Book by Crist, Michael A.
AMERICA ON LIFE SUPPORT!
By Michael A. CristAuthorHouse
Copyright © 2012 Michael A. Crist
All right reserved.ISBN: 978-1-4772-1256-1Contents
Preface.........................................................................viiIntroduction....................................................................ix1-No Child Left Behind-Political Nonsense.......................................12-What Happened to Discipline in Our Schools?...................................113-Funding Our Schools...........................................................234-Teacher Evaluations, Tenure, and Unions.......................................315-Government Trends-Negative Influences over Recent History.....................416-Administration—Who is leading our schools?..............................477-Athletics and Coaching........................................................578-"Waiting For Superman"........................................................639-"American Teacher" A Documentary Film.........................................6910-Suggestions for Turning Things Around........................................7511-Needed Education Reform......................................................8312-Critical Changes for the Future..............................................95
Chapter One
No Child Left Behind-Political Nonsense
The term itself, "No child left behind", is easy to support and cheer for. Any educator worth anything takes as much pride in the challenged student being successful as he/she does his/her gifted student making the honor roll. The NCLB (No Child Left Behind) legislation is the current model of President Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. It was written and passed in 2002 in a bi-partisan effort by then-President Bush and Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. The purpose was to raise achievement and close achievement gaps among American students.
Certain groups of students have been traditionally identified as "at risk". They include blacks, Hispanics, and low socio-economic students. Recently other groups have been identified: multi-racial, homeless children, gay/lesbian, and boys/girls in certain subjects (math/science) or at certain grade levels. The NCLB legislation has been around for about a decade. I remember as an elementary principal discussing the law with several colleagues in 2002.
At that time, not many people really understood the long-range affects NCLB would have on the educational scene in America. The term "raising the bar" was not new to me, I have personally used this during my career as a coach to inspire and motivate my players, coaching staff, and myself to aim for higher levels of achievement. As my colleagues and I began to examine NCLB in more detail, it became clear that the law was literally impossible to carry out. The initial implementation was fine, we would jump on board and do all we could to improve levels of achievement. We would focus on identified "at risk groups", design plans and strategies to meet their needs, and track their progress continually.
I well remember sitting in SIP (School Improvement Plan) meetings each summer and analyzing data and brainstorming ideas and plans to close the gaps we found from last year's scores. It worked, at least at my school, Adams Elementary in Quincy, Illinois. The NCLB had given us a set of specific goals and a plan to reach those goals. I give a huge amount of the credit for our successes to the extraordinary level of commitment by the teachers we had in our building. Administrators, at times, forget who the real experts are. The administration in our schools is another issue that I will discuss in a later chapter.
As the details of NCLB became more understood, it became evident to a number of my colleagues and myself that this law was ridiculous and was doomed to failure. The idea of ALL children meeting or exceeding expectations as the ultimate goal was not only unrealistic, but impossible. I have been coaching for 40 years—I love the stories of "Rocky", "Hoosiers", and "Rudy". I believe in setting high goals and working hard to achieve them. The expectations that NCLB are asking for in 2012 and into the future are what I refer to as "Political Nonsense". Tying these mandates to holding back funds, firing staff, and closing attendance centers is counter-productive.
The NEA (National Education Association) in May, 2011, sent a request to Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, requesting relief for K-12 schools. The 3.2 million members of the NEA are asking that he intervenes by revising the "narrow and punitive mandates that are widely thought of to be unreasonable." Some Americans are just beginning to understand that the NCLB legislation is calling for 100% of our children to meet or exceed government set standards by 2014. These standards are called Average Yearly Progress (AYP) and they rise every year.
Here in Quincy, Illinois, the AYP (Average Yearly Progress) has caught up and surpassed our efforts. In September, 2011, several of our Title I buildings were deemed "failing to meet expectations" for the second straight year and parents were given the option of sending their children to a non-Title school. (Title schools are identified by those having more than 40% of the students eligible for free or reduced lunches. This is determined by the family income and the number of members in the household.)
The school district will have to pay for transporting these students. It should be noted that at Quincy's Baldwin middle school 78.3 per cent of students met the reading guidelines on the ISAT (Illinois State Achievement Test). This is up from 77 per cent the year before. However, the NCLB percentage target was hiked to 85 per cent—up from 77.5 the year before. Instead of a pat on the back for improving scores, they are told they are failures.
