Sunday, March 13, 2011

HEEDtweet: What do YOU think about teacher layoffs?

After discussing the current debate over (almost anything to do with) education, it can be hard to formulate your own objective view. If you've spoken with friends, family or someone riding the elevator with you regarding recent education-related chatter, many folks are focused on the improper treatment and/or hire-fire practices of teachers. The conversation will often include terms like LIFO, union, unfair and lazy.

Reading the excerpt below from a Washington Post article written by Joel Klein (the complete article can be read here) seemed to give all the attention teacher layoffs (and unions) are getting some shape. Even if you don't agree with everything Klein writes, at least the article gives you a (quiet) starting place to explore your own opinion.

Who is Joel Klein?
Joel Klein is both a former chancellor of New York public schools and current chief executive of News Corp.'s educational division.

These are his words:

As the debate rages over public unions and, in particular, over their role in school reform, an unfortunate dichotomy about America's teachers has emerged. On one side, unions and many teachers say that teachers are unfairly vilified, that they work incredibly hard under difficult circumstances and that they are underpaid. Critics, meanwhile, say that our education system is broken and that to fix it we need better teachers. They say that teachers today have protections and benefits not seen in the private sector - such as life tenure, lifetime pension and health benefits, and short workdays and workyears.

Both sides are right.

Teaching is incredibly hard, especially when dealing with children in high-poverty communities who come to school with enormous challenges. Many teachers work long hours, staying at school past 6 p.m., and then working at home grading papers and preparing lessons. Some teachers get outstanding results, even with our most challenged students. These are America's heroes, and they should be recognized as such. Sadly, they aren't.

On the other hand, there are also many teachers who work by the clock - they show up a minute before 8:30 and leave a minute after 3; when in school, they do the barest minimum. They get dreadful results with students and, if you spend time in their classrooms, as I have over the past eight years, it's painfully obvious that they belong in another line of work.

The problem is that our discussion too often fails to distinguish between these very different types of teachers, treating them all the same. This "group-think" not only pollutes the current public debate - either you're for or against teachers - it is also killing our opportunity to fix our schools. Any reform worth its name must start by recognizing that teachers are our most important educational asset. That's why we need to treat teaching as a profession, by supporting excellence, striving for constant improvement and ridding the system of poor performers.

Alas, we do none of this. Whether you are good or bad, work hard or don't, teach in a shortage area (such as math) or work in a highly challenged school, you get treated precisely the same: You have life tenure and generous lifetime health and pension benefits, and you get paid more money next year simply because of seniority.

Consider the fight over teacher layoffs. In many states, you must lay teachers off solely based on reverse seniority - last in, first out. That's nuts. Do you know anyone who would say "I want the most senior surgeon" rather than "I want the best surgeon"? Sure, experience matters. That's why, in baseball, the rookie of the year is almost never the most valuable player. But the rookie of the year is better than a whole lot of 10-year veterans, and every baseball team takes this into account when deciding its roster.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Are young minority women screened for Chlamydia at a higher rate than young white women? #disparitiesmatter

Lots of people, who have recently read a study done by the Regenstrief Institute at the Indiana University School of Medicine, agree that young minority women are tested for Chlamydia more often than young white women. The purpose of this post is to begin to highlight the questions that follow this statement of STD testing disparity.

How much more likely are African-American and Hispanic women to be tested for Chlamydia then white women?
"Despite a recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to annually screen all sexually active young women for this disease, only about half of sexually active women, ages 14 to 25, who receive health care, are screened appropriately. The IU and Regenstrief researchers found that black young women were 2.7 times more likely and Hispanic young women 9.7 times more likely to be screened for chlamydia, compared with white young women."
(According to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124111148.htm)
Why?

When asked if young minority women are screened for Chlamydia at a higher rate than young white women? Most providers said "Yes." When asked, "Why?", some providers thought that judgments are made about a woman's likelihood of infection based on her race or ethnicity and some did not. Those that did not think judgments are made based on race or ethnicity cited statistical probability as a possible motivation for (seemingly) biased Chlamydia screening, which seemed like circular reasoning to their opposition...

