Education Reform ……Fact or Fiction?

” No matter how far you have gone on a wrong road, turn back. ” – Turkish Proverb

When we exam school reform we should look beyond improving current pedagogy, instructional best practice, schedule modifications and classroom management strategies. In its present state the American concept of educational reform fosters a system defined by the advantage of class and the social dynamics codified in the socio-economic construct. The concept of national reform founded on the premise that one size fits all has created a system that punishes the poor. The determination that a successful school is defined solely on disaggregated test data exacerbates the division between suburban and urban school systems. The students who attend urban public schools have unimaginable social constraints that have global implications. Consider the social-emotional effect of having test data from the students respective schools editorialized in newspapers throughout the state without any consideration of the perspective of urban youth who attend inner-city schools facing myriad environmental, societal, economic, and  academic challenges.

Dennis Littky, [The Big Picture]  challenges the veracity of the intent of bureaucrats who espouse national standards, ” if we care about kids more than we care about schools, then we must change schools.”  The focus on standardized tests and the adoption of  nationalized curricula portends the continuation of an outdated educational model. That policymakers refuse to acknowledge the world is changing is disturbing and speaks to an unyielding bureaucracy. In an article [One Size Does Not Fit All] published in the New York Times, Robert B. Reich pointedly observes that, “yes, people need to be able to read, write, and speak clearly. And, they have to know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. But given the widening array of possibilities, there’s no reason that every child must master the sciences, algebra, geometry, biology, or any of the rest of the standard high school curriculum that has barely changed in half a century.” It is hypocritical to demand a standardized packaged curriculum when children are not cloned monolithic beings. The current societal construct infers that individualism is an innate characteristic of a democratic society yet we refuse to shift the educational paradigm to reflect those attributes.

Is the National High Stakes Assessment Model a Panacea for Low Performing Schools?

“Rather than shouldering the risk of change, too many of our political and educational leaders rest behind the traditional system masking their lack of imagination with tough talk dodging their duty. Doing right by our children will require courage to think in new ways….” Ted Sizer

N.C.L.B. (No Child Left Behind) policies infer that the success or failure of an educational institution is based solely on the students’ performance on a single test. It seems unfathomable that educators would tacitly promote a one-size fits all concept as an accepted measuring standard when analyzing suburban and urban school testing data. To disconnect myriad societal and economic conditions from the discussion of urban students’ performance on national standards based assessments is a recipe for failure. Federal government officials tout the effectiveness of high stakes testing and are quick to use the data as indicators of an urban schools success or failure. It is counter to Dewey’s premise of the purpose of education where he argues that “providing the student with enjoyable learning experiences motivates them to continue learning.” Therefore, to force mandated standards-based assessments on dysfunctional urban public school systems whose pedagogical design is outdated without providing the necessary support mechanisms is thoughtless. Sadly, data-driven decisions that do not examine the student holistically will have dire implication upon students’ social/emotional welfare. The long-term effects of state mandated high stakes testing is that standardization creates inequities, widening the achievement gap between the quality of education for poor and minority youth and that of their suburban counterparts. The negative effects of standardized tests are magnified when the quality of educational content is compromised for students who have historically scored low on standardized assessments. The driving force in urban schools becomes teaching to the test and designing lesson objectives which reinforces drill-down and double-dosing techniques. The antithesis of rigor is the alignment of curricula to state mandated tests which belittles what can be taught. The conflict is most common in urban schools where students have traditionally scored low on standardized tests.

Careful analysis of test data reveals a direct correlation between scores and socio-economic status, yet, economic privilege and all of the benefits of such are not factored into the analysis of the assessment data of urban students. The students who attend such schools are further stigmatized when performance data is made public.  Therefore, the results of a single test should not be the sole indicator of academic success or failure of urban schools because such a notion supports the belief that minority students are academically disadvantaged. Thus furthering the premise shared by those who invoke the eugenics theory whenever standardization is thrust to the center of public scrutiny. Inner-city students’ sub par performance on national tests supports unfounded racial biases and it is disingenuous to juxtapose the scores of inner-city students and those of suburban students without analyzing  the social/emotional affect this may have on academic achievement. The challenge is that we must design positive learning environments that address the academic needs of all students regardless of the families’ socio-economic status. John Dewey’s apprehension regarding mandated educational reform, developed during the 19th century, is apropos even in the 21st century,” I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform. All reforms which rest simply upon the law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile….” Dewey’s prophetic observation is certainly something the education community should put it into context before we find ourselves in a societal quagmire where those with wealth and privilege deconstruct the, “great equalizer”, a public education.

