Let's Ditch the Limiting Language of Education

We love the familiarity of structure, especially when that familiarity conjures up memories – real or contrived – of good times and warm fuzzy feelings. But the language of structure can be limiting just for that very reason, because its words connected to indelible images that form our memories and activate our emotional response systems. And there's no other structure that activates more of our emotions – good or bad – then memories of school.

 

And it's these memories that limit our thinking and imagination about what could be when it comes to bringing our educational structures into the 21^st century, because all too often we're stuck on "what should be" as measured by our personal experiences and historical understanding of school. In other words, we are limited by our very own vocabulary from making real structural changes. So instead, we dabble around the edges with so-called reform careful not to damage the traditional structures beyond recognition. This is why it is often said that a teacher who retired in the 1960's could very easily walk into our schools and classrooms today, and after perhaps a few minor adjustments, would feel very much at home.

 

So let's consider changing the vocabulary behind our educational structure and once-and-for-all take down the real barriers that are preventing real reform. Here are some of my suggestions for changing the vocabulary found in formal institutions of learning:

 

School – let's start right away by eliminating this term right now. Close your eyes and blank your thoughts. Now think of the word "school." What visual do you get? I'll bet its either a school you attended – no matter how many years ago – or one you're working in right now. You can't shake that image and instead visualize a structure that's considerably different from either. Even if you try, chances are the "new" building you are imagining looks very similar or has similar structures to it.  This infects the thinking of every member of the community, which is why making substantial change is often next to impossible.

 

Classroom – this has got to go! It implies that the only place learning occurs is in some little box-shaped room with all the traditional trappings of a handsome 19^th or 20^th century classroom. There's order that usually includes the teacher standing in front and students lined up like ducks in a row. Your brain avoids chaos and can't imagine something called a "classroom" looking like anything else, even if "anything else" is a much better learning environment. And what's worse is when a teacher says "my classroom" which implies control and rationing out of course content only in ways I see fit. In other words, this is my kingdom and if you're good little children, I'll let you come in and I'll teach you. If you're not, please leave my classroom, now.

 

Class period – little is more limiting than the use of the word "period." The formal definition makes me shudder that we still use this as part of our learning lexicon. It implies that learning is structured into specified divisions or portions of time, marked by the recurrence of some phenomenon or occupied by some recurring process or action (Dictionary.com). Nothing could be further from the truth for if this were true, there would be no learning in the seemingly endless chaos of childhood play. In addition, using class period to divide up a day, week, term or year means that we only have to think about chemistry or English or history or any other subject in that one fraction of time.

 

Grade – there are two limiting uses of this word, the first of which is the way we divide up a child's life between the ages of 5 and 18 into numbered grade levels, thereby also dividing up the curriculum accordingly, as if all children grow, mature, and learn at the same rate as a function of years. But we find that we can't talk about any of our other learning-related structures without bringing up the late-19^th century concept of grades. Go ahead and try it. Meet with your peers and discuss the curriculum or any other school-related business and see who's the first to mention grade or grade-level. Make a game of it or better yet, a fundraiser. Anytime a member of the staff says "grade" or "grade-level" it's a quarter in the jar.

 

The second use of the word – to indicate how well a child has learned something (if in fact that's how you grade instead of giving points for getting work done, behaving, attendance or even donating a box of tissues to the room) – assumes that all a student has to do is endure whatever activity is required, get graded for the work, and move on whether or not he or she mastered the concept or not. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the child is ready for whatever is next, as long as a passing grade was acquired. After all, that's what parents want to know – did my child pass? What grade did he/she get? As if learning is always something in the past that comes to an end with the granting of the almighty grade.

 

Teacher – the online dictionary can't even define this word without using it, because we truly have come to believe that education is all about a single person imparting knowledge or skills and without that, we would have no learning at all. What if we devised an educational structure that was void of teachers and instead was constructed completely around the needs of individual and collaborative groups of learners, staffed only by adult mentors and learning assistants or guides to help along the way.

 

No way! That's not school!

 

See what I mean?

Keeping poor kids in the back of the public school bus

There's no denying the correlation between inequity in K-12 funding and low achievement scores. But they do, anyway.

While I'm amazed at the number of policymakers, education reporters, educational leaders, and so-called reformers who simply ignore an undisputed fact, I'm not surprised. After all, admitting that the problem with educational outcomes has more to do with inputs than process denies them of their favorite pastime: destroying public education.

