Students in countries such as Finland, South Korea, and Singapore continue to outperform their peers in America. But that hasn't stopped the United States government from spending more money on education as achievement plummets. Dr. Vicky Wells, a former school principal, explores what's going on at the federal, state, and local levels so that members of the public can hold bureaucrats accountable. In a series of reality checks, she explains how to; meet the growing crisis head on; equip students with the necessary skills upon graduation; make decisions based upon the input of real-life educators; and; ignore politics in order to best serve students. Teachers and parents trust leaders to make decisions based on what's best for the students. Even so, all too often, decision making seems to be more about politics and quid pro quo-and this does not best serve students, educators, or the community. The educational system continues to decline, and students keep dropping out or graduating without the knowledge they need to succeed. It's time to stop constantly changing curriculum and start focusing on the real problems confronting teachers and students.
YES, WE ARE STUPID IN AMERICA!
A Former Principal's Reality Check on Why Our Public Schools Are FailingBy Vicky WellsiUniverse, Inc.
Copyright © 2013 Dr. Vicky Wells
All right reserved.ISBN: 978-1-4759-7187-3Contents
Preface..........................................................................................................................xiAcknowledgments..................................................................................................................xvIntroduction.....................................................................................................................xvii1. A History of Federal education reform initiatives.............................................................................12. Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE).......................................................................................314. Local School Districts in the State of Georgia—Superintendent, Central Office, and School Principals.....................995. Local Cooperative Efforts of Teachers, Parents, and Students—In Georgia and Everywhere...................................122Conclusion.......................................................................................................................137Endnotes.........................................................................................................................145Resources........................................................................................................................157About the Author.................................................................................................................167
Chapter One
A History of Federal Education Reform Initiatives
Overview
In order to briefly review the federal government's role in education, a concise summary of the history and background thereof follows, as described on the US Department of Education's website, www.ed.org. A federal department of Education was created in 1867. Originally named the Office of education, it was later renamed the Department of Health, education, and Welfare. The Department of Education Organization Act became law in 1979. In 1980, congress established the United States Department of Education (ED). Although the US Constitution leaves responsibility for the legislative process to the individual states, the federal government provides assistance in order to supplement, not supplant, state support. The official mission of the ED, as described on its website, is "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
[Author's note: The material in part I is intended to offer a summary overview of the US education system and the US Department of Education (ED), particularly for readers unfamiliar with either or both. This material is essential for informed reading of the subsequent chapters. Because the workings and history of the ED are so familiar to me as a result of all my years as an educator and principal, the majority of the text in this chapter is based on experiential knowledge. However, I have used the ED website as my primary source for information. All aspects of the ED are beyond the scope of this book. To learn more, please visit the website directly: www.ed.gov.]
Key Federal Education Legislation
this chapter will outline and describe key federal legislation (from 1965 to the present) related to education in the United States:
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, a.k.a., Race to the Top [RT 3])
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
the primary source of federal K-12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the elementary and secondary Education Act (ESEA), which authorizes the following: grants to elementary and secondary school programs for children of low-income families; school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials; supplemental education centers and services; strengthening state education agencies; education research; and professional development for teachers.
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children became law. Renamed the individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, it has continued to be amended to add provisions or expand services throughout the years. (IDEA will be discussed separately later on in this chapter.)
Since 1980, the Department of Education has continued to expand its duties by taking an active role in education reform. In 1983, the ED published A Nation at Risk, a report that described the deficiencies of us schools, stating that mediocrity, not excellence, was the norm in public education. This led to the development (in 1990) of a long-range plan to reform US education by the year 2000. Called America 2000: An Educational Strategy, the plan had eight goals:
• All children will start school ready to learn by participating in preschool programs.
• The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.
• All students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in the following subjects: English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, art, history, and geography.
• Teachers will have opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for preparing students for the twenty-first century.
• Students will be first in the world in math and science achievement.
• Every adult will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy.
• Every school will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol.
• Every school will promote partnerships to increase parental involvement in the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.
Between 1990 and 1994, a number of new laws were enacted that attempted to change the American education system, including: the National Literacy Act, the educational council Act, the Education of the Deaf Act Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments, the student Loan reform Act, the Rehabilitation Act and Education of the Deaf Act Technical Amendments, the Migrant Student Record Transfer System Act, the Higher Education Technical Amendments Act, the National Service Trust Act, the Goals 2000: educate America Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the National Education Statistics Act.
