In contrast to the pessimistic (or, some might argue, realistic) view of K–12 education in California cited in last week's post, Michael Grunwald's "Despite Its Woes, California's Dream Still Lives" in Time presents a much brighter view of California's situation.
Despite current setbacks, Grunwald avers, California's position on "the cutting edge of the American future—economically, environmentally, demographically, culturally and maybe politically" secures its status as "a dream state." He quotes genomic pioneer J. Craig Venter, who calls California "the most dynamic place for change on earth."
Grunwald points out that the law school at the University of California, Irvine, opened this semester and "was instantly more selective than Harvard or Yale." Although he mentions the free tuition, he doesn't note that it likely had more to do with the school's selectivity than anything else.
Virtually buried among his rosy assertions and facts is Grunwald's acknowledgment, toward the end of the article, that California's public schools "have been deteriorating for years" and that, along with expensive housing, they "pose a real obstacle to the dream of upward mobility." He also concedes that the state's recent sharp cutbacks have hit education especially hard. "Fortunately," he optimistically concludes, "help may be on the way" in the form of political reforms and potential "forward-thinking" successors to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
So which view of the current state of K–12 education in California is correct—Grunwald's in Time or Judis's in The New Republic? Or do both positions, taken together, present the most realistic assessment of and prognosis for education in the Golden State?
Showing posts with label Educational Trends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Educational Trends. Show all posts
Demise of K-12 Education in California?
Coincidentally, both The New Republic and Time have major articles on California this week. In the former, John B. Judis paints a dark picture of K–12 education in the state. His fact-filled and regretfully pessimistic "End State: Is California Finished?" notes that although in the 1960s California's schools were considered "among the best," with the fifth-highest spending per student and approximately half the state's high school graduates going on to college, at this point California's educational system has "fallen into disrepair."
Several dire statistics support his conclusion, including:
He sees little hope for the state, whose best days seem long gone and unlikely to return. Yet despite everything, for many the California dream is as alive as ever, and next week we'll take a look at a very different take on the Golden State.
Several dire statistics support his conclusion, including:
- In 2007, California eighth graders were forty-eighth among 50 states and the District of Columbia in reading and forty-fifth in math on the Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress tests;
- California's spending per pupil is thirtieth among states;
- The state is forty-ninth in student-teacher ratios;
- California ranks fifty-first in guidance counselors and libraries.
He sees little hope for the state, whose best days seem long gone and unlikely to return. Yet despite everything, for many the California dream is as alive as ever, and next week we'll take a look at a very different take on the Golden State.
The Price of Too Much Homework
One of the most worrisome trends in today's schools is the assigning of too much homework. Although what constitutes "too much" varies from child to child (and parent to parent), a good rule of thumb is that if a student has little or no time for outside activities and appears continually stressed, the homework load is too great.
An illuminating book published some time ago by Stanford lecturer Denise Pope, "Doing School": How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students, depicts just how great a toll the burden of too much homework can take. Pope spent a year following the lives of five students at an affluent public high school in California. The pressure of too little time and need for top-notch grades severely compromised both the students' love of learning and the quality of their lives, not only during high school but in the years after graduation. Other disturbing findings included health problems and rampant ethical transgressions such as cheating and "playing" the system.
Pope went on to implement the Stanford Stressed-Out Students (SOS) project—now expanded and renamed as Challenge Success—aimed at educating schools and parents about the consequences of too much pressure and competition and need for a broader vision of what constitutes "success."
Challenge Success provides conferences, workshops, and other ways for educators and parents to become involved in helping to effect much-needed change. Perhaps most important, it offers hope that reform is possible—and evidence that, at least in some schools, it has already begun.
An illuminating book published some time ago by Stanford lecturer Denise Pope, "Doing School": How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students, depicts just how great a toll the burden of too much homework can take. Pope spent a year following the lives of five students at an affluent public high school in California. The pressure of too little time and need for top-notch grades severely compromised both the students' love of learning and the quality of their lives, not only during high school but in the years after graduation. Other disturbing findings included health problems and rampant ethical transgressions such as cheating and "playing" the system.
