School Choice 3-P Analysis
School Choice
By: Tiernan, Taylor, Stacy, Sarah, and Rachel
3-P Analysis
Hnrs-302-011H
Professor Adrea Lawrence
April 3, 2010
Policy Overview
What started as an idea eventually led to the implementation of vouchers and modern day charter schools. The overall purpose of school choice is to increase the well-being and improve the learning opportunities for all students. As a policy, school choice has been viewed through many lenses since its legal appearance in the 1980s, but the idea behind it has been evolving since the nineteenth century. Town Tuitioning systems, which were set up by the state, were the first instance of vouchers in the United States and are what gave students access to education when there was no district school to attend.
In the first half of the 20th century John Dewey thought of schools as a social system and encouraged “efforts to make schools the social, educational and recreational loci of their communities”(Charter Schools and Community Development). The development of charter schools expanded from this by not only focusing on teaching purposes, but also youth development, employment, and future planning. A growing number of educators and community developers could then share responsibility for the welfare of communal activity, and work together to reform education.
The development of school choice can be seen in three stages: The Market Phase, The Integration Phase and The Policy Phase (Viteritti, Walberg and Wolf 138). Each brought to the surface new interpretations of the rationale for school choice and justified their stance by providing well-grounded arguments. The Market Phase laid the economic framework down for schools while the integration phase highlighted the relationship between school choice and race. Southern school districts furthered integration efforts by responding to Brown v. Board of Education with tuition grants that allowed students to attend private “segregation academies”, which were exempt from the integration laws (Herzberg; Gerald). Vouchers became a way to exert educational choice and therefore promote efforts to integrate schools. Poorer families who could not afford to move would then have the opportunity to enroll their children in quality schools. The Policy Phase is the third, and current, phase where politics become the key instrument in education reform. Economic arguments came to the forefront and helped back support for legislation that would promote vouchers. Milton Friedman expressed how vouchers would increase the competition among schools and therefore make education quality more important (“Free To Choose Media Samples”). State legislation favorable to charter schools became of prime importance in 1991 when Minnesota created the first charter, and increasing state control has been seen in the 21st century.
There are often benefits for being seen as a high performing school, such as greater funding and better teachers, and the structure of education in the United States has been changing to reach this status. Since it has only been about two decades since charter schools were officially established, it is astounding that over a million and a half children are already educated through such a system (Lubienski and Weitzel). The charter school movement was founded on the idea that more equitable access to quality schools would be made available for students, and became more successful by introducing competition to the school sector.
Is the Policy Principled?
The evolution of the school choice idea into a full-fledged policy movement and the spread of the charter schools necessitate an analysis and critique of school choice/charter school within framework of education theory and development. Furthermore, H.S. Bola’s work articulates how a comprehensive policy analysis requires the assessment of “three interrelated questions: Is the policy principled?; Is the policy professionally sound?; and Is the policy practical?” (Bola 207). This 3-P analysis of school choice/charter schools will therefore examine these three different questions in order to thoroughly analyze the varying assumptions underlying this policy, the potential for implementation, along with outlining recommendations for policy revision.
The first question this policy analysis will address whether the policy is principled. H.S. Bola describes how “An answer to this question, of course involves an analysis of the principles and values of policy,” as well as, “Questions of ideology and theory of development and education are also implicated” (Bola 214). In evaluating whether school choice/ charter school policy is principled, first the values assumptions underlying this policy must be identified and critiqued.
As previously noted, the overall purpose of school choice is to increase the well-being and improve the learning opportunities for all students. This purpose highlights a value assumptions to charter schools, which is that school is purposeful beyond just an educative role. The philosophy of charter schools suggests that the purpose of schools goes beyond just classroom education but should also involve promoting student achievement on a broader scale. Essential to the success of this goal, is the argument that the school choice/ charter school policy model allows for increased student achievement by promoting innovation and accountability.
