't like NCLB, and likely won't like NCLB 2.0. They know what they are opposed to, but don't necessarily know what to stand for ... at least not yet.
Most presume that the new ESEA will not be a major change from the current law. The new bill will still emphasize accountability and student achievement, but will provide greater flexibility to SEAs and LEAs to achieve it. The stick of AYP will be whittled down to a nub before all is said and done. Highly Qualified Teachers (HQTs) will be redefined, focusing on the effective teachers emphasized in Race to the Top and de-emphasizing the checklist of what is needed simply to enter a classroom. New Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (IA) will ensure that special education, RtI, and IDEA will get greater attention than in the previous iteration. Charter schools will continue to remain strong. Teacher incentives will see increased funding. And we may even see Reading First transformed from an elementary grades program to a more comprehensive effort focused on middle and secondary students. While the law will most likely be bucketed around the priorities of standards, assessments/data systems, teacher quality, and school turnaround, the details will be a reorganization of NCLB components, not a reinvention.
When the EdSec outlined these priorities (and emphasized the need for equity in public education) his remarks were well-received in most corners of the education community. The strongest voice of opposition came from the Forum for Education and Democracy, who took Duncan to task for seeking to narrow the curriculum, lacking details on real teacher quality, and staying true to current accountability provisions. The comments from Forum head Sam Chaltain were even distributed under the header, "you can't just invoke MLK, Jr. - you have to really address fairness and equity." So it is clear where they shake out with regard to the future of ESEA. And at the end of the day, the Forum speaks for more than itself (at least in terms of philosophy).
National Education Association's strong response to the draft Race to the Top RFP guidance still serves as the best primer for those who want to make significant change to ESEA, particularly if they want to move the law back to where it stood in the 1990s. In fact, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel upped the ante yesterday when he testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, where he called for a better distribution of exemplary teachers in struggling schools (with additional pay for such moves likely to be the second shoe to drop in his noble pursuits).
Barring the completely unforeseen, Chairman Miller is going to get this reauthorization through before this time next year. And if I were taking bets, the current line is that the draft legislation dropped in January is going to be pretty darned close to the final that will be passed (with some additional dollars thrown into the mix for some to swallow the policy priorities). If folks think they are truly going to influence ESEA and shape federal education policy for the next decade, now is the time to act. Now is the time to have voices heard at ED and on the Hill about priorities and lines in the sand. Now is the time to make clear what support or opposition will be based on. Now is the time to form those alliances and determine what the truly make-or-break issues may be.
ESEA reauthorization is going to be a fast-tracked affair. The first five months of 2010 are going to be spent winning folks over to the proposed law, not looking for alterations, changes, and overhauls to months of work at ED and in Chairman Miller's office. Those waiting to engage after the draft legislation is introduced will likely miss the show before the curtain is even raised.
Proposition 4 would open $500 million fund to 7 Texas universities
BY HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News
hhacker@dallasnews.com
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Michigan and Ohio State. Indiana and Purdue. UT-Austin and Texas A&M.
They're not just college rivals – they're among the country's best research universities. And more Texas campuses could join that esteemed mix if voters approve a constitutional amendment in November, supporters say.
Proposition 4 would let seven schools – including UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas and the University of North Texas – tap into a half-billion-dollar fund to help them become research powerhouses.
The campaign for Proposition 4 has geared up in recent weeks. A group called Texans for Tier One is led by former Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby and James Huffines, chairman of the UT System Board of Regents.
No organized opposition has emerged. The Texas House and Senate both voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot.
Supporters say the measure won't cost taxpayers an extra dime because the money is already in an old account that was supposed to reach $2 billion but has sat dormant for several years. The state created the account, called the Higher Education Fund, to aid campuses. This change would allow the universities to access the money sooner, if they make progress toward becoming so-called Tier One universities.
Schools would have to meet five out of seven quality standards, such as awarding 200 doctoral degrees a year and having a $400 million endowment, before receiving any money.
Besides the three North Texas campuses, the other aspiring Tier One schools are Texas Tech, the University of Houston, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio.
"This will give us a chance to compete," said Kent Hance, chancellor of the Texas Tech System.
Economic engines
Texas college leaders say they're not just competing with themselves – they're competing with the likes of California, New York and Massachusetts, which all have more top research universities. (Texas has three: UT-Austin, Texas A&M and the private Rice University). They say great universities don't just draw great minds – they are economic engines that benefit the whole region.
And they say that Texas suffers a net loss of thousands of students each year to major state schools elsewhere, such as the University of Oklahoma, Louisiana State University and the University of Arkansas.
The measure aims to create an environment in Texas that would spawn more top-level universities and recruit the nation's top-notch researchers.
Some professors and Web sites have raised the argument that the Tier One push could encourage universities to strive for research at the expense of teaching undergraduates. But others say bringing top researchers has a trickle-down effect that benefits undergraduates – they bring more money and the strong graduate students who help the campus.
The proposed fund is part of a wide-ranging bill the Legislature approved this year to build up more Tier One campuses. In addition to putting Prop. 4 before voters, the bill set up a separate Texas Research Incentive Program. It provides $50 million in matching state funds over two years. Universities compete for the money by securing private gifts. On the first day that fund was available, the universities tallied enough money to max it out.
Meeting standards
If approved by voters, the new fund probably wouldn't be tapped for several years because none of the universities currently meets the standards. Based on three criteria – research spending, endowments and doctoral degrees awarded – Houston leads the pack, followed by Texas Tech and UT-Dallas. But the state still has to define the other criteria: the quality of faculty, graduate programs and entering freshmen.
Each campus would love to be the first to join the elite ranks of UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Rice. But that can take a decade or more, plus hundreds of millions of dollars and massive recruiting efforts to woo award-winning faculty.
The schools have presented a united front, with presidents of all the universities supporting the opening of the competition to all seven schools rather than anointing one or two.
"Within the next 10 to 15 years, North Texas can have two or even three national research universities," UTA president Jim Spaniolo told campus supporters last month. No matter who gets there first, he said, "all three will have a profound impact on the economy and life of our region and state."
PROPOSITION 4 AT A GLANCE
What it would do
Amend the constitution to create a fund to go toward helping emerging research universities in Texas work to become top-notch research universities. The new fund, to be called the National Research University Fund, would be shifted from an existing state higher education fund of about $500 million.
Arguments for:
•Having more Tier One universities would expand educational opportunities available to Texas students and keep more of them in the state.
•Top research universities are the best way to develop a highly skilled workforce, especially in the sciences, engineering and professional fields that are critical to economic success.
•With 24 million people and only two public Tier One universities, Texas is at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining top talent and drawing research and venture capital investment to the state.
Arguments against:
•In this time of limited state dollars, Texas should open the National Research University Fund only to institutions that are closest to attaining Tier One status.
•If there's urgent need to develop more nationally competitive research universities, it makes more sense to target fewer than seven institutions.
•The amendment does not include a sunset provision, so progress could be assessed periodically to see if this plan is actually creating more Tier One research universities as intended.
Important dates:
•Monday – Last day to register to vote
•Oct. 19-30 – Early voting
•Nov. 3 – Election Day
SOURCE: League of Women Voters of Texas
hhacker@dallasnews.com
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Michigan and Ohio State. Indiana and Purdue. UT-Austin and Texas A&M.
They're not just college rivals – they're among the country's best research universities. And more Texas campuses could join that esteemed mix if voters approve a constitutional amendment in November, supporters say.
Proposition 4 would let seven schools – including UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas and the University of North Texas – tap into a half-billion-dollar fund to help them become research powerhouses.
The campaign for Proposition 4 has geared up in recent weeks. A group called Texans for Tier One is led by former Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby and James Huffines, chairman of the UT System Board of Regents.
No organized opposition has emerged. The Texas House and Senate both voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot.
Supporters say the measure won't cost taxpayers an extra dime because the money is already in an old account that was supposed to reach $2 billion but has sat dormant for several years. The state created the account, called the Higher Education Fund, to aid campuses. This change would allow the universities to access the money sooner, if they make progress toward becoming so-called Tier One universities.
Schools would have to meet five out of seven quality standards, such as awarding 200 doctoral degrees a year and having a $400 million endowment, before receiving any money.
Besides the three North Texas campuses, the other aspiring Tier One schools are Texas Tech, the University of Houston, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio.
"This will give us a chance to compete," said Kent Hance, chancellor of the Texas Tech System.
Economic engines
Texas college leaders say they're not just competing with themselves – they're competing with the likes of California, New York and Massachusetts, which all have more top research universities. (Texas has three: UT-Austin, Texas A&M and the private Rice University). They say great universities don't just draw great minds – they are economic engines that benefit the whole region.
And they say that Texas suffers a net loss of thousands of students each year to major state schools elsewhere, such as the University of Oklahoma, Louisiana State University and the University of Arkansas.
The measure aims to create an environment in Texas that would spawn more top-level universities and recruit the nation's top-notch researchers.
Some professors and Web sites have raised the argument that the Tier One push could encourage universities to strive for research at the expense of teaching undergraduates. But others say bringing top researchers has a trickle-down effect that benefits undergraduates – they bring more money and the strong graduate students who help the campus.
The proposed fund is part of a wide-ranging bill the Legislature approved this year to build up more Tier One campuses. In addition to putting Prop. 4 before voters, the bill set up a separate Texas Research Incentive Program. It provides $50 million in matching state funds over two years. Universities compete for the money by securing private gifts. On the first day that fund was available, the universities tallied enough money to max it out.
Meeting standards
If approved by voters, the new fund probably wouldn't be tapped for several years because none of the universities currently meets the standards. Based on three criteria – research spending, endowments and doctoral degrees awarded – Houston leads the pack, followed by Texas Tech and UT-Dallas. But the state still has to define the other criteria: the quality of faculty, graduate programs and entering freshmen.
Each campus would love to be the first to join the elite ranks of UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Rice. But that can take a decade or more, plus hundreds of millions of dollars and massive recruiting efforts to woo award-winning faculty.
The schools have presented a united front, with presidents of all the universities supporting the opening of the competition to all seven schools rather than anointing one or two.
"Within the next 10 to 15 years, North Texas can have two or even three national research universities," UTA president Jim Spaniolo told campus supporters last month. No matter who gets there first, he said, "all three will have a profound impact on the economy and life of our region and state."
