The Perfect Storm

The Principal's Office is on vacation this week and next.  However, I recently read an article in The New Yorker entitled - Wrong Answer (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/21/wrong-answer) - that is well worth a read. This case study of a middle school in Atlanta, Georgia demonstrates how the federal government, state government, local school districts, superintendents, principals and teachers grapple with test scores. And it clearly demonstrates what happens when you tie test results to salaries and employment.

I'll be back in two weeks.

We hate our children

What leads me to believe we hate our children?

Is it education?   

When I look at the world through the eyes of an educator I am ashamed at the sorry state of American public education.

• Less than half of all American children go to Preschool. 
•  20% of American children do not pass high school. 
• Of those students who attend college, nearly 60% must take remedial courses because they are not ready for college.  

One might hope that as a country we would continuously improve public education in a rational, data driven, problem solving methodology.  However, control of education begins at the state (not federal) level and ends in the local community.  Unfortunately, there is little consistency in American education with 50 different sets of state regulations and thousands of local school districts.   Thus funding, programming and quality appear almost to be random.  Funding is based on local property taxes. Governance is based on locally elected school boards.  And control is often dictated by the loudest citizen voice, the discretion of the superintendent or the teachers union.  


There is no venue in America for talking about a quality education system because of our localized, balkanized approach. Thus, it is easier to talk about teachers unions, property taxes and school sports than to talk about the complexities of learning and how to enhance student achievement.  Education in America is a unique from most of the world. If you want a quality education for your children, you have to move to a community that has a lot of money and a quality school.  Otherwise you are limited to what your current community can offer and what you can afford.  My local school district is one of the worst in the state with the highest property tax millage.  Many of my neighbors don't have the means to move into a community with better schools (and higher priced housing.)

And for those students who graduate high school and want to attend college, the cost has risen at such a fast rate that the accumulation of student debt takes decades to pay off. There is a lot of profit to be made off of the educational enterprise.  It is not surprising the existing institutions who benefit from the "business of education" seem to be a higher priority than the children themselves.

Is it politics?  

The discussion about education occurring in the mainstream media, in the blogosphere and in government (local, state and federal) is dysfunctional. It focuses on taxes, testing, unions, superintendents, school boards, school choice, preparation of teachers, public school pensions, etc. This focus on top-down issues led by uninformed, politically driven stakeholders is stifling, mean spirited and toxic.  If you don't agree, do a Google search on major media outlets for Diane Ravitch, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Wendy Kopp, Common Core or NCLB.  The discourse on public education has been co-opted by both the left and the right to serve the needs of their political agenda. If that doesn't depress you enough, look at the local news pertaining to your school district. Articles on local education focus on budgets, problems with teacher unions, layoffs, school board politics and scandals.  It is nearly impossible to read the newspapers and learn about quality schools, new academic models and across the board student achievement.  Frankly, at the local level, the conversation is mainly about money.  This is because the majority of people in a community do not have students in schools.  Schools and education become a discussion of property values.  The latest attack on education by the Governor of Pennsylvania is about cutting teacher pensions in order to lower local property taxes.  

Is it money?  

Of course everyone states "we're all about the children... the children are what's important". But if you truly want to know where our values are, follow the money. Proven interventions such as preschool (Head Start), support services for both the mental and physical health needs of children, providing quality nutrition, learning to read at an early age, school programming in the arts, sciences and physical education have all taken huge budget hits.  As communities attempt to lower taxes, schools are cutting services and programming that they believe is not focused on the bottom line - raising test scores. Class sizes are up and success rates are down.  Seldom do you see schools cut the football, baseball or basketball budget. Stadiums go up, astroturf is put down and Friday night football remains the important community event. Yet educational programs are cut. Follow the money.

Is it families? 