The mandated and ever increasing AYP guidelines are coming at a time when schools are struggling to make ends meet with ever shrinking resources. Many state governments are behind by hundreds of millions of dollars to local school districts. I know that in Quincy, the state of Illinois owes our district about $3 million from last year.
The bottom line is this—"Not all of us are created equal." It seems that no one wants or is willing to say that, for fear of being looked on as being pompous or arrogant. The fact is that it is true. I have spent most of my life involved in athletics as a player, coach, and a fan. My first love has always been football. I was a better than average high school player. Like most players, I was limited by my size, speed, etc. No NFL hope for me! I worked hard and became the best player that I could be.
Athletics taught me a lot about striving for goals and focusing on achieving them. As a coach, I always respected that young athlete who was not blessed with God-given talents, but worked extra hard to be successful. As educators we know that not only physically, but also academically, we are not all created equal. One size does NOT fit all. Why else would we have Special Education classes as well as Advanced Placement and Gifted classes? To ask that all students achieve at the same level at the same pace and time is ludicrous.
With that being said, our goal as educators has been and should always be to educate each and every student to their highest possible level of achievement and success. Set their goals high and do everything we can to help them get there. The law NCLB should have been NCF (No Child Forgotten). Local school districts should have had a lot more to say about setting realistic goals for their students, not some politicians who have lost touch with the reality of what hurdles educators are facing in America.
Several other problems with the NCLB are seldom noticed by the general public. First, it should be noted that if a school has only one of its sub-groups not meet the AYP guideline, then the whole school fails. That means that if 84 percent of my special education student sub-group met or exceeded the expectations, they would not have met the target of 85 percent for the 2010-11 school year. That sub-group would have failed and that means the whole school would fail.
The Quincy Herald-Whig reported on October 31, 2011, that 15 of 18 high schools in a four county area had failed to meet AYP. Also, 39 of 49 individual school buildings failed to make the grade, up from 24 in 2010 and 13 in 2009. According to the ISBE (Illinois School Board of Education), only eight high schools in the state made AYP.
It must also be mentioned that in Illinois, 85 per cent of all schools are now failing to meet AYP guidelines. This is a shocking number. It will only get worse. Next year's expectations will rise to 92.5 per cent. The question is will there be any schools left that are still meeting the AYP?
If parents have the option of sending their children to another school in their district that is meeting the guidelines, what does that mean here in Quincy? In the 2013-14 school year, the AYP jumps to 95%. We will probably not have any schools left to choose from.
As of September, 2011, Quincy's only elementary school that had failed to meet AYP goals for two consecutive years was Berrian School. According to media reports, 5 Berrian families have elected to send their children to a non-Title school in the district. I hope they realize that the "new" school will have much larger class sizes, less support staff, and fewer Reading Recovery teachers.
In the spring of 2010, I was asked to come to Berrian as the substitute principal while the regular principal was on maternity leave. I spent 9 weeks there and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
The building was an excellent example of what an elementary environment should be. The teachers and staff were focused on making the learning environment a comfortable and pleasant one. The PTA was active and supportive. The PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention System) program could serve as a model for other elementary schools.
Having been a principal at a non-Title school for 9 years before retiring, I had always been a bit jealous of all the "extra" services available to the Title schools in our district. There were occasions when I would have one Reading Recovery teacher available for my building (500+ students) while the Title schools (150 students) would have 2.5 or 3 positions. Their class sizes would run in the mid to high teens, while I would be dealing with classes in the mid—20's. I would argue, fight and beg for additional services for my building as any principal would and should do. I have always realized that the Title buildings are dealing with a different population and need extra services, but it became even more apparent after serving as the sub principal that spring.
When you are in a building with 90% or higher Free/Reduced lunch families it becomes evident why the extra services are there. This last year, Berrian had a mobility rate of 28.6 per cent. That means that more than &fra14; of a teacher's class would have moved in or out during the school year. So much for continuity!
It should be noted that Berrian School was awarded the Spotlight School Award during the 2003-04 school year by the Illinois governor and the State Superintendent's office. This Award for Academic Achievement was presented for having 60 per cent of their low income population meeting or exceeding state standards.
I know first-hand that this school is doing everything it can with their dwindling resources to provide an excellent education for their students. It is difficult for their staff to accept that they are being labeled a failing school. But, so are 85% of Illinois schools according to NCLB. It is political nonsense!