PROPOSITION 4 AT A GLANCE
What it would do
Amend the constitution to create a fund to go toward helping emerging research universities in Texas work to become top-notch research universities. The new fund, to be called the National Research University Fund, would be shifted from an existing state higher education fund of about $500 million.
Arguments for:
•Having more Tier One universities would expand educational opportunities available to Texas students and keep more of them in the state.
•Top research universities are the best way to develop a highly skilled workforce, especially in the sciences, engineering and professional fields that are critical to economic success.
•With 24 million people and only two public Tier One universities, Texas is at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining top talent and drawing research and venture capital investment to the state.
Arguments against:
•In this time of limited state dollars, Texas should open the National Research University Fund only to institutions that are closest to attaining Tier One status.
•If there's urgent need to develop more nationally competitive research universities, it makes more sense to target fewer than seven institutions.
•The amendment does not include a sunset provision, so progress could be assessed periodically to see if this plan is actually creating more Tier One research universities as intended.
Important dates:
•Monday – Last day to register to vote
•Oct. 19-30 – Early voting
•Nov. 3 – Election Day
SOURCE: League of Women Voters of Texas
In California, a Teachable Crisis
This is a really excellent piece from The Chronicle of Higher Education on the real value of PUBLIC education and how the reward system of the university overlooked the essential component of public support for education. And now it's lacking support and this creates a downward spiral in the very confidence game that is needed to keep public higher education afloat. It is a teachable moment and a sober reminder of the care that we need to take in how we construe and talk about our purposes as education leaders, faculty, and administrators.
A quote from within:
By Christopher Newfield
When California's Legislature blew holes in the budgets of the University of California and California State University this year, one bit of good news resulted: The holes were so big that they showed above the waterline, where we all could see them and marvel at their size.
Newspaper articles finally declared that such extensive cuts in state support undermined educational quality. They were the first major budget reductions widely viewed as reducing the value and appeal of the universities' degrees. The reaction suggests that, at long last, the state, as well as the country, can have a realistic discussion about how to support large-scale public higher education.
The numbers themselves are the worst in modern higher-education history. To use the University of California as an example, the governor's Department of Finance allocated $3.2-billion in September 2008. Then, in a series of confusing revisions, it cut $814-million from the 2008-9 budget when the fiscal year was almost over and threw all of the university's federal stimulus money into the hole that created-resulting in a net loss of 5 percent. Then it cut an additional $637-million for 2009-10-leaving university's state general-fund budget down 25 percent for 2008-10.
One-time savage cuts could be borne, were they short-term and applied to a financially healthy system. Neither of those conditions holds. Before the latest round of such cuts, the University of California had not yet healed from the previous round (2002-5), which had in turn blocked a complete recovery from the round before (1991-94). Coming into 2008-9, the university had already lost 40 percent of its state general funds, corrected for inflation and enrollments, since 1990. The new cuts mean that it has now lost close to two-thirds of that support. Nor is there a sense that those cuts mark the end of the bloodletting. University administrators say next year's budget could be as bad or worse, a prediction supported by Department of Finance reports that show an accelerating decline in state tax receipts.
Over all, California's political leaders are Herbert Hooverizing a struggling economy, taking money out when they should be putting it in, furloughing and laying off workers in transportation, medical services, and all levels of education when they should be hiring. The state has an unemployment rate nearly as high as Michigan's, a bond rating worse than Louisiana's, and no plan to use any aspect of the public sector to propel a turnaround.
Higher education is taking a particular beating. Together the University of California, California State, and California's community-college system will be forced to turn away close to 300,000 students this year, at a time when there are no jobs for them. In 2004 the state already stood at just 46th in its share of 19-year-olds enrolled in college; the crash in college-continuation rates must have set a national record, as the state plunged from fifth in 1996 to 47th. The 2009 report from which those rankings come is aptly called "California at the Edge of a Cliff"-but California has already fallen off.
Most commentators blame a dysfunctional political system for the disaster, and there is plenty of blame to spread between politicians and voters. But two other factors need much more attention than they have received. The first is higher-education leaders' destructive adherence to a broken model of financial support, one that misleads the public. The second is their failure-and that of higher education as a whole-to articulate a great social mission for universities, one that would justify the support they have needed all along.
On the first point, university leadership has for years stuck with what can be called the "dominant private partner" model. The idea is that private support-philanthropic dollars, industry alliances, extramural grants-is the true measure of a university's quality. The private presence has an aura of higher status, vision, and efficiency, while public funds are a baseline-dumb money that works best when leveraged by the smarter private kind. The premise, until this year's catastrophic cuts, is that slashing public money won't hurt quality; the truly important activities can shift their sources of support to the private sector, and instruction can be paid for with higher tuition.
Like other academic leaders, those at the University of California trumpeted its private fund raising, which tripled from 1990 to 2005, and its research grants, which doubled during the same period. On Web sites, in reports, and in news releases, fund raising and research came to be associated with entrepreneurial value creation-even though such private money would have mattered far less were it not able to leverage the much larger volume of state appropriations. Major donors and sponsoring companies were lavishly celebrated, while millions of taxpayers who had been paying, often for decades, for high-quality education never got to be the heroes of the systems' success stories. No one heard about their dollars doing the humble yet glorious work of forming minds and workers, citizens and selves.
Academic leaders did not explain every day in every way how much public money matters to the university's core activities. They did not highlight that the campuses got only 20 percent of their gross revenues from private sources, combined with overhead from extramural grants. They did not explain that as much as 98 percent of philanthropic contributions to the university are limited to the projects the donors want. They did not describe how sponsored research pays for specific research, and that indirect-cost funds do not fully cover actual indirect costs. The silence on the irreplaceability of public appropriations is a key reason that universities like California's have now lost most of that support.
The failure of the current financing model becomes particularly clear when it comes to tuition. Were the University of California to make up for its $814-million in cuts with tuition increases, it would need to raise tuition from around $8,000 to more than $15,000 in one year. Getting back to the level of support it had in 2001 would require raising fees to more than $23,000. The university has not and should not make up its shortfall entirely with fees, but those numbers show just how much the vanished public support has cost students who want the kind of quality available as recently as 2001.
Today the university combines tuition increases, program cuts, and, this year, employee pay cuts to fill that unfillable gap of public funds. Previous tuition increases-7 to 10 percent, year in, year out-have convinced voters that the university doesn't need more public money. Yet because the increases never truly make up for lost public support-more like one-third of it-state cuts have led, even before this year, to a reduction of programs and quality. Reductions of program quality, in turn, reduce the state's incentive to invest, students' incentive to pay more, and federal agencies' incentive to sponsor. The university, now unable to ask for a billion dollars back from the state or to ask students for doubled tuition payments, has resorted to experimentation on the margins: more nonresident students, higher nonresident tuition, higher fees for engineering and business majors. But such efforts do not ease the need for cutting and squeezing, even as they further alienate tuition payers and the Legislature.
The term that a top official at the university has used to describe the situation is "death spiral." For that spiral to stop, the model of financial support must change. That model must include a clearly justified public-support component, which will require changing the public mood. And to change the public mood, the university must reinvent its social mission.
The first step for university leaders is to tell the public the truth: The current model has failed to support the university's full potential for helping advance society. They must link dollar figures to specific institutional capacities. Students can pay $10,000 and get a degree diluted from the 2001 standard, a kind of "UC Lite." They can pay $15,000 for a 2007-level degree and $23,000 for a 2001-level degree. Or officials can keep tuition under $10,000 and get back to 2001 quality by rebuilding public trust that will help restore state appropriations.
The second step is to explain why more public support is better for the state than higher tuition. The simple reason is that it will produce many more socially and culturally adept citizens. California's "master plan" institutions were just about the best thing ever invented in the world history of higher education. They offered access to the highest-quality education-not just for the top 1 percent, as in the Ivies-but for the top 12 percent via the University of California, for the top 33 percent via Cal State, and for everyone via the community-college system, with ready transfers among the segments. The dream was the deepest, fullest capabilities for everyone-and for a while, reality was on the road to matching it.
The third step: University officials must explain the humble yet extraordinary activities for which at public universities only public money pays. Everyone says knowledge economies require unprecedented powers of invention, vision, communication, and an understanding of other cultures and complex natural systems. Those capacities arise from the details of directed learning: math problems corrected, errors pains takingly explained, novel but unformed ideas elaborated through one-on-one conversation, intellectual goals and personal destinies developed class after class, office hour after office hour-with the kind of nurturing attentiveness that makes no one any money, but without which society doesn't move forward. The public needs to learn that government cuts fall the hardest on those unsung activities, all of which are crucial for fixing our underperforming states.
The processes by which selves and minds are created are sociable, interactive, complicated, and unprofitable: They lose money by their very nature yet contribute enormous value to society. They were necessary for an 80-percent-white California during the 1950s and 1960s, when the state's higher-education structure was built, and they are necessary for the minority-majority California we have today. The job now is to reinvent public financial support as a collaborative state and national process. That is the best, if not the only, way to get California and its kindred floundering states moving forward again.
A quote from within:
"The processes by which selves and minds are created are sociable, interactive, complicated, and unprofitable: They lose money by their very nature yet contribute enormous value to society. They were necessary for an 80-percent-white California during the 1950s and 1960s, when the state's higher-education structure was built, and they are necessary for the minority-majority California we have today. The job now is to reinvent public financial support as a collaborative state and national process. That is the best, if not the only, way to get California and its kindred floundering states moving forward again."
By Christopher Newfield
When California's Legislature blew holes in the budgets of the University of California and California State University this year, one bit of good news resulted: The holes were so big that they showed above the waterline, where we all could see them and marvel at their size.
Newspaper articles finally declared that such extensive cuts in state support undermined educational quality. They were the first major budget reductions widely viewed as reducing the value and appeal of the universities' degrees. The reaction suggests that, at long last, the state, as well as the country, can have a realistic discussion about how to support large-scale public higher education.
The numbers themselves are the worst in modern higher-education history. To use the University of California as an example, the governor's Department of Finance allocated $3.2-billion in September 2008. Then, in a series of confusing revisions, it cut $814-million from the 2008-9 budget when the fiscal year was almost over and threw all of the university's federal stimulus money into the hole that created-resulting in a net loss of 5 percent. Then it cut an additional $637-million for 2009-10-leaving university's state general-fund budget down 25 percent for 2008-10.
