Who, exactly, is at fault for poorly performing schools? Based on what we read and hear and see in the media, there seems to be more than enough blame to go around. The feds are at fault for high-stakes testing. The state is at fault for inadequate funding. School districts are at fault for a host of reasons. And teachers are to blame for not teaching the right things or understanding the kids or lacking the qualification to lead the classroom.
It isn’t every day that we put the blame on another primary stakeholder in the learning process — the parents. For decades, we have seen moms and dads wash their hands of what happens behind the schoolhouse doors. They get their kids to school. It is up to everyone else to do the teaching and ensure the kids are learning, retaining, and applying.
That’s what makes today’s Washington Post poll so interesting. There are few that will come to the defense of DC Public Schools in general. Seven in 10 surveyed believe DC public schools are inadequate. Surprisingly, 76 percent say that parents are to blame. See the full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002386.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008012100219
Eduflack isn’t one who celebrates the blame game. But DC residents must be applauded for speaking truth. DCPS spends more dollars per student than most school districts in this country. They’ve implemented reform after reform, with few making a lasting impact. Teachers are run through a grinder, not knowing if they will even be paid month to month.
Over the weekend, DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee announced a new Saturday tutoring program to help struggling students catch up and succeed in the classroom. Of course, such programs are not mandatory. Saturday programs are optional, offering the potential for another great idea to be lost in the execution.
If we are truly going to improve schools like those in DCPS, we need and require increased parental participation. This means more than getting parents into the schools to complain to teachers and administrators about why their kids can’t do their homework or pass the test. True parental involvement has mothers, fathers, grandparents, and such involved in the learning process. They know what’s happening in the classroom. They ensure their kids are doing their homework. They identify learning experiences in the home or in the community. They take responsibility for their kids, and hold them accountable For maximizing their school hours.
Parents are our first teachers and our most consistent ones. Small kids will pattern their words and actions after what their parents do. We read because our parents do. We do our homework because our parents prioritize it. We bring home good grades because our parents encourage it. And if they don’t, we don’t care.
Many of the problems our schools face — rising drop-out rates, limited reading and math skills, truancy, etc. — can all be attributed, in part, to parent apathy. Eduflack has done a number of focus groups with eighth and ninth graders recently on dropping out. Student after student said they wouldn’t drop out because their parents won’t let them. THat’s parental involvement. It may come in the form of carrot or stick, but it makes a difference.
Parents are key to improving our schools, improving our community, and boosting student achievement. Thankfully, citizens in our nation’s capital now recognize that. Identification is the first step. The challenge now, is for DCPS to take this data and put it into action. If we ID parent apathy as a root of DCPS problems, what do we do to boost parental involvement? Once Chancellor Rhee answers that question, she may have a winning strategy for improving the schools, engaging the public and building support and interest for what is happening in each and every schoolhouse in the District.
DCPS
Teach our Children Well
Anyone involved in education knows that children look to model their behaviors after the adults in their lives. We watch what we say, what we do, and how we interact with others. Even the youngest of children can start parroting the behaviors of parents and authority figures. And I say that as a proud father of a one-year-old boy who will try to mimick and action or sound I make.
At the same time, those in education policy know the value of modeling “best practices.” We learn from what others do well. We benefit from their experiences, crafting our actions and words around what has worked, and what has not, for those in similar situations or those dealing with similar demographics or similar concerns. When enacting reforms, we inevitably talk about who has done the same thing and reaped the benefits.
But it is just baffling what DC education officials have done. For those who have missed it, The Washington Post led the charge in pulling the curtain back on this doozy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050802047.html?nav=emailpage The Mayor’s famed takeover of DCPS seems to be well rooted in the bustle of North Carolina.
No one is questioning the merits of Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s strategic plan. They are a top school district. But what does it say to the teachers and students of DCPS when Mayor Fenty and his staff can’t do their own work? What message does it send when you are cribbing from the better prepared school system in the room?
I recognize the Mayor has issued his apologies. And I know that his staff has been run through the ringer by the media, by elected officials, by the education blob, and by just about anyone who seems to care about the fate of DCPS. They made a mistake. And their words and actions sent the wrong signal to those who are trusting them to do right.
But what does all this mean for DCPS? How does one effectively talk and write about the future of DCPS after an “issue” such as this? How does the Mayor effectively communicate his plan for the future of DCPS at this stage?
