Testimony to the PA State Senate and House Education Committee

I was recently asked to testify before the PA Legislative Education Committee regarding the recently passed federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA is the replacement for No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Specifically I was asked to be on a panel that focused on the part of ESSA pertaining to "Turnaround Schools". "Turnaround Schools" refers to the goal of  "fixing" the lowest achieving (5%) schools in the Commonwealth. My name was recommended to the Committee and I was asked to speak on this topic.

It is rare when an educator that is not affiliated with any organization, school district or policy group is invited to provide testimony. But any reader of this blog knows that given the opportunity, I always have something to say.  I wanted readers of this blog to have the opportunity to review my written testimony.  For those that are interested in viewing the proceedings you can stream them at Senator Smucker's web site. The hearing was on June 7, 2016 and it lasted for 2 hours.  My testimony was made between the 83:00 -100.00 minute marks.

---

Testimony for the Pennsylvania House and Senate Education Committees

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Turnaround Schools

June 7, 2016

Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools - The Bottom 5%

  

Respectfully Submitted by

Richard D. Wertheimer, Ed.D.

r.d.wertheimer@gmail.com

Thank you for this opportunity to provide a working perspective on the very challenging process of turning around extremely low performing public schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

My name is Richard Wertheimer. I am testifying today as a recently retired 35-year public school educator who spent his career working with low achieving schools as they attempted to “turn themselves around.”

I am not representing a non-profit organization, or a policy group, or an educational institution, or a teachers’ association or a charter school. I am here today because I believe I can offer insight into the nature of Pennsylvania’s bottom 5% schools, the greatest challenges to “turning them around” and what they would look like if they became quality educational institutions.

Since 1975 I have worked in public education in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania as a:

• Mathematics Teacher at Upper St. Clair HS, Brashear HS and Peabody HS,
• Mathematics Supervisor for all Pittsburgh Public High Schools,
• Education Technology Coordinator for all Pittsburgh Public Schools,
• Member of the Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers,
• Member of the Pittsburgh Administrators Association,
• Co-Founder, CEO and Principal of City Charter High School in Pittsburgh,
• Adjunct Faculty Member at the University of Pittsburgh School of Education,
• Parent of two children who graduated from urban public schools, and as
• A 35-year resident of Wilkinsburg, PA.

Educating impoverished children has been my life’s work.

In my testimony today, I want to talk about four simple, yet very important truths that seem to get lost in the conversation about our lowest performing public schools.  These four truths are:  

1. The bottom 5% schools in Pennsylvania work with students that are devastated by life’s circumstances.
2. Traditional public schools are not designed to address such a needy population. 
3. We know what successful “Turnaround” schools look like.
4. The word “Turnaround” is the wrong word.

---

1.    The bottom 5% schools in Pennsylvania work with students that are devastated by life’s circumstances.

Students who attend the lowest achieving schools suffer from poverty, family disintegration, mental, physical, and emotional health deficits, poor nutrition, lack of hope and lack of successful role models.

These students are often living in conditions that one might compare to a war zone – daily gunfire, violence and crime. Many are suffering from depression, anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Students at the lowest achieving schools feel abandoned.

Let me provide you with an informal data study we did at City Charter High School in Pittsburgh. Upon opening the school in 2002 it became apparent that our student body was at risk due to many of the factors I mentioned above.  A review of our student database came up with the following statistics:

• 75% of our students did not have a father at home.
• 25% of our students did not live with their mother or father. They lived with a relative, often a grandmother.
• 5% of our student body (after the 2008 economic downturn) were homeless.
• 65% received a Free/Reduced Lunch.
• 14% had Special Needs.

City Charter High School has two full time social workers, one full time nurse and four administrators (two with counseling degrees) that work almost exclusively with the mental, physical and emotional needs of our students.  Students have the ability to avail themselves of the support staff as needed. Here is what we found.

Close to 70% of all students see the social workers more than once during the year.  Many see them once a week. And a small group of students see them daily. In addition to our social workers dealing with the usual adolescent issues (bullying, peer pressure, struggling with parents/adults, managing a sibling and depression,) much of the social worker’s time is spent helping students deal with more extreme issues of sexual abuse, physical abuse, self abuse, death of a sibling or relative, drug addiction, mental illness, personality disorders and homelessness.

This table lists the poorest 5% (25) of Pennsylvania school districts (based on 2014 US Department of Education Census poverty data by LEA). These PA school districts are a combination of urban and rural, but they have one thing in common. They are all post-industrial centers that typify a rust belt scenario. This scenario began in the 1970’s with the downfall of the steel industry.  It is all too familiar - loss of jobs, loss of businesses, loss of families who move away, empty homes, the proliferation of drugs and illegal activity… and failing schools.

We are now 36 years removed from 1980. We have two generations of children who have grown up in communities without jobs, without intact families and with a severe drop in social services, community organizations and extended family support. These children live in communities where there is a Dollar Store, a pizza parlor, a gas station, possibly a library and a church. That’s it.

So what are the assumptions we should make when designing a school for students who attend the bottom 5% of the schools in the Commonwealth?  