One-time savage cuts could be borne, were they short-term and applied to a financially healthy system. Neither of those conditions holds. Before the latest round of such cuts, the University of California had not yet healed from the previous round (2002-5), which had in turn blocked a complete recovery from the round before (1991-94). Coming into 2008-9, the university had already lost 40 percent of its state general funds, corrected for inflation and enrollments, since 1990. The new cuts mean that it has now lost close to two-thirds of that support. Nor is there a sense that those cuts mark the end of the bloodletting. University administrators say next year's budget could be as bad or worse, a prediction supported by Department of Finance reports that show an accelerating decline in state tax receipts.
Over all, California's political leaders are Herbert Hooverizing a struggling economy, taking money out when they should be putting it in, furloughing and laying off workers in transportation, medical services, and all levels of education when they should be hiring. The state has an unemployment rate nearly as high as Michigan's, a bond rating worse than Louisiana's, and no plan to use any aspect of the public sector to propel a turnaround.
Higher education is taking a particular beating. Together the University of California, California State, and California's community-college system will be forced to turn away close to 300,000 students this year, at a time when there are no jobs for them. In 2004 the state already stood at just 46th in its share of 19-year-olds enrolled in college; the crash in college-continuation rates must have set a national record, as the state plunged from fifth in 1996 to 47th. The 2009 report from which those rankings come is aptly called "California at the Edge of a Cliff"-but California has already fallen off.
Most commentators blame a dysfunctional political system for the disaster, and there is plenty of blame to spread between politicians and voters. But two other factors need much more attention than they have received. The first is higher-education leaders' destructive adherence to a broken model of financial support, one that misleads the public. The second is their failure-and that of higher education as a whole-to articulate a great social mission for universities, one that would justify the support they have needed all along.
On the first point, university leadership has for years stuck with what can be called the "dominant private partner" model. The idea is that private support-philanthropic dollars, industry alliances, extramural grants-is the true measure of a university's quality. The private presence has an aura of higher status, vision, and efficiency, while public funds are a baseline-dumb money that works best when leveraged by the smarter private kind. The premise, until this year's catastrophic cuts, is that slashing public money won't hurt quality; the truly important activities can shift their sources of support to the private sector, and instruction can be paid for with higher tuition.
Like other academic leaders, those at the University of California trumpeted its private fund raising, which tripled from 1990 to 2005, and its research grants, which doubled during the same period. On Web sites, in reports, and in news releases, fund raising and research came to be associated with entrepreneurial value creation-even though such private money would have mattered far less were it not able to leverage the much larger volume of state appropriations. Major donors and sponsoring companies were lavishly celebrated, while millions of taxpayers who had been paying, often for decades, for high-quality education never got to be the heroes of the systems' success stories. No one heard about their dollars doing the humble yet glorious work of forming minds and workers, citizens and selves.
Academic leaders did not explain every day in every way how much public money matters to the university's core activities. They did not highlight that the campuses got only 20 percent of their gross revenues from private sources, combined with overhead from extramural grants. They did not explain that as much as 98 percent of philanthropic contributions to the university are limited to the projects the donors want. They did not describe how sponsored research pays for specific research, and that indirect-cost funds do not fully cover actual indirect costs. The silence on the irreplaceability of public appropriations is a key reason that universities like California's have now lost most of that support.
The failure of the current financing model becomes particularly clear when it comes to tuition. Were the University of California to make up for its $814-million in cuts with tuition increases, it would need to raise tuition from around $8,000 to more than $15,000 in one year. Getting back to the level of support it had in 2001 would require raising fees to more than $23,000. The university has not and should not make up its shortfall entirely with fees, but those numbers show just how much the vanished public support has cost students who want the kind of quality available as recently as 2001.
Today the university combines tuition increases, program cuts, and, this year, employee pay cuts to fill that unfillable gap of public funds. Previous tuition increases-7 to 10 percent, year in, year out-have convinced voters that the university doesn't need more public money. Yet because the increases never truly make up for lost public support-more like one-third of it-state cuts have led, even before this year, to a reduction of programs and quality. Reductions of program quality, in turn, reduce the state's incentive to invest, students' incentive to pay more, and federal agencies' incentive to sponsor. The university, now unable to ask for a billion dollars back from the state or to ask students for doubled tuition payments, has resorted to experimentation on the margins: more nonresident students, higher nonresident tuition, higher fees for engineering and business majors. But such efforts do not ease the need for cutting and squeezing, even as they further alienate tuition payers and the Legislature.
The term that a top official at the university has used to describe the situation is "death spiral." For that spiral to stop, the model of financial support must change. That model must include a clearly justified public-support component, which will require changing the public mood. And to change the public mood, the university must reinvent its social mission.
The first step for university leaders is to tell the public the truth: The current model has failed to support the university's full potential for helping advance society. They must link dollar figures to specific institutional capacities. Students can pay $10,000 and get a degree diluted from the 2001 standard, a kind of "UC Lite." They can pay $15,000 for a 2007-level degree and $23,000 for a 2001-level degree. Or officials can keep tuition under $10,000 and get back to 2001 quality by rebuilding public trust that will help restore state appropriations.
The second step is to explain why more public support is better for the state than higher tuition. The simple reason is that it will produce many more socially and culturally adept citizens. California's "master plan" institutions were just about the best thing ever invented in the world history of higher education. They offered access to the highest-quality education-not just for the top 1 percent, as in the Ivies-but for the top 12 percent via the University of California, for the top 33 percent via Cal State, and for everyone via the community-college system, with ready transfers among the segments. The dream was the deepest, fullest capabilities for everyone-and for a while, reality was on the road to matching it.
The third step: University officials must explain the humble yet extraordinary activities for which at public universities only public money pays. Everyone says knowledge economies require unprecedented powers of invention, vision, communication, and an understanding of other cultures and complex natural systems. Those capacities arise from the details of directed learning: math problems corrected, errors pains takingly explained, novel but unformed ideas elaborated through one-on-one conversation, intellectual goals and personal destinies developed class after class, office hour after office hour-with the kind of nurturing attentiveness that makes no one any money, but without which society doesn't move forward. The public needs to learn that government cuts fall the hardest on those unsung activities, all of which are crucial for fixing our underperforming states.
The processes by which selves and minds are created are sociable, interactive, complicated, and unprofitable: They lose money by their very nature yet contribute enormous value to society. They were necessary for an 80-percent-white California during the 1950s and 1960s, when the state's higher-education structure was built, and they are necessary for the minority-majority California we have today. The job now is to reinvent public financial support as a collaborative state and national process. That is the best, if not the only, way to get California and its kindred floundering states moving forward again.
Big Man on Campus
September 27, 2009
QUESTIONS FOR MARK YUDOF
Big Man on Campus
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
As president of the University of California, the most prestigious of the state-university systems, you have proposed that in-state tuition be jacked up to more than $10,000, from $7,788. Are you pricing education beyond the reach of most students?
In 2009, U.C. adopted the Blue and Gold Program, guaranteeing that no student with a family income below $60,000 would pay any fees, and this guarantee will continue in 2010. That’s the short answer.
U.C. is facing a budget shortfall of at least $753 million, largely because of cuts in state financing. Do you blame Governor Schwarzenegger for your troubles?
I do not. This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic. We have an aging population nationally. We have a lot of concern, as we should, with health care.
And education?
The shine is off of it. It’s really a question of being crowded out by other priorities.
Already professors on all 10 U.C. campuses are taking required “furloughs,” to use a buzzword.
Let me tell you why we used it. The faculty said “furlough” sounds more temporary than “salary cut,” and being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: there are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them.
The word “furlough,” I recently read, comes from the Dutch word “verlof,” which means permission, as in soldiers’ getting permission to take a few days off. How has it come to be a euphemism for salary cuts?
Look, I’m from West Philadelphia. My dad was an electrician. We didn’t look up stuff like this. It wasn’t part of what we did. When I was growing up we didn’t debate the finer points of what the word “furlough” meant.
How did you get into education?
I don’t know. It’s all an accident. I thought I’d go work for a law firm.
Some people feel you could close the U.C. budget gap by cutting administrative salaries, including your own.
The stories of my compensation are greatly exaggerated.
When you began your job last year, your annual compensation was reportedly $828,000.
It actually was $600,000 until I cut my pay by $60,000. So my salary is $540,000, but it gets amplified because people say, “You have a pension plan.”
What about your housing allowance? How much is the rent on your home in Oakland?
It’s about $10,000 a month.
Does U.C. pay for that on top of your salary?
Yes, and the reason they do that is because they have a president’s house, it needed $8 million of repairs and I decided that was not the way to go. Why the heck would I ever authorize $8 million for a house I didn’t want to live in anyhow?
Why can’t you have architecture students repair the house for course credit?
Let me ponder that.
Do you raise a lot of income from private donations?
We don’t do it in the office of the president. The focus is campus by campus: Santa Cruz or U.C.L.A. or Berkeley or San Diego, Davis. They have their own development offices, and I’m there to — some of the things I do very well. I smile, I shake hands, I tell jokes.
Why can’t you raise money, too?
I’m out there hustling, but I go where the chancellors invite me. Otherwise they get upset.
What about Hollywood people? Do they just give to U.C.L.A. at the expense of the other campuses?
I don’t know where they give. I’ve only met a few. I met Marg Helgenberger from “C.S.I.” at a dinner for Nobel laureates. I don’t know how either one of us got invited, but I enjoyed that, sure.
What do you think of the idea that no administrator at a state university needs to earn more than the president of the United States, $400,000?
Will you throw in Air Force One and the White House?
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
QUESTIONS FOR MARK YUDOF
Big Man on Campus
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
As president of the University of California, the most prestigious of the state-university systems, you have proposed that in-state tuition be jacked up to more than $10,000, from $7,788. Are you pricing education beyond the reach of most students?
In 2009, U.C. adopted the Blue and Gold Program, guaranteeing that no student with a family income below $60,000 would pay any fees, and this guarantee will continue in 2010. That’s the short answer.
U.C. is facing a budget shortfall of at least $753 million, largely because of cuts in state financing. Do you blame Governor Schwarzenegger for your troubles?
I do not. This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic. We have an aging population nationally. We have a lot of concern, as we should, with health care.
And education?
The shine is off of it. It’s really a question of being crowded out by other priorities.
Already professors on all 10 U.C. campuses are taking required “furloughs,” to use a buzzword.
Let me tell you why we used it. The faculty said “furlough” sounds more temporary than “salary cut,” and being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: there are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them.