Most noteworthy was the 1994 improving America's Schools Act (IASA), which included provisions or reforms for
• Title I Program (providing extra help to disadvantaged students and holding schools accountable for their results at the same level as other students);
• charter schools (public schools operating under the "charter" of an outside group, but still responsible for meeting state and national standards);
• safe and drug-free schools;
• Eisenhower Professional Development (program supporting local, state, and federal efforts to achieve and maintain excellence in the core academic subjects necessary to meet national educational goals);
• major increases in bilingual and immigrant education funding;
• Impact Aid (financial reimbursement to school districts affected by the needs and mandates of the federal government, such as the installation of a military presence);
• education technology;
• other programs.
Reality Check!
Let's examine the goals that the US Department of Education set when developing the America 2000 long-range plan in response to the 1983 report A Nation at Risk (both described above). Very few of the goals in these plans were specific or measurable. How do you measure "competent," "ready to learn," "possess knowledge," "free of drugs and violence," and "promote partnerships"? Everyone in the field of education knows that goals have to be specific and measurable in order to be valid. Without a quantifiable and specific measurement, how do we determine whether we have met the goal(s) set?
A few of the goals in the report were specific and measurable, including a graduation rate of 90 percent by 2000 and students ranking first in the world in math and science. However, we failed to reach these goals. In fact, according to Education Week, the graduation rate in America was only 73.4 percent in 2012. Plus, our students are certainly not number one in math or science; we are not even close, and if anything, our math and science scores have worsened. According to Education Next, American students rank thirty-one in math (out of a total of fifty-six countries). The scores from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked the united states twenty-five (out of a total of thirty-four countries).
Remember the goal of having every child attending a preschool program by 2000? As of the 2009-10 school year, only 26.7 percent of children across the states attended a preschool program, according to National institute for Early Education Research. That is a far cry from all children attending preschool. So much for achieving the goals outlined in America 2000.
Let's take a brief look at the IASA title programs. This federal grant was initially created to level the playing field for disadvantaged students. Over the years, however, many more title programs have been added to the list:
• Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
• Title II, Part A—Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
• Title II, Part B—Mathematics and Science Partnerships
• Title II, Part C—Troops to Teachers; Transition to Teaching; National Writing Project; Civic Education; Teaching of Traditional American History; Teacher Liability Protection
• Title II, Part D—Enhancing Education through Technology Program
• Title III—Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (the only program where funding was not cut in 2012)
• Title IV, Part A—Safe and Drug-Free Schools
• Title IV, Part B—Academic Improvement
• Title V, Part A—School Improvement
It's ridiculous how the federal government uses funding to keep expanding control over the states. The programs just keep growing and growing, in a way very similar to the nation's ever-increasing deficit. Imagine shutting down all those federal programs and transferring those funds to each state. Those federal staffers and legislators are welcome to join the ranks of the teachers in the classroom. It would be interesting to see those government officials experience the "real" world of interacting with students face-to-face. I think it would be quite an enlightening experience, to say the least.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a us federal law that governs how states provide early intervention, special education, and related services to students with disabilities (SWD). This act addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities, ranging in age from birth to eighteen years (and even to twenty-one years, in some cases). The IDEA is "spending clause" legislation, meaning that it only applies to those states and local educational agencies that accept federal funding under the IDEA. While states declining such funding are not subject to the IDEA, all states have accepted funding under this statute and are subject to it. To put this another way, all states are receiving funding because they could not afford not to receive it.
Congress's intended outcome in regard to this legislation was that each child with a disability would be provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that prepares him or her for further education, employment, and independent living. Some criteria specified in the IDEA statute include requirements that schools provide each disabled student an education that:
• is designed to meet the unique needs of that one student;
• provides access to the general curriculum in order to meet the challenging expectations established for all children;
• is provided in accordance with the Individualized Education Plan (IEP);
• results in educational benefit to the child.
The US Department of Education, 2005a regulations implementing IDEA states the following: "To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." This is called the least restrictive environment (LRE), as determined by the IEP team.
Reality Check!
