Saturday, August 27, 2016

Black Families in Georgia Are Choosing to Homeschool

Black Families in Georgia Are Choosing to Homeschool

During the 1950s and 60s, America’s black families fought a difficult battle to integrate the public schools, hoping to give their children a better education. Because of this hard-won victory, many black parents have been strong supporters of public schools in the subsequent decades.

But that support may be changing.

According to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, an increasing number of black families are leaving public schools for the same reason they once embraced them, and are instead gravitating to homeschooling.  

Quoting a former public-school-teacher-turned-homeschool-mom named Nikita Bush, The Monitor explains this movement:

“Despite the promises of the civil rights movement, ‘people are starting to realize that public education in America was designed for the masses of poor, and its intent has been to trap poor people into being workers and servants. If you don’t want that for your children, then you look for something else,’ she says.”

Bush is not alone in thinking that the public schools are keeping minority children from reaching their potential. According to a poll released in 2016 by The Leadership Conference Education Fund, minority parents “strongly reject the notion that students from low-income families should be held to lower standards.” In fact, “Nine-out-of-ten African Americans and 84 percent of Latinos disagree that students today work hard enough and instead believe that students should be challenged more to help ensure they are successful later in life.”

Research backs up the opinion that minority children can be challenged to do better – and even do better – in a homeschool environment. A 2015 study conducted by Brian Ray found that black homeschool students scored in the 68th percentile in reading, the 56th percentile in language, and the 50th percentile in math. By contrast, black public school students scored in the 25th, 30th, and 28th percentiles of the same areas (chart).

But while many would admit that these improvements are terrific, many would also be quick to question whether or not a homeschool scenario is feasible for black families, particularly since more than 65 percent of black children are born into single-parent homes. How can black parents manage to work and support their children while simultaneously homeschooling them?

The answer to that, The Christian Science Monitor explains, may be found in Georgia:

“In most states, home-schooling parents tend to be dual-parent and middle- or upper-income … enabling one parent to stay home and teach the kids.

But Georgia is different, says Cheryl Fields-Smith, a professor of education at the University of Georgia. While most states prohibit homeschooling parents from teaching anybody except their own children, Georgia has no such restriction. That has given rise to co-ops, where, in essence, groups of parents serve as rotating teachers, based on their own skill sets, talents, and fortes.

That, Professor Fields-Smith says, has allowed single black moms to band together to give their children an education that they say better reflects their values and history – while still being able to work.”

What’s clear is that parents – even traditional public school supporters – are growing tired of their children coming out of the system with subpar educations.

Is it possible that homeschooling – and the higher academic achievement which seems to accompany it – might be more accessible to more families if other states adopted Georgia’s model and enabled parents to band together and lead their children to success and a bright future?

Image Credit: Xynn Tii bit.ly/1iowB8m



Sent from my iPhone

Common Core isn’t preparing students very well for college or career

Common Core isn’t preparing students very well for college or career, new report says

Student desks in Chandni Langford’s fifth-grade classroom, in Woodbury, N.J., on May 2. Langford wrote inspirational messages directly on the desks before students started four days of Common Core-aligned tests. (Crystal Ramirez via AP)

A new report that surveys curriculum nationally and reaches thousands of K-12 and college instructors as well as workplace supervisors and employees has some bad news about the Common Core State Standards: Many people in education and the workplace don’t think some of the English Language Arts and math standards — which are being used in most states — are what students and workers need to be successful in college and career.

Common criticisms about Common Core

Play Video1:35

Common Core started out as a push by states to improve learning standards, but it has made education an even more contentious issue. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

The report, issued by ACT Inc., finds:

• There are gaps between some Core standards and what college instructors consider important for students to succeed — especially in the area of writing. For example, middle- and high-school teachers say that they have been emphasizing analyzing source texts and summarizing other authors’ ideas as required by the Core, but college instructors say they value this much less than the “ability to generate sound ideas — a skill applicable across much broader contexts.”

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

• Many elementary school teachers continue to teach math concepts that are not included in the Core standards for their grades but that they think are important.

• While some teachers have changed their instruction significantly to align with the Core, many haven’t.