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the correlation between poorly funded schools and students who perform poorly is well established, and this phenomenon contributes to educational inequity. The difference in per capita spending between the most and the least affluent schools ranges from 1.5:1 to 2:1 (2005 estimates). With the average difference between poorer and richer schools being $1000 per student, schools in high-poverty, high-diversity areas may experience one half to a full million dollars less in funding than neighboring schools (Slavin, 1997). Schools that arguably need more get less than their wealthier counterparts (NASBE, 2001). Responding to these inequities, some have argued that the economic variables are the real determinants of variation in student performance." ~ Scott, Dr. Stacy L. Making Equity Work. 2005

Yet, we collectively do nothing. Public school leaders in general are complicit in this in that the majority from wealthier suburban districts bury their heads in the sand. They're more than happy to band together to ask for more dollars across the board, but that never solves the problem for schools serving communities mired in poverty and English language deficiencies. If you step out of line (as I have), you're branded as a rebel. But what you fail to recognize is that's exactly what I am, especially if it has anything to do with the futures of my kids.

The problem with No Child Left Behind is the very fact that kids are left behind every day by social problems, by economic problems, by a society that thinks its perfectly okay to provide $15,000 per pupil to rich school districts that have the power in our legislatures while expecting kids battling poverty, homelessness, out-of-work parents, English skill deficiencies, and other problems to achieve the same standards with one-third less, with limited resources, and with aging out-of-date facilities and technology. And your best answer is to simply blame hard-working, well-qualified teachers, shame schools, and cut their funding even more?

So now Michigan and other states claim the solution is more charters schools, including cyber schools, and greater choice. That's it? More competition for diminishing resources will help solve the problems of kids who come to school every day with "junk in the trunk?" That's the best you've got?

Guess that works for you and your wealthy voters.

A Tale of Two Counties and the Inequity of K-12 Funding in Michigan

On the front page of the January 18, 2012 edition of Education Week, Sean Cavanagh writes about States Dogged by Lawsuits on K-12 Funding. The article discusses a variety of legal battles that “highlight the political and ideological divides over school funding in many states.”

“Some of the districts also contend that the funding system is inequitable and provides impoverished school districts and needy populations such as English-language learners with insufficient resources. State legislators have continually changed funding mechanisms in ways that undermined districts’ funding, the lawsuit says.

A growing number of school districts feel we have no real choice but to fight the battle in court given the deep cuts in K-12 funding, expanding number of for-profit charters competing for less dollars, and the inequity in state funding schemes that fail to recognize the added burdens in districts with high concentrations of poor, English language learners, and students with special needs. NCLB has forced states to set high bars for annual testing, graduation, as well as college and career readiness, but it has not adequately addressed inequity in funding, facilities, and resources necessary to meet and indeed exceed the goals. State governments haven’t done any better.

Michigan is near the bottom when it comes to equitable funding that ensures all students have quality schools, supports, and resources necessary to achieve the high standards set by NCLB and confirmed by Governor Rick Snyder’s reform agenda.  In fact, Michigan ranks 42^nd in the nation in wealth-neutrality when it comes to school funding, which no doubt contributes significantly to a low 32^nd rank in effectively addressing the poverty gap on the reading and math NAEP assessments. This was confirmed in Education Week’s Quality Counts 2012 and was the topic of my recent post, Setting High Standards for All But Ignoring the K-12 Opportunity Gap.

Yet, Governor Snyder and our legislative leaders continue to suggest the “stick” is a far better school reform measure than providing the “carrots” that will help achieve equity of opportunity for all children and sub-groups of students.

“Public school districts won't find their funding cut again in 2012 – but they might not get additional cash unless they can show they're improving or carrying out best practices, Gov. Rick Snyder said Thursday.” Gov. Snyder: School districts might have to show improvement, collaboration to get more state money

This presents a number of problems for districts trying to plan future school improvement efforts that will positively impact student achievement while having no idea what type of so-called rewards will be received or when. Districts don’t have the capability of opening lines of credit with local banks to finance ventures such as the Governor suggests, which resemble more of a private business practice than a sound school budgeting practice. And then people wonder why the number of school districts in Michigan that are in a deficit budget has grown significantly in the past year?

Can anyone tell me how Governor Snyder’s plan even begins to address inequity of opportunity and the growing funding and academic achievement gaps in Michigan?

A Tale of Two Counties


I previously provided a simple illustration of Michigan’s inequity of opportunity by comparing my district – Godfrey-Lee Public Schools – with the other eighteen school districts in our county, along with a quick comparison to one of the most affluent districts in Michigan, Bloomfield Hills Public Schools on the east side of the state. It is located in Oakland County north of Wayne County and the City of Detroit and is sometimes referred to as Michigan’s equivalent to “home of the stars.” These illustrations can be found in my post, K-12 Funding Perpetuates the Inequity of Opportunity.