An additional value assumption of school choice and charter school policy places an emphasis on self-determination. Over time school choice policy has developed based on the assumption that individual parents, families, and students had the right to choose their own school environment, whether based on racial characteristics as in the 1960s or more contemporarily based on a specific school model with charter schools. This value assumption elevates the idea of choice as both desirable and a goal within the American education system. Moreover, this value on self-determination has been an important feature of the development from school choice as an idea into legal policy with charter schools.
The notion that autonomy is both good and necessary for charter schools to be successful in their educative purpose is an essential value assumption of modern charter schools. The guiding argument is that “charter schools need to be autonomous, self-governing organizations to enhance their potential for high performance” (Wohlstetter, Wenning, Briggs, 331). Concurrently, the various state legislation, passed over the last twenty years, authorizing charter schools all note the importance of autonomy, to different degrees. This argument also reveals how the values assumptions supporting school choice/ charter school policy place a premium on autonomy as central to policy success. This value assumption functions as powerful support for charter schools on a case-by-case or even state-by-state basis, but also reveals one of the central problems to the expansion of school choice policy at the national level. Any national legislation requires a degree of regulation, but “too much regulation will defeat the purpose of a system whose goal is to promote autonomy in schools” (Gill 225). So how would a national charter school system function? This question signifies one of the many roadblocks facing legislators, Local Education Agencies (LEAs), non-profits, and parents and teachers who might favor legislation allowing school choice, but currently lack the vision for how to transition school choice policy from an individual to a broader national level.
This emphasis on self-determination, autonomy, and choice highlights how school choice policy values the individual rather than the group. While school choice/charter school policy will have group effects in terms of promoting competition within the broader school system or the improvement or “reinvention” of the public school system, these are assumptions based on the philosophy that these goals will be accomplished by elevating individual choice (Bulkley and Fisler 2). This value on the merit of individuality mirrors the value assumption on the benefit of the free market model for education. School choice/ charter school policy assumes an education philosophy based on market model promotes innovation and accountability. Charter schools will be more accountable because they are forced to “meet the demands of parent and student consumers” (Bulkley and Fisler 3).
Additionally, this policy assumes that “the interplay of autonomy and market forces would make charter schools more innovative” (Bulkley and Fisler 2). This policy, however, sees no contradiction within the idea of elevating the individual while simultaneously benefiting the overall group. School choice policy suggests that individual, choice driven education policy will have a positive trickle-down effect on the public school system as a whole. This assumption is vested in the benefits of a market model for education. This policy, nevertheless, ignores one of the central tenants of a free market model, the stratification of individuals. A free market model is not based on equal access or equal benefit, but on a differentiated system of benefits based on competitive structure. School choice policy, therefore, is correct in its assumptions of the possible benefits for individual students, but negligent in its ignorance of how this policy could create unequal access and benefits for different students.
These values assumption on choice and the individual, however, also outline a less obvious but historically apparent assumption of school choice/ charter school policy, which is that segregated education is an individual right and possibly beneficial. The notion of segregation represents an important part of school choice history, and during the 1950s and 60s the idea of school choice was harnessed to resist racial desegregation of public schools. School choice/charter school policy today does not value racial segregation, but the idea of segregation is not irrelevant to the school choice idea. School choice policy is predicated on the idea that individual students and parents have the right to choose a school environment which best suits their educational needs. In valuing choice, school choice policy places a value on student’s right to self- segregate themselves based on self-determined factors, including differences in educational priorities or socio-economic considerations. Segregation in a historical sense is not a value assumption of school choice policy, but segregation in terms of separating students based on different sets of criteria is entirely relevant to school choice and charter school philosophy. Moreover, the implications of this value assumption should be further analyzed when determining the need for policy revision to the values assumptions of school choice/charter school policy.
Is the Policy Professionally Sound?