The following are based on my experiences in schools that work with the poorest and most needy students in the Pittsburgh area. 

•       Students in deep poverty will not respond to adults unless they trust them, respect them and are treated in a caring manner by them.
•       Students whose families have a history of failure in schools (drop outs) live in fear of failure, embarrassment and feelings of inadequacy.
•       Schools cannot rely on home for support – not due to lack of concern or love or desire to help, but due to a lack of resources, time and availability. Often the single parent or guardian is working multiple jobs to make ends meet and has little time to provide necessary school support.
•       School must be a safe zone – emotionally, physically, mentally and educationally.
•       Mental, physical and emotional support must be provided on site in real time.
•       Students need consistent adult relationships over extended periods of time.
•       Students must learn how to interact, collaborate and rely on other people including their peers.
•       Students must learn how to self advocate and take ownership of learning.
•       Students need and want structure and clear directions. Nothing should be left to the imagination.
•       Learning must be relevant to the students either through active learning scenarios or because a clear connection is made between what they are doing and jobs or college. A perfect example is obtaining a MS Office Certification.

In essence I am describing a public school, not simply as an accredited institution of learning, but as a safe haven that meets the physical, emotional, behavioral and cognitive needs of all children.

2)   Traditional public schools are not designed to address such a needy population.

Traditional schools in America are based on a factory model of education that teaches the basic skills believed necessary to empower students to continue into college or employment. Their focus is on content, not process. The focus is on Reading and Mathematics, not the individual needs of the child. The focus is on teacher accountability, not teacher empowerment.

Consider the traditional elementary school that you and I attended. We worked in a classroom with 25 students and one teacher.  We sat in rows, with everyone learning at the same speed, at the same level and with the same expectations.  Our teachers taught us to read, write and do basic arithmetic.  Most of the students came from the same neighborhood, were the same race or ethnicity and exclusively spoke English.  And there were no special services for a student whose family was struggling or had special learning needs or couldn’t sit still.

Consider the high school that you and I attended: 7 periods a day, 45 minutes per period, an academic track and a vocational track. The school was built on a factory model. Homework was assigned and completed at home. We had different teachers every year and seldom built a relationship with them. It was up to the student alone to rise to the challenge and succeed.  And more often than not, it was the parents, the community and the common support of friends and family that would not allow students to fail.

How can a school that is focused on content, a one-size-fits-all school, a school where teachers present information and students passively absorb it, possibly attend to the needs of a student body whose life experience is one of poverty, abuse and lost hopes? It can’t.

When districts attempt to “reform” their schools to help students achieve, modest changes are made that don’t come close to meeting the needs of the students. It’s as if  we believe that an after school tutoring program, or a Saturday makeup class, or an I-Pad will change a students belief as to whether they can achieve. Just the mere fact that a student is told they should attend after school tutoring makes the at-risk child believe they are deficient intellectually.

In the bottom 5% schools, students often enroll with little or no preschool experience, not knowing their alphabet or basic counting. Poorly skilled students quickly become frustrated by their lack of success. Teachers become frustrated at their lack of success with their students. Neither the teachers nor the students are succeeding. Overall morale is extremely low.

Staff is all too aware that the students’ needs are far greater than what a public school was ever intended to provide. 

Veteran teachers in successful high poverty schools often describe how their students want, in fact almost demand a relationship with them. I’ve heard the following comment hundreds of times during my career:

“What these children need is love, discipline, support and consistency…

It is not unusual for my students to call me ‘Dad’ or ‘Grandpa’.”

Traditional schools are set up as meritocracies. If you work hard, buckle down and pay attention you will succeed. We rank order QPAs. We let the top students speak at graduation. We split the school up and track the brighter kids into special classes or nicer schools and track the “slower kids or bad kids” into separate classes or low achieving schools.  Achievement then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As traditional schools in poor neighborhoods slide into mediocrity, two things happen. First, students learn to accept low expectations, bad behavior and failure. Second, failure permeates the school and eventually drags the staff down to the point of despair.

The staff feels abandoned just like the students. And since the teachers get blamed for low test scores, they often leave the school or leave education entirely.

3)   We know what successful “Turnaround” schools look like. ^[1]

Many people are shocked when I tell them that we already know how to run successful schools that serve at-risk students from impoverished communities. Such schools exist in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, across our state and our country. Successful “Turnaround” schools share a common “culture” that is supportive, accountable and passionate about student success.  The following aspects of school culture, in one form or another, are common to these schools.

·      Teachers Are Intensely Committed to Student Success - Teachers are prepared with dynamic, powerful lessons within their classrooms and are expert at classroom management, instructional methodology including learning styles and differentiated instruction. There is a constant focus on student learning throughout the school. Teachers work collaboratively and reflectively to deliver excellence in the classroom.

·       Teachers Stay with Students for Repeated Years – Looping is the concept of teachers working with the same students for multiple years. It provides a continuum of service that allows for trust, understanding of learning styles and meeting individual student needs. It increases accountability on students, teachers and principals. Looping has a profound effect on teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical skills, awareness of learning styles and insight into early warning signs of student disengagement leading to quick and timely interventions.