Does type of insurance factor into screening probability?
In addition to race or ethnicity, the researchers found screening likelihood varied by insurance status and also by age. Women with public insurance had greater odds of chlamydia testing, compared with women with private insurance.
(According to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124111148.htm)
Does medical history factor into screening probability?
A medical history of STDs was more important than race or ethnicity or insurance status in terms of differences in chlamydia screening. Young women who had a previous STD were more likely to be screened for chlamydia, no matter their race or ethnicity, and differences by race or ethnicity in testing decreased substantially in this subgroup.
(According to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124111148.htm)
What about pregnancy?
The same was not true for young women who had been pregnant in the past. After a pregnancy, young minority women were much more likely (24 times for Hispanic women and 4 times for black women) to be screened than young white women.
(According to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124111148.htm)
What if any impact does this disparate chlamydia screening practice have on the Chlamydia infection rates of minority women?

What do you think?

Monday, January 31, 2011

Are teens using the web for sex-ed/sexual health info? Should they be? #disparitiesmatter

It almost seemed that Dr. Fulbright was against teens using the web as a resource for sex-ed/sexual health info. But, if you read the article all the way through it seems to highlight the fact that - although a recent study (done by Guttmacher Institute and United Nations Population Division) shows teens are more likely to get sex-ed info from friends, family, doctors or teachers - previous studies on web users build a case for the internet being the ideal arena for sex info exploration. Moreover, the Doc actually cites some useful websites and valid reasons to seek sex-ed/sexual health info (from reputable resources) online.

Recapping Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright's insights:

“...previous studies have found that web users, in general, see the anonymity and openness offered by the Internet as attractive for finding answers to their questions. Other positive features are that a person can do so with minimal embarrassment and judgment when it comes to one's physical appearance, gender, age, or health status, especially if dealing with private, sensitive issues like sex. Users are further able to explore the information on their own, working at their own pace and without the fears that a more public setting for sexuality information may invite.”

Re-posting sex-ed/sexual health resources here ...just in case you didn’t get to check them out the first time.

What do you think?

Should teens be using the web for sex ed?

Friday, January 28, 2011

HEEDtweet : Education by any means necessary?

So, you may have heard about (Kelley Williams-Bolar) the mother in Ohio that falsified the addresses of her children in order to get them enrolled into a quality school without paying tuition. It seems the Copley-Fairlawn school district (in which Williams-Bolar enrolled her two daughters) became suspicious that some malfeasance was afoot and hired a private investigator to find the children's residential records. (Find the full story at http://clevelandleader.com/node/15780 )

What does American society think of this incident?
There has actually been vast media coverage surrounding Williams-Bolar and her actions. One blog posits that "What this woman chose to do was wrong by cheating the system and getting caught then lying about it and not wanting to pay back the taxes because of her crime." On the other hand some articles/essays have likened Kelly Williams-Bolar to Rosa.

But, how do ed-choice groups, parents, teachers and you respond to Williams-Bolar's actions?

Below is the response the Black Alliance of Educational Options' (BAEO) posted to the incident.

BAEO Responds to Imprisonment of Ohio Mother
BAEO Communication Office | News Release Jan 26, 2011

We are writing to express outrage at the circumstances that led to the prosecution and conviction of Kelley Williams-Bolar. As reported in the Akron Beacon Journal, Williams-Bolar was found guilty and sentenced severely for an act that defied the strict letter of the law but does not defy reason.

She sent her daughters to schools outside her district of residence. Ohio law says that if you live in Akron, you must send your children to your neighborhood school, even if it is a failing school and regardless of whether you feel your child would get a better education and stand a better chance of success elsewhere.

The law says you’re stuck—unless you’re wealthy enough to opt out or fortunate enough to get into a high-performing charter school or to get selected for one of only 14,000 EdChoice scholarships available state-wide. Williams-Bolar is not wealthy, so paying private school tuition for her two children was not an option, nor could she afford to move out of public housing and into a district with better schools.

To be fair, Ohio has done more than most states in terms providing options for parents whose children need better educational opportunities. But clearly, more could and should be done. In far too many states, however, these parents have no choice at all. It is high time we change the laws that force low-income and working-class families to choose between playing by the rules and doing what’s best for their children.

Earlier this month, our nation honored the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., and this week, BAEO joins families, educators, and advocacy groups coast to coast in celebrating National School Choice Week. The Williams-Bolar case is a sober reminder that Dr. King’s dream remains unrealized, and parental choice is the most pressing civil rights issue of our time. Every child deserves access to a quality education, and as Dr. King said, we must act with the fierce urgency of now.

Today, Kelley Williams-Bolar is serving a jail sentence for pursuing a better educational option for her daughters. Meanwhile, her children must—like thousands of other low-income students of color—endure a sentence of their own: consignment to unsafe, underperforming schools in close proximity to their homes, year after year. There is no justice here.


