Assigned Reading

Decisions like this one made by a Georgia middle school principal are what damage the reputation of public schools. Freshly out of prison and needing to do community service, rapper T.I. made an appearance at an assembly at Woodland Middle School in Henry County.

Still on probation for attempting to illegally purchase firearms, T.I. urged the students to stay in school and study. Undoubtedly the kids were thrilled to see such a celebrity, and perhaps his message will resonate.

But the real issue is that parents were not informed that a convicted felon, still on probation, would be a visitor to their children’s school. One parent, through e-mail, complained to the principal, and said he would have preferred an option; he didn’t believe his daughter should have attended the assembly.

Rather than attempt to show understanding for the parent’s concerns, or to consider making changes for future assemblies, the principal offered this snarky response:

I thought about asking a guy who snorted cocaine and got arrested for DUI when he was 30 to come and speak to our kids, but President George W. Bush was not available.

Not only was this principal, Dr. Terry Oatts, condescending to the parent, but incredibly disrespectful to the former president. This principal’s judgment certainly comes in to question.

The principal got to meet T.I., and introduce his celebrity “friend” to the student body. One wonders if, amongst all the incredible role models that could address students, this is why Dr. Oatts invited the musician.

Bill Felkner of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute got it right with his Sunday Journal commentary. He is wary of bureaucrats, armed with good ideas, seizing power from local schools and districts. Commissioner Deborah Gist is making positive changes, but in doing so is solidifying greater authority at the state level. Felkner argues on behalf of parents.

Ultimately, the balance of power must be shifted from government to the parents. This is the free-market approach to education reform: Instead of changes being centrally dictated by a mayor, superintendent or education commissioner, they are driven by the cumulative choices of individual parents. This ensures that purchasing power is in the hands of those with the most vested interest.

The new school-funding formula Gist proposes is the perfect opportunity to greatly expand choices for parents. A per-pupil formula would let the money be tagged to individual students, following them to any geographically reasonable public school, mayoral academy, charter school or even a private school.

The proposed funding formula does, in fact, attach money to students. Why not allow parents choice in determining where that money will be spent?

The legislature approved today a measure to increase the number of charter schools allowed in the state. And if success at the BV Mayoral Academy continues, expect to see more of these schools in the near future. These are real choices for parents.

As I have argued again and again, decision-making power should be ensured and maintained at the local level, within the school communities that know their students strengths and needs. Centralizing power, whether with the unions or bureaucrats, has the same effect; it hinders our attempts to provide kids with the very best education, the education they deserve.

There’s a great letter-to-the-editor in this week’s Valley Breeze. Cumberland parent Monica Pepin sent her son to the Democracy Prep charter last fall after his name was selected during the lottery. Mrs. Pepin was most interested in the full day program not offered in the public schools.

After two months, Mrs. Pepin removed her son from Democracy Prep (also known as the mayoral academy), and enrolled him in the local, half-time public kindergarten. In her letter she explains why the charter was not the right “fit” for her son and family.

And that’s the point. Mrs. Pepin had a choice. While Democracy Prep, or any other school, might have great success with some kids, it will not succeed with all. Sometimes one school is a better fit than another.

All parents should have the choice(s) Mrs. Pepin and her son had. More families should be able to find the right fit for their children’s education.

It’s convenient for adults to blame kids for the failures of the public education system. In a weekend letter-to-the-editor in the Providence Journal, 47-year veteran teacher Robert Salerno does just that.

I submit that they might learn that the problems of public education do not lie with the teachers but with the students themselves. Although many youngsters try to be good students, there are far too many who do not.

These boys and girls should be called “attendees,” ones who go to school but give little or no effort. Their numbers are larger than ever and I will leave it to our educational leaders to find out why this is happening in many areas of our state. These unmotivated students hurt their parents, classmates, school and society. According to the research, this begins to appear in middle school and becomes worse as these “attendees” move to the high school. This phenomena is not the fault of the classroom teacher.

As a teacher, I am sickened by this line of thinking. For too long, the adults that control public schools have allowed stagnation. Change has come too slow, if at all. Today students sit in the same classrooms where their parents and grandparents once sat, in schools where operations have changed very little.

While childhood has been revolutionized by technology, our schools remain antiquated structures incapable of providing what our students need for the 21st century. My classroom was constructed with only one pair of electrical outlets…one pair…located in the front of the classroom. An electrical strip was installed in the back of the classroom for a set of computers that is more than five years old. Televisions need to be rolled around on carts, and no access to cable is available. If I am able to pull together an LCD projector with a laptop that can plug into an ethernet port (no wireless), our network security blocks all streaming video.

So we teach the world using textbooks, even though our students can see it and experience it on television and the Internet in their own homes. In real time.

Teachers unions have done everything in their power to improve the conditions for teachers, even at the sacrifice of the students they teach. School days are roughly six hours long, regardless of what students need. Teacher mandated prep periods dictate schedules. Contracts limit what teachers can be asked to do, even when it is clear what kids need. Teacher evaluation systems over the years have been horrendous, no matter what the unionists might tell you. And the unions have sapped every dollar from local school budgets, resulting in deteriorated buildings and outdated technology.

Bureaucrats have reached into all facets of education, leveling mandates that make teaching our kids so difficult. Time is consumed by a ridiculous number of fire and intruder drills, health and wellness initiatives, state and local testing, endless paperwork, and a pet project from just about every bureaucrat with the power to require one. Not a week goes by without a period or two disrupted by some initiative, some do-gooder project, or something “special” that has little to do with the curriculum we are challenged to teach, and often has little impact on the students in our class.

