For over 18 years, Michelle Rhee has dedicated her time to compiling the skills that students will need when they enter the work force. She actively instituted many of these when she took her personal time as a third grade teacher to visit the homes of her third grade students for additional instruction after school hours. Besides many of the other innovative ideas Rhee brought to the table, she also started the DC Public School System Youth Cabinet, a concept that brings in the ideas of students for reform of the educational system.

Rhee started a grassroots initiative to improve the schools. Some of her key points are improving the quality of teachers, parental involvement in the schools and putting tax dollars where they’re most useful. StudentsFirst’s basis is that no child should suffer from an inadequate school simply because they live in the wrong area.

The basis for the StudentsFirst program is sound. The teachers in the classroom should be well trained and focus their time on the student. Today, many inadequate teachers remain in the classroom simply because of tenure. While tenure is good in some ways, such as preventing school boards from removing the higher paid teachers to save money, it also has its downside.

Too many teachers presently remain in the classrooms that spend their energies counting off the days to retirement. The lack of enthusiasm and caring can greatly affect the outcome of the educational experience for the student. 

However, the improvement of the teaching staff isn’t limited to eliminating teachers that don’t care or are ineffective. Part of the Student First program includes additional training for the novice teacher to help them begin on the right foot.

The initiative has a three-fold program for change. The first is changing the method of evaluating teachers. The initiative wants to eliminate arbitrary judgment and the union process in the evaluation of teachers. They feel basing the evaluation on the students results is far more beneficial. Included in this is the evaluation of the principal to attract and develop teachers.

There’s also a drive in the initiative to pay teachers more for student performance and their effectiveness in teaching. The biggest change is the elimination of tenure. Tenure is a process where it’s difficult to eliminate failing teachers once they’ve accumulated enough years of service.

The plan also wants to empower parents with the creation of high quality public schools throughout the districts. If a school proves ineffective, the parents must sign a consent form for their students to attend that school. The publication and distribution of relevant data on the schools is also in that empowerment plan as is the ability for parents to trigger a change if the school is failing.

Finally, the StudentsFirst program suggests a shift in the pattern of spending. As with the suggested changes mentioned previously, the suggestion to prioritize the pay based on accountability again comes into play.

The initiative also wants spending on more than traditional education. This would allow more money for use on other initiatives that bring the student’s interest to the foreground. The suggestion for better management and development of pension programs is also one of the key suggestions in the StudentsFirst program.

 Pros

Nobody can deny that our schools are in trouble and it’s time to find what works. Maintaining teachers that slipped through the cracks and found their way to tenure can be a costly error for both students and school budgets. Directing the pay for the teachers producing the best results makes sense and is normally the way pay schedules work in industry.

Giving parents a voice in the way the school runs and the opportunity to see the statistics has proven beneficial in many areas of the United States. When parents get involved, it’s only logical that their belief and interest in the schools transfers to their child, making it more conducive for learning.

Educational funds are often wasted and looking at the use of the funds is important. Too often, some schools receive far more money than they can use and have the best of everything, while others struggle to have enough resources so every child receives a textbook. Pensions often are part of the state’s general budget and have shortfalls funded by present tax dollars. Realigning the pensions to be more compatible with industry’s pensions would benefit both teachers and taxpayers.

Cons

It would be difficult to prove that a teacher is effective by simply looking at testing scores. The urge to teach to the test is too great. Teachers put into classrooms where students begin well below the mean could also find themselves with a pink slip if the administration uses the actual scores rather than the growth of the educational level. While it’s true that not all teachers are equally effective, it’s also true that not all classes of students are the same either. Some are far more difficult to teach.

Eliminating tenure could be a double-edged sword. Tenured teachers normally are the higher paid teachers due to years of service and advanced degrees. If a corporation is in trouble and needs to make budget, creating a reason to eliminate the higher paid personnel is often great.