But, what do you think?
Was Williams-Bolar's choice unique?
Would the right move have been for Williams-Bolar to move to the district where her children attended school?
Should she have contacted ed-choice organizations for legal options?

Last question, how many children at Copley-Fairlawn school district are being investigated today?

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

HE:EDtweet: What would it take to end us-versus-them? #charter #public

After reading many tweets, updates, posts, and articles about the us-versus-them climate of traditional public school districts and charter schools (around the country) it seemed odd to find an article highlighting the fact that at least nine (9) districts in larger cities have signed agreements with intent to work with local charter schools.

It would seem logical for traditional public school districts and public charter schools to work together but every other comment you read displays one bashing the crap out of the other.

Is it impossible to believe traditional public school districts and public charter schools can work together?

What are some of the barriers keeping collaboration from happening?

Is there nothing to be gained from collaboration?

What happens to the status/quality of education if traditional public school districts and public charter schools (that do not currently work together) cannot learn to partner?

Sunday, January 9, 2011

HE:EDtweet : Chinese mothers. Not “Are they superior?” but, "Why...

Amy Chua’s essay asks “Can a regimen of no playdates, no TV, no computer games and hours of music practice create happy kids? And what happens when they fight back?”

But, let’s take a step back to the title “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”, not “Are they superior?” but, why.

Now, if you’re not Chinese and you’re a mother, please note that Chua gives her respects to Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who “qualify too”. She also points out that she uses the terms “Chinese mother” and “Western parents” loosely. So, with that being said lets get to the point of this post.

Not only does Chua compare Western American mothers to immigrant Chinese mothers statistically in her essay, she also gives examples of her own personal application of the “motivation” many Chinese mothers utilize to make their children the “stereotypically successful kids” we have heard of/discussed.

Before moving on let’s define two things…

What statistics does Chua cite on perception?

Excerpt - ‘ In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." ‘

What does “motivation” mean?

After working on a piece of music (for piano) for a week Chua’s daughter was not performing the piece successfully. After yelling at the child, the child throwing a tantrum, threatening the child with the withholding of food and holiday gifts, the child still could not play the piece well. Even after talking with her husband about the way her daughter was being insulted Chua stated that she was just “motivating” her daughter. She also then called the child “lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic”.

Now, it should be mentioned that Chua’s daughter eventually plays the piece her mother wanted her to play. But, at what cost?

Are western parents not doing the best job?

Are Chinese mothers that insult/motivate their children superior?

How do the children that grow up in western homes and are academically successful without being insulted factor in?

If parents of Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos insulted their children more would the gaps between their children's math and reading scores and those of Whites and Asians be lessened?

What do you think?

Friday, January 7, 2011

HE:EDtweet : Less #HOPE in Georgia?/ Where else can you get #HOPE?


After reading a multiple tweets, retweets, and a few articles about Georgia’s potential loss of HOPE; it seems the recession has forced Georgia’s legislature and it’s governor to cut back the spending associated with the program through which $5.6 billion in educational support has been granted to 1.3 million Georgia students statewide.

A few possible ways to reduce program spending are: decreasing the tuition percentage granted (currently 100%), raising the GPA cut-off (currently a B average), and/or introducing an economic need threshold.

Does this make sense? Seem unfair?

What ideas do you have?

Never heard of HOPE?

Cliff Notes:

- Started in 1993

- Originally funded by the Georgia State Lottery

- Copied by other states

- Improved SAT scores in Georgia (per New York Times writer Kim Severson)

- As many as two-thirds of Hope students grades slip so much that they no longer qualify

Is the HOPE scholarship program (or a hope-like program) available in your area?

Here are some states that offer similar programs:

  • Alaska Scholars Award
  • Florida Bright Futures Scholarship
  • Georgia HOPE Scholarship Program
  • Kentucky Educational Excellence
  • Louisiana Tuition Opportunity Program for Students
  • Maryland HOPE Scholarship
  • Michigan Merit Award Scholarship
  • Mississippi Eminent Scholars Program
  • Missouri Higher Education Academic Scholarship Program
  • Nevada Millennium Scholarship Program
  • New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship
  • Oklahoma Higher Access Learning Program
  • South Carolina HOPE Scholarship Program
  • Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship (TELS)
  • West Virginia Promise Program

There are also higher-ed related tax credits that help to offset the costs of higher education by reducing income tax. So, basically the Hope Credit, American opportunity credit and the lifetime learning credit are different than those scholarship programs listed above.

Please feel free to tag on anything I missed and as always COMMENTS WELCOMED…