• Though the Core standards were designed to prepare students for college and career, the survey found that many workplace supervisors and employees believe skills necessary for success are not part of the Core. Specifically, they say that the No. 1 skill that ensures success is “conscientiousness.”

The 2016 ACT National Curriculum Survey® looks at educational practices and college and career expectations, with results taken from surveys completed by thousands of K-12 teachers and college instructors in English and writing, math, reading, and science. This year, ACT asked workforce supervisors and employees to complete the survey too to see what specifically is being taught in these subjects at each grade level and what material is deemed to be important for college and career readiness.

The Common Core standards were designed to prepare students for successful career and college experiences, but the study shows that there are gaps between vision and reality. In a statement, Marten Roorda, chief executive officer of ACT Inc., said that the study’s conclusions are not intended as a “rebuke” of the Core, but that they “highlight the disconnect between what is emphasized in the Common Core and what some college instructors perceive as important to college readiness.”

[Education researchers blast Common Core standards, urge ban on high-stakes tests

In March, more than 100 education researchers in California issued a brief saying that there is no “compelling” evidence that the Common Core State Standards will improve the quality of education for children or close the achievement gap, and that Common Core assessments lack “validity, reliability and fairness.” The researchers, from public and private universities in California — including Stanford University, UCLA, and the University of California at Berkeley — said in a brief that the Core standards do not do academically what supporters said they would and that linking them to high-stakes tests harms students.

Originally created and adopted by almost all states with bipartisan support, the Core has become increasingly controversial, with people at different ends of the political spectrum criticizing the initiative for different reasons. Some educators and researchers questioned the way the standards were written (whether, for example, there was any or enough input from working teachers) while others criticized the content of the standards, especially for young children. Some critics said standards-based education has never been shown to work well to improve academic achievement. Others said the Obama administration’s involvement in the initiative usurped local authority. The subject of the Core even became fodder for comedians, such as Louis C.K., who tweeted that the Core was negatively affecting his daughters in school.

[Actually, Louis C.K. was right about Common Core — Diane Ravitch

Here are some of the conclusions from the report:

1. There are discrepancies between some state standards and what some educators believe is important for college readiness.

Although standards are developed to help ensure that all students graduate from high school ready for college and career in English language arts and mathematics, some results of the ACT National Curriculum Survey suggest that some state standards may not reflect college readiness in some aspects.

In English Language Arts finding 2, high-school teachers and perhaps some middle-school teachers may be emphasizing certain approaches to writing over others due to a concern for source-based writing in response to the Common Core State Standards. But if so, college instructors appear to value some key features of source-based writing (the ability to analyze source texts and summarize other authors’ ideas) much less than the ability to generate sound ideas — a skill applicable across much broader contexts.

Screen Shot 2016-06-09 at 3 39 50 PM

In Mathematics finding 1, some early elementary school teachers report that they are still teaching some of the topics omitted from the Common Core State Standards at certain early grade levels, perhaps in part because the teachers perceive that students are entering their classrooms unprepared for the demands that later mathematics courses will make of them.

Also in finding 1, less than half of middle-school and high-school teachers believe that the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics are aligned “a great deal” or “completely” with college instructors’ expectations for college readiness.

2. Calculator use is quite prevalent in the K-12 mathematics classroom.

According to Mathematics finding 2, most K-12 teachers teach students how to use calculators to perform computations and graph equations, and teachers in later grades commonly allow students to use calculators on classroom exams. This is true even as these teachers also continue to value and teach the skill of executing mathematics processes without the aid of technology.

3. There may be disagreement across K-12, college, and workforce about which mathematics topics are important to success in postsecondary STEM coursework and STEM careers. In K-12, there may also be disagreement about when these topics should be introduced in the mathematics curriculum.

Mathematics finding 4 indicates that although middle-school and high-school teachers generally agree about what mathematics skills are important to success in STEM courses and careers, college instructors or workforce respondents ascribed much less importance to those skills. In addition, many mathematics teachers in grades 4-7 report including certain topics relevant in STEM coursework in their curricula at grades earlier than they appear in the Common Core and the Next Generation Science Standards. Perhaps these teachers fear that delaying these topics will prevent their students from success in later STEM coursework, or perhaps there is a lack of cross-content coordination with science to streamline what knowledge and skills are required of students at each grade.