I really can't imagine how difficult it must be to have a child with a disability. My heart goes out to all of these parents. I do appreciate the fact that we, as a nation, are attempting to protect these children and provide them with an appropriate education so that they will have the opportunity to earn a living and live independently as much as may be possible. I agree that these children need an individualized plan. I agree that they need to be in the company of nondisabled children as much as possible. I agree that special provisions must be made for many of these children.
What I do not agree with is the amount of inclusion in the regular classroom to which many of these children are being subjected. Not only is it unfair to them (the SWD), it is also unfair to the teachers and the other students in the classroom. I will never be convinced that placing up to ten or more SWD in the regular classroom, with as many as fifteen or more nondisabled students, is fair to anyone involved. For some ridiculous reason, those who made this provision thought that adding another teacher or paraprofessional, who has no expertise in the subject area of the classroom, would make a difference. Keep in mind that the regular education teacher is not supposed to slow down the pace or make any extra effort to change anything in the classroom. The idea is that the SWD are to be exposed to the regular curriculum. It's up to the special education teacher or paraprofessional added to the classroom to make sure that those special education students get what they need. We are simply supposed to disregard the fact that some of these kids may process information slower than normal, or that some of them have emotional problems that interfere with teaching or learning, or even that some of them have learning disabilities that hinder them from performing at the same pace or level as regular education students.
In addition, those who think for a minute that the rest of the students don't know exactly who these disabled students are, are sadly mistaken. My granddaughter is placed in a regular heterogeneously grouped classroom with eight inclusion students. She knows which students are considered "special"; she also describes that the class is frequently forced to slow down so that these students can participate or catch up with the lesson. Not only is this difficult for the regular classroom teacher, who is trying to make sure she covers the mandated curriculum with pacing guides, it's also difficult for the special education teacher who is in the classroom trying to accommodate all the disabled kids while not disturbing the rest of the class.
Again, I am in total agreement with each of these students having an IEP. But I believe that the special education departments put more and more pressure on these IEP teams to increase the number of SWD in the regular classroom because doing so increases funding from the federal government. According to federal guidelines, we certainly don't want to have a disproportionate number of students placed in self-contained, or resource, classrooms—regardless of the fact that SWD can get more individualized attention that way. It seems that public perception is of greater concern than what is really beneficial to the students.
And that doesn't even mention the resultant teacher burnout. During my tenure as a principal, I had some of the most competent teachers literally beg me not to assign them to a coteaching class again. It completely wears them down. There are a few teachers, however, who actually like to participate in these inclusion classes; unfortunately, it is usually the most incompetent teachers who enjoy this. The extra person in the room can assist in handling student behavioral issues and/or allow the regular teacher to catch up on other duties besides instruction and helping students (such as administrative tasks involved in homeroom). In any case, this is not a good thing.
As explained in the introduction, this book focuses on rural school environments, but based on my experience as an educator, the above analysis of IDEA applies to schools of all demographics.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which is a reauthorization of the ESEA, was signed into law. The law's express purpose is to raise achievement for all students and to close the achievement gap. This is done through accountability, research-based instruction, and flexibility and options for parents, so that no child is left behind.
The NCLB set nationwide standards for improving public education by the end of the 2013-14 school year, with the following provisions:
• All students, regardless of race, income, or language proficiency, are to be proficient in reading and mathematics by that time. The subgroups are broken down into the following categories: race, students with disabilities (SWD), English language learners (ELL), and economically disadvantaged.
• All students are to graduate from high school.
• All students with limited English proficiency are to become proficient.
• The law also mandates that all teachers and paraprofessionals be highly qualified and teach only in their areas of certification.
• The law requires that schools be safe places and that parents be given the option to transfer their children out of schools deemed to be persistently dangerous.
To achieve these goals, the law mandates achievement testing and requires states to set standards to judge whether school districts, schools, and subgroups of students within schools are making "adequate yearly progress" (AYP). Schools that fail to make AYP, and thus become categorized as "needs improvement" schools, are subjected to restructuring requirements that entail an enormous amount of time and effort on the part of state and local agencies. In fact, after a certain amount of time, the state takes over control of the school. The parents of students attending these schools are afforded the opportunity to send their child to another school within the system, including charter schools.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from YES, WE ARE STUPID IN AMERICA!by Vicky Wells Copyright © 2013 by Dr. Vicky Wells. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. 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.