First, he needs to publicly embrace the notion that DCPS should be modeling their words and actions after a number of school districts. His error was limiting himself to Charlotte. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is a good district. But it is not Washington, DC. There are size differences, budget differences, demographic differences, and vast political differences. What may work in Charlotte might not work in DC. So let’s not put all of our eggs in become Charlotte-Mecklenburg Version 2.0.
Instead, DC should be modeling and promoting the best practices of a multitude of school districts. Let’s assemble a Frankenstein of plans. Borrow the charter school successes of Los Angeles. The testing efforts of New York City. Career academies in Miami-Dade. Or the programs and accountability efforts found in any number of Broad Prize winners. Take the best from everyone, and do so intentionally and publicly.
Second, and more importantly, credit those who are doing well, those you are “borrowing” from. Not only does this help avoid issues like those raised in The Washington Post, but it gives DC and Mayor Fenty a little credibility. The takeover of DCPS is just the latest in a long line of “last ditch fixes” for the public schools in our nation’s capitol. The revolving door of superintendents, the constant shifting of final-say authority, charter schools, vouchers, magnets, and everything in between has turned DCPS into a glittering target for the latest silver bullets. DC residents (and those in the surrounding areas) are sick of it. At the end of the day, the District needs a strong investment in what is proven effective. And implementing those programs that have worked in other cities — cities with high poverty, struggling schools, and a desire to improve — is the best way to do that. Using those best practices, and publicly crediting those cities for “lending” those best practices for the improvement of the public schools in our nation’s capitol, is the best way for the Mayor to gain some gravitas on his schools ideas.
At the end of the day, though, words are much easier to use at the start of a reform that in the middle or end of it. Mayor Fenty can be bold about intentions, but he needs to quickly talk about results. Let’s hear about the impact charter schools have had in DC, particularly with regard to graduation rates. Let’s hear about the impact vouchers have had in improving opportunities for DC students. And let’s hear how the Mayor is going to implement the accountability measures so we know that DC, and U.S. taxpayer, dollars are being wisely spent on reform efforts proven effective in boosting student achievement in schools like Washington’s.
Mayor Fenty, feel free to crib away form those cities who have done well, just be sure to credit them. But at the end of the day, be sure we are also modeling their assessment and their impact. It is the end result, and not the process that matters. We’re watching your actions, and we are hoping you’ll give other cities something to model.
Jumpstarting a Dialogue?
We often hear about action for action’s sake, but how often do we act for the benefit of rhetoric? Apparently, that’s what LA Mayor Villariagosa is saying regarding his attempt to take over LAUSD. In today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-lausd19may19,1,3072284.story?coll=la-news-learning&ctrack=3&cset=true) the LA Mayor talks about dropping his bid for takeover, rewriting history by saying his intent was to “provide a framework for dialogue.”
I’ll be the first to say that dialogue is good. But I am a firm believer that you use rhetoric to advance action. Pick the right words, the right spokespeople, and understand the right audiences, and you can drive the right action. Nowhere is that more true than in education reform. Our goal should not be talk. Our goal should be to change public behavior (and improve student achievement) through effective communication.
I respect Villariagosa’s attempt to save face in what was a difficult situation. But when we see the effectiveness of Bloomberg in NYC, or Fenty’s undeterred effort to take over DCPS, do we honestly think either the NYC or DC Mayors would be happy knowing that they had simply provided a “framework for dialogue?” Of course not.
In the end of the day, Villariagosa forgot an important key to reform communications — build a strong cadre of supporters and advocates. At times, it appeared he was fighting a one-man fight. Fighting the school board. Fighting the union. Fighting just about anyone who stood for the status quo. And at the end of the day, he paid the price. A loss in court, a loss of stakeholder support, and ultimately a loss of public trust.
Lost in the discussion is the fact that LAUSD has some strong reforms they can boast of, particularly the recent successes of Green Dot Schools. There, they have a reform focused on students and teachers, focused on academic success, and focused on strong communications and ally building in the community. And its successes have helped it weather public rhetorical opposition from the unions and other sources.
The aborted takeover of LAUSD was a defeat for Villariagosa, no matter how he tries to publicly spin it. But it teaches an important lesson to many of today’s education reformers. Reform can’t be personal. This isn’t about what a particular mayor, a particular superintendent, a particular corporate leader, or a particular researcher want. As we have seen from LAUSD and from the Reading First and NCLB hearings, personalities can be torn down. Individual personalities are easy targets. Find a hole in their rhetoric, their background, or their public persona, and you can turn back their ideas.