Finally, there is no direction as to the actual programs that work and even though the pledge of StudentsFirst is to direct spending on programs that “advance student achievement” while “dispelling the myths about what works” makes no sense. Either a tactic works or it doesn’t. Who dictates the parameters of “policies that advance student achievement?”  While these are truly noble words, there is nothing concrete.   

   HOW DOES THE UNION UNREST AFFECT STUDENTS?

While its difficult to measure the effects of bitter battles on the education of students, you can measure the differences in the educational growth in areas where there are union contract negotiations compared to districts where there are no contract negotiations or union. Logically, unrest and dissention would promote a lack of focus on the true problem, the education of the students. It splits people up into camps and the corporation can’t achieve educational progress because neither camp will give into the other. Often, the student finds himself much like a child in a bitter divorce.

Wisconsin, a state that has active union members up in arms due to the cancellation of collective bargaining rights, has effectively taken the voice away from the union. While some say that the step was necessary, taking a closer look is also mandatory before making a judgment.  A study in 2009 conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) compared scores for students in various states. The study includes only non-chartered schools and examines the scores for math and reading for grades 4 and 8. In states with binding teacher contracts, the math and reading scores were higher for the states that had binding teacher contracts. While they were higher for by only a few points in each area, they were higher in all areas for both grade levels.

 If you simply looked at the state rankings for states that offer no union contract, you’d find that of the ten, only one ranks above the median and seven of the states, Georgia, Arkansas, South Carolina, Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi are in the bottom 15. Massachusetts, the state that ranked highest, has one of the strongest unions. While the study doesn’t include racial background of the classes, economic levels of the population or any other factors, it does reflect that overall, a school system that allows unions doesn’t affect the performance levels of students. 

It would be extremely difficult for anyone to measure the effect of the unrest and public dissention on the students. One would have to know where and when the next union outcry would come and begin the study before it occurred to have a basis for analysis. One thing is clear; teachers know what goes on in the classroom better than anyone else does. Giving them a voice in the operation is valuable and often the union dissent is all about maintaining that voice.  

It seems logical that employees who feel comfortable and appreciated will perform better. Better teacher performance means a better educational process for the student. If a parent or teacher is unhappy with the schools, students feel the effects of it. Teachers constantly in a flux over whether they’ll have a job the following year or whether a more administratively popular teacher will replace them. Unions prevent this type of selective hiring and firing based on cronyism.

Unions do procure higher wages for teachers and often the increased wage will bring the best of the best to the corporation. While most teachers are in the position because they simply love teaching, each still has to feed their family, pay back student loans and often provide classroom supplies. There should be adequate compensation. A teacher that has a choice of teaching in a higher paid position or lower one, with all other things being equal, will normally take the higher paid position. Unless there’s a matter of relocation or situation, the increase in income would draw almost any qualified person.

Teachers care what occurs in their schools. Some want union power simply for the power itself but in most cases, teachers want what’s right for the student. Recently the teacher’s ability to invoke discipline has fallen to the wayside with parental suit always lurking in the shadows. Removing the union from the picture or the ability to collectively bargain, would remove any power from the teacher. The fear is that with the lack of power comes the lack of desire to effect change. Powerless individuals travel with the pack for safety and fail to become innovators, something that our educational system needs right now.

The unrest and disputes do disrupt the educational process. The question is, are they necessary for a better teaching situation. Is it important for teachers to maintain some control over their destiny or simply leave all the decision making to the school board? The study shows that collective bargaining brought better teaching. In the long run, the effort for teachers to maintain some power through the union may be the right move.

                                                                                  WHY SHOULD ONE SIZE FIT ALL OR NOT?

 Each child is an individual and learns differently from the next child. Teaching to those individual differences is often easier said than done. However, there should be common goals and requirements for all students. These shouldn’t change because a child is slower, but our system should step up to the plate and change the method of presentation for these pupils. 

We have lost our path in the American school system attempting to justify individuality. In the beginning, adjusting the learning environment so all children could succeed was an excellent idea. However, someplace along the line, we lost our way and suddenly, we found ourselves adjusting the required outcome rather than the teaching technique.