When we look beyond the educational institutions, we find a fundamental breakdown in our society regarding our children. Broken families, poverty and subsequent mental/physical health needs are driving our students into a state of mind that damages them for life.  In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan authored a report for the Department of Labor entitled "The Negro Family: The case for national action". In the report, Moynihan documented the increase in children in black families being born out of wedlock. Moynihan referred to the "tangle of pathology" that caused the breakup of families:

"There is no one Negro community. There is no one Negro problem. There is no one solution. Nonetheless, at the center of the tangle of pathology is the weakness of the family structure. Once or twice removed, it will be found to be the principal source of most of the aberrant, inadequate, or antisocial behavior that did not establish, but now serves to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and deprivation.

As you might guess, Moynihan was vilified by many and supported by others.  He called out a problem on the basis of race. This controversial report dogged Moynihan for most of his life.

Nearly 50 years later, the Urban Institute partnering with Fathers Incorporated produced "The Moynihan Report Revisited." Not only has the problem reported by Moynihan exacerbated, but it is broader than he suspected.

Note that in 1965, the year Moynihan published his report, approximately 3% of white children and 24% of black children were "born outside of marriage".  In 2010, 29% of white children, 53% of Hispanic children and 73% of black children were "born outside of marriage". This represents a significant increase for all populations.  This suggests that what Moynihan described as a problem of the "Negro Family" is really a problem of American families in general.

Is it poverty?  

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) conducted a recent analysis of poverty in America over the last decade.

While many government efforts have succeeded in reducing poverty in this country, there have been periods of even greater strides in poverty reduction. For instance, the period between 1959 and the mid-1970s saw great declines in poverty. As the country got richer, on average, poverty fell precipitously. If the relationship between per capita GDP growth and poverty that prevailed from 1959 to 1973 had held, the poverty rate would have fallen to zero in the mid-1980s. The fact remains that rising inequality has kept poverty from falling as the economy has grown over the last three decades.

So what does poverty have to do with the Moynihan report.  The following graph from the EPI report tells the story.



Note that the category Female-headed households with children (i.e. children born out of marriage) has the highest rate of poverty of any group.  The report doesn't comment on causality (poverty causing out of marriage children or visa versa).  It just points out correlation.  However, I believe Moynahan was onto something.  There is a tangled pathology here.  Poverty and the breakdown of the family appear to be linked.

This trend of increasing poverty among children was confirmed in a 2005 UNICEF report "Child Poverty in Rich Countries".  The report ranked the United States as the 25th worst (out of the 26 richest countries) with 21.9% child poverty.  One out of five American children live in poverty.  Maybe we don't hate all of our children, just the poor ones.

Am I crazy?  

When I begin to rant about how we hate our children most people in the room look at me like I am crazy.  Maybe I am just another bleeding heart that is too close to the problem. They tell me it's time to lighten up. I'm being too critical.  Many Americans would say that all countries have poor populations. We are the wealthiest country in the world with the highest standard of living.  4 out of 5 of our children do not live in poverty.  It is not appropriate for you to say "we hate our children".  You work with the "poor city kids."  Maybe they are right.  I'm being too dramatic.  I suppose once you get out to the suburbs, everything is just fine.  However, before you too declare me crazy, read the 2013 UNICEF report.

Is it America?  

In 2013, UNICEF published a second report entitled "Child Well-Being in Rich Countries".  They ranked the 29 wealthiest countries on Child Overall Well-Being (25) and in five sub-domains: Material Well Being (26), Health and Safety (25), Education (27), Behaviors and Risks (23) and Housing and Environment(23).  The numbers in () are the ranking of the United States.  The richest, greatest, free-est nation in the world is ranked in the lowest 1/5 of wealthy nations in terms of the well-being of our children... All of our children.

2013 UNICEF Rankings on Overall Child Well Being

The following table shows the areas surveyed for the report.

Can you imagine how the report would have looked if they looked at these additional indicators?