Failure Is Not An Acceptable Option

“Leadership is about vision. But leadership is equally about creating a climate where the truth is heard and the brutal facts confronted.” Jim Collins - Good to Great

Deborah Meier posits, “the question is not, is it possible to educate all children well? But rather, do we want to do it badly enough?”  It is time we confront the real truths about public education if we expect to make radical change in our schools. Richard Elmore, observes that schools are protected by a “buffer” which perpetuates mediocrity and low academic achievement. In fact, the culture that exists in many under-achieving public high schools supports an unfounded premise that the unacceptable results are attributed solely to sub-par efforts of the students and a lack of parental support from their families. However, one will rarely hear educators accept that they are a major contributor in the educational malaise. Furthermore, examples of effective teaching is an anomaly. Nelson Mandela once said that, “education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Yet, public educational institutions remain resistant to radical change which exacerbates the poor academic results. In his book, Results Now, Mike Schmoker produced the results of a study which was based on 1,500 classroom observations [Learning 24/7. 2005]:

• classrooms in which there was evidence of a clear learning objective: 4 percent
• classrooms in which high-yield strategies were being used: 0.2 percent
• classrooms in which there was evidence of higher-order thinking: 3 percent
• classrooms in which students were either writing or using rubrics: 0 percent
• classrooms in which fewer than one-half of students were paying attention: 85 percent
• classrooms in which students were using worksheets (a bad sign): 52 percent
• classrooms in which non-instructional activities were occurring: 35 percent

Based upon the sobering statistics our society is in serious trouble and must look beyond the current national reform movement [NCLB] and explore radical options if we expect major improvements. The problem is that in the large comprehensive public high school, most educators function as independent contractors and not as a collective body of educators engaged in utilizing best practices. The effect of the “buffer” on the educational success of at-risk students and their teachers is phenomenal. There are cases where teachers have created rigorous classrooms where students’ academic success abounds yet, they were ridiculed by staff members for trying to make the other teachers “look bad.” However, the students see it quite differently, “The mark of a good teacher is that no matter how weird or boring you might think their subject is, their love for it is what pushes you to learn something. The fact that their eyes are glowing when they talk about it makes you want to know something about it.” Vance, “Fires in the Bathroom”, [Kathleen Cushman] Urban schools must become positive learning communities if we expect substantive change in the outcomes and test data. We must develop learning centers that presuppose “all children can learn” if we want to transform our urban schools into centers where inquiry and learning become the pedagogical norm we must redesign the culture to create conditions that support learning. The most challenging aspect of school reform are contributing factors that impede the transformation;

• People do not like change. For the most part many teachers are tired of being asked to reassess their teaching style.
• State/federal mandates confound the process. Many initiatives counter best practices and remain a challenge for teachers/administrators.
• Many educational leaders are confused about the best course of action to take.
• There is  always a buffer which impedes the progress.

Acquiring consensus is a monumental hurdle school systems are unable to navigate. While, Michael Fullan observes that, “educational change is technically simple and socially complex” the reality is that there are myriad conflicts that hinder a seamless transition from a low-performing school to a high achieving academic center. Creating positive learning environments requires that we focus our resources and attention on developing centers that accentuate students’ creative imagination. With change there is opposition, which seems to be a natural occurrence when an accepted norm is challenged even if the norm is counter productive to the needs of the students. The those who lead the national educational reform movement posit test data reflects the success/failure of a school system which adds to the conundrum. The reality is we must redesign the paradigm and shift from a teacher-centered system to a learner-centered system which accepts that heterogeneous classes allow students with diverse learning styles to prosper in a supportive milieu. We can ill-afford to design schools that do not support the children we are charged to educate yet, society chastens when confronted with financing urban education for children who have historically been denied the opportunity of attending schools that provide a thorough and efficient education.