Pope went on to implement the Stanford Stressed-Out Students (SOS) project—now expanded and renamed as Challenge Success—aimed at educating schools and parents about the consequences of too much pressure and competition and need for a broader vision of what constitutes "success."
Challenge Success provides conferences, workshops, and other ways for educators and parents to become involved in helping to effect much-needed change. Perhaps most important, it offers hope that reform is possible—and evidence that, at least in some schools, it has already begun.
How Not to Choose a College
A recent story in the Los Angeles Times reported that Occidental, a small liberal arts school where Barack Obama spent his first two years of college, will have an expected enrollment increase of 21 percent this fall—a rise that may be largely attributable to the so-called O-O connection. Many incoming students were attracted to the college because Obama once went there; for some, attending the same school is both inspiring and legitimizing, particularly when explaining their college choice to family and friends.
But is choosing a school because someone famous once attended it a good plan? Similarly, should students apply to—and decide to attend—a college that, for whatever reason, is suddenly the place to go? A school's popularity or transitory fame shouldn't be a factor when contemplating choices in higher education, yet it often is. Each year college counseling offices are faced with multitudes of seniors applying to the same highly sought-after school—even when the college in question doesn't fit the students' goals and even though the students realize that only one or two applicants from the same high school will be admitted.
Of course, among the incoming Occidental class will be students who were searching, say, for a small college in Southern California offering an excellent liberal arts education and who heard of the school or had their interest piqued because of Obama's attendance there—a different situation entirely from those who applied simply because it was one of the President's alma maters.
The popularity of any given college waxes and wanes, typically for reasons having nothing to do with the school itself. But just because a college is in vogue or someone famous went there doesn't necessarily make it a good choice.
But is choosing a school because someone famous once attended it a good plan? Similarly, should students apply to—and decide to attend—a college that, for whatever reason, is suddenly the place to go? A school's popularity or transitory fame shouldn't be a factor when contemplating choices in higher education, yet it often is. Each year college counseling offices are faced with multitudes of seniors applying to the same highly sought-after school—even when the college in question doesn't fit the students' goals and even though the students realize that only one or two applicants from the same high school will be admitted.
Of course, among the incoming Occidental class will be students who were searching, say, for a small college in Southern California offering an excellent liberal arts education and who heard of the school or had their interest piqued because of Obama's attendance there—a different situation entirely from those who applied simply because it was one of the President's alma maters.
The popularity of any given college waxes and wanes, typically for reasons having nothing to do with the school itself. But just because a college is in vogue or someone famous went there doesn't necessarily make it a good choice.
Economy's Effect on College Plans May Not Be All Bad
It's no secret that the economy has wreaked havoc on many students' college plans. With parents' savings severely depleted or even exhausted, college-bound seniors are having to consider less-expensive schools, as this recent story reports.
Although being unable to attend a dream school with a tab of more than $50,000 per year can initially seem heartbreaking, this increasingly common predicament can galvanize students (and their parents) into analyzing and focusing on what they really want and need from a college education. Too often students are swayed by a school's ranking, popularity, or prestige. Instead of taking a close look at their own personal and educational goals, high school seniors often become prematurely attached to a particular school that, objectively speaking, isn't the best—or even a good—choice.
When financial realities enter into the picture, students are forced to examine their plans carefully. Does a goal of becoming a journalist, for example, necessitate attending Northwestern's Medill, or could that plan (especially for an in-state resident) be accomplished just as well at the University of Missouri? Does it make more sense to forgo attending a top-tier school with a hefty price tag and skimpy financial aid package and instead choose a solid, well-regarded college whose scholarship award will make graduating four years later debt-free a reality?
Of course, these are the sorts of questions students should be asking themselves long before acceptances and rejections roll in—and not just in a tanking economy. Even though having constricted choices can be disappointing, it can also be an opportunity for mature consideration of goals and, perhaps more important, an essential life lesson. Much as we might wish them to be otherwise, options and resources are limited, and being able to work within those limitations is a skill every bit as valuable as anything learned in college.