The principle of school choice has taken form as a policy in school vouchers, charter schools, and cyber charter schools. A question of interest to education professionals and to the elected officials who craft policy is whether or not these policies are professionally sound. H. S. Bhola explained, “The question here is about the soundness of policy in regard to the theoretical understandings and research knowledge in the particular policy domain” (217). To determine whether or not these policies are professionally sound, their descriptive assumptions must be addressed. For each of these policies, the common underlying descriptive assumption is that school choice, whether enacted as school vouchers, charter schools, or cyber charter schools, will foster competition among public and private schools, resulting in the creation and maintenance of higher quality schools with better student outcomes. As explained in our policy history, this descriptive assumption was first articulated in 1955 in “The Role of Government in Education” in which Milton Friedman “advocated a market approach to education” and theorized that “the appropriation of public funding for non-public schools would create a market of new educational providers” (Viteritti, Walberg, and Wolf 138). Though Friedman proposed this argument for school vouchers, it also underlies charter schools and cyber charter schools.
If these policies are professionally sound, “the theoretical understandings and research knowledge” of the education field should support the descriptive assumption of “a market approach to education.” (Bhola 217; Viteritti, Walberg, and Wolf 138). This market approach to education is meant to “spur traditional public schools to improve through competitive pressures” since “traditional public schools will work harder to prevent students from leaving so as to avoid losing funding and enrollment” (Imberman 850, 862). Evidence of this improvement has been studied using student standardized test scores and students’ recorded behavioral incidents. A study that measured these factors showed that the presence of charter schools among traditional public schools had negative effects on the mathematics and English standardized test scores of students enrolled in traditional public schools (Imberman 862). The presence of charter schools had no effect on student attendance and negligible effects on students’ recorded behavioral incidents (Imberman 862). In similar studies of the effects of school vouchers, “the best research to date finds relatively small achievement gains for students offered education vouchers, most of which are not statistically different from zero” (Rouse and Barrow 17). For cyber charter schools, there is no research literature that suggests that students enrolled in cyber charter schools perform better on standardized tests than do traditional public school students (Cavanaugh). This information suggests that the market approach to education has not fostered competition among traditional public schools and other schools that improves student outcomes.
Another assumption of the market approach to education is “that competition and choice will spur changes in schools to be more innovative, which in turn will lead to better student outcomes” (Preston, Goldring, Berends, and Cannata 318). Here, the focus is mainly on innovative practices in the field of education. In a study that defined innovative practices as practices different from those of traditional public schools in a geographically limited local context, the researchers found that charter schools do not implement more innovative practices or different innovative practices than do traditional public schools (Preston, Goldring, Berends, and Cannata 324). The exception is charter schools’ elimination of teacher tenure (Preston, Goldring, Berends, and Cannata 327). Tied to the assumption that the market approach will drive innovation is the assumption that increasing the number and diversity of education providers will increase innovation and student achievement. However, a study that tested this assumption found that “the type of institution [local school board, postsecondary institution, nonprofit organization, or the state department of education] that authorizes a charter school has no statistically significant relationship with mean levels of student achievement” (Carlson, Lavery, and Witte 265). Further, the charter schools with the least variable student achievement scores and arguably the fewest fluctuations in quality were authorized by local school boards, which are traditional education providers (Carlson, Lavery, and Witte 265).
The implementation of school choice as a policy through school vouchers, charter schools, and cyber charter schools rests on the assumption that a market approach to education will encourage innovation among education providers and improve student outcomes, particularly student standardized test scores. At this time, research does not show that these policies create the intended consequences, suggesting that school choice policy does not have a professionally sound base from which to justify its expansion.
Is the Policy Practical?
When we ask whether school choice policies are practical, we are asking how possible it is to implement the theories whose principles and professionalism we have assessed.
Because most policies concerning school choice are developed at the state level, it is difficult to make a generalized judgment. Even federal policies, such as No Child Left Behind, surely encounter different difficulties in implementation in different states, and even in different school districts.