·      Time on Task - The academic day includes a minimum of 90 minutes of mathematics and 90 minutes of English Language Arts instruction.  The school calendar and day are often extended. Students are expected to be on task at all the time. Some schools use a trimester schedule allowing for year round schooling.

·      Academic Intensity - Schools incorporate a more intense academic approach geared toward dramatically improving students academically. Regardless of the age of the students, there is an intensely rigorous approach to academics driving students to achieve above grade level, no excuses. School leaders and teachers are relentlessly committed to achieving dramatic academic gains with their students and constantly agonize over results.

·      Sweat the Details – Students must comply with the following:

○    Be on Time for School and Class. Leaders and teachers relentlessly enforce punctuality and take issue with any tardy for any reason.

○    Adhere to the Dress Code. Leaders and teachers relentlessly enforce dress code and uniform requirements, paying attention to the smallest detail.

○    Complete all homework daily.

○    Be silent when others are speaking.

○    Be on task and engaged in academic work at all times especially when teachers, leaders, or peers request it.

○    Sit up or stand in a respectful and appropriate manner.

○    Refrain from “tisking,” “eye rolling,” or any verbal or non-verbal disrespect of teachers.

The school has a consistent and diligent system in place to positively reward students who follow these expectations and to enforce consequences when expectations are not met.

·      Focus on Student Performance Data - Leaders and teachers regularly use data to review student progress and to drive instructional decisions for individual students, both on the micro level with daily checks for understanding and on the macro level with interim assessments. Leaders and teachers accept responsibility for student achievement and are persistently designing new ways to support students who are not reaching benchmarks and challenge those students who are.

·      Joy - The school is filled with thematic motivational signs and slogans; teachers and school leaders use chants, poetry, recitation, singing and other tools to bring a sense of joy to the learning process. School-wide management tools are used to positively frame expectations. Teachers and students are happy to be at school. Students are taught that the pursuit of academic success and success in life, while not always easy, is a joyful process. During the school day, teachers smile and regularly direct appropriate expressions of love and kindness toward students.

·      Student Attendance - All attendance is taken and recorded in the school office within 60 minutes of the start of the school day. When a student is absent, the absence is challenged. All school office personnel and leadership team members share this mentality. Unless the illness is severe, a student must be in school. If there has been no notification to the school, the school leadership team takes action to get the student to school. 

·      Alumni are Tracked - Leaders track 100% of the school’s alumni as a measure of the school’s success and as a means for offering students continued support through high school into college.

·      Open and Transparent Communication – Leaders regularly provide open, transparent, respectful and honest communication to all stakeholders.  

·      Mental/Physical/Emotional Health Services – A full time Nurse, Social Workers, Title I support and Teaching Assistants in every classroom are integral to creating a supportive educational environment. The school takes a mental and emotional health approach to behavioral issues and discipline. Behavioral incidents are opportunities to connect with students, teach appropriate behaviors, develop alternative strategies and build emotional strength.

·      Teachers are organized into Collaborative Teams – Empowering teachers, developing teachers and building school leadership is a key component of the schools HR plan. The same commitment that is used to support and develop students should be made to support and develop teachers.

·      Teacher compensation is tied to Professional Proficiency – Compensation is dependent on attainment and proficiency in well-articulated Professional Standards. The program for professional growth must be well communicated, consistent, followed with great diligence and rewards must be commensurate with professional attainment. Salary is not dependent upon time served. Compensation should be at prevailing rates with competitive benefits.

·      Selfless Leadership whose role is to empower staff, students and parents – School leaders should be experienced, veteran educators who understand all aspects of school operation and education quality.  Their job is empowerment.

·      The Principal must be considered the Educational Leader of the school, not simply as the building administrator or disciplinarian – School leaders must be experienced and successful teachers/educators in order to gain the confidence of staff, parents and students.  

·      Workforce Orientation – There should exist constant reinforcement of proper workforce readiness including behaviors, habits, attitudes and metacognitive control.

Quality schools (that work with high poverty students across America) can be public or private, union or non-union, charter or independent, secular or religious. What is common to all successful schools is they are built on a student-centered culture and a success-at-all-costs approach. The modern successful school must have a student-centered culture if it hopes to address the circumstances that exist in the toughest schools in the poorest communities.

4)   It is likely that the word “turnaround” is the wrong word.

My 35 years of experience in Pittsburgh schools has led me to believe that it is nearly impossible to reform an existing school and make it successful. As I have stated, traditional schools are not configured to meet the needs of the poorest and most at-risk students and communities. The following is a list of barriers to “turning around” a traditional low achieving school:

• Often teachers in the lowest achieving schools have little or no experience with poverty, students of color or failing communities.  
• Staff attitudes are often entrenched in a belief that “what worked for me should work for my students”.
• Existing policies, handbooks, curriculum guides and “ways of doing things” are deeply embedded in the school’s operation. 
• Politically, existing adversarial relationships (union vs. administration, administration vs. school board, educators vs. community, school staff vs. central office staff) are hard to overcome. 
• Past issues pertaining to trust, honesty and working as a team are often impossible to overcome. 
• Pressure to provide proficient test scores may trump any local effort to help students grow and gain confidence as learners. 
• Leadership turnover can destroy any efforts for reform. 
• The existing physical plant may be limited in terms of modern school methodologies.