4. Science educators believe that science achievement is best assessed using science assessments.

In Science finding 5, science educators in middle school, high school, and college overwhelmingly prefer a dedicated, standalone test that asks students to engage with authentic scientific scenarios (such as the ACT science test) as the best method of assessing student achievement in science.

5. Overall, workforce respondents appear to value a unique set of knowledge and skills as important to success in the workplace.

Results from both the Workforce portion of the ACT National Curriculum Survey 2016 and the education portions suggest that some of what workforce supervisors and employees value or do not value as important to entry-level success is not easily categorized, and sometimes perhaps unexpected. For example:

— Workforce finding 2 shows that majorities of both supervisors and employees place high value on the somewhat unusual skill of understanding the ethical use of information.

— According to Workforce finding 3, supervisors and employees report that workplace communication relies more heavily on face-to-face communication than on written communication. And, perhaps in keeping with this finding, workforce respondents also place high value on speaking and listening as contributors to positive outcomes for employees on the job. In addition, two of the six most highly rated workplace communication skills relate to the demeanor with which the employee presents information.

— As discussed in English Language Arts finding 1, supervisors indicated that employees in entry-level positions should be able to write narrative texts as well as informational and persuasive texts. Supervisors also value an employee’s ability to tailor communications to enhance understanding and to reconcile gaps in understanding.

— Mathematics finding 2 shows that workforce respondents value facility with certain kinds of technology (e.g., calculators, graphing calculators, equation editors) much less than educators do.



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, August 22, 2016

School superintendents mostly quiet about state takeover possibility

School superintendents mostly quiet about state takeover possibility

Atlanta school chief has a 4-step plan to stop the violence

The fight against the governor’s Opportunity School District is missing some notable warriors: local school superintendents.

Some school boards are taking a stand, but there’s not a stampede of outraged superintendents to Nathan Deal’s door. Rather than rail against the inevitable, superintendents may feel their time is better spent fortifying their own struggling schools to prevent takeover.

DeKalb and Atlanta Public Schools, the districts most susceptible to losing schools to the OSD, have chosen fortification. Steve Green of DeKalb and Atlanta’s Meria Carstarphen are rolling out reforms to bolster the case they’re better positioned to repair schools than an appointed OSD czar. Fast-tracking improvement plans in targeted schools has become the priority, rather than barnstorming against OSD.

Meeting with the AJC editorial board recently, Georgia Federation of Teachers President Verdaillia Turner faulted school chiefs for failing to use their bully pulpits to castigate the OSD. She did not hesitate to ascend her own pulpit to chastise the two superintendents.

In turning over some struggling APS schools over to charter school groups, Carstarphen is doing what she was hired to do, said Turner: “Privatize the schools.” Carstarphen disagreed, saying Friday, “I was hired to put APS back on track and to help turn around our lowest-performing schools, with no preconceived ideas for what it would take to do so. There is absolutely no plan to privatize APS; my focus is on ensuring that our kids receive the quality education they deserve so that they are positioned to have choice-filled lives.”

Turner said Green sees DeKalb as another rung on his career ladder, adding, “Superintendent Green came from Kansas. He is going to leave DeKalb County. We are here to stay.”

In response, Green said, “I have been and will continue to be adamantly opposed to any form of state takeover of local education, no matter what it is called. The battle that I fought, lead, and won to prevent state takeover of the Kansas City Public Schools speaks for itself.”

Even if the odds favor OSD approval, Turner said more Georgia superintendents ought to stand with Clarke County Superintendent Philip D. Lanoue in speaking out against it. “They should do what’s right,” she said.

Lanoue has laid out the basics of the appeal to voters to reject the state-takeover plan, stating, ”We need to help you build your community around your school and we can do that outside the Opportunity School District. But if you vote this in, what you’ve said is that you’re giving the responsibility to educate your children to someone else.”

The 2015 National Superintendent of the Year, Lanoue has been more willing than many of his colleagues to criticize the governor and Legislature. Last week, Cherokee Superintendent Brian Hightower also took a public stand against the OSD and its reliance on test data to label schools as failing, saying, “How can the state seriously consider overriding local control of a community school based upon a metric that changes each year. They’re using a metric that’s seriously flawed, and this is as high-stakes as it gets.”