• Children born outside of marriage
• Education funding
• Number of days in school
• Quality of faculty
• Educational activities outside of school 
• Opportunity for health care
• The cost of college
• The cost of housing
• The proliferation of guns and violence
• The amount of time spent watching TV
• Opportunities for employment 
• Ability to earn a living wage

The UNICEF report ranked America 26th out of 29 developed countries on the overall well being of our children.  Yet the Organization for Economic and Cooperation and Development (OECD) states:

The U.S. has the highest average household disposable income on the list at $38,000 a year — much higher than the OECD average of $23,000.

So America is ranked first in household disposable income and 26th on the overall well being of our children.  Something is very wrong here.  This is not a race problem, or a poor problem or an urban problem.  This is an American problem.  Even if we love our children, we are doing a really bad job of taking care of them.  

---

It is our values.

In America, we are localized, individualized and we focus on our rights: Freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, the right to own property.  In our Declaration of Independence it states:

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.  

It has taken over 200 years just to get the "all men are created equal" part implemented. I'm not sure the "pursuit of Happiness" part guarantees that we have to take care of our children. No where in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it state that we have the right to a quality education.  Our founding fathers argued for our rights, not our responsibilities. Therein lies the rub.

It is not my responsibility to care about your child... or any child not my own.  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.  It's not my problem if you don't have a father.  It's not my problem if you don't have a job.  You need to work harder. You need to take care of yourself.  Go get a job and quit whining.  It's not my problem that you are black or poor or have no parents.  You are on your own.  I'm doing fine.  America is the land of opportunity.  Pennsylvania is doing fine.  The suburbs are doing fine.  Our children are doing fine. That is unless you look at issues of drugs, mental health, school violence (Franklin Regional HS, Columbine, Sandy Hook ES), divorce, bullying and low achievement (only 56% of students who attend a four year college graduate within 6 years.)  This is who we are.  

Obviously, if you are reading this blog you care about children.  If you've gotten this far in this distressing post, then you either are very angry or deeply depressed.  I promised that this blog would attempt to focus on what works, not what doesn't and so far this post has not lived up to that promise.  I don't know what this country can do to fix itself, to find a moral compass, to believe that our children are our destiny.  I certainly don't know how to create a society that has less "children born out of marriage."  And I'm afraid solving the poverty problem is beyond my scope as well.  I'm guessing it's not really a viable solution to say we just need to be more like the Netherlands.

So let me talk about what I do know.  Unbeknownst to many people in our country, there are outstanding schools that succeed with all students achieving at high levels.  There are schools that help students of all races, socio-economics and demographics succeed. Some of these schools are public, some are charters (also public) and some are independent private schools. Some are union and some are not. Some are in urban areas, some in the suburbs and some are rural.  What they all have in common are methodologies that are aligned with the needs of their students. Successful schools use organizational structures, curriculums, pedagogies, support mechanisms that work in societies that are diverse, with students in need, with families that need help. Successful schools create cultures of success and support, that are so student focused, that nothing gets in their way.

Schools that produce students that succeed, particularly students who are poor, born out of marriage and at-risk, succeed because they are designed to provide the supports that many families cannot. This includes nutrition, health care, counseling and structure. The school assumes they are responsible for their students. This is a radical thought.  School as family. Successful schools love their students.  This statement is a heresy in America.  Critics would state that a school acting in such a deeply supportive and caring manner is presumptuous, paternalistic and an example of "social engineering".  That is not a school's responsibility. A schools job is to serve up education. Provide the education and students who are interested will succeed.  The only problem is that traditional factory model schools don't come close to the success of caring schools.

School is the most profound social mechanism that we have to help our children - thirteen years (K-12), seven hours a day, 180 days out of the year.  Don't think about school as a baby sitter or as a nuisance or as the enemy... think of it as how your community values children.   We live in a time when education has become the great equalizer or the great divide.  If we really loved our children, not just our own, but all of our children, we would demand quality education and make it our number one priority with regard to resources.