So I would suggest that you cannot “turn around” an existing 5% low achieving school if you assume the building, the staff and the leadership remain. This is why so many of our previous reform or “turn around” efforts have failed. The more appropriate word to use might be “recreate” or “reimagine” or “startup.”

Final Thoughts

For a number of years, the federal government has allocated 4% of the states’ Title I allocations to be used for School Improvement Grants (SIGs). Pennsylvania has used this money to provide the lowest achieving schools (that submit applications) with grants to improve their program and student achievement. The SIG program has not worked. The lowest 5% schools remain the same year after year with little improvement. In fact, many of the lowest schools don’t even apply.

I would suggest the problem with the current SIG program is that both the state department of education and the local school districts continue to work around the edges. The proposed changes to these Title I schools leave the traditional school intact. They offer remedial fixes – after school programs, modest changes in curriculum, professional development or a few more Title I paraprofessionals. An influx of money that puts in place remedial programs does not work.

It is the culture of the school that has to change.  Changing the culture – the values, attitudes, beliefs and customs – of a traditional school is next to impossible.  In 35 years, I’ve only seen this done by the most charismatic and talented leaders often working in relative autonomy from their districts. This is truly rare, and often fails after the leader retires or moves on.

In my opinion, the lowest 5% schools cannot be fixed. They need to be closed, redesigned, staffed from scratch and opened as new schools. Here are two strategies to consider as Pennsylvania contemplates how to address the ESSA goals regarding “Turnaround Schools.”

Strategy One: Statewide Competitive Request for Proposals (RFP)

The first strategy is to use the newly allowed 7% SIG allocation as an incentive to encourage low achieving schools to be reinvented. In this strategy, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) would send a Request for Proposals (RFP) to the lowest 5% schools and their districts. The RFP would explicitly require applicants to spell out their brand new school design, staffing model and achievement goals. Potential applicants would be required to partner with a successful Title I school (public or charter) that works with a similar high poverty population. The RFP would be designed to force applicants to create a new school model based on quality school attributes, experienced/proven leadership and the district’s willingness to commit resources and support to the effort. Sign offs from all stakeholders (the school board, union, administration and community) would have to be included in district proposals.  Grants to the winning proposals should be substantial (I would suggest 5 year, $2.5 million grants.) The grants would be used for staff development, curriculum development, development of forward thinking student and staff handbooks, leadership development, creation of a robust student support team, educational technology and improvements to the physical plant.  In addition, monies must be allocated annually for data collection and evaluation. This would allow the state to help create model “redesigned” schools that have a record of achievement. Future RFPs could be used to scale successes to additional schools and districts.

Strategy Two: Use the Charter School Law

The Pennsylvania Charter School Law was created to encourage local education entrepreneurs to create quality public schools based on innovative practices. Using this strategy, PDE would encourage local school districts to put out an RFP to charter local failing schools. The charter school approach eliminates many of the barriers to starting a school from scratch. Since the school would be brand new, it would have an entire new faculty, a program that is aligned with the needs of poor at-risk students and a culture that is aligned with best practices in successful schools. The charter group should either have a proven track record, or it should put forth a plan that is based on a proven program with documented success. This strategy allows for a quick restart for these schools. Grants from the state (through the SIG program) would help to provide the necessary resources (as mentioned in the first strategy) to build a quality school. Another benefit to this approach is that five-year charters allow for much closer analysis of achievement, increased accountability and recourse if the charter needs to be revoked.

In conclusion, let me state unequivocally that we know what a “Turnaround” school looks like. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Both strategies put forth necessitate that the design teams visit successful schools across the Commonwealth and the country that work with the most needy and at-risk students. They must learn from successful models and build on proven best practices. They must understand that it takes 3-5 years to solidify a turnaround school and create a culture of success. They must implement a school culture that is student-centered, supportive of teachers and driven to succeed.

The question is not whether we can do this. The question is whether we are willing to change, whether we are generous enough to provide adequate resources, and whether we have the passion and desire to save the lives of the most needy children in Pennsylvania.

---

[1] Adapted from work done by Schools That Can – Milwaukee

http://www.stcmilwaukee.org/why-education/what-is-a-high-quality-school/

and Research Conducted at City Charter High School – Pittsburgh

http://cityhigh.org/research/.

Education and Politics

It has been awhile since I blogged on public education. Frankly, I thought I was done blogging. Through 50 posts over a two year period, I said what I wanted to say. I tried to point out that issues of equity, race, economics, taxation and accountability seem to have a death grip on our country's education enterprise. And, more importantly, our fixation on these issues overlooked the most important aspect of education, our children... our future.

So why am I posting a new essay?