For such reforms to be truly successful, they need to focus on those who are being helped, those who are ultimately benefiting. Instead of hearing what Villariagosa would do if he won and how he would change the school board and who he would hire, we should have been hearing about that child in Southcentral LA who would finally have that chance to succeed under a streamlined system. Let’s hear how reform would impact the teachers and the students, not how it would bolster the power of the mayor.
Yes, LA can teach many of our urban districts a great deal. Hopefully, Mayor Fenty is listening as he prepares to wage a public battle to get his school takeover plan through Congress. Let’s hear how it will benefit DC schoolchildren and educators, and not how it will enhance the Mayor’s legacybuilding efforts. In districts like DCPS and LAUSD, simply initiating a dialogue is not enough. Communication without reform is simply talking to maintain the status quo. Should that really be a goal … or an achievement to celebrate?
It Takes More Than a Village …
I’m the first to admit it. Eduflack is results-focused. When it comes to communications, does it really matter what you say or how you say it if it doesn’t contribute to meeting your overall strategic goals? And when it comes to education reform, do the best of ideas matter if they don’t improve student achievement? Good intentions only get you so far. We measure results, effectiveness, and success.
But sometimes, we do need to take a step back. And Rick Hess reminded us of that earlier this week in his commentary piece in The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101927.html. For those who missed it, Hess looked at the early days of the Michelle Rhee administration at DC Public Schools, giving her strong marks for both intent and results.
Hess really grabs the issue of education reform by the throat with his opening paragraph:
One bit of the conventional wisdom hampering school reformers is the belief that if superintendents taking over troubled districts just concentrate on curriculum, instruction and “best practices,” everything else will sort itself out. This myth has been promoted by education professors and others who think large-scale reform entails simply figuring out what a good classroom looks like and then replicating it as necessary.
I’m a suscriber to such conventional wisdom, at least as it relates to students. Give a teacher a research-proven curriculum and an understanding and appreciation of best practices, and you can get students to achieve. Apply what we know works — what we know is effective in classrooms like ours — and virtually every student in the class has the opportunity to succeed.
Of course, there are classrooms and then there are central offices. Hess reminds us of that. Before a superintendent can even think about how to get the evidence-based curriculum, the effective teachers, and the best practices into the classroom, he or she must deal with those management components we often forget about. Personnel and textbook distribution and bureaucracy and broken systems and a faculty that has lost faith in any missive or idea coming from the central office.
School districts like DCPS — those districts that are in real need of reform and improvement — are not just one step away from the promised land. One can’t just drop in a new SBRR curriculum or an effective teacher provision and assume that AYP will be met by all from that point forward. These schools are in trouble, and are in need of wholesale improvement and comprehensive reform. That’s why the keys are being turned over to a reformer in the first place.
At the end of the day, Hess is saying that the achievement we seek can’t be truly gained until we undergo a culture change. And nothing could be more true. Some may chide Rhee or Mayor Fenty for what are seen as PR stunts. And, yes, some of them are. But what Rhee and her team seem to realize is that they need to change the way DCPS thinks and acts if they are to deliver the student achievement gains we all seek and expect.
Yes, Rhee’s success is going to be based on how well DC’s students achieve. Yes, we expect test scores to increase in short order. But we also can’t expect all of DC’s teachers and parents to follow Rhee into battle if they don’t have textbooks, don’t get paychecks on time, and have lost confidence in the administration. Effective reform requires more than just the village. Both Rhee and Hess recognize that.
Closing the Doors?
The latest educational brouhaha in our nation’s capitol is all about the schoolhouse doors. Or in this case, about closing some of them. As part of her effort to overall DCPS, Chancellor Michelle Rhee is advocating the closure of 23 schools in Washington, DC. The reason — underutilization and enrollment decline. The full story can be found at the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011401232.html
As to be expected, more than 60 people spoke at a marathon public hearing on the subject. Community leaders protested outside. Young students urged the city not to close their school. Strong rhetoric on both sides. It was an advocacy communications dream scenario, regardless of which side you are rooting for.
So who won in the first of what will be several educational cage matches? Those individuals fighting under the Save Our Schools banner deserve some plaudits. They managed to take an issue like budgetary savings and make it personal. This was not about the $23 million savings that come from closing the schools (although some dispute that number). This was about the kids who are to be affected. The crayon-drawn signs. The young students making very personal pleas (in English and Spanish, no less). This isn’t about Excel spreadsheets, this is about the average fourth-grader in the district.