And, or course, there are the parents. The adults who let their kids sit in front of televisions watching inappropriate programming or playing violent video games. They don’t check their kids’ backpacks each night; don’t visit schools for conferences or get involved in the parent groups. Parents who don’t follow up on homework, or classwork and don’t read newsletters from their kids’ teachers. Parents who don’t insist upon a sit down meal each evening and let their kids stay up (or out) until all hours of the night, even on school nights; dads who aren’t even involved in their sons’ lives.

Not all teachers or parents or bureaucrats are this bad. Many teachers and parents are doing the right thing (and probably a few bureaucrats here and there) for their kids. But still many are not. These are often the kids who are failing, the unmotivated kids, the “attendees” as Mr. Salerno refers to them.

Our kids have changed. But the adults refuse. To blame the kids is just another part of our failure to reach them, to teach them, and to care what their futures might hold.

If our kids aren’t learning, then we, the adults, our failing. It’s that simple.

Across the state and the nation, Cumberland mayor Dan McKee is receiving attention for his efforts to reform public education. He deserves the accolades. But Mayor McKee is not the only strong voice for education reform in the Blackstone Valley, as evidenced by Lincoln town administrator Joe Almond’s letter to the editor in the Valley Breeze. Mr. Almond takes school officials to task, rightly so, for expressing concerns about the financial impact charter school tuition could have on the district. He advocates for parental choice, and concludes with:

It is truly time for leaders to embrace innovative educational reform, respect parental choice, identify and implement needed cost savings, and collaborate to achieve a fair and equitable state education funding formula. The opportunity is rapidly disappearing, if officials fail to respond proactively to the fiscal severity of this situation, we will be exposing our students, parents, staff, and taxpayers to the reality of a fiscal meltdown in our schools!

Public schools are in desperate need of innovation. Until education leaders step up, expect more parents and students to gravitate towards charters.

What a waste. Officials in NY decided to give away more than $140 million to parents on welfare so they could buy school uniforms and supplies for their children. For each school-aged child, $200 was added to each welfare voucher card, money that could easily be converted to cash.

The result? Local stores reported this money was being used to buy video games, flat screen televisions, beer, cigarettes, and other none-school related items. Some parents readily admitted they would use the money to pay credit card and cable television bills.

The cash came from two sources: a $35 million donation from a philanthropist, and some $140 million in federal stimulus money. A spokesman for the state office administering the grant, Anthony Farmer, said, according to the NY Times:

“We can’t limit what people can buy with this. Ultimately, it’s a cash benefit. But we’ve timed the release of this to the back-to-school period. We’ve encouraged people to use it that way.”

More of our tax dollars are just given away. It’s simply called a “back-to-school grant” to make everyone feel better.

In her education column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Maureen Downey targets an issue that has been on my mind for quite some time, more so recently. (h/t)

The use of education jargon serves as a defense mechanism, to keep parents at bay and to establish from the onset who is the expert and who is the amateur. It becomes a way to silence questions and squelch opposition.

This year, as with most years, I have had a small group of resource students in my class, and have worked with one of our school’s resource teachers. Our team of professionals meets regularly, several times a year with parents, to discuss children’s progress and Individual Education Plans.

I’ve become increasingly frustrated with how complex these meetings have become. Although well intentioned, educational professionals often talk in jargon that sounds more appropriate for courtrooms, spoken my lawyers. A diagnostic/prescriptive teacher leads the team, and speaks on the requirements of the special education laws. A school psychologist rattles off numbers about tests and subtests, speech and occupational therapists provide further data, and the resource teacher informs parents of the results of a battery of academic tests. All of this data is supposed to determine what services a child needs, and can be offered.

In fact, these numbers are often meaningless to parents. At a recent meeting, I continually stopped team members and asked them to explain what these numbers meant. No parents were in attendance; I was interrupting the reports because I needed clarification. Imagine how a parent must feel.

I once sat through a rather long meeting, listening to report after report. The parents sat at the table and listened, but said nothing. After a while, the parents’ silence became deafening. I began to ask the professionals to explain what certain results meant, and clarified some things to the parents. When the meeting ended I walked them to the door and asked how they thought things went. The mother responded that she had no idea what anyone was talking about until they explained, near the end, that her son had made good progress and would soon be exited from special education services. That’s all they were hoping to hear.

The law is to blame for much of this. Federal requirements are specific, and failure to follow these guidelines can prove disastrous for a school district. But we cannot forget that the parents are the most important people sitting at the table of a team meeting.

Recently two members of our team bemoaned the fact that we had to send out parent notification of the next meeting, even though it was certain the parent would not attend. It was true that the parent had not attended any of these team meetings, but he did meet with me, and the principal, to discuss his child’s behavior. The difference? We agreed to meet at 5:00 pm. This father worked to provide for his children, and couldn’t afford to take time off to attend a meeting during the day. At our team, I requested that the next meeting be scheduled at 5:00 so the father could attend. The rest of the team, including the two members who had been complaining, scoffed at the idea. The meeting was scheduled for 11:00 am.

We must make our parents part of the team. Meetings should be easy for parents to understand and invite their participation. And meeting schedules should be determined by when parents can attend. Until we do so, we have no right to complain about the lack of parent involvement.