The word “furlough,” I recently read, comes from the Dutch word “verlof,” which means permission, as in soldiers’ getting permission to take a few days off. How has it come to be a euphemism for salary cuts?
Look, I’m from West Philadelphia. My dad was an electrician. We didn’t look up stuff like this. It wasn’t part of what we did. When I was growing up we didn’t debate the finer points of what the word “furlough” meant.
How did you get into education?
I don’t know. It’s all an accident. I thought I’d go work for a law firm.
Some people feel you could close the U.C. budget gap by cutting administrative salaries, including your own.
The stories of my compensation are greatly exaggerated.
When you began your job last year, your annual compensation was reportedly $828,000.
It actually was $600,000 until I cut my pay by $60,000. So my salary is $540,000, but it gets amplified because people say, “You have a pension plan.”
What about your housing allowance? How much is the rent on your home in Oakland?
It’s about $10,000 a month.
Does U.C. pay for that on top of your salary?
Yes, and the reason they do that is because they have a president’s house, it needed $8 million of repairs and I decided that was not the way to go. Why the heck would I ever authorize $8 million for a house I didn’t want to live in anyhow?
Why can’t you have architecture students repair the house for course credit?
Let me ponder that.
Do you raise a lot of income from private donations?
We don’t do it in the office of the president. The focus is campus by campus: Santa Cruz or U.C.L.A. or Berkeley or San Diego, Davis. They have their own development offices, and I’m there to — some of the things I do very well. I smile, I shake hands, I tell jokes.
Why can’t you raise money, too?
I’m out there hustling, but I go where the chancellors invite me. Otherwise they get upset.
What about Hollywood people? Do they just give to U.C.L.A. at the expense of the other campuses?
I don’t know where they give. I’ve only met a few. I met Marg Helgenberger from “C.S.I.” at a dinner for Nobel laureates. I don’t know how either one of us got invited, but I enjoyed that, sure.
What do you think of the idea that no administrator at a state university needs to earn more than the president of the United States, $400,000?
Will you throw in Air Force One and the White House?
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Study Shows Better Scores for Charter School Students
Interesting findings from Hoxby's revisit to the charter effect debate. I'm curious to see the differences in background characteristics of the students in her sample. If I recall correctly, this was an issue in her last study. I'm also curious how ELLs were addressed. Some things to think about for any of you jumping in to read her report.
In any case it's always good news to see where urban youth are being served and try to identify practices that work, though even those things are hard to get to when we're solely basing what works on test performance. From the conclusion in this article it doesn't sound like the study is getting to the point of identifying practices that work and that are scalable for all children in a way that doesn't require them to have to relocate to a new school, that might sometimes be outside of their communities.
Some thoughts that come to mind when I read these studies and how they get translated into the political debate on this issue.
-Patricia
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: September 22, 2009
Students who entered lotteries and won spots in New York City charter schools performed better on state exams than students who entered the same lotteries but did not secure charter school seats, according to a study by a Stanford University economist being released Tuesday.
Charter schools, which are privately run but publicly financed, have been faring well on standardized tests in recent years. But skeptics have discounted their success by accusing them of “creaming” the best students, saying that the most motivated students and engaged parents are the ones who apply for the spots.
The study’s methodology addresses that issue by comparing charter school students with students of traditional schools who applied for charter spots but did not get them. Most of the city’s 99 charter schools admit students by lottery.
The report is part of a multiyear study examining the performance of charter schools in New York City by Caroline M. Hoxby, a Stanford economist who has written extensively about her research on charter schools and vouchers.
Ms. Hoxby found that students who attended a charter school from kindergarten to eighth grade would nearly match the performance of their peers in affluent suburban communities on state math exams by the time they entered high school, a phenomenon she characterizes as closing the “Harlem-Scarsdale” achievement gap. The results are somewhat less striking in English, where students closed 66 percent of the gap, according to the study.
“I wanted to look at something that reflects the reality of what goes on in the New York area,” Ms. Hoxby said in an interview. “In terms of life outcomes, I think we just don’t know yet. This is not the silver bullet, but this is showing a major and lasting difference.”
By the third grade, according to the study, the average charter school student was 5.3 points ahead on state exams in English compared with students who were not admitted to the charter schools. In math, the students were 5.8 points ahead. Most tests are scored on a scale of roughly 475 to 800.
The gap between students in charter schools and those in traditional public schools widened the longer students remained in the charter schools, according to the report.
Ms. Hoxby did not reach any conclusions about what practices at the schools caused the jump, but she noted that many charter schools had extended school days and school years, many required students to attend classes on Saturdays and most paid teachers based on their performance and responsibility, rather than the traditional teachers’ union salary scales.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have embraced charter schools as a key to their effort to overhaul the city’s school system. Mr. Klein has made an effort to recruit charter school operators that have been successful in other parts of the country to open schools throughout the city, particularly in the South Bronx, Central Brooklyn and Harlem.
There are approximately 30,000 students in charter schools in the city, and another 40,000 students on waiting lists to be admitted to those schools.
In any case it's always good news to see where urban youth are being served and try to identify practices that work, though even those things are hard to get to when we're solely basing what works on test performance. From the conclusion in this article it doesn't sound like the study is getting to the point of identifying practices that work and that are scalable for all children in a way that doesn't require them to have to relocate to a new school, that might sometimes be outside of their communities.
Some thoughts that come to mind when I read these studies and how they get translated into the political debate on this issue.
-Patricia
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: September 22, 2009
Students who entered lotteries and won spots in New York City charter schools performed better on state exams than students who entered the same lotteries but did not secure charter school seats, according to a study by a Stanford University economist being released Tuesday.
Charter schools, which are privately run but publicly financed, have been faring well on standardized tests in recent years. But skeptics have discounted their success by accusing them of “creaming” the best students, saying that the most motivated students and engaged parents are the ones who apply for the spots.
The study’s methodology addresses that issue by comparing charter school students with students of traditional schools who applied for charter spots but did not get them. Most of the city’s 99 charter schools admit students by lottery.
The report is part of a multiyear study examining the performance of charter schools in New York City by Caroline M. Hoxby, a Stanford economist who has written extensively about her research on charter schools and vouchers.
Ms. Hoxby found that students who attended a charter school from kindergarten to eighth grade would nearly match the performance of their peers in affluent suburban communities on state math exams by the time they entered high school, a phenomenon she characterizes as closing the “Harlem-Scarsdale” achievement gap. The results are somewhat less striking in English, where students closed 66 percent of the gap, according to the study.
“I wanted to look at something that reflects the reality of what goes on in the New York area,” Ms. Hoxby said in an interview. “In terms of life outcomes, I think we just don’t know yet. This is not the silver bullet, but this is showing a major and lasting difference.”
By the third grade, according to the study, the average charter school student was 5.3 points ahead on state exams in English compared with students who were not admitted to the charter schools. In math, the students were 5.8 points ahead. Most tests are scored on a scale of roughly 475 to 800.
The gap between students in charter schools and those in traditional public schools widened the longer students remained in the charter schools, according to the report.
Ms. Hoxby did not reach any conclusions about what practices at the schools caused the jump, but she noted that many charter schools had extended school days and school years, many required students to attend classes on Saturdays and most paid teachers based on their performance and responsibility, rather than the traditional teachers’ union salary scales.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have embraced charter schools as a key to their effort to overhaul the city’s school system. Mr. Klein has made an effort to recruit charter school operators that have been successful in other parts of the country to open schools throughout the city, particularly in the South Bronx, Central Brooklyn and Harlem.
There are approximately 30,000 students in charter schools in the city, and another 40,000 students on waiting lists to be admitted to those schools.
Facing facts: History students need to know them
HOUSTON CHRONICLE | Editorial
Sept. 20, 2009
What, exactly, does a young Texan learn about the world and its history? The State Board of Education has until spring 2010 to answer that question. They'll need every minute.
Early rounds of the debate have been highly political, heavy on ridiculous points of contention. Should sixth-graders know what Christmas is? Should Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez be removed from our history books, and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich inserted? Should we stop telling fourth-graders that the United States has a “democratic” form of government and instead describe it as “republican”?
So far, it's been conservatives who've called to make the curriculum more specific, with more points that teachers, textbooks and standardized tests would be required to cover. That specificity often goes over the top.
One reviewer, for instance, suggested that classes should study not just the major Founding Fathers, but 250 others, such as John Witherspoon and Gouverneur Morris.
At that level of detail, summer would come before U.S. history classes reached the War of 1812.
But that doesn't mean that a detailed curriculum is bad — or in the interest only of conservatives.
In his new book The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools, E.D. Hirsch Jr., argues powerfully that our schools overemphasize “learning strategies” at the expense of actual content.
“Reading comprehension,” for instance, isn't just a matter of knowing words and parts of speech, but of understanding the concepts that lurk beneath every sentence.
Most Americans, for instance, can't make sense of stories covering rugby. What's a wicket? What does it mean to be “leg-before” or “shown the dreaded finger of an inside edge”?
To function as citizens, Hirsch argues, our kids need a shared body of background knowledge. That knowledge is especially powerful for immigrant kids, or kids whose parents aren't well-educated — kids less likely to have picked up that information at home.
The devil, of course, is in the details: Which facts need to be taught? What things do we, as Texans and Americans, all agree are true and important?
Those are hard questions to answer. But we need to be specific.
Sept. 20, 2009
What, exactly, does a young Texan learn about the world and its history? The State Board of Education has until spring 2010 to answer that question. They'll need every minute.
Early rounds of the debate have been highly political, heavy on ridiculous points of contention. Should sixth-graders know what Christmas is? Should Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez be removed from our history books, and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich inserted? Should we stop telling fourth-graders that the United States has a “democratic” form of government and instead describe it as “republican”?
So far, it's been conservatives who've called to make the curriculum more specific, with more points that teachers, textbooks and standardized tests would be required to cover. That specificity often goes over the top.
One reviewer, for instance, suggested that classes should study not just the major Founding Fathers, but 250 others, such as John Witherspoon and Gouverneur Morris.
At that level of detail, summer would come before U.S. history classes reached the War of 1812.
But that doesn't mean that a detailed curriculum is bad — or in the interest only of conservatives.
In his new book The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools, E.D. Hirsch Jr., argues powerfully that our schools overemphasize “learning strategies” at the expense of actual content.
“Reading comprehension,” for instance, isn't just a matter of knowing words and parts of speech, but of understanding the concepts that lurk beneath every sentence.