Recently, I read Popular Education and Its Discontents, 1989 by Lawrence Cremin. The author is a distinguished public education historian who has spent his career looking at American public education through the filter of history, sociology, culture and values. In his book, Cremin makes an argument that in America, education and politics are forever linked. He suggests that it is impossible to decouple American education from American politics.

Thus did education become increasingly politicized during the post-War era, and thus did various groups with differing conceptions of the good life contend with increasing vigor and occasional violence over the nature and character of education. But the question remains, Why? And the answer, I believe, lies in the longstanding American tendency to try to solve social, political, and economic problems through educational means, and in so doing to invest education with all kinds of millennial hopes and expectations (pg. 92.)

If indeed Cremin is correct, and I believe he is, than we gain insight into educational reform by studying our nation's politics. He suggests that our "discontent" with education lies in our lack of agreement on what exactly our "ideal state" should be. This lack of agreement, based in differing values and beliefs, places our schools in a constant state of political flux. Every social, political, ethical issue is up for interpretation. Whether we are considering changing the funding mechanics of public education, Charter Schools, the Common Core State Standards, cooperative learning, a biology book that teaches evolution or a mathematics curriculum that uses calculators, a political discussion always ensues. The decisions that result from the political discussions of the time force schools to constantly pivot from best practices to political alignment.

If only there were agreement on our "ideal state." Let's look at a fundamental value and belief from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

What an extraordinary pronouncement. Equality and unalienable rights that are endowed not by the government, but by a divine creator. One would think there would be widespread agreement on this ideal. But there isn't.

What does it mean that all men are created equal? By what yardstick do we measure equality?

• Is a white person equal to a black person? 
• Is a woman equal to a man? 
• Is an atheist equal to a Christian? 
• Is a poor person equal to a rich person? 
• Is a disabled person equal to a famous athlete? 
• Is a Muslim equal to a Jew? 
• Is a person born into poverty equal to a person born into wealth? 
• Is a homosexual equal to a heterosexual? 

And what would our society look like if we actually acted on these three rights - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

• Was slavery a right? 
• Is healthcare a right? 
• Is quality education a right? 
• Is public safety a right? 
• Is employment a right? 
• Is free speech a right? 
• Is having a gun a right? 
• Is capital punishment a right? 
• Is having a roof over your head a right? 
• Is equal pay for equal work a right?

Equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are up for interpretation. Pick up a newspaper on any given day and you will find an issue that pertains to people who feel marginalized by policies that they believe deny them these rights.

After reading Cremin and working in public education for 35 years, I have come to the conclusion that our discontent with public education is consistent with our discontent with our local community, our state, our country and our government. I would suggest from a constitutional perspective, this discontent is a by-product of our democratic process. It is embedded in our country's founding documents and in our governing institutions. Who is in control, the President or the Congress or the Supreme Court, the Democrats or the Republicans, the federal government or the state government, the state government or the local municipality, the church or the state? From the citizen's perspective, the tension is between the power of the collective versus the rights of the individual.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Thus education (schooling) is a power/responsibility that is reserved to the states (and ultimately to the people.)

The 14th amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ensuring civil rights and equal protection under the law (specifically mentioning the "state") is reserved to the federal government.

The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas Supreme Court ruling is a perfect example of the politicizing of public education.  In the post WWII era many states legislated that whites and blacks must attend separate schools (segregation). The Supreme Court ruled that this denied equal rights and protections to black students who were receiving a sub-standard education. So although education is a state responsibility, they cannot deny the civil rights of students based on race. We are still grappling with the shockwaves sent out by this court ruling in 1954. And we still attend segregated schools (although not due to legislative restrictions.) As we all know, there remains widespread disagreement as to whether the "collective" (meaning the federal government) can overrule the desires of the individual (family, city, state).

I am not writing this essay to provide a lesson in constitutional law. I am suggesting that understanding how politics are instantiated in education is key to gaining perspective on public school issues.  And since we are in the midst of election campaigns, it is not a bad time to take a look at public education through the lens of current issues being raised in the primaries.

The 2016 presidential election has demonstrated an uneasiness with who we are, who we want to be and whether the federal government is capable of meeting our needs. The presidential field started with 23 total candidates and is down to three. Two of the three remaining candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, have tapped into a huge populist sentiment in our country that disapproves of government pragmatism, cynicism and distance from the needs of the middle class. The third candidate, Hillary Clinton, is considered a Washington insider.

Elections often point out differences in belief, perception and a candidates actual record. This election is no exception. Let's take a look at "Public Education and its Discontents" through the lens of what is happening in our Federal, State and Local elections.

Federal Perspective - The Presidential Election

The Republicans

8 months ago there were 17 Republican candidates for President. From a K12 public education perspective, all 17 candidates were consistent with the Republican platform. The 2012 Republican platform on education is clear.

Education: A Chance for Every Child

Parents are responsible for the education of their children. We do not believe in a one size fits all approach to education and support providing broad education choices to parents and children at the State and local level. Maintaining American preeminence requires a world-class system of education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential. Today’s education reform movement calls for accountability at every stage of schooling. It affirms higher expectations for all students and rejects the crippling bigotry of low expectations. It recognizes the wisdom of State and local control of our schools, and it wisely sees consumer rights in education – choice – as the most important driving force for renewing our schools.