During the 2011-2012 school year the NCLB legislation came under ever-increasing pressure to change their expectations or give schools a way out of the growing and unreasonable mandates they were facing. President Obama announced that he would soon be offering to states a way to avoid the penalties that will be inflicted by NCLB. It is still unclear what this will mean, but it appears that there will be some sort of a waiver that schools will be able to use to get around the NCLB law. I have spoken with several administrators that are concerned about what "hoops" they might have to jump through to move past NCLB. Their fear is that the alternative may be worse than the present situation. The best guess is that schools must agree to adopt certain reform provisions and then will be able to waive the NCLB demands. It only took our leaders about 10 years to figure this one out! Who knows what will be next?
In an article released January 8, 2012, Kimberly Hefling, an AP Education Writer, says the NCLB law has become a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress' inability to fix something that is clearly flawed. The law has become known for its emphasis on standardized tests and the labeling of thousands of schools as "failures."
The article goes on to say that the majority of states will be taking the waiver offered by the President. They see it as a temporary fix until lawmakers do act. That is unlikely to happen in an election year.
An AP story released February 9, 2012, states that President Obama will free 10 states from the strict and sweeping requirements of the NCLB law, giving leeway to states that promise to improve how they prepare and evaluate students, and how they evaluate teachers. A total of 29 other states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have signaled that they, too, plan to seek waivers—a sign of just how vast the law's burdens have become as a big deadline nears.
NCLB requires all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Obama's action strips away that fundamental requirement for those approved for flexibility, provided they offer a viable plan instead. The states must show they will prepare children for college and careers, set new targets for improving achievement, reward the best performing schools and focus help on the ones doing the worst.
The article goes on to say, "For all the cheers that states may have about the changes, the move also reflects the sobering reality that the United States is not close to the law's original goal: getting children to grade level in reading and math."
Unfortunately, the whole issue of NCLB has become a political impasse. It appears to me, that our congress cares more about winning the next election and standing firm along party lines than they do about doing what is right. The law was up for renewal in 2007 and could have been rewritten. But lawmakers have been stymied for years by competing priorities, disagreements over how much of a federal role there should be in schools and, in the recent Congress, partisan gridlock.
Mark Schneider, the former U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics who now serves asVice President at the American Institutes for Research, claims that scores on a national assessment show significant gains in math among fourth and eighth graders, with Hispanic and African-American fourth-graders performing approximately two grade levels higher today than when the law was passed.
The article continues by saying that as the years went by, the growth has largely plateaued. Similar large gains were not shown in reading and some experts say that more progress was made in reading before the law was passed. There are still huge differences in the performance of African American and Hispanic students compared with white students.
As I stated earlier, the school district and my elementary building jumped on board the NCLB plan and were very successful in improving test scores and increasing student learning. Our central office supplied the training and gave the guidance necessary for that to occur and continued to monitor and evaluate each building's progress. A yearly SIP (School Improvement Plan) was filed by each building in the district and the yearly results would be made public.
Looking back, the NCLB law made schools more responsible for student achievement and gave them a plan and strategy for improvement. Its biggest and most glaring flaw was that its writers did not have the wisdom nor the foresight to understand that learning has plateaus and that individual students learn at different rates and in different ways. An experienced, talented teacher always recognizes this and finds what works best for each student in his/her classroom.
As so often happens, because the law is flawed as to its impossible demands the last 3-4 years, we will throw the whole thing out the window and start over.
Chapter Two
What Happened to Discipline in Our Schools?
Let's take the scenario of Johnny. He is a 6th grader who is viewed by most of the school as a troublemaker. He is of average intelligence but gets below average grades. He is involved in a verbal or physical altercation every 2-3 weeks. Over the years, some of his teachers have felt that they made progress with him, but it never lasts very long. The principal and the teachers who have had him in class know that Johnny's father is an alcoholic and is physically abusive to him and his mother. The mother has tried to bury her problems in the bottle also. The youngster spends many evenings running the streets rather than going home. There is little, if any family support and it's almost impossible to get the parents to return calls or come to school.
Picture this: You are on AM recess duty and are breaking up a fight between two sixth graders. You grab the more aggressive boy, Johnny, by the arm and pull him away. He jerks away and yells at you "Get your f_ _ _ing hands off me" After 10 minutes of calming him down, you get him into the principal's office and explain what happened. You go to your classroom and move on with the day. PM recess arrives and Johnny is outside shooting baskets. This is unfortunately what happens in far too many schools today.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from AMERICA ON LIFE SUPPORT!by Michael A. Crist Copyright © 2012 by Michael A. Crist. Excerpted by permission of AuthorHouse. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