Lowering expectations of students because of ethnicity and background is not only lowering the standards of the schools, its extremely unfair to the children it attempts to help. At one time, the suggestion of teaching Ebonics in the classroom and factoring in ethnicity on achievement tests to make them fair, was a prominently voice concept. Unfortunately, these types of innovative practices only lowered the overall learning results but also left children ill equipped to face the demands of life after school. Employers don’t care about your background or justify your performance at work based on ethnicity. They demand results.

Besides the academic standards changing in attempt to fit each child’s needs, the level of personal responsibility changed too. Johnny comes from a broken home and you should allow him to disrupt the class. After all, it isn’t his fault. Mary’s disrespectful mouth comes from living in an underprivileged neighborhood, so let her slander the class and the teacher. All these types of actions eroded the teacher’s ability to discipline.

At the same time, teachers no longer were individuals and therefore didn’t receive the same concessions as the students. In fact, if a teacher made the right attempt to control the classroom, parents often saw them in a negative light.

With all this said in favor of the “one size fits all approach,” there are places in education where individualizing is important. Not every child learns at the same rate or in the same way. Some children are quite visual and immediately decipher the pages written and material on the board. Others fare better when there’s a lecture and learn more from listening. There’s no one right way to learn and no exact method of arriving at learning experience. Teaching using various techniques is just as important as teaching to every level of learner.

Children don’t always grasp the material at the same time. If they did, our task of teaching future generations would be easy. Not every child is a math whiz and sometimes those well versed in math fail to understand the basics of reading. For these reasons, efforts to vary the teaching so that each child accomplishes learning the lessons are important.

This does not mean we lower expectations. It simply means we hunt until we find the right combination to make a breakthrough for the student. One educator once said that every child could learn any material given enough time, no matter how slow he was or how difficult the material. The difference is the amount of time necessary. This statement is true. However, our classrooms do not have with an unlimited amount of time. Because of this, we need to make stronger efforts to get outside help, extra tutorial teachers and parental involvement to bring the slower learner up to speed.

Not every child wants or needs college. Not every child is college material either. Children that have a talent in working with their hands in areas that do not require a college education should have the opportunity to advance that talent with classes that focus on the type of work that interests them. College degreed individuals do earn more over their lifetime, however, it doesn’t make their jobs more important than those that don’t require a degree.

We no longer respect the people that fix our cars, build our houses or do jobs that require brawn rather than brain. However, without an auto repair specialist or plumber, our nation would be in a sad state. They’d be many a college graduate with water up to their elbows or taking the bus because they have no concept of how a vehicle runs.

Diversifying our educational system to allow for individual talents and interests beyond just college prep is important. We need people to fill every job and each position is important in our country operating successfully. Dedicating special classes to professions in the trades would elevate the public’s view of the position and guarantee adequate service individuals.

The result is that we need to have standardized expectations in both level of competency and classroom behavior but modifications in how we reach that goal. Once students learn the basics, adjusting for individual differences is important. While doctors are necessary, if everyone was a doctor, they’d be no one left to create the tools used for the job, repair the ambulances, build the hospitals or create the drugs. Diversification of classes for individuals at the higher levels is also important.

EDUCATION THAT SUCEEDS

Finland scores on international achievement tests were the highest out of the 57 nations tested in the developed world. They scored the highest in reading and science and came in second in mathematics. One would first believe that the children spend 10 hours in school and begin education early in their life with an emphasis on reading at crib side. However, that simply isn’t true. In fact, just the opposite is true.

 The child in Finland doesn’t begin formal reading and writing until the age of seven. The preschool education may be one of the reasons for the higher achievement of the student in Finland. Rather than focusing on the three R’s in preschool and letter identification, in the 1970’s Finland made a dramatic change in their school system. The preschool education focuses of personal responsibility and social behavior rather than attempting to throw the students directly into the fray of subject knowledge.