Our values as a nation are instantiated through our language, our behaviors, our use of financial resources and our institutions.  I would suggest that it is the American way to place the burden of education on the individual and let the chips fall where they may. This cowboy mentality works great in the movies, but in reality it simply demonstrates that we really don't care about our children.

To learn about education in Pennsylvania... Follow the money!

PA HB 2328: 2014-15 Budget General Fund

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is required to pass its annual budget by July 1st for the new fiscal year.  Both houses of the legislature have passed the 2014-15 budget and it currently sits on the Governor's desk awaiting his signature.  The governor is withholding his signature because he was hoping for some movement on reforms to the state's public employee pension system.

Within the budget (PA HB 2328) the governor is providing an increase in education funding.   

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 04, 2014

Governor Corbett’s Budget Increases Funding for Education by $387 Million; New Initiatives to Raise Student Achievement

I decided to take a look at this increase and how it will be distributed.  One might conjecture how the Governor would allocate an increase in education dollars.

• Would he reward school districts that are doing well? doing poorly? 
• Would he give more money to the most needy districts (poverty?) 
• Would he give the additional funds in an equitable fashion (all districts get the same % increase?) 
• Would he give the additional funds based on educational need?
• Or would he give the additional funds based on political expediency (fall election this year?)

---

Here is the plan for Allegheny County School Districts.  This table contains the state allocations for each district, the dollar ($) and per cent (%) increase from last year's budget, and the district's 2013 poverty statistics based on federal lunch eligibility.  The districts are rank ordered from largest to smallest increase. Above the green line is an increase greater than 6% and below the red line is an increase less than 3%.

When I looked at this chart I was shocked.  The schools that received the lowest increase were the poorest schools.  I assumed this couldn't be true.  So I did an analysis looking at the correlation between the % increase in the district allocations and % poverty by district. Here is what I found.

The line of best fit suggests a strong correlation between poverty and budget allocation (R^2=.59).  The only problem is that the correlation is an inverse correlation - the more poverty a district has, the less additional money they receive.  Although all of the districts are represented in the graph, four are listed by name.  Looking at two districts exemplifies the overall correlation.  Quaker Valley is receiving an 8.2% increase with 15.7% poverty. Clairton is receiving a 2.7% increase with 90.8% poverty.  

This is the state we live in.  The haves get more money, the have-nots are vilified for low test scores.  I cannot imagine what the thinking was that determined these allocations. Can you?  

So are they making these allocations based on trying to obtain votes for the current administration?  With a Republican majority in the state legislature and a Republican Governor behind in the polls, that is one logical conclusion.  

There is a second, meaner conclusion.  We are living in a time where sympathy for those less fortunate has gone by the wayside.  If you are poor, a minority or unemployed, you are perceived as being lazy, dependent on government handouts and costly to our society.  We live in a state that refuses to expand Medicare to people without health insurance, that refuses to tax the very wealthy natural gas industry (fracking), that uses its lottery proceeds for the elderly and not for education, that has no desire to expand Pre-K education, that legalized gambling with none of the proceeds going to education.  We live in a state where the two largest state universities (Pitt and Penn State) have the highest tuition for in-state students in America. We live in a state that is mean spirited.

In 2004, the state of Pennsylvania officially changed its state slogan to "The State of Independence".  True enough.  We are independent in PA.  You are on your own to get health insurance... you are on your own to get a quality education... you are on your own if you don't have a job... you are on your own if you are a child born into a poor family in a poor community, you are independent.  

Can Education Overcome Poverty?