Studies in Texas, California, and Indiana on the relative efficiency of charters found that, on average, there was no significant difference in cost efficiency between charter schools and public schools (Gronberg, Pérez, and Akey). These results suggest that charter schools are equally financially practical to regular public schools. However, all three studies qualified their conclusions by saying that the consideration of other factors, such as school size, could yield different results, and that charter schools were found to be much more heterogeneous, with many schools falling far to either side of the average. This is a testament to the vast variety of factors affecting school choice programs and the resulting diversity of situations, and to how difficult it is to make an overarching judgment on the financial practicality of charter schools.
A report by the United States General Accounting Office found that areas in which charter schools commonly lack resources include facilities, start-up funds, and, to a lesser extent, necessary expertise. Acquiring these three things is the biggest challenge faced by new charter schools. The process of getting a charter approved is expensive. Even with grants from the Public Charter Schools Program, new charter schools often struggle to finance programs and facilities. New charters, especially those started by small groups of parents and teachers, may lack the legal and business background to practically apply for a charter and manage a school. These struggles suggest that the current charter schools policies in general are not practical. Of course, like any other factor, this varies between states, with some charters benefiting from more available state-level grants (United States General Accounting Office).
Just as much as there is variety in situations in which school choice is implemented, there is a wide variety of ways that it manifests, and just as many varying opinions among stakeholders. Of these manifestations, we’ve explored school vouchers, charter schools, private schools, and cyber charters. Federal and state governments have tended to favor the implementation of school choice, at least experimentally, as evidenced by the NCLB legislation at the federal level, and individual charter and voucher laws at the state level (“School Choice: Vouchers”). There are several different entities that can provide charter schools, including local education agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, universities, and groups of parents and teachers in a community. All of these groups might be in favor of legislation allowing school choice. Many stakeholders in public non-charters oppose school choice legislation because of charter schools’ potential to draw funds and focus away from non-charters.
The training, knowledge, organizational tools, and support that are required to practically implement school choice can differ from those needed for the regular public school system. A charter schools benefits from the support of the establishing body, be it a university, business, or local community, and in this way can be better attended to than the non-charter public schools that are one of many of an LEA’s responsibilities (Samuels). On the other hand, charter schools often do not enjoy the support that comes from being in a close network of other schools. Training and knowledge of implementers of school choice, including state governments, LEAs, school administrations, and teachers, can vary as much as in non-charter situations.
School choice is a vast and complicated collection of policies, and it is not helpful to try to label it en masse as either practical or impractical. However, this analysis demonstrates the need for more studies on the effectiveness of different iterations of school policy in different situations. The data from these studies could distinguish what is practical and what is impractical about implementing school choice, and provide a basis for more informed and effective policies.
Works Cited
Akey, Terri, et al. “Study of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Charter Schools in Indiana.” Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. 1 Apr 2012
Bhola, H. S. “Adult Education Policy Projections in the Delors Report.” Prospects 27.2 (1997): 207-222. Print.
Bulkley, Katrina, and Jennifer Fisler. “A Decade of Charter Scools: From Theory to Practice.” Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Graduate School of Education. University of Pennsylvania. April 2002. Policy Brief. Print.
Carlson, Deven, Lesley Lavery, and John F. Witte. “Charter School Authorizers and Student Achievement.” Economics of Education Review 31 (2012): 254-267. Print.
Cavanaugh, Cathy. “Effectiveness of Cyber Charter Schools: A Review of Research on Learnings.” TechTrends 53.4 (2009): 28-31. Print.
“Charter Schools and Community Development: Schools as Community Centers and the Potential of Co-tenancy.” Civic Builders Policy Brief. 9. (2006): 1-15.
“Free To Choose: Original 1980 Television Series.” Free To Choose Media Samples. Free To
Choose Network, n.d. Web. 2 Apr 2012. <http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/freetochoose/
detail_ftc1980_abstract.php?page=6>.
Gill, B. P., and Foundation George Gund. Rhetoric Versus Reality: What We Know and What We Need to Know About Vouchers and Charter Schools. Mr (Rand Corporation): Rand Education, 2001. Print.