I’ve since taken a more comprehensive look at the data that separates and compares the 19 school districts in Kent County with the 28 districts in Oakland County. In doing so, I use three common economic indicators: poverty rate for 5-17 year olds, SEV or state equalized valuation of property, and combined state and local revenues. The latter two are compared on a per-pupil basis to provide a more equitable comparison between varying-size districts. The fourth indicator is achievement as measured by the states NCLB-mandated Top-to-Bottom ranking of all public schools in Michigan. The data is laid out in a series of five tables to illustrate the disparity in equitable opportunities for students attending the 47 schools. In addition, each table includes an inequity index that combines the four indicators and ranks the schools on a scale of 0.01 (schools with the lowest poverty, highest SEV, highest revenue, and highest achievement scores) to 0.99 (schools with the highest poverty, lowest SEV, lowest revenue, and lowest achievement scores).

The tables are summarized below or you can go to the Google Doc link to see the complete data set:

Table 1: This table lists the 28 Oakland County schools sorted by the countywide inequity index. As you can see, Bloomfield Hills tops the list as the most affluent in the county and having the highest achievement score ranking. At the bottom of the list are schools closer to or bordering Wayne County and the City of Detroit.  With but a few exceptions, most of the schools at the bottom have higher poverty rates, lower SEV values, receive far less revenue than the more affluent districts, and are ranked lower on the achievement scale. The correlations between the numbers and the rankings are telling. Here’s a listing of the districts and their respective inequity index:

Oakland County District	Countywide Inequity Index
Bloomfield Hills	0.06
Birmingham	0.09
Novi	0.15
Troy	0.22
Rochester	0.26
Farmington	0.31
Royal Oak	0.34
Lake Orion	0.42
Walled Lake	0.43
Clarkston	0.45
Southfield	0.47
Clawson	0.47
South Lyon	0.51
Avondale	0.52
West Bloomfield	0.54
Berkley	0.56
Huron Valley	0.57
Lamphere	0.58
Oxford	0.61
Pontiac	0.62
Holly	0.68
Waterford	0.73
Clarenceville	0.75
Brandon	0.76
Oak Park	0.78
Madison	0.82
Ferndale	0.87
Hazel Park	0.93
Top 10	0.27
Bottom 10	0.75
Top 5	0.16
Bottom 5	0.83

Table 2: This table lists the 19 Kent County districts including my own Godfrey-Lee Public Schools. You’ll notice that my district is ranked dead last in most of the indicators including the inequity index. Here’s a listing of the school districts and their respective inequity index:

Kent County District	Countywide Inequity Index
Forest Hills	0.07
Caledonia	0.16
E. Grand Rapids	0.26
Byron Center	0.32
Rockford	0.39
Northview	0.41
Kenowa Hills	0.45
Grandville	0.46
Lowell	0.50
Kentwood	0.50
Grand Rapids	0.62
Godwin	0.64
Cedar Springs	0.66
Wyoming	0.70
Sparta	0.72
Comstock Park	0.72
Kelloggsville	0.74
Kent City	0.78
Godfrey-Lee	0.89
Top 10	0.35
Bottom 10	0.70
Top 5	0.24
Bottom 5	0.77

I’ll let the reader draw your own conclusions, but here’s a reminder about some of the factors in our district that contribute to this low ranking, which by the way, represents a significant improvement from the 2010 Top-to-Bottom list:

• Highest federal poverty rate in the county
• High free-and-reduced lunch rate in excess of 90%
•  Highest limited English language proficiency rate in Michigan
• High percentage of Hispanic students with English as a second language
• High rate of transiency and influx of new students at all grade levels
• Extremely low property valuation to support capitol improvements and technology (only six districts in Michigan have a lower SEV per pupil)
• Crowded, aging school buildings constructed in 1923, 1952, 1988 and 1998 (the high school is the oldest school building in Kent County still used for the same purpose)
• Severely limited property holdings for expansion of facilities including those used for recreation and athletics
• Lack of modern facilities found in more affluent districts such as swimming pools, stand-alone soccer stadiums, performing arts centers, multi-use athletic field houses, student commons areas, television production studios, expandable-flexible learning spaces.

While none of these are meant to be excuses or impossible obstacles, to sufficiently meet the state and NCLB achievement goals of all students achieving college-and-career readiness will require extra time, extra support, smaller class sizes, longer school days, longer school years, modern facilities, and 21^st century technologies. But, owing greatly to a decade of decreasing state funding leading to draconian general fund budget cuts, our class sizes are the highest they've been in more than thirty years, while the percentage of at-risk students has steadily increased to represent a supermajority of the student body.