Most Americans, for instance, can't make sense of stories covering rugby. What's a wicket? What does it mean to be “leg-before” or “shown the dreaded finger of an inside edge”?
To function as citizens, Hirsch argues, our kids need a shared body of background knowledge. That knowledge is especially powerful for immigrant kids, or kids whose parents aren't well-educated — kids less likely to have picked up that information at home.
The devil, of course, is in the details: Which facts need to be taught? What things do we, as Texans and Americans, all agree are true and important?
Those are hard questions to answer. But we need to be specific.
Elite Schools Don't Make Elite People
Wonder if Matthew's would encourage his loved ones to opt for Long Beach Community College over Columbia if both offers were on the table. Looking forward to the followup article that critically takes apart the ways in which we measure and rank universities.
-Patricia
By Jay Mathews | Washington Post
Monday, September 21, 2009
I promised a high school counselor in California I would update a very old online column whose printout on her wall is too faded to read. It asked a question I think students immersed in college visiting and application writing should consider: Where did your heroes go to college?
Most of us want our lives to have meaning. We want to add value, at least in some small way. We want to be admired.
What college do you go to for that? Where did the people we look up to get their degrees? Often it's not the best-known schools.
Let's look at government and business leaders. (I know. They have their flaws. But we are just getting started.) The past four presidents graduated from Columbia, Yale, Georgetown and Yale. But the four before them attended somewhat more modest institutions: Eureka, the U.S. Naval Academy, Michigan and Whittier.
Check out the alma maters of the first 25 state governors listed in the 2010 Almanac of American Politics: Alabama, Pacific Lutheran, Glendale Community, Arkansas State, Wisconsin at Superior, Colorado State, Old Dominion and Western Connecticut State (no degree), Brown, Florida State, Georgia, Cal State Northridge, Albertson College of Idaho, Georgetown, Princeton, Virginia Tech, Wichita State, Kentucky, Brown, Maine, Catholic, Harvard, University of California at Berkeley, Minnesota, Mississippi (did not graduate but got a law degree later) and Missouri.
How about the chief executives of the top 10 U.S.-based Fortune 500 companies? Pittsburg (Kan.) State, Texas at Austin, University College Dublin, Texas Tech, Texas at Austin, Dartmouth, Kansas, Gannon, Georgia State and Central Oklahoma.
Maybe we don't want to be politicians or tycoons. Whom do we admire? I start with my parents. They went to two-year Long Beach (Calif.) City College. My mother later graduated from UCLA, but my father, a voracious reader and a great wit, did not get a four-year degree.
I asked friends and relatives to name their heroes. Here they are in alphabetical order. A few of their choices might seem unusual, but I promised not to censor them: Muhammad Ali, Karen Allen, Luis Alvarez, Warren Buffett, Ken Burns, Bill Cosby, Bob Costas, Emily Dickinson, Don DeLillo, Richard Feynman, Bill Gates, Rudy Giuliani, Lee Iacocca, Steve Jobs, Garrison Keillor, Martin Luther King Jr., Billie Jean King, Sarah McLachlan, Bette Midler, Julia Morgan, Al Neuharth, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abe Pollin, Colin Powell, Anne Rice, Dot Richardson, Julian Simon, Ted Turner, Kevin Williamson, Oprah Winfrey, Henry Winkler and Tiger Woods.
That's 32 names. I would say 11 of them attended the sort of selective schools we would brag about if we got into them: software magnate Gates (Harvard), golfer Woods (Stanford), poet Dickinson (Mount Holyoke), civil rights leader King (Morehouse), economist Simon (Harvard), physicist Feynman (MIT), softball star Richardson (UCLA), physicist Alvarez (Chicago), computer magnate Jobs (Reed), architect Morgan (University of California at Berkeley) and media magnate Turner (Brown).
But I find it interesting that so many of them either dropped out (Gates, Jobs, Woods and Dickinson) or were kicked out (Turner -- twice!).
Some, such as actress Parker, boxer Ali and singer McLachlan, did not attend college. The rest went to less celebrated schools: Fashion Institute of Technology (actor Allen), Nebraska at Lincoln (tycoon Buffett), Hampshire (filmmaker Burns), Cal State Los Angeles (tennis player King), Temple (comedian Cosby), Syracuse (sportscaster Costas), Fordham (novelist DeLillo), Manhattan (former mayor Giuliani), Lehigh (carmaker Iacocca), Minnesota (humorist Keillor), Hawaii (singer Midler), South Dakota (newspaper publisher Neuharth), George Washington (Washington Wizards owner Pollin), City College of New York (secretary of state Powell), San Francisco State (novelist Rice), East Carolina (screenwriter/producer Williamson), Tennessee State (talk show host Winfrey) and Emerson (actor Winkler).
No one is sure where greatness comes from. These lists make clear that it does not have much to do with the name of the college on someone's diploma. See for yourself. Enter your hero's name plus the word "biography" on your favorite search engine and that person's college (or lack of one) should be there.
Researchers Stacy Berg Dale and Alan Krueger found that admirable character traits -- persistence, imagination, energy -- produce success in life no matter which college a person attends.
So relax. Be happy about your chance to spend four years at any school, soaking up the wisdom of the world and deciding what kind of life you want. Those of you who become heroes will discover most of the qualities that made you so were already in your possession.
Some of my friends will be disappointed that I have failed to follow their advice and explore the flip side to my thesis: Which colleges did our nation's least admirable people attend? It is an intriguing question. But I think I will leave that list for later, after I confer with the company lawyers.
-Patricia
By Jay Mathews | Washington Post
Monday, September 21, 2009
I promised a high school counselor in California I would update a very old online column whose printout on her wall is too faded to read. It asked a question I think students immersed in college visiting and application writing should consider: Where did your heroes go to college?
Most of us want our lives to have meaning. We want to add value, at least in some small way. We want to be admired.
What college do you go to for that? Where did the people we look up to get their degrees? Often it's not the best-known schools.
Let's look at government and business leaders. (I know. They have their flaws. But we are just getting started.) The past four presidents graduated from Columbia, Yale, Georgetown and Yale. But the four before them attended somewhat more modest institutions: Eureka, the U.S. Naval Academy, Michigan and Whittier.
Check out the alma maters of the first 25 state governors listed in the 2010 Almanac of American Politics: Alabama, Pacific Lutheran, Glendale Community, Arkansas State, Wisconsin at Superior, Colorado State, Old Dominion and Western Connecticut State (no degree), Brown, Florida State, Georgia, Cal State Northridge, Albertson College of Idaho, Georgetown, Princeton, Virginia Tech, Wichita State, Kentucky, Brown, Maine, Catholic, Harvard, University of California at Berkeley, Minnesota, Mississippi (did not graduate but got a law degree later) and Missouri.
How about the chief executives of the top 10 U.S.-based Fortune 500 companies? Pittsburg (Kan.) State, Texas at Austin, University College Dublin, Texas Tech, Texas at Austin, Dartmouth, Kansas, Gannon, Georgia State and Central Oklahoma.
Maybe we don't want to be politicians or tycoons. Whom do we admire? I start with my parents. They went to two-year Long Beach (Calif.) City College. My mother later graduated from UCLA, but my father, a voracious reader and a great wit, did not get a four-year degree.
I asked friends and relatives to name their heroes. Here they are in alphabetical order. A few of their choices might seem unusual, but I promised not to censor them: Muhammad Ali, Karen Allen, Luis Alvarez, Warren Buffett, Ken Burns, Bill Cosby, Bob Costas, Emily Dickinson, Don DeLillo, Richard Feynman, Bill Gates, Rudy Giuliani, Lee Iacocca, Steve Jobs, Garrison Keillor, Martin Luther King Jr., Billie Jean King, Sarah McLachlan, Bette Midler, Julia Morgan, Al Neuharth, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abe Pollin, Colin Powell, Anne Rice, Dot Richardson, Julian Simon, Ted Turner, Kevin Williamson, Oprah Winfrey, Henry Winkler and Tiger Woods.
That's 32 names. I would say 11 of them attended the sort of selective schools we would brag about if we got into them: software magnate Gates (Harvard), golfer Woods (Stanford), poet Dickinson (Mount Holyoke), civil rights leader King (Morehouse), economist Simon (Harvard), physicist Feynman (MIT), softball star Richardson (UCLA), physicist Alvarez (Chicago), computer magnate Jobs (Reed), architect Morgan (University of California at Berkeley) and media magnate Turner (Brown).
But I find it interesting that so many of them either dropped out (Gates, Jobs, Woods and Dickinson) or were kicked out (Turner -- twice!).
Some, such as actress Parker, boxer Ali and singer McLachlan, did not attend college. The rest went to less celebrated schools: Fashion Institute of Technology (actor Allen), Nebraska at Lincoln (tycoon Buffett), Hampshire (filmmaker Burns), Cal State Los Angeles (tennis player King), Temple (comedian Cosby), Syracuse (sportscaster Costas), Fordham (novelist DeLillo), Manhattan (former mayor Giuliani), Lehigh (carmaker Iacocca), Minnesota (humorist Keillor), Hawaii (singer Midler), South Dakota (newspaper publisher Neuharth), George Washington (Washington Wizards owner Pollin), City College of New York (secretary of state Powell), San Francisco State (novelist Rice), East Carolina (screenwriter/producer Williamson), Tennessee State (talk show host Winfrey) and Emerson (actor Winkler).
No one is sure where greatness comes from. These lists make clear that it does not have much to do with the name of the college on someone's diploma. See for yourself. Enter your hero's name plus the word "biography" on your favorite search engine and that person's college (or lack of one) should be there.
Researchers Stacy Berg Dale and Alan Krueger found that admirable character traits -- persistence, imagination, energy -- produce success in life no matter which college a person attends.
So relax. Be happy about your chance to spend four years at any school, soaking up the wisdom of the world and deciding what kind of life you want. Those of you who become heroes will discover most of the qualities that made you so were already in your possession.
Some of my friends will be disappointed that I have failed to follow their advice and explore the flip side to my thesis: Which colleges did our nation's least admirable people attend? It is an intriguing question. But I think I will leave that list for later, after I confer with the company lawyers.