Turner described the OSD as a tsunami that will devastate communities by seizing schools. “It won’t stop with a 100 schools,” she said. “People do not understand this will take away our local control. If you don’t like your board of education, vote them out.”

Turner said she understands some people are frustrated with the pace of reform in Georgia, but she blamed the chronic underfunding of education, the historical top-down nature of state reforms, the marginalization of teachers in reform discussions and a refusal to acknowledge the impact of poverty on student achievement.

With the political clout behind the OSD, Turner said she knows she’s facing “a Goliath and all I have is a slingshot.”


Stop Close Reading

NOTE: Some of the best reading in this article are the comments at the end. Don't fail tinted the comments!

Stop Close Reading

For a while now, middle school and high school English classes throughout the nation have been teaching something called "close reading"--with varying degrees of success. "Close reading" is about taking a chapter, a page, a paragraph, or even a single sentence, and picking it apart to extract meaning or see what the author is doing. It's a vehicle for teaching students about cadence and imagery, hopefully leading youthful minds to appreciate the complexity of authors' thoughts.

We should end it. Students almost universally hate close reading, and they rarely wind up understanding it anyway. Forced to pick out meaning in passages they don't fully grasp to begin with, they begin to get the idea that English class is about simply making things up (Ah yes--the tree mentioned once on page 89 and then never again stands for weakness and loss!) and constructing increasingly circuitous arguments by way of support. (It's because it's an elm, and when you think elm, you think Dutch elm disease, and elms are dying out--sort of like their relationship, see?)

So what would happen if we ditched this sacred teaching technique? For starters, we could help students read more. Close reading has been behind the trend of reading fewer books, but reading them more slowly. What the attentive reading proponents ignore is that many students are in danger of failing to see the literary forest for the trees. Speeding things up might make it easier to grasp--and appreciate--the overall arc of a book, while allowing the opportunity for real connection with the characters and plot. You can't do that at the pace of a chapter a week. 

Furthermore, aiming for fifteen books a year, rather than five, might expose the students to more good literature (immersion in quality prose being one of the best ways of learning writing) and increase their chances of finding a book they like. There would still be plenty of opportunity to point out metaphors and similes. We'd also have more time for grammar, rhetoric, and composition--the building blocks of the language we're supposed to be teaching. If the goal of an English class is to improve students' grasp of language, introduce them to great literature, and--hopefully--get students excited, then there's really no downside to this approach. With 12th grade reading ability in depressing straits nationwide, we've certainly little to lose.

If a few students really want to do close reading, they can do it as an elective or jump in head first in college. Otherwise, let's chuck the concept. We gain nothing by teaching kids to hate books--and hate them s-l-o-w-l-y.



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Why white students need black teachers — by a white teacher

Why white students need black teachers — by a white teacher

(iStock)

One of the key arguments often given for why it is important to increase the diverse of America’s teaching force is that students of color do better academically when they have teachers of color. A 2010 study titled “Diversifying the Teaching Force: An Examination of Major Arguments” found that “teachers of color use their insider knowledge about the language,culture, and life experiences of students of color to improve their academic outcomes and school experiences.”

In this post, a white teacher explains why it is also important for white students to be taught by people of color. She is Ashley Lamb-Sinclair, the 2016 Kentucky Teacher of the Year. Lamb-Sinclair is returning to full-time classroom teaching this fall after a sabbatical working with the Kentucky Department of Education. She teaches high school English and creative writing, and authors the www.beautifuljunkyard.com website. She is also the founder and chief executive officer of Curio Learning, an educational technology company launching a platform for teacher professional development.  (Twitter handle: @AshleyLambS)

[Teacher: I’ll ask a pilot how to fly a plane, not a CEO. Why won’t policymakers listen to educators?

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

By Ashley Lamb-Sinclair

Robert Trumbo was the first person to ever tell me I was going to be a teacher. He didn’t just suggest it, he almost commanded it, or at the very least prophesized it. I sat in his AVID class (a class to help students gain skills for college readiness) helping a fellow student with his essay, and Mr. Trumbo said to me, “You’re a teacher, Ashley Lamb.”