Gronberg, Timothy J., Dennis W. Jansen, and Lori L. Taylor. “The Relative Efficiency of Charter Schools: A Cost Frontier Approach” Economics of Education Review Volume 31 Pages 302-17. SciVerse. Web.
Herzberg, Marcus Louis. “The Development of the Concepts of the Public School and the
Private School in the United States.” The Ohio State University, 2002. United States –Ohio: ProQuest & Theses (PQDT). Web. 2 Apr. 2012.
Imberman, Scott A. “The Effect of Charter Schools on Achievement and Behavior of Public School Students.” Journal of Public Economics 95 (2011): 850-863. Print.
Lubienski, Christopher, and Peter Weitzel. The Charter School Experiment: Expectations, Evidence, and Implications. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press, 2010. Print.
Pérez, María, et al. “Schools, Resources, and Efficiency.” 2007. Stanford University Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice. 1 Apr 2012.
Preston, Courtney, Ellen Goldring, Mark Berends, and Marisa Cannata. “School Innovation in District Context: Comparing Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools.” Economics of Education Review 31 (2012): 318-330. Print.
Rouse, Cecelia Elena and Lisa Barrow. “School Vouchers and Student Achievement: Recent Evidence and Remaining Questions.” Annual Review of Economics 1 (2009): 17-42. Print.
Samuels, Christina A. “Charter Schools: “Transforming Public Education in New Orleans: The Recovery School District, 2003-2011″” Education Week 31 (11 January, 2012): 5. ProQuest. Web. 16 April 2012
“School Choice: Vouchers .” National Conference of School Legislatures . National Conference of School Legislatures , 2012. Web. 12 Feb 2012. <http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/school-choice-vouchers.aspx>.
United States General Accounting Office. Charter Schools: New Charter Schools across the Country and in the District of Columbia Face Similar Start-up Challenges: United States General Accounting Office, 2003. Print.
Viteritti, Joseph P., Herbert J. Walberg, and Patrick J. Wolf. “School Choice: How an Abstract Idea Became a Political Reality.” Brookings Papers on Education Policy 8 (2005): 137-173. Print.
Wohlstetter, Priscilla, Richard Wenning, and Kerri L. Briggs. “Charter Scools in the United States: The Question of Autonomy.” Educational Policy (1995) Vol. 9. No. 4: 331-358.
Twitter Analysis: February 14-21
TWITTER REPORT FEBRUARY 14-21
Taylor Ellis
This week on Twitter a huge focus was placed on Obama’s 2013 budget and the impact it will have at different levels. Other discussions revolved around faith in schools, waivers, and authority. The overall tone seemed pretty calm and most people were agreeing, which is in contrast to past weeks. Last week more attention was placed on the impact of the State of the Union address and what reforms were still needed, along with the impact of school choice week, teacher evaluations, and unions. This week was different because the overall tone was less critical and more agreeable. The biggest pattern was that of Obama granting waivers to states for the No Child Left Behind Act (#teachersvoice—daily practices of everyday teachers). The hashtags #NCLB and #waiverwatch (as it was happening) led to a variety of responses that were very positive. This crucial step will now offer schools more flexibility in terms of honest standards. High School Equity: “Reviewing @BarackObama’s #budget2013, @hsequity is pleased to see $5B investment in improving teacher effectiveness #ESEA#edreform #edchat”
Large amounts of money were invested in improving teacher effectiveness, increasing federal work study, and funding for the arts. I think the majority of people were happy to see schools being the prime and Obama spending the necessary time extending grants that will help those students who cannot afford to go to college. The Pell Grant was extended and tweeted about by Generations United, “#Budget2013 extends the #Pell Grant maximum to $5,635 & continues to serve nearly 10 million college students.”