Friday, October 02, 2009
All Children Deserve Great Teachers, Witnesses Tell House Education Committee
Miller Encouraged by Teachers’ Union Willingness to Eliminate Collective Bargaining Barriers
September 30, 2009 5:47 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Students at schools with the highest concentration of poor and minority students do not have equal access to effective teachers as their peers in more affluent school districts, education experts, including teachers, told the House Education and Labor Committee today. Teachers are the most important factor in determining the success of students, yet low-income and minority students are more likely to be taught by less experienced, less qualified teachers than their peers in wealthier communities.
“There’s no question that a great teacher is the key ingredient in a child’s education. It is no longer acceptable to allow our poorest children, who need effective teachers the most, to suffer in a system that is not helping them to achieve,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee. “A young person entering the teaching workplace today wants it to look like their friends’ workplace, but don’t receive the same level of structure, support, or professional development opportunities offered in other industries. This is about being on the right side of history, about changing the teaching workplace to help every student and every teacher excel.”
Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association, the largest teacher’s union in the country, testified that his union would take steps to help address barriers in collective bargaining agreement that can make it hard to get the best teachers in high-need schools. He said the NEA will encourage local affiliates to waive language in collective bargaining agreements that prevent this goal.
“The NEA commits to address barriers in collective bargaining agreements by requesting that every local NEA affiliate enter into a compact or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its local school district to waive any contract language that prohibits staffing high-needs schools with great teachers,” he testified. “These compacts should also add commitments that would enhance this goal. Similarly, NEA would promote compacts or MOUs for its non-collective bargaining local affiliates that have high-needs schools in their districts.”
Miller thanked Van Roekel, calling the testimony “a very important signal from NEA that represents a significant departure from their historical position.”
Children in schools with the highest poverty rates or largest minority populations are assigned to novice teachers almost twice as often as children in low-poverty schools or schools without many minority students. Studies also show there is more out-of-field teaching and inequality in math than in other subjects. In high-poverty and high-minority middle schools – the very time when math fundamentals like Algebra are often taught – about 70 percent of math classes are taught by a teacher who does not have a college major or minor in math or a math-related field.
“We cannot expect students to reach high levels of subject understanding if the instructor him/herself lacks that very understanding,” said U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA). “Too often high-poverty schools are staffed by teachers who attended the least selective and rigorous post-secondary institutions, who achieved the lowest scores on certification exams and who failed to major or minor in the subject they are assigned to teach.” A child of color in Chicago is 23 times more likely than other children to have a teacher who failed their basic skills exam, according to Fattah.
Inequitable distribution of teacher talent hurts the economy, as well as widens the achievement gap. An April 2009 study by McKinsey and Company found the achievement gap “imposes on the United States the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession.”
“Nothing is more important to closing longstanding achievement gaps than getting more of our most effective teachers teaching our most vulnerable students,” said Dr. Linda Murray, Acting Executive Director at Education Trust-West. “Doing this right will require replacing outmoded methods of teacher evaluation with evaluation systems that draw on longitudinal data that link teachers and the growth of the students they teach.”
Under No Child Left Behind, states are required to have plans to ensure that effective teachers are distributed equally but it was rarely enforced under the Bush administration. The Obama administration has already taken important steps to enforce teacher equity provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Specifically, in order to be eligible for emergency state fiscal stabilization funds or to apply for the Race to the Top fund, states and districts must provide an assurance that that they will take steps to address disparities in teacher equity, in addition to other assurances.
Teachers in schools with high numbers of poor and minority are also paid less than teachers in wealthier schools, according to research by Dr. Marguerite Roza, Research Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Washington.
In almost every school district across the nation, schools that need funding the most get fewer resources.
“If we care about the success of our students, we have to start caring about the success of their teachers,” said Layla Avila, Vice President of the Teaching Fellows Program at The New Teacher Project. “And that means acknowledging the real differences between teachers in their effectiveness, and taking action to ensure that all children get the same kinds of teachers…”
This is the first in a series of hearings the Committee will hold looking at how to ensure all children have access to effective teachers.
September 30, 2009 5:47 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Students at schools with the highest concentration of poor and minority students do not have equal access to effective teachers as their peers in more affluent school districts, education experts, including teachers, told the House Education and Labor Committee today. Teachers are the most important factor in determining the success of students, yet low-income and minority students are more likely to be taught by less experienced, less qualified teachers than their peers in wealthier communities.
“There’s no question that a great teacher is the key ingredient in a child’s education. It is no longer acceptable to allow our poorest children, who need effective teachers the most, to suffer in a system that is not helping them to achieve,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee. “A young person entering the teaching workplace today wants it to look like their friends’ workplace, but don’t receive the same level of structure, support, or professional development opportunities offered in other industries. This is about being on the right side of history, about changing the teaching workplace to help every student and every teacher excel.”
Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association, the largest teacher’s union in the country, testified that his union would take steps to help address barriers in collective bargaining agreement that can make it hard to get the best teachers in high-need schools. He said the NEA will encourage local affiliates to waive language in collective bargaining agreements that prevent this goal.
“The NEA commits to address barriers in collective bargaining agreements by requesting that every local NEA affiliate enter into a compact or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its local school district to waive any contract language that prohibits staffing high-needs schools with great teachers,” he testified. “These compacts should also add commitments that would enhance this goal. Similarly, NEA would promote compacts or MOUs for its non-collective bargaining local affiliates that have high-needs schools in their districts.”
Miller thanked Van Roekel, calling the testimony “a very important signal from NEA that represents a significant departure from their historical position.”
Children in schools with the highest poverty rates or largest minority populations are assigned to novice teachers almost twice as often as children in low-poverty schools or schools without many minority students. Studies also show there is more out-of-field teaching and inequality in math than in other subjects. In high-poverty and high-minority middle schools – the very time when math fundamentals like Algebra are often taught – about 70 percent of math classes are taught by a teacher who does not have a college major or minor in math or a math-related field.
“We cannot expect students to reach high levels of subject understanding if the instructor him/herself lacks that very understanding,” said U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA). “Too often high-poverty schools are staffed by teachers who attended the least selective and rigorous post-secondary institutions, who achieved the lowest scores on certification exams and who failed to major or minor in the subject they are assigned to teach.” A child of color in Chicago is 23 times more likely than other children to have a teacher who failed their basic skills exam, according to Fattah.
Inequitable distribution of teacher talent hurts the economy, as well as widens the achievement gap. An April 2009 study by McKinsey and Company found the achievement gap “imposes on the United States the economic equivalent of a permanent national recession.”
“Nothing is more important to closing longstanding achievement gaps than getting more of our most effective teachers teaching our most vulnerable students,” said Dr. Linda Murray, Acting Executive Director at Education Trust-West. “Doing this right will require replacing outmoded methods of teacher evaluation with evaluation systems that draw on longitudinal data that link teachers and the growth of the students they teach.”
Under No Child Left Behind, states are required to have plans to ensure that effective teachers are distributed equally but it was rarely enforced under the Bush administration. The Obama administration has already taken important steps to enforce teacher equity provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Specifically, in order to be eligible for emergency state fiscal stabilization funds or to apply for the Race to the Top fund, states and districts must provide an assurance that that they will take steps to address disparities in teacher equity, in addition to other assurances.
Teachers in schools with high numbers of poor and minority are also paid less than teachers in wealthier schools, according to research by Dr. Marguerite Roza, Research Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Washington.
In almost every school district across the nation, schools that need funding the most get fewer resources.
“If we care about the success of our students, we have to start caring about the success of their teachers,” said Layla Avila, Vice President of the Teaching Fellows Program at The New Teacher Project. “And that means acknowledging the real differences between teachers in their effectiveness, and taking action to ensure that all children get the same kinds of teachers…”
This is the first in a series of hearings the Committee will hold looking at how to ensure all children have access to effective teachers.
Letter to Congressman Baca supporting H.R.2681, the PROUD Act
This letter gives a nice summary of proposed legislation in support of the civil and human rights of undocumented youth.
-Patricia
September 22, 2009 The Honorable Joe Baca
U.S. House of Representatives
2245 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0542
Dear Congressman Baca:
On behalf of the William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI),a national nonpartisan, nonprofit policy and research organization focused on issues relevant to America's racial and ethnic minority groups, I am pleased to support H.R.2681, the People Resolved to Obtain an Understanding of Democracy (PROUD) Act. The PROUD Act provides a path to legalization for young students who were brought to this country at an early age. PROUD Act applicants must have graduated high school and demonstrated at least six years of good moral character. By offering students a path to citizenship upon completion of high school, the PROUD Act allows students to attain legal status prior to applying to college. This allows low-income students to receive financial assistance on the path to attaining higher education. The PROUD Act is unique in that the young people who would benefit from its passage had no say in the decision to come to this country, and current law provides no mechanism for them to adjust to legal status. Nonetheless, these individuals have grown up in this country as Americans. They include high school valedictorians, honors students, class presidents, and student athletes. They also include future teachers, nurses, engineers, and community leaders. The status quo currently has no answer for these displaced students who wish to have a better education. Without legal status, their doors are immediately closed, despite having lived the majority of their life in the United States, learned English, volunteered in their communities, and successfully graduated from high school. This is an issue of moral and economic significance. PROUD Act eligible students will contribute to our national economy and help our country to remain competitive in the global market. If we do not do something for these bright students now, however, we risk dooming a future generation of young highly motivated individuals. We urge Congress to support the passage of the PROUD Act. Sincerely,
Antonio Gonzalez
President
William C. Velasquez Institute
William C. Velasquez Institute
National Office
206 Lombard, 1st Floor
San Antonio, TX 78226
(210) 922-3118 California Office
2914 N. Main St., 1st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90031
(323) 222-2217 Florida Office
2646-A NW 21st Terrace
Miami, FL 33142
(305) 635-6965
-Patricia
September 22, 2009 The Honorable Joe Baca
U.S. House of Representatives
2245 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0542
Dear Congressman Baca:
On behalf of the William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI),a national nonpartisan, nonprofit policy and research organization focused on issues relevant to America's racial and ethnic minority groups, I am pleased to support H.R.2681, the People Resolved to Obtain an Understanding of Democracy (PROUD) Act. The PROUD Act provides a path to legalization for young students who were brought to this country at an early age. PROUD Act applicants must have graduated high school and demonstrated at least six years of good moral character. By offering students a path to citizenship upon completion of high school, the PROUD Act allows students to attain legal status prior to applying to college. This allows low-income students to receive financial assistance on the path to attaining higher education. The PROUD Act is unique in that the young people who would benefit from its passage had no say in the decision to come to this country, and current law provides no mechanism for them to adjust to legal status. Nonetheless, these individuals have grown up in this country as Americans. They include high school valedictorians, honors students, class presidents, and student athletes. They also include future teachers, nurses, engineers, and community leaders. The status quo currently has no answer for these displaced students who wish to have a better education. Without legal status, their doors are immediately closed, despite having lived the majority of their life in the United States, learned English, volunteered in their communities, and successfully graduated from high school. This is an issue of moral and economic significance. PROUD Act eligible students will contribute to our national economy and help our country to remain competitive in the global market. If we do not do something for these bright students now, however, we risk dooming a future generation of young highly motivated individuals. We urge Congress to support the passage of the PROUD Act. Sincerely,
Antonio Gonzalez
President
William C. Velasquez Institute
William C. Velasquez Institute
National Office
206 Lombard, 1st Floor
San Antonio, TX 78226
(210) 922-3118 California Office
2914 N. Main St., 1st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90031
(323) 222-2217 Florida Office
2646-A NW 21st Terrace
Miami, FL 33142
(305) 635-6965
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Latino Leaders Riled by Role of Immigration in Health Care Debate
By Daphne Eviatar | New Mexico Independent
September 22, 2009
> Latino lawmakers had long ago given up on the idea that illegal immigrants would receive any sort of subsidized health insurance under a health care reform bill, even if there are strong economic, public health and moral arguments to support the idea. But what they hadnt expected " at least not before Rep. Joe Wilsons outburst earlier this month " was that immigrants would be so scapegoated in the health care debate that undocumented immigrants would be denied the opportunity even to purchase market-based private health insurance with their own money. That development and other possible provisions of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus threatens to undermine Latino support for Democratic lawmakers in the 2010 elections.