I believed him, even though I openly disagreed at the time, mostly because Mr. Trumbo was one of my most respected teachers and his presence in my life was almost mythology. He had taught my mother and aunts and was one of their favorite teachers too. If Mr. Trumbo told you something, you’d better take heed.

He demanded that all of his students memorize their Social Security numbers because “trust me,” he’d say, “you’re gonna need it.” He explained to us the importance of maintaining “good credit,” something I remembered ashamedly when I started piling on my own credit card debt in college. Mr. Trumbo would become unreasonably furious when someone passed gas in his classroom, storming around spraying Lysol and doing his best not to curse, much to our amusement.

He was the only teacher I ever saw cry. Our high school suffered the tragic loss of two students in a drunk driving accident, and I will never forget the crack in Mr. Trumbo’s voice when he brought up the parents who had lost a child. We knew Mr. Trumbo had suffered his own unspeakable tragedy, and in that moment, he wasn’t Mr. Trumbo–my teacher, the myth–he was a man who had lost his son.

And Mr. Trumbo was the person who openly and thoughtfully talked to me, a young white girl, about being a black man.

I wasn’t isolated from black people. I grew up next door to a black family who took me in as one of their own. One of the oldest girls was my babysitter, the youngest boy my best friend. I went to church with them, and I often spent the night at their house. Throughout my life, my schools were diverse–pretty much fifty-fifty black and white students. My exposure to people of a different skin color was much broader than many other young white Americans experience. White students tend to attend schools where they are in the majority, and “white students rarely attend schools where they make up less than 25 percent of the enrollment.”

Yet, even though I did have some insight, how could I have possibly understood the experience of black Americans unless someone took the time to speak openly about it with me? Mr. Trumbo did that.

As a white teacher who currently teaches in a primarily white school, I find myself encountering issues of race all the time, and ill equipped to address them. When teaching “To Kill a Mockingbird,” I inevitably face a classroom full of white students who want to debate the pros and cons of using the n-word in the text. Or worse, they want to ignore it.

Or when we read “The Other Wes Moore” and students want to discuss current events similar to those in the book such as the recent police shootings of black men, and suddenly I, a white female, find myself in front of inquiring young minds who need perspective to help them make sense of what they read on social media or hear from their peers. But I can’t explain to them what it feels like to be a black person in America.

Mr. Trumbo reached me one tragic morning because he helped me understand what it feels like to lose a loved one, and I have never forgotten it. And when he hit pause on an important scene in “Roots” and explained the context of that moment with his own life experience, we understood a little more what it felt like for Mr. Trumbo to be a black man and all the history that came with that. What would happen if our white students in our primarily white schools across the country had the opportunity to empathize with a respected adult who could speak with experience about issues of race?

Yet, as many of our schools have grown more diverse, our teaching population has grown more white. Many argue that this is an issue especially for minority students who benefit from having teachers who look like them. Obviously, students of color need teachers of color, but from experience I know the importance of white students having teachers of color too, especially in our current political climate when bullying has been on the rise in schools.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Teachers have noted an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates on the campaign trail.” We need minority educators in these classrooms who can bring perspective to the words and actions of bullies who prey on those of other ethnicities.

But, the thing is, Mr. Trumbo wasn’t just black. He was a phenomenal teacher. He pushed us. He saw who we really were. He made us laugh, and he sometimes had to make us cry. Occasionally he even made us angry, but we respected him as a person and as an educator first and foremost. But because he was a great teacher and a black man, the white students in his classes had a person of color who was also a person of authority and expertise.

It is difficult to believe generalized racist comments when a human being who defies them stands before you every day. The answer to this problem isn’t simply recruiting minority teachers just to increase the numbers of minority teachers, but to provide pathways for everyone capable of becoming a phenomenal teacher to be given the opportunity and autonomy to do so.

My mother’s father once said to her, “I would rather see you in a casket than for you to ever date a black man.” He forbade  her from listening to Fats Domino, one of her favorites, because he was a black man who dated white women. She grew up in a home where it would have been easy to accept and repeat racist stereotypes as truth. But she had Mr. Trumbo in high school, and she loved him. He was a human contradiction to the rhetoric she might have otherwise believed.

What would happen if every white student in the United States were taught by a Mr. Trumbo? I would like to think that racist rhetoric would be much harder to swallow and much more difficult for our young people to speak.



Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Defeat by distraction. That’s the Common Core game plan.

Once again, Denis Ian, you nailed it! The squeaky wheel gets oiled. The compliant parent gets screwed. That's just the way it is. Be squeaky until you achieve the desired outcome. THAT's the name of the game!

Defeat by distraction. That’s the Common Core game plan.

Every new school year renews the resistance to the Common Core reform. And parents new to this experience find themselves slathered in information and fear. Once upon a time we were the tenderfoot class … now we should act as sweet sages.

Every day brings another avalanche of studies, statistics, findings, and stuff. More babble. More white noise. More jargon. More junk-speak. All on purpose.

The strategy is simple. Complicate the reform issue with fleshy gibberish and endless jabberwocky. Scare ordinary folks. Make the issues seem too, too deep and too, too heavy for folks busy enough with all that parenthood demands. 

The greatest fear of the reform mob is parents. 

Parents own infinite passion when it comes to their children. And if lots and lots of parents glue themselves together, well, this reform morphs into mighty. That’s not the sort of muscle educrats, politicians, and local board members want to confront. Remember that … they fear you. 

And parents new to this resistance should remember this. 

Don’t be seduced by every morsel of information that gets dressed in glitter-words. Don’t be intimidated by edu-blather or fat-words. 

Stay simple and stay on the issues that matter: Resist federal control. Protect childhood. Refuse the testing trap. Reclaim your schools.

Remember:  No children, no reform. Your cooperation is your trump-card. If you don’t play, the game ends. 

A caveat to the old-timers in this resistance. 

Embrace newcomers as you were once embraced. Soothe new and nervous parents with warm reassurances that they have saddled-up with a child-centric confederacy of warriors who protect children … theirs included. And then tutor them slowly … and warn them of nonsense-overload. 

The reformists are deceivers. Their strategy is to dazzle us with nonsense-junk. To unbalance us and to blur the simple truths. 

They want our schools. They want our children. They want to politicize and profitize education … and have you foot the bill … and have your children pay the price. No way. 

Avoid the information over-load  … and listen to your heart. That drum in your chest always speaks the truth. Follow that beat.

Denis Ian




Thursday, August 18, 2016

American Educator Exposes the Fraud of Common Core

American Educator Exposes the Fraud of Common Core

Classroom
(Reuters photo)

Dr. Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, has a must-read book entitled Drilling through the Core: Why Common Core Is Bad for American Education. Common Core is the education fad that swept the nation with the deceptive slogan "higher standards." Everyone is for "higher standards," right? However, the word "higher" did not mean higher intellectual content of the standards, but a higher percentage of students passing them. Simple math shows that the easiest way to get more students to pass a test is to lower the standards (or the passing score).

This goal was revealed in a famous "white paper" that Common Core architects wrote for the Carnegie Corporation. The education establishment quickly accepted the theory that new standards would help close the "achievement gap" between minority kids from poor families and students from middle-class homes.

Well, the results are now in. Far from closing the gap, Common Core makes the achievement gap even worse. In 2010, Kentucky was the first state to sign up for Common Core's allegedly "higher standards," with the help of federal money from the Obama administration. By 2012, Kentucky had fully implemented the standards and was administering statewide assessments aligned to Common Core. The results for the 2015 school year in Kentucky were recently published. Over three-years, the performance gap between black kids and white kids expanded to 27% in reading and to 24% in math. Now that the damage has been done to Kentucky's lower-performing students, it's easy to see why. Common Core math is based on the theory that students are expected to discover math principles for themselves, instead of memorizing time-tested math shortcuts that almost everyone can easily learn.

Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debates on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative.

3 Reasons Why you should read Life in the Spirit. 1) Get to know the Holy Spirit. 2) Learn to enter God's presence 3) Hear God's voice clearly! Go deeper!

Has God called you to be a leader? Ministry Today magazine is the source that Christian leaders who want to serve with passion and purpose turn to. Subscribe now and receive a free leadership book.