“The ethos, ritualized practices, and role models of any school are major determinants of the success or failure of students.” L. Janelle Dance, Tough Fronts; the impact of street culture on schooling.

Urban Schools

“There’s a reason no one comes to school; there’s got to be some interesting classes! The only interesting class at my old school was graphics, and that class was always full. So there was really nothing to do, ever. I have a friend who hates school, he leaves every day, but he makes sure he’s back for third period because he likes the class.” Mikaela, “Sent To The Principal” – Kathleen Cushman

The administrators, who lead urban schools, must become more responsive to the needs of the community they serve if we expect substantive change. Pedro A. Noguera posits, “schools where academic failure is high and where low achievement is accepted as the norm, and schools that isolate themselves from the neighborhoods they serve because they perceive the residents as “threatening”, tend to undermine the social capital of the community.” Therefore, administrators charged with leading under or low-performing schools must consider radical strategies if they expect systemic change. In many urban schools classrooms are not opportunities for young people to develop meaningful relationships instead the public school system is largely concerned with peripheral issues like classroom management, school climate, parental involvement and student expectation. While, these issues are relevant they are underlying effects of what happens in the classroom when students are not engaged. “My tenth-grade bio-science teacher had faith in me when all my other teachers thought I was just a lost cause. He told me, “I know you’re smart when you want to be. You just have to want to do it.” He prepared me for what it’s going to be like in college and in the eleventh-grade.” Andres, “Fires in the Bathroom”, Kathleen Cushman. In fact, the opening citation speaks to the issue succinctly and clearly, young people want to be engaged in the classroom and want school to be interesting.

However, parents are often excluded from the reformation process, which limits public schools from experiencing opportunities to explore building true collaborative relationship with parents and community stakeholders. Educators must provide the necessary leadership in developing rewarding academic experiences for students.To experience academic success in urban schools it is imperative that parental involvement be at the center of all discussions if one expect to collaboratively reconstruct the public school system. Collectively, we face challenging opportunities as we begin to design learning environments that foster creativity and individualism in our public school system. Educator James J. Palmer notes, “a learning space should not be filled with abstractions so bloated that no room remains for the small but soulful realities that grow in our students’ lives. In this space there must be ample rooms for the little stories of individuals stories of personal experience in which the students’ inner teacher is at work.” If one expects to deconstruct the current school design it will require vision and resolve which many urban school leaders lack. The sobering reality is that urban school leaders are besieged with administrative minutiae attributed largely to the school’s dysfunctional infrastructure.

Large comprehensive  high schools exacerbate the suppression of ideas and awareness of self and is the antithesis of what schools are supposed to do. Urban school leaders must invoke a sense of urgency which will serve as the impetus for educators to develop curricula that engages students’ interests. Through the collaboration of students, teachers, and community stakeholders we will cultivate a culture of learning, as well as, assist teachers with creating classrooms that allows students the opportunity to develop their voice.

“What is true is that we choose voices to hear and voices to silence.” – bell hooks.

Deconstructing a culture of failure

“It is the premise of the framework for teaching that it is important for students-all students- to acquire deep and flexible understanding of complex content, to be able to formulate and test hypotheses, to analyze information, and to be able to relate one part of their learning to another.” Charlotte Danielson

Failure is not an option that public school officials should contemplate as an acceptable result of the redefined socioeconomic landscape. In fact, as the social construct is redesigned one must look beyond the current malaise affecting public education. A thorough analysis of [student] test data reveals that establishing relationships with students remains an important factor in developing a positive learning community. Increasing rigor in the classroom is certainly a daunting task to develop in a low-performing high school but it is not impossible. Low-performing schools must revisit the schools mission if one expects to create a positive learning culture focused on high academic success. While high-achieving public schools have clearly established a cult of personality that demonstrates success. Conversely, low-performing urban schools established under achievement as the common denominator. To foster an environment where academic success becomes the norm, urban high schools must have courageous leadership. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Courage faces fear and thereby masters it; cowardice represses fear and is thereby mastered by it.”