The budget will increase the money allotted to schools, which will allow them to get the resources necessary to create change within schools and as High School Equity tweeted : “giving schools needed resources to reform schools equals a real opportunity to clse the achievementgap plauging the us #edreform”. Along the same lines, Arne Duncan also had a positive reaction to how the budget will have initiatives that can contribute to modernization (community college partnerships) and improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Duncan actively responds to many of his followers to provide answers to questions and to spread facts that may have otherwise been misunderstood. (“@danbakers We need both #STEM & arts as part of well-rounded curriculum. Success in one subject often breeds success in others.”) STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mechanics Education Coalition and they work to inform others on the importance that these workers have in keeping the US at the top of the economic ladder. Although, The Heritage Foundation was not as positive by sharing links to blogs that discuss the benefits of “being friends with the President.” Saying that those who benefit, are not the one’s who actually need the help. The biggest issue was raised because Obama decided to raise subsidies on electric cars and take away all the funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allowed underprivileged children to go to higher ranking schools in our capital.
Diane Ravitch tweeted a great deal about the issues she has with today’s authority. Most of her anger was directed at authority figures and she posted articles as to why they fail (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/19/1066355/-Do-as-I-Say-Not-as-I-Do-Why-Authority-Fails). She remained critical while discussing the challenges teachers face but stated individuals in positions of power, like Arne Duncan, are unqualified for their positions because they were appointed to them and do not take accountability for their actions.
A less tweeted about topic was Indiana’s proposal to expose children to creationism as well as teaching evolutionary theory. The Indiana House of Representatives knocked down the bill, with one reason being because it would violate the US Constitution by advancing religion.Proponents of the bill believe in “Intelligent Design”, not a religious theory per say, but says that life as we know it could not have came to be by accident.
POLICY PAPER
A paper published by the New America Foundation analyzed Obama’s 2013 education budget request. Special Education, ESEA, innovation, and teachers are the focal point; each section being broken down into different methods, reforms, and costs. The guidelines are stated as facts and the source of each funding expenditure discussed.
ANOMALIES
—Did not come across a lot of tweets or articles related to gays in schools.
Education Week: “Judge issues injunction barring Mo. district from filtering websites w/ positive viewpoints on gay people: bit.ly/xjXokb #schoollaw”
—A Cincinnati Ohio High School started paying students to come to school and do well.
Michael Johns: “”Hope and change” does create some jobs–like for #Cincinnatipublic school students who arrive on time: tinyurl.com/7xqxzkl”. The Dohn Community High school–it’s a charter–Seniors; $25 Weekly, Underclassmen; $10 Weekly in the form of Visa Giftcards. (Class on time, every day, and good behavior). An additional $5 into a savings account every time paid.
Twitter Analysis 3/27-4/3
TWITTER REPORT March 27-April 2
Taylor Ellis
The week began fairly calm with many posting interesting questions or articles for followers. The overall tone remained neutral throughout the week, with many of the tweets adding to an active discussion over topics such as the budget, competitive programs, and family influences on students. There was also some discussion about Obamacare, since arguments were being heard all week on the floor of Congress.
The hash tag #edchat was great to follow because it provided an arena for teachers to work in to create and improve practical solutions for the classroom. When these discussions take place it goes beyond the realm of just agreeing or not, because useful resources are shared here that end up bringing new insight into a classroom. One teacher tweeted a new study about why Facebook and Twitter should be used in schools as learning tools. There is evidence that technology can lead to new approaches to engage learning, but a major focus must be placed on making this technology accessible and both the teachers and students trained in how to use it.
Last week contained extremely constructive discussions, instead of people just yelling their opinion without any grounding. Technology in the classroom was emphasized in terms of what can be developed, general access, and potential safety mechanisms. Flipped classrooms, which allow teachers to record lessons on certain pieces of technology, allows all of the classroom time to dealing with issues to the problems they were sent home to do—or problem solving with general ideas and concepts. There is a growing community supporting this idea since more classroom time will be spent helping the student, but the downsize is that educators must have access to this technology and be aware of how to use it. This week technology also was on the forefront, following the hastag #digidirections, which followed the expansion of virtual education companies. People who were discussing these companies seemed to be less attached to their original stance and open to hearing other arguments. Parents who opposed virtual educations argued that the studies that are now being released may not actually have accurate numbers. Those educators are being accused of exaggerating student achievement scores.