"Our schools cannot be improved if we ignore the disadvantages associated with poverty that affect children's ability to learn. Children who have grown up in poverty need extra resources, including preschool and medical care."
― Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education

Anyone who is involved in the public school dialogue knows of Diane Ravitch.  She is a study in contradictions.  Dr. Ravitch is one of the leading advocates of public education in our time, but she sent her children to private schools.  She spent 14 years as a member of the education establishment: Assistant Secretary of Education from 1991 to 1993, served as a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which supervises the National Assessment of Educational Progress from 1997 to 2004 and held the Brown Chair in Education Studies at the Brookings Institution from 1995 - 2005.  She was an advocate for high stakes testing (No Child Left Behind), school reform and charter schools.  At some point around 2006 Dr. Ravitch had a turn of heart.  Her last two bestselling books represent her current thinking:  The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (2010) and Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools (2013).  Through her blog, numerous appearances in the media and her books, Dr. Ravitch is stumping for the current public education system, defending teachers, stating that our test scores are fine and preaching against privatization, charter schools and high stakes testing.  There's a lot there.

When Dr. Ravitch came to Pittsburgh this past year, I went to hear her speak.  As she defended the current system, my mind drifted to our local schools that are mired in failure - Pittsburgh, Wilkinsburg, Duquesne, McKeesport, Clairton, Sto-Rox... I know that Dr. Ravitch would never send her children to these schools, so how could she defend them? Then she made a statement that both explained her thoughts on this and shocked me to the bone.  The problem with these schools was not the teachers or the program or the schools, the problem was poverty.  I agree with Dr. Ravitch, the problem is poverty.  That is not what shocked me. She then stated that the solution is for our country to eliminate poverty.  We need more jobs. We need more early childhood education.  We need better medical care.  And that was it.

Damn.  I wonder if Dr. Ravitch has the guts to go into any of these schools and tell the students they just have to wait for America to eliminate poverty for them to have a chance. At best, her approach is cynical, ideological, fatalistic.  At worst, it simply writes off poor children.

In 2012, 14.7 million people in the United States had family incomes between 100 and 125 percent of their poverty threshold.  

Individuals with less than a high school degree had a near-poverty rate of 10.0 percent in 2012, while individuals with a college degree or more had a near-poverty rate of 1.6 percent during the same year.

Ok.. as my daughter says to me all the time, "Dad... you've got lots of opinions; if you're so smart, what do you think we ought to do?"  Well, I don't have to tell you what I think we ought to do because we are doing it.  There are hundreds of schools across the country that are doing it. These schools start from the same premise:

• Urban schools work with students who live in poverty.
• Urban students often do not have the family resources that support learning. The majority of our poor students have only one parent in their household. They often grow up in homes without books, opportunities to learn, opportunities to see what possibilities exist beyond their immediate environment.  Often our students are working with their parent to make ends meet, to help their family members, to survive.
• Issues such as addiction, violence, abuse, personal safety, often exist where poverty is prevalent.  

 Successful schools in the urban core assume they must build a culture and program that takes these issues into account and provides students with wraparound services.  Over 100 schools across America do this successfully.  They belong to a consortium called Schools That Can.  What all these schools have in common is a culture and program that succeeds by assuming poverty is the norm!  Let me use Schools That Can - Milwaukee as an example. Here is what they say:

What we Believe

• Despite tremendous challenges, great schools exist in Milwaukee — district, charter, and Choice. More are possible. 

• ALL children, regardless of life circumstances, WILL learn and succeed when provided with an environment where people believe in them, set high expectations and give them a toolkit to excel.

• Creating a world-class system of schools is essential to making Milwaukee a premier destination for people to work and live.

• Reform must start now, person by person, school by school.

Our goal is to be a catalyst for transformation through partnerships with school leaders, coaches, community leaders, and other Milwaukee organizations and people committed to educational reform.

Successful Schools: Different Methods, Same Ingredients

• NO EXCUSES
• Strong Leadership and Governance
• Relentlessly High Expectations
• Increased Time on Task
• Dedicated, Passionate and Effective Teachers
• Love and Discipline
• Whatever It Takes Mindset
• Student Performance Data Focus
• Alumni Tracked

In Pittsburgh, there are 4 Schools That Can schools - City High, Manchester Academic, the Neighborhood Academy and Pittsburgh Urban Christian School. 