>
> The Senates markup of the bill begins on Tuesday.
>
> "We understood that undocumented immigrants would get no taxpayer subsidy, and that there would be a verification system," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, (D-Ill.) in a conference call last week organized by the immigrant advocacy group Americas Voice. We said "Okay. Bitter pills were swallowed," said Gutierrez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But soon after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) publicly called President Obama a liar, said Gutierrez, the White House started saying that illegal immigrants cannot even purchase health care on the free market health care exchange.
>
> After Obama in his September 9 speech said that under his health care plan everyone will be required to carry basic health insurance, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama had never meant to allow illegal immigrants to participate in the health care exchange included as part of the proposal.
>
> Gutierrez recalled that he was the first member of the Hispanic Congressional caucus to support Barack Obama for president, and "we galvanized the whole community to support him. Obama had promised to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows and provide a path to legalization," Gutierrez recalled. "That's the president I voted for. Not one that said you can't have health care even if you can pay for it." Now, he added: "We're revisiting support for health care reform."
>
> Latino religious leaders have similarly expressed their disappointment with Democrats who they had previously supported and warn that they risk losing Latino support if the final bill, being worked out this week, ends up penalizing immigrants.
>
> "Senate Democrats with the apparent support of the White House have rushed to deny undocumented immigrants the chance to use even their own money to pay for private health care," said Rev. Luis Cortes, president of Esperanza, the largest evangelical Latino organization in the country, on the conference call last week. "We are seeing a demonizing of immigrant people," he said, adding: "The political price is going to be high for both parties."
>
> "We were hopeful that the Democratic party which controls the Senate, and controls the House, and controls the executive wing was going to bring sanity to the conversation about immigration and comprehensive immigration reform," he said. "If this is the beginning of the conversation, all we can look at as Hispanic people . . . is to look at every election and try to punish every individual regardless of their political party who denies rights to legal immigrants as well as who tries to punish those who are the poorest and most defenseless people in the country."
>
> In addition to the ban on illegal immigrants' ability to participate in the health care exchange, immigrant advocates and Latino leaders worry that there's little discussion of ending the current 5-year ban on even legal immigrants access to Medicaid and other health benefits. Although Sens. Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) have all either sponsored or co-sponsored legislation to eliminate the 5-year waiting period, such proposals do not seem to be winning much support.
>
> "On the contrary, the outline of the bill released last week also suggested that there might be a two-year waiting period for any affordability credits for legal immigrants," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, last week. "Meanwhile, legal immigrants in households where some members are not documented will have only limited access to benefits. We've got to change the way this debate is unfolding," Rodriguez said.
>
> Sonal Ambegaokar, health policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said at a briefing on Monday organized by the National Immigration Forum that the markups of the bill could create a new 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to access the health care exchange.
>
> "U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants are also at risk of not receiving health care, although technically they'd be entitled to it. But as a practical matter, they rely on their parents to enroll them. Last time I checked 3rd and 4th graders don't go around buying health insurance for themselves, they get it from their parents," said Congressman Gutierrez. "To deny the parents is to deny their children."
>
> There are currently about 7 million legal immigrants in the United States without health care, and 4 million U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants, most of whom don't have health care either.
>
> Immigrant advocates are also concerned that the Baucus bill produced by the Senate Finance Committee will end up including costly and unreliable enhanced verification systems to require all participants to prove their immigration status. "Those verification systems may be fraught with errors that could eliminate eligibility for legal immigrants who should have access to tax credits," said Jennifer Ngandu, Deputy Director of the Health Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza, who participated in yesterday's policy briefing.
>
> TWI reported last year that new verification requirements for Medicaid had prevented tens of thousands of eligible U.S. citizens from enrolling in the program in just the first 18 months after it went into effect. A 2007 GAO report similarly found that states' extra verification requirements for Medicaid eligibility led to a significant decline in Medicaid enrollment among eligible recipients who had trouble proving their immigration status. In the meantime, the states incurred much higher administrative costs. A study conducted by the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform in 2007 found that for every $100 spent to implement the enhanced verification procedures, states could document only 14 cents in Medicaid savings.
>
> To Frank Sharry, Executive Director of Americas Voice, that "these health care reform efforts would lead to scapegoating of immigrants is not surprising. All of this started with anti-immigration groups working closely with Republicans to demagogue this issue," he said last week. "They've done it for years now on virtually every social policy issue. They've raised the fake issue of undocumented immigrants getting access to taxpayer-subsidized programs," he said, adding that he would like to see "Democrats standing up to these distortions. So far, that's not happening," he lamented. "It seems that the policy of health care reform is to dump on immigrants even if it makes bad policy because somehow its seen as politically expedient."
>
> But increasingly, immigrant advocates are warning that Democratic support for such efforts may not be such a politically savvy strategy after all.
>
> Daphne Eviatar is an award-winning journalist and a lawyer who covers legal issues for The Washington Independent.
September 22, 2009
> Latino lawmakers had long ago given up on the idea that illegal immigrants would receive any sort of subsidized health insurance under a health care reform bill, even if there are strong economic, public health and moral arguments to support the idea. But what they hadnt expected " at least not before Rep. Joe Wilsons outburst earlier this month " was that immigrants would be so scapegoated in the health care debate that undocumented immigrants would be denied the opportunity even to purchase market-based private health insurance with their own money. That development and other possible provisions of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus threatens to undermine Latino support for Democratic lawmakers in the 2010 elections.
>
> The Senates markup of the bill begins on Tuesday.
>
> "We understood that undocumented immigrants would get no taxpayer subsidy, and that there would be a verification system," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, (D-Ill.) in a conference call last week organized by the immigrant advocacy group Americas Voice. We said "Okay. Bitter pills were swallowed," said Gutierrez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But soon after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) publicly called President Obama a liar, said Gutierrez, the White House started saying that illegal immigrants cannot even purchase health care on the free market health care exchange.
>
> After Obama in his September 9 speech said that under his health care plan everyone will be required to carry basic health insurance, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama had never meant to allow illegal immigrants to participate in the health care exchange included as part of the proposal.
>
> Gutierrez recalled that he was the first member of the Hispanic Congressional caucus to support Barack Obama for president, and "we galvanized the whole community to support him. Obama had promised to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows and provide a path to legalization," Gutierrez recalled. "That's the president I voted for. Not one that said you can't have health care even if you can pay for it." Now, he added: "We're revisiting support for health care reform."
>
> Latino religious leaders have similarly expressed their disappointment with Democrats who they had previously supported and warn that they risk losing Latino support if the final bill, being worked out this week, ends up penalizing immigrants.
>
> "Senate Democrats with the apparent support of the White House have rushed to deny undocumented immigrants the chance to use even their own money to pay for private health care," said Rev. Luis Cortes, president of Esperanza, the largest evangelical Latino organization in the country, on the conference call last week. "We are seeing a demonizing of immigrant people," he said, adding: "The political price is going to be high for both parties."
>
> "We were hopeful that the Democratic party which controls the Senate, and controls the House, and controls the executive wing was going to bring sanity to the conversation about immigration and comprehensive immigration reform," he said. "If this is the beginning of the conversation, all we can look at as Hispanic people . . . is to look at every election and try to punish every individual regardless of their political party who denies rights to legal immigrants as well as who tries to punish those who are the poorest and most defenseless people in the country."
>
> In addition to the ban on illegal immigrants' ability to participate in the health care exchange, immigrant advocates and Latino leaders worry that there's little discussion of ending the current 5-year ban on even legal immigrants access to Medicaid and other health benefits. Although Sens. Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) have all either sponsored or co-sponsored legislation to eliminate the 5-year waiting period, such proposals do not seem to be winning much support.
>
> "On the contrary, the outline of the bill released last week also suggested that there might be a two-year waiting period for any affordability credits for legal immigrants," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, last week. "Meanwhile, legal immigrants in households where some members are not documented will have only limited access to benefits. We've got to change the way this debate is unfolding," Rodriguez said.
>
> Sonal Ambegaokar, health policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said at a briefing on Monday organized by the National Immigration Forum that the markups of the bill could create a new 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to access the health care exchange.
>
> "U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants are also at risk of not receiving health care, although technically they'd be entitled to it. But as a practical matter, they rely on their parents to enroll them. Last time I checked 3rd and 4th graders don't go around buying health insurance for themselves, they get it from their parents," said Congressman Gutierrez. "To deny the parents is to deny their children."
>
> There are currently about 7 million legal immigrants in the United States without health care, and 4 million U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants, most of whom don't have health care either.