Although being unable to attend a dream school with a tab of more than $50,000 per year can initially seem heartbreaking, this increasingly common predicament can galvanize students (and their parents) into analyzing and focusing on what they really want and need from a college education. Too often students are swayed by a school's ranking, popularity, or prestige. Instead of taking a close look at their own personal and educational goals, high school seniors often become prematurely attached to a particular school that, objectively speaking, isn't the best—or even a good—choice.
When financial realities enter into the picture, students are forced to examine their plans carefully. Does a goal of becoming a journalist, for example, necessitate attending Northwestern's Medill, or could that plan (especially for an in-state resident) be accomplished just as well at the University of Missouri? Does it make more sense to forgo attending a top-tier school with a hefty price tag and skimpy financial aid package and instead choose a solid, well-regarded college whose scholarship award will make graduating four years later debt-free a reality?
Of course, these are the sorts of questions students should be asking themselves long before acceptances and rejections roll in—and not just in a tanking economy. Even though having constricted choices can be disappointing, it can also be an opportunity for mature consideration of goals and, perhaps more important, an essential life lesson. Much as we might wish them to be otherwise, options and resources are limited, and being able to work within those limitations is a skill every bit as valuable as anything learned in college.
Taking Control of Texting in the Classroom
Yesterday I was chatting with a science teacher at well-regarded public high school whose classes are geared for the most motivated and high-achieving students. She lamented the extent to which even these students now use their cell phones to text each other while classes are in session, with some students taking frequent "restroom breaks" specifically for this purpose.
The problem is widespread and, at least in her school, appears to have no solution. School officials won't ban or confiscate the phones, students won't relinquish them (even temporarily), and the connection between paying attention in class and comprehending often very complex material appears to be lost on everyone.
Here is a situation that, for students and teachers alike, somehow needs to be addressed and remedied. When student behavior interferes with the educational process, administrators should not shy away from considering all relevant aspects of the problem and implementing policies to resolve it. Nor should school officials be afraid to punish those students who ignore the regulations and disrupt—even silently—the educational process for others.
Even strict rules about the use of cell phones during class won't prevent some students from covertly texting each other. But firm, enforceable policies at least convey the message that, when it comes to the classroom, not everything goes.
The problem is widespread and, at least in her school, appears to have no solution. School officials won't ban or confiscate the phones, students won't relinquish them (even temporarily), and the connection between paying attention in class and comprehending often very complex material appears to be lost on everyone.
Here is a situation that, for students and teachers alike, somehow needs to be addressed and remedied. When student behavior interferes with the educational process, administrators should not shy away from considering all relevant aspects of the problem and implementing policies to resolve it. Nor should school officials be afraid to punish those students who ignore the regulations and disrupt—even silently—the educational process for others.
Even strict rules about the use of cell phones during class won't prevent some students from covertly texting each other. But firm, enforceable policies at least convey the message that, when it comes to the classroom, not everything goes.
Legacy Enrollment in Public School Districts
We've all heard of legacy admissions, which give preferential treatment to children of alumni, in private school and college admissions. But what if public school districts adopted similar enrollment policies for their K–12 students?
According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, two Southland school districts—Beverly Hills Unified and Santa Monica–Malibu Unified—have recently begun offering preferential enrollment to kids whose parents attended their schools (and, in the case of Beverly Hills, whose grandparents have lived in the district for at least 10 years). The idea is to strengthen ties both with alumni, who may be more likely to donate money or help out in other ways, and with grandparents still residing in the district—and voting on school-related measures—who no longer have a "direct stake" in area schools.
Critics question, among other things, the fairness and utility of legacy enrollment in public schools, while supporters argue that districts already offer spots to nonresident children whose parents work in the district or whose attendance will help boost state funding or achieve other district goals. So far, the percentage of students admitted under this new policy is minuscule: In Beverly Hills, just 11 out of 5,100 students.