Two are charter schools and two are private sectarian schools.  They all have great success and work with students in poverty.  If you were to visit these schools you would be immediately impressed by how welcoming they are, how disciplined they are, the high levels of academic challenge, the enormous support network for students and the fact that people are smiling.  You would also notice that the adults hug the children and care deeply about them.  

Reading deficits, behavioral deficits, emotional deficits, physical deficits are not complained about, but are addressed, worked on and overcome. You would notice that these schools provide quality food and health services.  You would notice amazing teachers.  You would notice that the students are well dressed, even if the school has to contribute to helping students dress accordingly.  You would notice love.  

So what level of student achievement would you find at these schools.  

Schools That Can criteria for High-Performing Member Schools

1. For public schools: School-wide performance is 15 percentage points above the city-wide average proficient and advanced rates in ELA and Math.

2. For schools taking norm-referenced tests: EITHER 70% of students are above the 50th percentile OR students show an average of 20 points growth during tenure at school.

3. Daily attendance rate is at least 90%.

4. Graduation rate is at least 80% (of students who enter in 9th grade). Also valid criteria for middle schools that track their alums through high school.

5. The student population is at least 60% low-income (as determined by Federal Free & Reduced Lunch rates).

6. The applicant school must have been in operation for at least two years.

7. In addition to these benchmarks, we look for schools with strong, collaborative leaders at the helm, who have built a positive, mission-driven culture that holds all stakeholders to high expectations.

As the retired co-founder, CEO/Principal of City High in Pittsburgh, I can speak about City High's achievement.  

- On the 2012 state PSSA exams City High (with 67.5% poverty) had the same scores as suburban high schools that had an average of 15% poverty.  

- Over 70% of City High graduates who attend four year colleges receive their degrees in 6 years.  The national average is 59%.  

Class of 2013: 115 Graduates

- 95 were accepted into either a 2 year or 4 year program (83%)

- 73 students were accepted into a 4 year college/university (64%)

- 22 students were accepted into a 2 year, technical, or training program (19%)

- The rest will either work full time, travel, or have enrolled in the military (14%)

- 115 students with 632 MOS and Adobe certifications, 1 MOS Office Masters

If Dr. Ravitch, would look at the School That Can schools, she would find public charters and private schools. None of them are for profit, all are non-profits. None of them are a corporate attempt to privatize education. They are all hugely pro-teacher. They pay competitive salaries and benefits. They all work with students in poverty. And they all work in cities where the public schools are struggling.  They have all reached out to the public schools with little or no success.  As I've mentioned in previous blog posts, the local public charter and private schools have reached out to the Pittsburgh Public Schools, the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers and the District Superintendent with no success.  

This brings us back to the opening question, "Can education overcome poverty?"  I obviously believe it can and does in these high performing schools. Nationally, Ravitch is stating that we have to overcome poverty through programs external to the school. Locally, the Yinzercation blog echoes the same sentiment.

"If anything, we need to be investing more in pre-natal care and quality early childhood education programs. And we need more wrap-around services like before- and after-school care, tutoring programs, social workers and community healthcare. Those would be the kind of sound public policies based on proven strategies, backed up by real data, that we ought to expect from our legislators."

I certainly don't disagree with these services.  But we would be crazy to wait for these services to solve the urban core education problem... unless our goal is saving the existing institutions on the backs of our students.  The progressive left has decided to make this an issue of government resources and the defense of the current public education system.  The conservative right wants to privatize and/or profitize education and destroy the unions.

While the ideologues fight, the education pragmatists/innovators have attacked poverty through school itself. We have students for 8 hours a day, 185 days a year, for 13 years. We know what works. There are hundreds of schools across America that have figured it out.  Ask our parents and students whether schools can overcome poverty.

City High Graduation - 2014 - 132 students

Or maybe we should wait for a progressive governor and legislature to fund quality pre-natal care and early childhood programs.