Education

Bedford High School offers the International Baccalaureate program for Juniors and Seniors.  Other schools in NH are also considering adopting this program into their curriculum. 

Bedford school administrators and board members have given their approval of this program but what always seems to be missing is, the controversial baggage that comes with IB.
 
How will teachers deliver a program containing such extreme political overtones?  The IBO makes it clear that the Administration must be on board with the philosophy of the IB program.

Looking at the IB web site raises many concerns.  For instance at the 21st IB Asia-Pacific Annual Regional Conference (http://www.ibo.org/ibap/conference/2006regionalconf.cfm) members of the IB community gathered to present topics on "values education".  
 
American students lack the competitive edge in areas like math and science.   How does "values education" address lack of math and science skills?  Who’s values are they assessing and more importantly, what are the values of the IBO?

The conference included a presentation on "Values education and Becoming Fully Human".  Absent in the presentation is a focus on students achieving academic excellence.  What you will note is the reference to the increase of relativism and fundamentalism and the IBO’s need to address this problem.
 
On page 10, the IBO criticizes religious fundamentalists by mocking their religious beliefs, "The assertion that we alone have the truth about morality and religion and everyone else is wrong."
 
There is a definite implication, that fundamentalism is a problem that the IBO needs to address.  Address where?  In the NH classrooms?  Do the fundamentalist Christians know that the IBO sees them as a problem that needs to be addressed in the classroom?
 
On page 29 it states that

"fundamentalism is as much alive in the west as in the east". 

Oh really?  In what way?  Because I’m missing the American Christians committed to suicide bombings.
 
In the next paragraph it goes on to say:

Read more

That seems to be the consensus among educators whenever someone addresses the problems in education.  The standard response always seems to be: education is under funded.  What many people do not know is, in one school district, this theory was put to a test. 

The Kansas City experiment is well known in the education circles however many outside probably never heard of it.  [Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment]
 
A judge in Kansas City suggested that the school district come up with a "cost is no object" education plan then turned to state and local politicians to fund it.  This would be the big test to either prove spending more money works, or it would disprove the theory that so many critics had discounted as a real solution.
 
Kansas City spared no expenses and did just what they were ordered to do.  They increased teacher salaries, opened several new schools, and even built an Olympic sized swimming pool.  They lowered the student/teacher ratio to 13 to 1 which was the lowest of any large school district in the county. 
 
When all was said and done, the amount spent was 2 billion dollars. 

One would think after doing all that "needed" to be done, there would be significant improvement.  Unfortunately that was not the case.  The results were dismal. 
 
This experiment ended up being a costly embarrassment to those who once spouted the NEED for an increase in spending to improve education.  Scores did not improve and the racial divide did not diminish.  This was a set back for those who believed money would solve these problems. 
 
Now one would think that this issue would be put to rest given the glaring results that showed education did not improve when spending was drastically increased.  Unfortunately that is not the case.  Even today politicians and school administrators continually cite money as the main source of their problems. 
 
I would suggest that much of the problems in education boil down to a few major issues.  Sure there are others, but when you look past the "lack of funding" excuse, what you find are, curriculum problems, lack of discipline in the schools, and the loss of local control as some of the main problems.
 

Read more

Families and companies all around the country are cutting expenses in these tough economic times.  Surprisingly, many state governments are doing the same.  I guess they figured out that spending like there’s no tomorrow gets us in a financial mess. 
 
I’m wondering if our New Hampshire schools will be doing the same? 

Taxes have increased in many towns and now many residents are cutting their expenses.  It would only be reasonable for our school districts to do the same. 
 
Next year Bedford implements a new program in the high school called The International Baccalaureate Program (IB).  Other schools in New Hampshire are also considering the adoption of this program too.  IB comes at an extremely high cost to the tax payers and may benefit a small number of students.
 
Some schools report an annual expenditure of over $100,000 for this program while other schools have reported over $500,000 as their annual expense which includes hiring additional staff like an IB Coordinator. 
 
The Bow school district is considering this program right now, and hosted a meeting with the parents and taxpayers to determine whether or not they should go forward and adopt the program.  The community was invited and many expressed genuine concerns on whether or not this program was a good idea for the students given it’s high cost and controversial political nature.  
 