Highly successful leaders who turn failing schools around demonstrate an unwillingness to accept failure as an option. Consider that Donaldson notes, “low-performing schools demonstrate a leadership resistant architecture where there is a conspiracy of busyness that leaves little time to convene people to plan, organize, and follow through.” The reality is that leadership is often a lonely role many people are unprepared to assume, in fact, those charged to lead public schools must lead by the heart if they expect success. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal write, “leadership is a relationship rooted in community. Leaders embody their group’s most precious values and beliefs. Their ability to lead emerges from the strength and sustenance of those around them.” Those who lead urban public schools must make decisions that change the lives of the young people while, assuring sustained high academic achievement.

As we deconstruct the framework of the large comprehensive urban high school and reconfigure the complex impersonal bureaucratic system with small learning communities we will create academic opportunities of greatness. Pedagogic  issues should dominate the national discussion however, the national conversation cannot move beyond high stakes testing as the model without first establishing positive and caring relationships with students. The paradigm shift from a teacher centered educational focus to that of a student centered learning environment which employs research based strategies. Ultimately, the redesign will improve academic achievement and the facilitate the reconfiguration of a large high school into small learning communities.The recentering of the national educational focus from the high stakes testing mania poses a daunting challenge for those who view ones academic journey as opportunities to develop inquiry based.

Creating a Society of Learners

Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.  James A. Garfield (1831 – 1881), July 12, 1880

Students who attend urban educational centers often transcend myriad obstacles and life-affirming challenges to obtain a high school diploma. While many young people aspire to attend college and obtain a degree they often lack many of the skill sets necessary to continue their academic journey. Robert Maynard Hutchins theorizes, “The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.” The current state of education presupposes that all students have a full understanding of the severity of living in an ever-changing capitalistic society without a college degree. I challenge those who purport this premise and juxtapose the inaccurate assessment with that shared by   Thomas Jefferson who posits,” if the condition of man is to be progressively ameliorated, as we fondly hope and believe, education is to be the chief instrument in effecting it.”

As an urban educator I witness the effects of socioeconomic misfortune as young people attempt to overcome catastrophic predicaments regardless how insurmountable the dilemma may pose. It is imperative that urban educators create classrooms that are positive learning environments which will affect change in the lives of young people who aspire to live successful lives. The students who attend urban schools do so with the assumption that they will find success within the halls of academe and that the instructors who work there will prepare them to continue their educational passage.

The foundation of a students educational journey is acquired during their odyssey through secondary education however, societal norms of gloom and doom often preclude urban youth from realizing their dreams and goals. Careful analysis of data identifies a glaring disconnect between public education addressing the  students academic/social- emotional needs and pedagogical theory. The challenge that confounds educators is how does one achieve what Ralph Waldo Emerson opined…… “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

An Education Deferred

“Part of a teachers job is giving teenagers the practice at that independence-not just controlling the kids in their classes but actually giving them more ability to try things out for themselves.” Mahogany [student] “Fires in the Bathroom”, Kathleen Cushman

The right to a public education is obligatory to all citizens, however, more than twenty years ago the U.S. Department of Education published a study in 1983 which identified that we were a Nation at risk, “our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. The report, “A Nation at Risk”, identified that, “our society and its educational institutions seemed to have lost sight of the basic purpose of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort to attain them.” If one juxtaposes the 1983 study, “A Nation at Risk”, and a federally funded report [1965] by Senator Patrick Monyhian, “The Negro Family:The Case For National action”, it provides fodder for a stimulating examination of American public education.

The 1965 study identified myriad reasons as to why African-American youth, who attended urban schools, were not attaining academic success at the same rate as their suburban counterparts. Yet, forty-two years later we remain in a conundrum as to redefining the actual purpose of attaining a public education. Upon further analysis, ” a Nation at Risk”, placed the responsibility for the nation’s rapid academic decline in the international marketplace on a dysfunctional public educational system. The sad reality is that we have yet to embrace educational reform in the manner it was intended. The fact remains that we find our society at an academic crossroad, which forces educators to question the manner in which urban and suburban public school systems are funded. Certainly, a daunting challenge to say the least, yet, our society refuses to acknowledge the prescient summations of both studies.