Eduflack will overlook the issue of these young kids being taken out of school to be used as a rhetorical device. And we overlook it because it was effective. We are used to seeing Willy Wilson and Marion Barry fight the fight. This is about the new generation. Save Our Schools gave voice to the students by letting the students be the voice. It was effective yesterday, and it can remain effective if they focus on such outcomes, and not on the process.
Which takes us to Chancellor Rhee. She rode tall in the saddle, listening to 59 other people before she finally got her say. Much of what she said focused on the process — utilization measures, dollar savings, and budgets. All of that is important to holding the support of the Mayor and the City Council, absolutely. But it is a non-starter with those audiences that will be affected. Parents and community leaders don’t care about enrollment declines. They want to protect their school. As we’ve said before, no matter how poorly DCPS may be doing, most will believe that their neighborhood school is still doing an effective job?
If not the process, what should Rhee be focusing on? That’s simple. Let’s talk about the future. She did some of that, giving voice to a student whose “wish list” include Spanish teachers, music teachers, and a librarian. That’s her ace card. She needs to speak for all her students. This isn’t about closing a school, this is about ensuring DCPS’ other schools have the resources to provide the curriculum, the technology, and the “coolness” that we need to keep kids in school, engaged, and on the right track. This is about what we get, not what we are giving up. This is about outcomes, not inputs.
No, it’s not an easy sell. The opposition is always poised to defend and protect their schools and their teachers. Rhee’s job is to build a strong school district with good teachers and achieving students. At some point, what your teaching and who is doing the teaching should rise above where you are teaching.
The chancellor and the mayor have a lot invested in these reforms. Once they get through this, they’ll have to battle the union over firing rights, and that may well be an even tougher battle. Now is the time for Rhee to demonstrate she has heard everything spoken to her during her honeymoon period, and that she understands the needs, desires, hopes, and dreams of DC parents and neighborhoods.
Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?
Two data sets on student performance are out this week. But what exactly does the data tell us? And more importantly, what do we say about the data?
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
How Safe Is My School?
For decades now, we’ve talked about school security. Metal detectors have become the norm in many urban schools, and we talk about arming teachers in rural and suburban schools to confront some of the school violence we’ve seen over the last decade. All the talk sends a core message — can our children learn if they aren’t safe?
Two decades ago, the movie Lean on Me told the real-life story of Joe Clark and his crusade to save a New Jersey high school about to implode. For those who don’t remember the Morgan Freeman movie, Clark almost lost his job after chaining the school doors to keep the drug dealers out, and was only saved when his test scores showed he had improved student performance where all hope was lost.
That was the 1980s. Clearly, we’ve learned a thing or two since then. Right?
Imagine Eduflack’s surprise, then, when it was reported in most Washington, DC media outlets this morning that DCPS was finally eliminating the chains on some of its high school doors, replacing them with honest-to-goodness state-of-the-art security doors?
Did we learn nothing from Lean on Me? Are we honestly saying that for all of the talk the past decade about improving DC’s schools and the increased concern for student safety, that no one thought that padlocks and rusted chains weren’t a priority issue that demanded attention?
Sure, there is scant evidence that a safe school directly results in increased student achievement. But it is common sense that an unsafe school doesn’t provide the learning environment kids need to succeed.
Two decades ago, the movie Lean on Me told the real-life story of Joe Clark and his crusade to save a New Jersey high school about to implode. For those who don’t remember the Morgan Freeman movie, Clark almost lost his job after chaining the school doors to keep the drug dealers out, and was only saved when his test scores showed he had improved student performance where all hope was lost.
That was the 1980s. Clearly, we’ve learned a thing or two since then. Right?
Imagine Eduflack’s surprise, then, when it was reported in most Washington, DC media outlets this morning that DCPS was finally eliminating the chains on some of its high school doors, replacing them with honest-to-goodness state-of-the-art security doors?
Did we learn nothing from Lean on Me? Are we honestly saying that for all of the talk the past decade about improving DC’s schools and the increased concern for student safety, that no one thought that padlocks and rusted chains weren’t a priority issue that demanded attention?
Sure, there is scant evidence that a safe school directly results in increased student achievement. But it is common sense that an unsafe school doesn’t provide the learning environment kids need to succeed.
Putting Our Money on a Winning Proposition
In education, the focus is often on people first, results second, and the money third. We think of the teachers and the students, then on achievement, and only then do we really start talking about dollars. We talk of per student costs, and compare our per-pupil spending with similar districts or with those who are outperforming us. The punchline, inevitably, is that we need more dollars for our classrooms.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 