The Concord Monitor reported in April that Bow had suspended the application after hearing from the "outraged" community.
 
Outside New Hampshire at www.Cherryhill.com in the article titled Debate Heats Up, the Superintendent is recommending phasing out the expensive program. Their annual expense is over $500,000.00 per year. The article goes on to report only 19% of the residents support it. 
 
In an article titled "Broughton’s IB program to end soon",  the Wake County School district in North Carolina voted to also phase out the $500,000 plus program citing they could offer a quality education without the extravagant price tag.
 

Read more

I wonder how many parents are sitting around the kitchen table trying to  help their children with their math homework.  It used to be that children in elementary school could come home and if they needed help, they could turn to their parents.  With the infusion of New or Fuzzy mathematics in many of the New Hampshire classrooms, many parents have no idea how to help their kids.  
 
First let’s look at WHY this seems to be sweeping this state like the plague.  For those who do not know how the No Child Left Behind Act works, essentially schools are now held accountable to state standards.  Not a bad idea to have accountability among our public schools.  The problem is that many of our states have set poor academic standards, mathematics included.  The NH assessment (NECAP) is based on poor math standards per the Mathematicians at the Fordham Foundation.    
 
New Hampshire set the math standards and geared them in a New/Fuzzy direction.  Another name for this approach to learning is: Constructivism.  This is an ideology where the student essentially is left to discover math rather than giving them direct instruction.  In addition to believing children can discover math on their own, these programs introduce children to confusing and time consuming algorithms that many parents never learned.  There was no need to learn them, the traditional algorithm worked well.  What changed?  Some people think that learning four different ways to add, subtract, multiply and divide is a good idea. 
 
The problem is, many students become confused and often times, never fully master one of those concepts, leaving them deficient in basic math skills.  In addition to these common problems and because this is so time consuming, these student begin falling behind their peers who use a more traditional systematic approach to learning math.  Of course you also have the issue of parents who are unable to help their children with their homework.  This is even more of an issue for children who maybe in a situation where parental involvement is lacking or simply not there. 

Read more

Should students be able to graduate after completing 10th grade?  That is now being discussed in the New Hampshire Dept of Ed, as reported by some of the NH papers.  I sit here amazed that anyone would ask that question.  What’s more bothersome is that we have adults, paid by NH residents, who think this is a good idea. 

NH Education Commissioner Lionel Tracy is now floating the idea of graduating some students upon completion of 10th grade.  He says that the test, which has not been produced yet, would be a difficult test modeled after the AP or IB tests and that 10th graders would have to pass this exam in order to graduate early.  Isn’t the NH Education Department the same branch of government that thinks the NECAP is a good indicator of proficiency in math and science?  Yet we have some of the top mathematicians and scientists who have given their expert analysis indicating our standards are some of the worst in the country.  How can we trust the validity of this test when our own standards lack substance? Thomas B. Fordham Institute – Publication Detail

The article goes on to say that those who want to go on to prestigious universities can still graduate after 12th grade and take an even tougher exam.  That translates to lower expectations and standards for the graduating 10th graders.  On one hand Tracy says these 10th grade students who graduate would be held to high standards and have to pass a rigorous exam.  Then he goes on to say that the bar is higher for those graduating 12th grade.  If the bar is set higher for 12th graders with a more difficult test, logic dictates it’s lowered for 10th graders because less would be required of them.

Why would parents want to subject their child to missing out on two years of education?  Especially since it is their taxes that have paid for it?  I did not notice anything about Tracy saying taxpayers would get a refund on those tax dollars saved.

This sounds like a cost cutting measure that once again, does nothing to help the students of NH.  It does sound wonderful for companies out there looking for full-time, unskilled workers making one wonder who Governor Lynch is working for:  the New Hampshire students and parents or simply trying to meet the needs of a global workforce.

Read more

We don’t need no edgukashun!

.

Doug, 

.

Another great article on how schools are training kids to fail in the world that works. The source is Education News.