Despite the obstacles our students face, we have been cited for recent accomplishments primarily due to the hard work of our professional teaching staff, perseverence of our students, and caring parents:

• The Early Childhood Center was one of only 20 schools in the state to be cited by the State Board of Education for Beating the Odds in 2011
• Lee High School was awarded a significant, limited federal school improvement grant that was instrumental in helping move the school up the Top-to-Bottom list and off the 5% persistently low achieving list

In addition, our Early Childhood program is a leader in the county, our enrollment has grown steadily over the past ten years with many families choosing our district over larger neighboring districts, and our district is considered a trend-setter when it comes to innovative practices in the use of technology.


Table 3: This table combines the 47 school districts with the Kent County districts highlighted in yellow. As you can see, Godfrey-Lee and Oakland County’s Hazel Park are at the bottom of the combined inequity index.

Here’s a listing of the combined schools and their respective inequity index when compared to all districts in both counties (Kent County schools are italicized in this list):

Oakland and Kent County Districts	Combined Countywide Inequity Index
Bloomfield Hills	0.04
Birmingham	0.07
Novi	0.11
Rochester	0.15
Troy	0.16
Forest Hills	0.21
Farmington	0.24
Royal Oak	0.26
Caledonia	0.29
Lake Orion	0.31
Walled Lake	0.31
Clarkston	0.36
E. Grand Rapids	0.38
Clawson	0.38
Byron Center	0.39
Avondale	0.39
West Bloomfield	0.39
Southfield	0.44
South Lyon	0.46
Rockford	0.46
Berkley	0.47
Huron Valley	0.49
Lamphere	0.51
Oxford	0.52
Northview	0.54
Kenowa Hills	0.54
Grandville	0.56
Pontiac	0.56
Holly	0.58
Lowell	0.61
Kentwood	0.61
Clarenceville	0.63
Brandon	0.67
Waterford	0.67
Oak Park	0.71
Grand Rapids	0.71
Cedar Springs	0.73
Godwin	0.74
Madison	0.76
Wyoming	0.76
Sparta	0.77
Kelloggsville	0.78
Comstock Park	0.79
Kent City	0.81
Ferndale	0.81
Godfrey-Lee	0.89
Hazel Park	0.90
Top 10	0.19
Bottom 10	0.80
Top 5	0.11
Bottom 5	0.84

Table 4: This table provides a comparison of the inequity index for the top and bottom groups of school districts when sorting for each of the indicators.

Inequity Index by Indicator	Average Inequity Index for…	2010 U.S. Census Fed. Pov. % Ages 5-17	Ave. Total SEV Per Pupil	2009-10 Local & State Revenue Per Pupil	2011 State Top-to-Bottom Ave. Rank	Overall Inequity Index
Oakland County	Top 10	0.28	0.30	0.38	0.32	0.27
	Bottom 10	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.72	0.75
	Top 5	0.16	0.32	0.28	0.16	0.16
	Bottom 5	0.78	0.82	0.69	0.72	0.83
Kent County	Top 10	0.37	0.37	0.45	0.39	0.35
	Bottom 10	0.70	0.67	0.59	0.67	0.70
	Top 5	0.24	0.30	0.31	0.24	0.24
	Bottom 5	0.72	0.75	0.62	0.72	0.77
Combined Counties	Top 10	0.23	0.24	0.32	0.23	0.19
	Bottom 10	0.75	0.79	0.69	0.70	0.80
	Top 5	0.11	0.28	0.24	0.22	0.11
	Bottom 5	0.77	0.82	0.66	0.67	0.84

Table 5: This table illustrates a summary of the indices and rankings for the top and bottom groups, along with the mean and median for each county as well as the combined list. In addition, Godfrey-Lee’s rankings are included to provide a comparison with the top and bottom averages. Due to the size of the table, you'll have to go to the link to view it. As you will clearly see, our district's rankings and the inequity index are either lower or very near the bottom average for each.



Here are three observations from the tables:

• The highest inequity lies in poverty percentage for school-age children in both counties
• The inequity gaps in Oakland County are generally greater than in Kent County, meaning the span between the most affluent districts and poor districts is greater.
• The inequity gaps in the combined counties are generally greater than in either county, implying that as you increase the number of affluent and poor districts, the equity gap grows

Where Do We Go?