In his book, “The World Is Flat”, Thomas Friedman notes,”In the flat new world, educational opportunities are limitless, even without help from school, government, churches or business. Much of what you need to know about pretty much everything is out there on the Web somewhere-especially if you are a technologist. Yes, the Web isn’t everywhere. But it’s in all places, and the flatness is spreading.”

The education reform movement has not kept pace with the redefined didactic paradigm and we are currently facing an unfathomable social dilemma. Furthermore, federal requirements have not kept pace with the needs of the larger society and the inflexible public education model contributes to a lack of leadership at the national level. There must be critical analysis of all educational policies and their summative effect upon the national reform movement. In fact, large comprehensive public schools must be deconstructed and reconfigured if we are expected to address the needs of students in the twenty-first century.

Deborah Meier, founder of the Coalition of Essential Schools, posits, “for a century or more, reformers have been fiddling with how to improve on a paradigm of schooling derived from another age and intended for a very different purpose. Thousands of years of history suggest that the schoolhouse as we know it is an absurd way to rear our young; it’s contrary to everything we know about what it is to be a human being.” Too many students are falling thorough the cracks and we must dismantle the large comprehensive high school and create small educational communities that will allow students to feel as if they are individuals and members of positive learning communities. If we are to redefine the educational landscape, educators must begin to think of themselves as learners too.

It is interesting that educators often say parents are their kid’s first teachers yet exclude them from the formative analysis of their child’s educational journey. All stakeholders participating in the discussion of ways to create positive learning communities for students attending large public high schools is the course we must traverse if we have hopes of transforming our educational perspective. Imagine, teachers, administrators, parents and students participating in the reformation of public education. It is an enlightening notion and is often omitted from the national discourse. Friedman opines, “Give me a kid with a passion to learn and a curiosity to discover and I will take him or her over a less passionate kid with a high IQ every day of the week. Because curious, passionate kids are self-educators and self-motivators. They will always be able to learn how to learn, especially on the flat world platform, where you can both download and upload. Some kids are born that way, but for the many who are not, the best way to make kids love learning is either to instill in them a sense of curiosity, by great teaching, or stimulate their own innate curiosity by making available to them all the technologies of the flat-world platform so they can educate themselves in an enormously rich way.”

In his book, “The Big Picture”, Dennis Littky notes, “no single measurement or tool can get at what’s really important in any area of learning. and the current push for one test that every kid has to pass in order to move to the next grade or graduate makes the whole situation even sadder.” It is as if school boards and legislators do not appreciate the innate stimulus and aspiration inherently laden in a student’s query. However, our obsession with high stakes testing and packaged curricula drives pedagogy even if the process denies students the opportunity to evolve into inquisitive learners.

“I never liked chemistry or physics or anything, but one day I brought in a Stephen Hawking book on the history of the universe-I asked the teacher about it. He was talking about light, about how it’s in packets, and how you can use light to turn chemicals into certain things. So I asked: “Couldn’t you theoretically turn something into anything?” And he said: No. That’s science fiction,” and went on with his class. And I’m thinking: But Stephen Hawking said that-this is the only thing I have to contribute-I practiced all night to say this-” And so I just put my head back down on the desk.” Vance [student] “Fires in the Bathroom”, Kathleen Cushman