>
> Immigrant advocates are also concerned that the Baucus bill produced by the Senate Finance Committee will end up including costly and unreliable enhanced verification systems to require all participants to prove their immigration status. "Those verification systems may be fraught with errors that could eliminate eligibility for legal immigrants who should have access to tax credits," said Jennifer Ngandu, Deputy Director of the Health Policy Project at the National Council of La Raza, who participated in yesterday's policy briefing.
>
> TWI reported last year that new verification requirements for Medicaid had prevented tens of thousands of eligible U.S. citizens from enrolling in the program in just the first 18 months after it went into effect. A 2007 GAO report similarly found that states' extra verification requirements for Medicaid eligibility led to a significant decline in Medicaid enrollment among eligible recipients who had trouble proving their immigration status. In the meantime, the states incurred much higher administrative costs. A study conducted by the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform in 2007 found that for every $100 spent to implement the enhanced verification procedures, states could document only 14 cents in Medicaid savings.
>
> To Frank Sharry, Executive Director of Americas Voice, that "these health care reform efforts would lead to scapegoating of immigrants is not surprising. All of this started with anti-immigration groups working closely with Republicans to demagogue this issue," he said last week. "They've done it for years now on virtually every social policy issue. They've raised the fake issue of undocumented immigrants getting access to taxpayer-subsidized programs," he said, adding that he would like to see "Democrats standing up to these distortions. So far, that's not happening," he lamented. "It seems that the policy of health care reform is to dump on immigrants even if it makes bad policy because somehow its seen as politically expedient."
>
> But increasingly, immigrant advocates are warning that Democratic support for such efforts may not be such a politically savvy strategy after all.
>
> Daphne Eviatar is an award-winning journalist and a lawyer who covers legal issues for The Washington Independent.
Census Bureau News -- The Hispanic Origin Population in the United States: 2007 and 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 30, 2009
The Hispanic Origin Population in the United States: 2007 and 2008 —
National-level tabulations from the Current Population Survey on this
population group are shown by a wide range of demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics. They include information on the
generational distribution of the Hispanic population, as well as of
specific groups, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban. There are also
tabulations on educational attainment, nativity and citizenship status,
year of entry of the foreign-born, household type, labor force and
employment status, occupation, earnings and poverty, housing tenure,
mobility and health insurance status. Internet addresses:
2007
2007 figures
2008 figures
The Hispanic Origin Population in the United States: 2007 and 2008 —
National-level tabulations from the Current Population Survey on this
population group are shown by a wide range of demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics. They include information on the
generational distribution of the Hispanic population, as well as of
specific groups, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban. There are also
tabulations on educational attainment, nativity and citizenship status,
year of entry of the foreign-born, household type, labor force and
employment status, occupation, earnings and poverty, housing tenure,
mobility and health insurance status. Internet addresses:
2007
2007 figures
2008 figures
Charter Schools Fail Immigrants Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-sattinbajaj/charter-schools-fail-immi_b_305338.html
Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj and Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco
September 30, 2009
Over the course of the last two decades, charter schools have become a ubiquitous feature of the urban educational landscape. Their expansion is poised to continue under the Obama administration. According to the Center for Education Reform, forty states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws, and the U.S. Department of Education estimates that 1.4 million public school students, or 2.8 percent of the total, are currently being educated in charter schools. In New York State, the number of public charter schools has grown from five in 1999 to 141 in 2009. This September alone 21 new charter schools opened in New York City.
While charter schools appear to have strong support from the U.S. Secretary of Education, many state governors, big city mayors, and urban education leaders, they remain a highly contested educational policy. Each year, researchers produce reams of competing data about how the academic outcomes of students in charter schools compare to similar students in public schools, and ultimately, the results are inconclusive. The merits of charter schools have also been challenged in terms of their impact on race- and income-based school segregation. This becomes a tricky debate when the question of culturally-specific charter schools comes into play. What is not yet clear is how charter schools are serving the needs of our newest Americans: English language learner (ELL) children of immigrants.
Children in immigrant families are the fastest-growing sector of the school-age population in the United States today. Correspondingly, the number of ELL students has also risen dramatically in recent years. Between 1995-96 and 2005-06, the proportion of students in U.S. schools classified as ELL increased from 6.8 to 10.3 percent. Despite this massive population growth, remarkably few interventions have been designed with their needs in mind. In fact, there is evidence that ELLs may be systematically excluded from some of the newest educational innovations. Our recent analysis of New York State data showed that ELL students are severely underrepresented in charter schools across the state. While 7.4 percent of students in district public schools statewide were classified as ELL during the 2006-2007 academic year, they comprised only 2.1 percent of charter school enrollments. Moreover, sixty schools or 66 percent of all charter schools in New York State that year had no ELL students enrolled at all.
Disaggregating the data to the district level reveals alarming results as well. In New York City, for example, where fifty-seven charter schools were operating in 2006-2007, while 13.4 percent of students in the district's public schools were classified as ELL only 2.3 percent of students in charter schools were ELLs. Furthermore, our research revealed that the majority of ELLs served in New York City charter schools that year was in fact concentrated in a single school. Removing this one school from aggregate calculations lowers the 2006-2007 ELL charter school enrollment in New York City to a mere 1.5 percent.
Why the glaring mismatch between charter school enrollments and the growing English language learner population? Schools today are asked to meet increasingly rigorous standards while serving an ever more racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and linguistically diverse student population. Many school administrators have limited or no experience working with ELL students. It's an open secret that others are plainly afraid that these students will bring down their school's academic performance and drain resources. Immigrant families may also be unfamiliar with charter schools and may be unaware of the possibility of participating in a charter school lottery.
There are a variety of ways to address the failure of charters to serve ELL students. First, policy-makers should establish clear guidelines and benchmarks for ELL enrollment in charter schools along with smart incentives and supports. If the school leadership believes that serving ELLs will jeopardize long-term viability and if they do not receive adequate resources to meet these students' needs, they have no motivation to reach out and encourage them to participate in school lotteries. A number of exemplary schools already exist, and they can serve as models of how to effectively serve ELL students.
Focusing on language development, creating a school culture of shared responsibility for ELL student progress, developing structures for collaboration among teachers, using student data to inform academic foci, and investing in efforts to engage families are only some of the strategies that schools have developed and adopted. Policy-makers and educators alike should seek out these schools as thought partners, mentors, and models whose practices can be customized to fit each school and student population. An arduous task lies ahead, but charter schools must take the steps necessary to embrace an ever more diverse student population and adapt to the challenges and opportunities of education in the twenty-first century.
Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj is a Ph. D. Candidate at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco is the Fisher Membership Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ & the Courtney Sale Ross University Professor of Globalization and Education at New York University. Their forthcoming book, Educating the Whole Child for the Whole World, will be published by the New York University Press in the spring.
September 30, 2009
Over the course of the last two decades, charter schools have become a ubiquitous feature of the urban educational landscape. Their expansion is poised to continue under the Obama administration. According to the Center for Education Reform, forty states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws, and the U.S. Department of Education estimates that 1.4 million public school students, or 2.8 percent of the total, are currently being educated in charter schools. In New York State, the number of public charter schools has grown from five in 1999 to 141 in 2009. This September alone 21 new charter schools opened in New York City.
While charter schools appear to have strong support from the U.S. Secretary of Education, many state governors, big city mayors, and urban education leaders, they remain a highly contested educational policy. Each year, researchers produce reams of competing data about how the academic outcomes of students in charter schools compare to similar students in public schools, and ultimately, the results are inconclusive. The merits of charter schools have also been challenged in terms of their impact on race- and income-based school segregation. This becomes a tricky debate when the question of culturally-specific charter schools comes into play. What is not yet clear is how charter schools are serving the needs of our newest Americans: English language learner (ELL) children of immigrants.
Children in immigrant families are the fastest-growing sector of the school-age population in the United States today. Correspondingly, the number of ELL students has also risen dramatically in recent years. Between 1995-96 and 2005-06, the proportion of students in U.S. schools classified as ELL increased from 6.8 to 10.3 percent. Despite this massive population growth, remarkably few interventions have been designed with their needs in mind. In fact, there is evidence that ELLs may be systematically excluded from some of the newest educational innovations. Our recent analysis of New York State data showed that ELL students are severely underrepresented in charter schools across the state. While 7.4 percent of students in district public schools statewide were classified as ELL during the 2006-2007 academic year, they comprised only 2.1 percent of charter school enrollments. Moreover, sixty schools or 66 percent of all charter schools in New York State that year had no ELL students enrolled at all.
Disaggregating the data to the district level reveals alarming results as well. In New York City, for example, where fifty-seven charter schools were operating in 2006-2007, while 13.4 percent of students in the district's public schools were classified as ELL only 2.3 percent of students in charter schools were ELLs. Furthermore, our research revealed that the majority of ELLs served in New York City charter schools that year was in fact concentrated in a single school. Removing this one school from aggregate calculations lowers the 2006-2007 ELL charter school enrollment in New York City to a mere 1.5 percent.
Why the glaring mismatch between charter school enrollments and the growing English language learner population? Schools today are asked to meet increasingly rigorous standards while serving an ever more racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and linguistically diverse student population. Many school administrators have limited or no experience working with ELL students. It's an open secret that others are plainly afraid that these students will bring down their school's academic performance and drain resources. Immigrant families may also be unfamiliar with charter schools and may be unaware of the possibility of participating in a charter school lottery.
There are a variety of ways to address the failure of charters to serve ELL students. First, policy-makers should establish clear guidelines and benchmarks for ELL enrollment in charter schools along with smart incentives and supports. If the school leadership believes that serving ELLs will jeopardize long-term viability and if they do not receive adequate resources to meet these students' needs, they have no motivation to reach out and encourage them to participate in school lotteries. A number of exemplary schools already exist, and they can serve as models of how to effectively serve ELL students.
Focusing on language development, creating a school culture of shared responsibility for ELL student progress, developing structures for collaboration among teachers, using student data to inform academic foci, and investing in efforts to engage families are only some of the strategies that schools have developed and adopted. Policy-makers and educators alike should seek out these schools as thought partners, mentors, and models whose practices can be customized to fit each school and student population. An arduous task lies ahead, but charter schools must take the steps necessary to embrace an ever more diverse student population and adapt to the challenges and opportunities of education in the twenty-first century.
Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj is a Ph. D. Candidate at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development. Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco is the Fisher Membership Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ & the Courtney Sale Ross University Professor of Globalization and Education at New York University. Their forthcoming book, Educating the Whole Child for the Whole World, will be published by the New York University Press in the spring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)