.
This is the introduction:

For many urban youth in poverty moving from school to work is about as likely as having a career in the NBA. While urban schools struggle and fail at teaching basic skills they are extremely effective at teaching skills which predispose youth to fail in the world of work. The urban school environment spreads a dangerous contagion in the form of behaviors and beliefs which form an ideology. This ideology "works" for youngsters by getting them through urban middle and secondary schools. But the very ideology that helps youth slip and slide through school becomes the source of their subsequent failure. It is an ideology that is easily learned, readily implemented, rewarded by teachers and principals, and supporting by school policies. It is an ideology which schools promulgate because it is easier to accede to the students’ street values than it is to shape them into more gentle human beings. The latter requires a great deal of persistent effort not unlike a dike working against an unyielding sea. It is much easier for urban schools to lower their expectations and simply survive with youth than it is to try to change them.

The “ideology” taught in these urban schools is:

• Nowness.(What is the unit of school learning time?)
• Showing Up.(What is the minimum standard of satisfactory work?)
• Make Me.(Who is accountable for what students learn?)
• Excuses.(How often can you be late or absent and still be passing?)

Read more

Dear Board members,

.

Hate to tell you but in just a year, you’ll be negotiating another teacher contract. This year, you’ll be negotiating two contracts: Support Personnel and Custodians.  Those are the bad news. 

.

The good news is that other people are thinking and writing about collective agreements and the impact that current methods used to compensate teachers in collective agreements have on the overall cost of education. One such report was highlighted in this week’s issue of The Education Gadfly, published by the Fordham Foundation.  This is their review:

Frozen Assets: Rethinking Teacher Contracts Could Free Billions for School Reform

 
Education Sector
Marguerite Roza
January 2007 

This paper by the insightful and prolific Marguerite Roza analyzes eight common provisions in teacher contracts, showing how each contributes to overall education spending. For example, experience-based pay accounts for about 10 percent of the more than $500 billion America spends on K-12 education annually. Salary increases linked to educational credentials (e.g., a master’s degree) and class size limitations each account for about 2 percent. The other contract provisions account for smaller percentages–sick, personal, and professional-development days; teachers aides; and excess health and retirement benefits (above those provided in other professions) each tally between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of total spending. Of course, even 1 percent of $500 billion is a big number, which brings us to the report’s fundamental assertion. We spend billions on teacher perks with little or no evidence that the money is spent wisely, or wouldn’t be better used to recruit stronger teachers, reward the best teachers, or target resources to the neediest students. This paper is best read as a national overview; it doesn’t dig into specific examples or variations between states or districts. But it poses key issues. Have we made optimal tradeoffs in our public-education budgets or are they simply haphazard accumulations of myriad decisions made in years past? You already know the answer. But the unions don’t want to hear it. The Washington Post caught Antonia Cortese of the AFT saying that the report was "on thin ice for its sweeping … and often inaccurate" assertions. Reg Weaver of the NEA could only repeat his favorite mantra when asked about the report: "fully fund public education." One hopes more substantive discussions are occurring somewhere. One can be confident that Dr. Roza will keep raising such issues and for that we are grateful. The report is online here.

by Eric Osberg

This is the Introduction to the report: 

State and federal accountability systems are putting immense pressure on public schools to improve the performance of low-achieving students. To respond, schools must be able to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, strengthen curricula, and take other steps to provide struggling students with the help they need.

.

But such efforts are expensive and, as the nation faces the cost of caring for an aging population and other challenges in the years ahead, it is unlikely that education will receive a great deal of new funding. Education leaders, as a result, will increasingly have to scrutinize their existing budgets to find ways to fund their reform initiatives. One potentially valuable source of funds for reform are common provisions in teacher contracts that obligate schools to spend large amounts of money on programs that lack a clear link to student achievement.

.

Education is a labor-intensive business—an estimated 60 percent to 80 percent of the more than $500 billion per year spent operating the nation’s public schools goes directly to paying and supporting school employees, and teacher contracts play a big role in determining where such resources are deployed. Much of the money is directed to basic salary costs. But many common provisions of teacher contracts require school districts to spend substantial sums to implement policies which research has shown have a weak or inconsistent relationship with student learning.

Read more