Republicans would get rid of the Federal Department of Education since education is a states right. The only federal funding for education is for Title I (poverty), Free/Reduced Lunches (Poverty) and IDEA (special needs, aka "disabilities"). The Republicans don't mention these programs during the primaries, but they generally like to keep costs down as they are seen as an entitlement. In fact, it would be fair to suggest that the Republican platform is anti-union, anti-public education and pro-choice via charters, vouchers, home schooling, private schools, religious schools, etc. An example of their dislike for any central educational direction pertains to the Common Core.

The Republican candidates want to get rid of the Common Core Standards because it "feels" like a federal mandate. The irony is that these standards were developed by the states.

"The state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent, real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life."

There is little mention of post high school education in the Republican platform. They see college as a market driven system. They believe increased competition can be used to make college more affordable. The government should not get involved.

The Democrats

There were five candidates for President from the Democratic Party. The field was quickly narrowed to three which morphed into an epic struggle between two - Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Hillary Clinton has the delegate strength (with the Superdelegates) that suggests she will be the Democratic candidate. As a former First Lady, Secretary of State and and New York Senator she is seen as a Washington insider who appeals to moderate Democrats. Clinton is an incrementalist who adheres closely to President Obama's agenda. She is endorsed by both teachers unions.

Bernie Sanders is a career politician. He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont for four terms. He was a state representative to the US House of Representatives and is currently serving his second term in the US Senate. He is a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. His greatest support comes from the 21 - 35 year old population in the liberal wing of the party.

Here is the 2012 Democratic Party platform on education.

Democrats believe all children should be able to lead happy, successful lives. That’s why we’re dedicated to ensuring the next generation has access to a quality education and the tools to drive our economy forward. Our country is strongest when our workers are trained with the knowledge and ingenuity to perform at the highest levels. Every child should have the opportunity to reach that horizon and to fulfill the American Dream. 

Democrats have long valued education as the key to success, both for individuals and for our nation. In 1944, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt enacted the G.I. Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that provided World War II veterans with opportunities for higher education. The G.I. Bill helped create the modern middle class in America.
In recent years Democrats have further increased access to higher education and restructured and dramatically expanded college financial aid, while making federal programs simpler, more reliable, and more efficient for students. In 2010, President Obama signed into law student loan reform, that cut out the role of big banks. The Obama administration also doubled our investment in Pell Grants and made it easier for students to pay back student loans. President Obama has worked to reform the higher education system and invested the most in student aid since the G.I. Bill.

The Obama administration is working to overhaul the “No Child Left Behind” program and provide teachers with more professional support and resources — while also holding them accountable. President Obama instituted “Race to the Top,” a revolutionary program designed to promote innovation and provide incentives for improvement in education. As a result, dozens of states have made changes to increase standards and implement reforms. 

And in 2015, the President announced a landmark proposal to make community college free to anyone who is willing to work for it, a measure that could benefit nearly nine million students each year.

Both candidates support a progressive agenda on K12 education including universal preK, teacher training, support for the recent rewrite of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) which is now called ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). Sanders is supportive of Charter Schools (with proper oversight), Clinton does not mention them. Both will work through the states using the federal government to create incentives for states to move forward.

Both candidates are concerned about the cost and availability of post high school education. Bernie Sanders put forth a revolutionary idea of free college education for American students. He would finance this through a tax on Wall Street stock market trading. This radical proposal moved Clinton to the left on college education. She is proposing free community colleges, lower tax rates on student loans, and more financial support for public universities from states and the federal government.

Republican vs. Democrat

A quick comparison of the Republican and Democratic platforms shows fundamentally different beliefs and values between the parties.

The Republicans look at education starting in the home and community and want to provide choice opportunities for families. Their "ideal state" is small town America where the local community educates its children according to their beliefs and values. Parents are responsible for their children's education. And they choose that education based on where they live, their personal beliefs and their income.

The Democrats look at education from an equity perspective and want to provide opportunities for all Americans through universal PreK, free college tuition and creating quality teachers through training opportunities. Their "ideal state" is one where every child - no matter where they live or what their family situation is or whether they live in wealth or poverty - is guaranteed a quality education from preK to post high school.

Filter the Republican and Democratic Party platforms through the questions raised by the constitutional dilemma I discussed above.

Are we equal? In what sense? Are we rugged individualists or members of a community? Should we have equal opportunities based on a belief that we have a level playing field, or should the government provide supports to guarantee equal opportunities no matter what school district you live in or your economic class? Are we a meritocracy or a democracy? Should education be a market driven endeavor (individualistic, up to the parent) or a socialist endeavor (funded through taxes with common goals and outcomes?)

Clearly the parties and their candidates fall on either sides of these questions. The Republicans and Democrats simply do not agree on what the American "ideal" should be. The presidential election becomes a referendum on these values. And public education bounces back and forth between the Republican and Democrat ideal dependent upon who is in power in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of both federal and state governments.