Your Turn

View/Add Comments



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Why We Desperately Need To Bring Back Vocational Training In Schools

Why We Desperately Need To Bring Back Vocational Training In Schools

Instructor helps a student participating in a woodworking manufacturing training program in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Photographer: Tim Boyle/Bloomberg Charlie Negron

Throughout most of U.S. history, American high school students were routinely taught vocational and job-ready skills along with the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. Indeed readers of a certain age are likely to have fond memories of huddling over wooden workbenches learning a craft such as woodwork or maybe metal work, or any one of the hands-on projects that characterized the once-ubiquitous shop class.

But in the 1950s, a different philosophy emerged: the theory that students should follow separate educational tracks according to ability. The idea was that the college-bound would take traditional academic courses (Latin, creative writing, science, math) and received no vocational training. Those students not headed for college would take basic academic courses, along with vocational training, or “shop.”

Ability tracking did not sit well with educators or parents, who believed students were assigned to tracks not by aptitude, but by socio-economic status and race. The result being that by the end of the 1950s, what was once a perfectly respectable, even mainstream educational path came to be viewed as a remedial track that restricted minority and working-class students.

The backlash against tracking, however, did not bring vocational education back to the academic core. Instead, the focus shifted to preparing all students for college, and college prep is still the center of the U.S. high school curriculum.

So what’s the harm in prepping kids for college? Won’t all students benefit from a high-level, four-year academic degree program? As it turns out, not really. For one thing, people have a huge and diverse range of different skills and learning styles. Not everyone is good at math, biology, history and other traditional subjects that characterize college-level work. Not everyone is fascinated by Greek mythology, or enamored with Victorian literature, or enraptured by classical music. Some students are mechanical; others are artistic. Some focus best in a lecture hall or classroom; still others learn best by doing, and would thrive in the studio, workshop or shop floor.

And not everyone goes to college. The latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that about 68% of high school students attend college. That means over 30% graduate with neither academic nor job skills.

But even the 68% aren’t doing so well. Almost 40% of students who begin four-year college programs don’t complete them, which translates into a whole lot of wasted time, wasted money, and burdensome student loan debt. Of those who do finish college, one-third or more will end up in jobs they could have had without a four-year degree. The BLS found that 37% of currently employed college grads are doing work for which only a high school degree is required.

It is true that earnings studies show college graduates earn more over a lifetime than high school graduates. However, these studies have some weaknesses. For example, over 53% of recent college graduates are unemployed or under-employed. And income for college graduates varies widely by major – philosophy graduates don’t nearly earn what business studies graduates do. Finally, earnings studies compare college graduates to all high school graduates. But the subset of high school students who graduate with vocational training – those who go into well-paying, skilled jobs – the picture for non-college graduates looks much rosier.

Yet despite the growing evidence that four-year college programs serve fewer and fewer of our students, states continue to cut vocational programs. In 2013, for example, the Los Angeles Unified School District, with more than 600,000 students, made plans to cut almost all of its CTE programs by the end of the year. The justification, of course, is budgetary; these programs (which include auto body technology, aviation maintenance, audio production, real estate and photography) are expensive to operate. But in a situation where 70% of high school students do not go to college, nearly half of those who do go fail to graduate, and over half of the graduates are unemployed or underemployed, is vocational education really expendable? Or is it the smartest investment we could make in our children, our businesses, and our country’s economic future?

The U.S. economy has changed. The manufacturing sector is growing and modernizing, creating a wealth of challenging, well-paying, highly skilled jobs for those with the skills to do them. The demise of vocational education at the high school level has bred a skills shortage in manufacturing today, and with it a wealth of career opportunities for both under-employed college grads and high school students looking for direct pathways to interesting, lucrative careers. Many of the jobs in manufacturing are attainable through apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and vocational programs offered at community colleges. They don’t require expensive, four-year degrees for which many students are not suited.

And contrary to what many parents believe, students who get job specific skills in high school and choose vocational careers often go on to get additional education. The modern workplace favors those with solid, transferable skills who are open to continued learning. Most young people today will have many jobs over the course of their lifetime, and a good number will have multiple careers that require new and more sophisticated skills.

Just a few decades ago, our public education system provided ample opportunities for young people to learn about careers in manufacturing and other vocational trades. Yet, today, high-schoolers hear barely a whisper about the many doors that the vocational education path can open. The “college-for-everyone” mentality has pushed awareness of other possible career paths to the margins. The cost to the individuals and the economy as a whole is high. If we want everyone’s kid to succeed, we need to bring vocational education back to the core of high school learning.