 The basis for the preschool learning reflects the concept for the first Kindergarten offered by Frederick Froebel. He believed that this time should be a time of play, not just for entertainment, but as an important part of the child’s development. Froebel felt that play opportunities provided the child with learning experiences necessary for the next level of development.

 For two years, the high quality governmentally sponsored early-childhood program spends time on self-reflection and interaction. These components often aren’t part of the litigious nature of Americans, although they were qualities that made our country great. Today, our schools pay little attention to the personal development of the child and focus on the academics. If a child misbehaves in school, it’s simply not their fault but the fault of the teacher or school corporation. There’s none of that in Finland, the child understands his present behavior reflects the outcome of his future.

Even though the students in Finland have a two-year lag in the formal learning process, they seem to be ready for the challenge and eager when the time comes. Perhaps it’s much like washing dishes before the advent of dishwashers. Most children eyed their mothers with dipping in the soapsuds and scrubbing the plates. Often begging for an opportunity to help. However, if the parent insisted that they start washing dishes at an early age and it became a required responsibility, there would be no begging, only distain for the job. While there is no “teachable moment” for dishwashing, there is for learning the basics. Waiting until that moment occurs and not pushing the child too early can make the difference between an eager learner when the time arrives and one that only sees it as work, not as an exciting adventure. 

Finland is a far different type of nation than the United States. In Finland, only one language prevails in the country. This is not true of the United States, although many of our problems may stem from that dilemma. Our schools focus on teaching to children of several languages. One of every 12 American students is in the process of learning English as a second language. Our nation offers an incentive for those not willing to learn English, to dictate to our nation a requirement for public assistance, forms and even education in the language of their homeland.

 While providing interpreters and English as a second language classes to students, we deplete the resources for other programs. Instead of insisting on English only, as the government did in the early days of immigration, our Congress dictates that we offer multi-language brochures to anyone not willing to learn English. In one state, California, the elimination of second language classes, brochures, interpreters and higher paid workers speaking a second language could balance the state’s budget.

There are no awards for achievement, no accelerated classes and no rich or poor schools. Each school is standardized. All students maintain the same level of acceleration in the Finnish schools. However, a second teacher provides the much-needed help to those students that find themselves lost in the subject matter.

The homework for those in secondary school is normally a half hour a day or less and the students spend less time in school. However, due to the early childhood training, most students make themselves accountable for their success and focus on lessons they do not understand. It’s far different from the lagging students of America that hope to dodge the bullet of discovery or flaunt their ignorance and blame it on the teachers.

 In the last three years of school, the students separate into two different groups based on their academic achievements. Slightly over half will continue on the academic path and the balance will attend a vocational school. The drop out rate for the vocational school is approximately 10 percent with the overall drop out rate being about 4 percent. That differs dramatically with the American school system where dropouts are 25 percent of the total school population.

  A GPS FOR PARENTS OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN

 Written for parents who are concerned about their children’s journey through today’s public education system, As For Me and My House: A GPS for Parents of School-Age Children is a powerful resource that can change lives.

 Inspired by the Book of Joshua, As For Me and My House asks parents to take charge and become empowered to improve their children’s education. No longer willing to accept second-rate outcomes, today’s parents are learning that by being proactive they can get better results from teachers, administrators, and their own kids.

Parental responsibility is a key issue in the delivery of education. The Biblical verse “As for me and my house we will” frames the need for parents to fulfill their roles as heads of the household. This timeless advice works for parents of any race, creed, or religious belief. A GPS concept is used to direct families into responsible behavior with suggestions of techniques for solution building in relationships with educators and administrators.

In the struggle to make American education more competitive, As For Me and My House: A GPS for Parents of School-Age Children is a must-read for families and offers powerful solutions that get results. More information can be found at the site dedicated to the book  -  http://www.as-for-me-and-my-house.com  and  at  http://amazon.com/As-Me-House-Education-Important/dp/0615455832, where it can be purchased both in paperback and kindle.

ALSO CHECK OUT OUR NEW WEB SITE – http://greetingcardeasels.inpublicschools.com/