I should note that this not just a presidential primary that is going on. One of the key aspects of this year's election pertains to Congressional seats. Currently both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans.

• The Senate currently has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent - Sanders). There are 34 seats up for reelection in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take gain a majority. This is possible.
• The House of Representatives has 435 seats with Republicans currently holding 246 seats, 28 more than the 218 needed for control. All 435 will be voted on this year. The Democrats would need to gain 30 seats to take control. This is possible, but not likely.

A Democratic Congress and President would have an advantage in implementing concepts like universal PreK, free college education and support for public education. Of course they would have to find a way to fund such initiatives. A Republican Congress and President would have an advantage in implementing concepts like school choice and local control of curriculums, assessment and school funding. If there is cross party governance (i.e. one party Legislative and the other party Executive) the concept of checks and balances comes into play. Often this means compromise in the best circumstance and gridlock in the worst.

States' Perspective - Gridlock

The 2014 Governor's election in Pennsylvania resulted in a non-politician taking office - Tom Wolf. An extremely bright and successful businessman, Governor Wolf has had a rough ride in his first two years of office. He is a Democrat and both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature are overwhelmingly Republican. As a non-member of the political class, he has little experience dealing with political compromise, making deals and getting the job done. So for two years nothing got done.

K12 public schools are a case in point. As a traditional Democrat, Governor Wolf is pro public education and heavily supported by public education advocates including teachers' unions, school board associations, etc. He is not supportive of charter schools and school choice, a traditional Democratic stance. He was elected on a platform to increase state funding for public education. Wolf was sworn into office in January of 2015. His first order of business was to craft a 2015 - 2016 state budget and get it passed by the June 30th deadline.

This is where Wolf's troubles began. The budget battle was fiercely contested between a newly elected governor (Democrat) and an entrenched (Republican) legislature.  The main issues were:

• Public school funding;
• State University funding;
• The public employees (and teachers) pension plan; and
• Privatizing the state run liquor stores. 

It should be noted that Pennsylvania has been criticized for its extremely low support for its public universities and public K12 school districts prior to Wolf becoming Governor. This is the result of a Republican legislature that provides choice, but not financial support (lower taxes.)

• In 2012, Pennsylvania ranked 44th in the percentage share of education costs covered by the state. Its 36 percent contribution rate falls below the national average of 45 percent.

• In 2011, Pennsylvania ranked 46th in the per capita expenditure on higher education.

If you want to read about the Budget impasse, my blog - The Dirty Little Secret - will fill you in on the details. Long story short, the legislature and the Governor did not pass the 2015 fiscal budget (covering July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016) by the end of June 2015. In fact they did not pass the budget by the end of December 2015. Thus all funding for public schools from the state was put on hold. School Districts did not get any state revenue for the first 9 months of their fiscal year. Funding did not resume until April, 2016.

Basically, the Governor and the Legislature went to war. The elected officials continued to receive their salaries, roads continued to be fixed, state police were paid and state government did business as usual. But public schools received nothing. Many local school districts had to borrow to make payroll. Although they ultimately received their funding (which was at the same level as the previous year) they lost all the interest they paid on the loans. Overall education funding has not gone up in Pennsylvania for over 8 years. 

In essence, there was gridlock on education this year in Pennsylvania. The fundamental problem regarding this issue pertains to those same questions I asked in the beginning of this blog. The Pennsylvania state government has a core dilemma they simply cannot resolve regarding what the "ideal state" is for our children and their education. They see education as one more venue to fight over ideology and costs. That is the definition of "politics."

Local Perspective - Where the rubber hits the road

Local politics is at the bottom of the government food chain. From an education perspective, this creates havoc in our schools. Here are two quick examples. 

NCLB 

When the federal government passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, it was part of a bill that provides funds for Title I - students in poverty. Through this bill they demanded that all public schools, because they receive Title I funding, must participate in the NCLB assessment program. This was all about accountability. Every state had to create a statewide standardized assessment that was approved by the federal government. All public school students had to participate, and if a school did poorly (not attaining the state % for adequate year progress) on the assessment, they were penalized. These schools were put into categories - Warning, School Improvement, Corrective Action, etc. The test results by school district (and school) were rank ordered and published in the newspaper and on the Internet. As one might guess, the schools that did poorly served poor children from struggling neighborhoods. NCLB offered no additional funding for support to low achieving schools. The test and its reporting was simply punitive. The result of not attaining AYP, was that many schools pragmatically eliminated their arts, physical education, science and foreign language instruction in order to focus solely on the test subjects - Reading and Mathematics. The entire public education enterprise in America, Pennsylvania and local school districts was coopted by this federal legislation (that passed with bi-partisan support.) This mandate lasted from 2001 to 2014. 

Lowering Taxes

Funding of schools comes from three sources - federal, state and local taxes. The graph at the right shows the national average for school districts in 2010. By 2012, the federal portion had dropped to 10% and the state and local rose to 45% each. This drop off in federal funding pertained to the end of the one time ARRA funds that were provided during the recession that began in 2009. Two years of ARRA funding allowed districts to expand, or put off budget cuts. But once the funds were gone, most districts found themselves with a deficit.