Also on Forbes:



Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

The Common Core Costs Billions and Hurts Students

The Common Core Costs Billions and Hurts Students

FOR 15 years, since the passage of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind act, education reformers have promoted standardized testing, school choice, competition and accountability (meaning punishment of teachers and schools) as the primary means of improving education. For many years, I agreed with them. I was an assistant secretary of education in George H. W. Bush’s administration and a member of three conservative think tanks.

But as I watched the harmful effects of No Child Left Behind, I began to have doubts. The law required that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency as measured by state tests or face harsh punishments. This was an impossible goal. Standardized tests became the be-all and end-all of education, and states spent billions on them. Social scientists have long known that the best predictor of test scores is family income. Yet policy makers encouraged the firing of thousands of teachers and the closing of thousands of low-scoring public schools, mostly in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

As the damage escalated, I renounced my support for high-stakes testing and charter schools. Nonetheless, I clung to the hope that we might agree on national standards and a national curriculum. Surely, I thought, they would promote equity since all children would study the same things and take the same tests. But now I realize that I was wrong about that, too.

Six years after the release of our first national standards, the Common Core, and the new federal tests that accompanied them, it seems clear that the pursuit of a national curriculum is yet another excuse to avoid making serious efforts to reduce the main causes of low student achievement: poverty and racial segregation.

The people who wrote the Common Core standards sold them as a way to improve achievement and reduce the gaps between rich and poor, and black and white. But the promises haven’t come true. Even in states with strong common standards and tests, racial achievement gaps persist. Last year, average math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress declined for the first time since 1990; reading scores were flat or decreased compared with a decade earlier.

The development of the Common Core was funded almost entirely by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It was a rush job, and the final product ignored the needs of children with disabilities, English-language learners and those in the early grades. It’s no surprise that there has been widespread pushback.

In 2009 President Obama announced Race to the Top, a competition for $4.35 billion in federal grant money. To qualify, states had to adopt “college and career ready standards,” a requirement that was used to pressure them into adopting national standards. Almost every state applied, even before the specifics of the Common Core were released in June 2010.

The federal government, states and school districts have spent billions of dollars to phase in the standards, to prepare students to take the tests and to buy the technology needed to administer them online. There is nothing to show for it. The Race to the Top demoralized teachers, caused teacher shortages and led to the defunding of the arts and other subjects that were not tested. Those billions would have been better spent to reduce class sizes, especially in struggling schools, to restore arts and physical education classes, to rebuild physically crumbling schools, and to provide universal early childhood education.

Children starting in the third grade may spend more than 10 hours a year taking state tests — and weeks preparing for them. Studies show that students perform better on written tests than on online tests, yet most schools across the nation are assessing their students online, at enormous costs, because that is how the Common Core tests are usually delivered. Computer glitches are common. Sometimes the server gets overloaded and breaks down. Entire states, like Alaska, have canceled tests because of technical problems. More than 30 states have reported computer testing problems since 2013, according to FairTest, a testing watchdog.

Standardized tests are best at measuring family income. Well-off students usually score in the top half of results; students from poor homes usually score in the bottom. The quest to “close achievement gaps” is vain indeed when the measure of achievement is a test based on a statistical norm. If we awarded driver’s licenses based on standardized tests, half the adults in this country might never receive one. The failure rates on the Common Core tests are staggeringly high for black and Hispanic children, students with disabilities and English-language learners. Making the tests harder predictably depresses test scores, creating a sense of failure and hopelessness among young children.

If we really cared about improving the education of all students, we would give teachers the autonomy to tailor instruction to meet the needs of the children in front of them and to write their own tests. We would insist that students in every school had an equal opportunity to learn in well-maintained schools, in classes of reasonable size taught by expert teachers. Anyone who wants to know how students in one state compare with students in other states can get that information from the N.A.E.P., the existing federal test.

What is called “the achievement gap” is actually an “opportunity gap.” What we need are schools where all children have the same chance to learn. That doesn’t require national standards or national tests, which improve neither teaching nor learning, and do nothing to help poor children at racially segregated schools. We need to focus on that, not on promoting failed ideas.



Sent from my iPhone