Separate and ‘Unequal’ …..The New Jersey Abbott School Funding Formula

The public school system in New Jersey remains one of the most segregated by student poverty and race in the country validating the urgency for fundamental change. The dilemma is further complicated when one juxtaposes the disaggregated test data of suburban and urban students illuminating myriad inequalities based upon race and wealth. At the epicenter, the socioeconomic disparity between suburban dwellers and those who live in urban centers continues to widen which, unfettered, will ultimately manifest itself in all phases of the students’ educational journey. The duplicitous machinations of legislators and state officials exacerbates a contentious relationship between those whose children attend urban schools and their suburban counterparts who send their children to suburban institutions. It is alleged that Abbott districts spend the most per pupil in New Jersey, even more than wealthier suburban districts. State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy last month told the NJ Supreme Court that Abbott districts are spending $16,407 per pupil, but the wealthy suburban districts are only spending $13,703 per pupil, which is slightly above the state average of $13,209. Do, Abbott districts spend the highest amount of money per pupil in the state of New Jersey? The reality is that it is only a myth. The truth of the matter is that Abbott schools have extremely high numbers of poor students, English language learners, and students with other special needs, while suburban districts have fewer of these students which factors into the economic dilemma. The problem is centered around the fact that students with special needs cost more to educate because they need tutoring, additional academic support and supplemental services. The wealthier districts have fewer special needs students, therefore, the district can spend more of its overall budget on regular education students. In fact, it is projected that Abbott districts will spend $10,377 per pupil while wealthier suburban districts will spend $11,278 per pupil in the 2008-2009 school year. The truth is that New Jersey’s wealthy suburban districts are the highest spending school districts per pupil, and will outspend Abbott districts by $901 per pupil. The challenge confronting urban administrators requires that building administrators provide leadership and professional development to empower staff, stakeholders, parents and students with the redesign of urban schools. It is essential that the community lead the transformation of inner-city schools into positive learning environments. The lens through which urban youth deconstruct their educational experience is unfortunately, much different from that which is used by students attending schools in wealthier districts. Urban youth are faced with failing standards, fears of violence in schools, the seemingly demise of family values, and the inability to shed the premise that urban youth epitomize a monolithic culture. Urban youth subsist at or below the poverty line because no other ethnic group in the history of this country has ever experienced the sustained degree of residential segregation as African-American urban residents. The racial isolation exists at unprecedented numbers and one shudders when confronted with the reality that there has been minimal improvement in the socioeconomic standing of minorities throughout the state. State officials mislead the public when they bemoan that the Abbott schools mismanage public funds and are disingenuous when ill-conceived statements extolling the fact that urban schools have reached an equitable financial status with suburban schools. The financial disparity between the urban and suburban school funding formula reflects concerns of a much larger issue that if allowed to remain undiagnosed will prolong the crisis.

Is it ever about the children?

“I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.” – John Dewey

In 1973, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared, in Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273, that New Jersey’s school funding statute was unconstitutional because it violated the “thorough and efficient education” requirement of the state constitution. Since that decision, the supreme court has issued over a dozen school finance opinions, the latest in February, 2008. The reality is that school finance drives policy and practice in public education, yet most parents and many taxpayers  know very little about how their schools are funded. New Jersey officials are reconfiguring the  Abbott school funding formula to address the financial challenge of funding public schools equitably. However, the challenge of balancing expectations between suburban and urban schools of higher levels of education with the values of equity, efficiency, and economic growth, remains a daunting exercise.

Raising school taxes in urban areas is very difficult for myriad reasons. In some cities, because the development of new housing is minimal, there are fewer options for raising property-based school taxes. In addition, many city councils often attempt to attract commercial real estate interests with the incentive of abatement’s and exemptions. The sad reality is that, low-income urban residents do support their schools and it is often the poorest citizenry who pay the most. Urban students, particularly those in high poverty areas who also suffer from the effects of racism  and historical deprivations, require special services if they are to be given an equal educational opportunity. These programs substantially increase educational costs (Murphy & Hack, 1985; Steller, 1987).

There must be money available for teacher renewal, curriculum development and administrative innovations. Yet, the recent legal maneuvering by the state legislature displays a complete disregard for the students, parents, and community members who support urban schools. Many public urban schools received at best, a 2% increase in state aid for the school year 2008-2009, however, when one factors in peripheral costs, i.e. contractual salary adjustments, cost of living, etc. in reality the marginal increase is actually a deficit. Therefore, radical cost cutting measures must be implemented to offset the deficit and in most cases the end result  affects the needs of the students adversely. Whether, it be a reduction of staff members, larger class sizes, condensed after-school academic support programs or fewer extracurricular activities. The support services provided to students who attend urban schools cannot be sustained as school leaders are forced to grapple with inadequate state policies to meet the financial shortfall.