In these dire economic times, when school districts are struggling with drastically cut budgets, instituting a policy offering preferential enrollment to those few students whose alumni parents may be more likely to offer support that will benefit the many seems worth trying. Doing so is particularly justifiable given that much larger numbers of nonresident children with no district school affiliation are already allowed to enroll. If a legacy enrollment policy proves problematic, with too many parents taking advantage of the situation, district officials can always revise or eliminate it. Remaining flexible and open to change is key if schools are to survive the current financial crisis.
According to a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, two Southland school districts—Beverly Hills Unified and Santa Monica–Malibu Unified—have recently begun offering preferential enrollment to kids whose parents attended their schools (and, in the case of Beverly Hills, whose grandparents have lived in the district for at least 10 years). The idea is to strengthen ties both with alumni, who may be more likely to donate money or help out in other ways, and with grandparents still residing in the district—and voting on school-related measures—who no longer have a "direct stake" in area schools.
Critics question, among other things, the fairness and utility of legacy enrollment in public schools, while supporters argue that districts already offer spots to nonresident children whose parents work in the district or whose attendance will help boost state funding or achieve other district goals. So far, the percentage of students admitted under this new policy is minuscule: In Beverly Hills, just 11 out of 5,100 students.
In these dire economic times, when school districts are struggling with drastically cut budgets, instituting a policy offering preferential enrollment to those few students whose alumni parents may be more likely to offer support that will benefit the many seems worth trying. Doing so is particularly justifiable given that much larger numbers of nonresident children with no district school affiliation are already allowed to enroll. If a legacy enrollment policy proves problematic, with too many parents taking advantage of the situation, district officials can always revise or eliminate it. Remaining flexible and open to change is key if schools are to survive the current financial crisis.
Gaining a Competitive Edge: Neuroenhancing Drugs
Recently the New Yorker ran a piece on the "underground world" of neuroenhancing drugs—"drugs that high-functioning, overcommitted people take to become higher-functioning and more overcommitted." As competition, both in educational institutions and the workplace, grows ever more intense, increasing numbers of students (and graduates) are using such drugs as Adderall, Ritalin, and Provigil to give themselves a leg up.
If we accept, as the article seems to, that "cosmetic neurology is here to stay"—and that banning the use of neuroenhancers doesn't make sense since they are already in such widespread use—then what are the implications for today's students?
Significant numbers of them, from preschool through high school, already devote most of their free time and sacrifice much of their childhood to test-preparation courses and so-called educational enrichment programs in hopes of gaining a competitive academic edge. Even parents who balk at subjecting their kids to this sort of regimen can't help wondering if they're doing them a disservice and thwarting their chances for educational success.
The use of neuroenhancing drugs ups the ante still further. If Johnny's academic peers not only have the benefit of countless additional hours of training, tutoring, and testing but also the ability, thanks to neuroenhancers, to push ahead further, faster, and more efficiently, what chance does Johnny really have?
It's time to put a stop to this rapidly escalating race and take a closer look at its effects. Many kids today are already overburdened, overstressed overachievers. Is that really what we want for them, and is this really the kind of society we want to create—and live in?
If we accept, as the article seems to, that "cosmetic neurology is here to stay"—and that banning the use of neuroenhancers doesn't make sense since they are already in such widespread use—then what are the implications for today's students?
Significant numbers of them, from preschool through high school, already devote most of their free time and sacrifice much of their childhood to test-preparation courses and so-called educational enrichment programs in hopes of gaining a competitive academic edge. Even parents who balk at subjecting their kids to this sort of regimen can't help wondering if they're doing them a disservice and thwarting their chances for educational success.
The use of neuroenhancing drugs ups the ante still further. If Johnny's academic peers not only have the benefit of countless additional hours of training, tutoring, and testing but also the ability, thanks to neuroenhancers, to push ahead further, faster, and more efficiently, what chance does Johnny really have?
It's time to put a stop to this rapidly escalating race and take a closer look at its effects. Many kids today are already overburdened, overstressed overachievers. Is that really what we want for them, and is this really the kind of society we want to create—and live in?