The problem is much worse in Pennsylvania. First, since 2006 PA has only contributed 35% (10% less than the national average) of the local school districts budgets. This is one of the lowest percentages in the nation. Second, when the federal government provided ARRA funds for districts, the state lowered its contribution even more. When the ARRA funds were expended, the state did not even raise their contribution to 2008 levels. 

Since the year 2000, the Federal and State governments have been cutting taxes not raising them. Both the Federal and Pennsylvania governments were Republican controlled during this time. Lower taxes mean less revenues and less funding for education. As you might guess this means that local school districts must make up the difference or severely cut programming.

Here is a compendium of education articles in last week's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Filter these headlines through the questions I asked in the beginning of this blog. 

Districts, students react to federal directive on access to school facilities

If schools violate the federal guidance on transgender student access, they could risk losing federal funding or being subject to a lawsuit.

Seneca Valley schools choose lower of two tax increase options

The school district’s proposed final budget for 2016-17 includes a property tax increase of 3.1 mills instead of 4.3 mills.

Brentwood teachers stage rally for new contract

The district’s 92 teachers, nurses and counselors have been working under the terms of a contract that expired June 30, 2015.

East Allegheny OKs tentative budget with tax increase

The district obtained permission from the state to raise its tax rate by 1.17 mills to fund a proposed budget of $32.5 million for 2016-17

Baldwin-Whitehall passes preliminary budget with tax hike, staff cuts

Board members stressed that nothing is final, and work will continue on the budget until adoption of a final budget at the June 15 meeting.

Shaler Area to avoid teacher layoffs; tax increase planned

More than 100 community residents gathered to show support for 30 teachers who were in danger of being laid off.

Property tax in East Allegheny school district to rise

The school board voted 5-4 tonight to approve a $32.5 million budget for the 2016-2017 school year.

Pennsylvania bill to end seniority in teacher layoffs heads to Wolf

Through a spokesman, Gov. Tom Wolf said the state's focus shouldn't be on layoffs but on "how to invest in our schools.”

‘In God We Trust’ motto for Pa. schools gets a push from House

A state legislator from Allegheny County touts a bill that spotlights the national motto and ”service to a power higher than yourself.”

Pine-Richland developing bathroom policy for transgender students

The board will hold meetings on the issue at 7 p.m. Tuesday, 6 p.m. May 23 and 6 p.m. June 13.

Franklin Regional may see tax increases for next three years

The district’s proposed final budget for 2016-17 calls for a tax increase of 0.75 mills, largely due to higher pension costs.

---

The themes that local school districts are dealing with are clear.

• Higher local property taxes.
• Lower federal and state support.
• Teacher layoffs due to lack of revenue.
• Bathroom access for LGBTQ populations.
• Religion in the School. 

What is this about?

Pennsylvania has one of the highest average expenditure per pupil in the nation. This would lead you to believe that we are doing a great job funding education in our state. However, Pennsylvania is rated one of the worst states at providing support for local school districts. As more and more of the burden is falling on local communities via property taxes, a budget crunch is occurring.

Our biggest problem is that three different levels of government are involved in both the financing and governance of our schools.

In some sense, the state of Pennsylvania has taken a purely political approach to education since 2000. The Pennsylvania Governor and Legislature lowered state subsidies for school districts, beat up on districts with low test scores published in local newspapers, while raising the cost of the state's pension system. These activities reek from politics. The new millennium has ushered in a Pennsylvania educational system that looks like any other line item in the budget.  It's the same as how many miles of road we will asphalt this year.

Finally, revenue differences between the 500 school districts in Pennsylvania suggest that the state has little interest or concern about disparities between poor and rich, black and white, urban and rural and segregated communities. Equity, civil rights and a level playing field appears not to be a concern.

---

So what's the takeaway?

I doubt after reading this post you learned something you didn't know already... Education and Politics... Politics and Education... they are attached at the hip. Our schools struggle to keep up with what our society is asking of them. In fact, they are never quite sure what is being asked of them. They just know that they are on a political roller coaster that creates an educational environment that is depressing, cynical and certainly not based on the needs of our children.

Whether you support the Republican Platform or the Democratic Platform, the Founders made a promise to our children and to our country. They stated that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. 

If you don't believe that a quality education for all children is what is meant by Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness than you are a cold, mean, cynical soul. If you strictly want to lower taxes because you hate the government, or you're selfish, or you believe that teachers are overpaid, or there are enough books and microscopes and classes already, or the arts are meaningless, than you will reap what you sow. An uneducated, unruly, out of work population. Then you get to spend your tax dollars on jails. Sound familiar.

Get engaged in your community. Vote. Talk to people. Support education. Invest in our children. You didn't make it by yourself. You were educated, cared for and taught by many great people. If you have Life, Liberty and Happiness, it is because you were nurtured, educated, supported and loved. What a country this would be if that was an unalienable right.