Many politicians opine that “it is about the children” however, it is never solely about the children but issues commonly centered around esoteric meandering concerning the educational needs of children. How can one reduce state aid to the districts that desperately need it the most? How can one deliver a “thorough and efficient” education when state aid is reduced to levels that limits the ability to provide a quality education? The reform of educational finance systems is underway in New Jersey and the will of the voiceless remain silenced as decisions are made without recognizing the fact that the educational needs of young people must be addressed if we expect to create positive learning environments for urban youth.

“This is a major step forward for education reform in our state,” said Education Commissioner Lucille E. Davy.  “The new funding formula ties together a number of initiatives that the Governor and the department have been working on for two years:  It helps to ensure that all of our children are prepared for success in the 21st century world by providing for an equitable distribution of resources and it increases the resources we are providing.” The Abbott plaintiffs were a mixed group: 20 children – 10 African-American, nine Hispanic, and one white – from 10 families in Camden, East Orange, Irvington and Jersey City.  Some, like Raymond Abbott, the sole white plaintiff, came from middle-class families committed to staying in the inner city; others were growing up poor. Would they feel the current funding formula provides a “thorough and efficient” education for students who attend urban schools?

Are we willing to change?

As we close out this school year many administrators will sit in bewilderment after noting the high number of students assessed a failing grade in the [final] marking period progress reports. I find it reprehensible that some educators find it acceptable to assign failing grades to more than two-thirds of their students. It may sound as if I am pandering students and parents alike, however, the fact of the matter is that as John Merrow, posits in his article, “Student Tests and Teacher Grades [Wall Street Journal, 05/09/08, pg. A-15] “public education lives in an upside-down universe where student outcomes are not allowed to be connected to teaching.”

I found it quite revealing that the juxtaposition of student assessment strategies with teaching abilities raised some interesting questions that Merrow raises in his article:

• Suppose a swimming instructor told his 10-year-old students to swim the length of the pool to demonstrate what he’d taught them, and half of them nearly drowned? Would it be reasonable to make a judgment about his teaching ability?
• Or suppose nearly all the 10-year-old students in a particular clarinet class learned to play five or six pieces well in a semester? Would it be reasonable to consider their achievement when deciding whether to rehire the music teacher?

The author observes that, “only an idiot would overlook student performance, be it dismal or outstanding.” Yet, while some would argue that educational reform is an oxymoron we must explore other options if we expect any substantive change in student assessment data.

Merrow notes, that until recently, “New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein could consider whether teachers successfully used analysis of available student performance to improve their teaching when he was deciding whether to grant tenure.” Yet teacher unions, across this country, remain adamant in their collective assessment that it is unacceptable to correlate the students’ success or failure and the classrooms teacher’s performance. Which I feel is a major factor in our inability to remove ineffective teachers. In fact, I conclude that a major contributor to the poor test scores is attributed to the less than adequate teaching staff whose main responsibility is to educate the youth. This assessment is slightly controversial in that many teachers refuse to acknowledge their effect in the classroom is of utmost influence. The author indicates that many educators take the position that, “there is no independent or conclusive research that accurately measures the impact of an individual teacher on a student’s academic achievement.” However, consider that one teacher x 150 students spread out over the tenure of a 30 year teacher = 4,500 students. If you take that number of students and apply it against just 10 teachers you will have possibly affected 45,000 young people. Of course the effect does not have to be solely negative, however, the results of the student test data remain a conundrum for the young people who remain in low-performing high schools. It seems to be very unfair that the students who need it the most are most likely to be educated by less than stellar teachers for myriad reasons:

• Could not find a job anywhere else
• Inexperienced first year teacher
• Alternate route educator
• Does not possess highly qualified teaching certification

While the reasons may seem to be flippant the reality is that one very rarely finds these types of teachers existing in high performing public high schools. Furthermore, I posit that if state officials implemented a merit based salary guide which made it financially rewarding for teachers to take positions in low and under achieving public high schools I believe we would see improvements in student performance immediately. I recognize that in order for this to occur we will have to deconstruct the manner in which we assess successful teaching. I know this requires a leap of faith yet we must step out of the box if we expect to reconfigure low/under performing schools.