The Importance of Parents in K–12 Education
In today's Seattle Times, columnist Jerry Large interviews University of California education professor W. Norton Grubb. Grubb, an economist and author of The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity, notes that although a variety of factors—such as money, class size, and teacher experience—can have small effects on academic achievement, family is a strong predictor of outcome. This finding, Large reports, points to "a need for more emphasis on early education and parent education" and for "shifting focus from what's easy to count to what really counts."
That parental involvement is important to children's educational achievement has, for many parents, long seemed self-evident. It makes sense intuitively that children who have parents actively supporting and helping to foster their educational progress would have better outcomes.
Exactly why parents have such a big effect, however, isn't as simple as it might seem. New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, for instance, argues compellingly in his book Outliers: The Story of Success that who one's parents (and grandparents) are has a huge effect on achievement (as do one's birthdate, culture, and class). Success is not, as we like to think, simply a product of an individual's effort; rather, it is largely determined by factors beyond a person's control.
So although focusing on early education and parental education is certainly, as Large says, "a good first step," we must also recognize that any widespread change will likely take years—even generations—to effect and, consequently, to measure.
That parental involvement is important to children's educational achievement has, for many parents, long seemed self-evident. It makes sense intuitively that children who have parents actively supporting and helping to foster their educational progress would have better outcomes.
Exactly why parents have such a big effect, however, isn't as simple as it might seem. New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, for instance, argues compellingly in his book Outliers: The Story of Success that who one's parents (and grandparents) are has a huge effect on achievement (as do one's birthdate, culture, and class). Success is not, as we like to think, simply a product of an individual's effort; rather, it is largely determined by factors beyond a person's control.
So although focusing on early education and parental education is certainly, as Large says, "a good first step," we must also recognize that any widespread change will likely take years—even generations—to effect and, consequently, to measure.
Are Today's Students Uneducated and Unfit for College?
Today on Joanne Jacobs's blog, she reports on Penn State University accounting professor J. Edward Ketz's op-ed arguing that today's students are "uneducated and unfit for a college education." Although at first glance one might be tempted to dismiss this assertion as extreme, the author draws upon 30-plus years of teaching experience and convincingly supports his conclusions.
Ketz doesn't believe there are differences in "native, raw intelligence" between today's students and those of previous generations. Rather, the discrepancies lie "in their educational backgrounds, analytical thinking, quantitative skills, reading abilities, willingness to work, and their attitudes concerning the educational process."
As an accounting professor, Ketz's observations focus on deficiencies in mathematical preparation for the requirements of an accounting major. However, the problems he sees aren't restricted to this area but are much broader, encompassing not only an inability to read but also to think well and work hard. He blames this situation—and today's students' high self-esteem, which appears unwarranted—on K–12 education.
Is Ketz right? And if he is, can anything be done to rectify the situation, or has our society evolved (or deteriorated) to the point where previous assumptions about the preparation for and purpose of a college education are no longer relevant? Cast your vote in the poll to the right and feel free to add your comments. (This poll is now closed—thanks for voting! The poll asked whether today's students are less fit for college; out of 32 respondents, 71.9% said yes, 12.5% said no, and 15.6% were not sure.)
Ketz doesn't believe there are differences in "native, raw intelligence" between today's students and those of previous generations. Rather, the discrepancies lie "in their educational backgrounds, analytical thinking, quantitative skills, reading abilities, willingness to work, and their attitudes concerning the educational process."
As an accounting professor, Ketz's observations focus on deficiencies in mathematical preparation for the requirements of an accounting major. However, the problems he sees aren't restricted to this area but are much broader, encompassing not only an inability to read but also to think well and work hard. He blames this situation—and today's students' high self-esteem, which appears unwarranted—on K–12 education.
Is Ketz right? And if he is, can anything be done to rectify the situation, or has our society evolved (or deteriorated) to the point where previous assumptions about the preparation for and purpose of a college education are no longer relevant? Cast your vote in the poll to the right and feel free to add your comments. (This poll is now closed—thanks for voting! The poll asked whether today's students are less fit for college; out of 32 respondents, 71.9% said yes, 12.5% said no, and 15.6% were not sure.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