All I can do is tell the story to whoever will listen and believe me, I plan to keep telling it even if it requires legal action to remedy the problem. Sadly, most of our local media education writers and broadcasters spend little to no time addressing the inequities between Michigan’s most affluent districts and those serving the needs of low-income, immigrant neighborhoods. They have been brainwashed by the likes of boy-billionaires and the Michelle Rhee’s who are expanding their spheres of influence and making a buck at the same time. They have come to believe that reform measures such as firing teachers, cutting salaries and benefits, closing low-performing schools, taking over or consolidating districts, and expanding the number of profit-making charter schools are the only answers to improving student achievement.

Unfortunately, none of these have been shown to improve student achievement. What will ultimately improve student achievement, aka, improve low-performing schools, is equity of opportunity for all students. When we finally get the courage to address this moral issue once and for all, by closing the inequity indices in the tables I’ve laid out, we’ll finally be a nation where equity of opportunity drives our quest to once again have the best educational system in the world.

If only Governor Snyder believed the future of all Michigan's children is as important -- no, more important than his precious bridge to Canada or tax cuts for business. Perhaps then he'd become the first governor in state history to finally address the inequity in school funding.

Related Posts:
Growing Equity Gap in Public Education -- A Primer
K-12 Funding Perpetuates the Inequity of Opportunity


If you would like a complete compilation of my recent blog posts on inequity of opportunity & growing K-12 funding gap in a PDF booklet, it's available free on Scribd at http://t.co/FwJX0tM9

Growing Equity Gap in Public Education -- A Primer

I've been posting the past couple of weeks on the inequity of opportunity between wealthy and poor schools, and the impact it has on our children. On this "MLK Day," I provide a list of resources that can serve as a primer for anyone interested in exploring the growing K-12 funding gap further. This is a must-read for political and educational leaders willing to pull their heads out of the sand and confront this disease that threatens our kids' futures.

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/mlk-pauperize-education.html  Decades ago, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke out against the shameful inequity in American schools. It persists today despite nearly fifty years of federal intervention.

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/01/paul-krugman-how-fares-the-dream.html Rising inequality "threatens to make America a different and worse place. He dreamed of a nation in which his children ‘will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ But what we actually became is a nation that judges people not by the color of their skin — or at least not as much as in the past — but by the size of their paychecks.” Inequity in public school funding contributes to the increasing gap.

 

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/k-12-funding-perpetuates-inequity-of.html Past and current K-12 funding schemes simply perpetuate the inequity of opportunity between schools serving poor neighborhoods and those in affluent communities.

 

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/successful-school-reform-must-include.html School reform will never be fully successful without addressing the inequity of opportunity that pervades our public school system.

 

http://rebel6.blogspot.com/2012/01/setting-high-standards-for-all-while.html We continue to raise the achievement bar and blame failure on our teachers and schools, but do nothing to address the growing equity gap between rich and poor students.

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/165575/why-congress-redlining-our-schools Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or “No Child Left Behind” makes the practice of “redlining” official, hitting poor schools hardest with damaging punishments, further weakening schools in the most vulnerable communities and entrenching the problems—concentrated poverty, segregation and lack of human and fiscal resources—that underlie their failure. It does nothing to reduce the inequity of opportunity.

 

http://connectedsuperintendent.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/the-opportunity-to-learn-for-all-children/ The opportunity to learn – for ALL children, regardless of their zip code.

 

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/9/GSE-inequality-research/ “New research on inequality in education indicates that over the past 30 years, increased disparity in family income levels has resulted in unequal educational attainment for students….’ Most Americans are not aware of this “striking and disturbing pattern.’” Also see http://www.saveourschools.com.au/equity-in-education/economic-inequality-is-the-root-cause-of-education

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20120114/NEWS15/201140383 Michigan leaders hit the panic button making one of the largest cuts to K-12 education in its history, failing once again to address the persistent inequity in funding between wealthy and poor districts, and then marveling at the budget surplus with talk about raising standards even higher.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/report-does-money-matter-in-education/2012/01/05/gIQAM8AweP_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_tw Does money matter in education? A new report says YES.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/ Finland is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence while America continues choosing to ignore the growing economic gaps. There's no shortage of bravado when it comes to shaming schools, but the cowardice persists in dealing with the root causes of lower achievement.

 

http://gettingsmart.com/blog/2011/12/how-edtech-will-benefit-low-income-students/ Digital technology won’t close the achievement gap between rich and poor students, but it can help raise the floor and make more students academically successful.

 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irp.wisc.edu%2Fpublications%2Ffocus%2Fpdfs%2Ffoc233b.pdf “It is now clear that the century-long improvement in educational attainment in the United States slowed or declined over the same period during which economic inequality increased.”