Education Sector posted an interesting piece about the effect that parents have on their child’s learning at different ages. Contrary to what many may think, so-called “helicopter parents” were found to help their child become more successful in college, but not in high school. This difference could be attributed to the student knowing that they have their parents support while simultaneously living an independent life where they get to make their own decisions. Parents are also becoming more involved by discussing financial, life and academic issues with both their child and the school. Similarly, Diane Ravitch tweeted a link to a British study, which found that families have a greater effect on test scores than teachers do (50% of the variation due to family units and 10% due to teachers). These findings were in spite of income and the outside support went beyond homework help to open debates and discussions.
Education Week held a Spring Leadership Forum on Monday and twitter followers could follow the agenda filled with expert led sessions that contained superintendents, chancellors, and other educators at #edweeklive. The event wanted to encourage education leaders to interact with one another and create strategies that can be executed to raise student achievement while minimizing costs. Most of the responses to the event were in response to common core standards and how to put them into practice. Many liked the idea that the leading teams who create the curriculum would stay connected with state leaders so that they can plan ways together to improve student outcomes.
Education Weekly tweeted a question about whether 3rd graders should be held back if they can not pass a standardized reading test. I think the following debate was important since there are crucial times at which a child must acquire certain skills and the test checks a student’s ability to not only read the page, but comprehend it. Some argued that the test would prevent the students who have different testing abilities from obtaining a high score, while others thought that standard should be a minimum (other subjects involved).
Arne Duncan was questioned by members of Congress about why so much money was being spent on competitive programs, such as Race to the Top, and instead not being invested in funding for special education and disadvantaged students. Opponents argued that the goal is to reach as many people, and as many districts, so the money needs to be allocated in such a way so that programs are widespread and effective. With across-the-board-cuts, Duncan said that educators are going to lose funding and stressed the importance of time for this issue since school districts must makes next years budget decisions right now—and Congress most likely will not come to an agreement about sequestration soon enough. In response to what will happen if a state does not provide the necessary resources for special populations, Duncan responded that the Education Department would pull their waiver.
Duncan also weighed in on the budget issue by citing the downfalls of proposed government budget cuts. For example, Representative Paul Ryan’s budget would cut $3 billion from Pell grants and 30,000 special education teachers. Surprisingly, not too many people found this to be worth debating but Duncan neatly ended his argument with “We must come together as a country to make sound, bipartisan investments in education”.
Hearings on Obamacare were held last Wednesday, with many protestors showing up to express their opinions on the individual mandate and the framework. This was a hotly debated topic all over social media sites. On the other hand, Rep. Paul Ryan supporters argued that Obama and other party leaders are not working together to end the current debt-fueled economic crisis. Ryan and his followers continued to propose the removal of special interest loopholes that only help higher income earners. By allowing the states to customize Medicaid to the people in their state then they will be able to decide how to best reach the unique needs of the population and achieve economic prosperity. Opponents tweeted they believe Rep. Ryan is dodging the fact that he wants to actually cut Medicaid by almost $810 billion.
Duncan discussed the newly launched RESPECT project, which facilitates a national conversation about teaching. Educators can inform others and the Department of Education, and that information can be used to alter policies and programs. Last week Duncan came out saying he disapproves of the publication of teacher evaluation scores. Many were angered by the fact he did not state his opinion sooner, but Duncan held his ground by reminding followers that he never said he approved of score publications.
I found Diane Ravitch particularly sarcastic this week, confirming her past arguments with articles about e-learning, test scores and funding. Ravitch and her followers commented on Michelle Rhee’s lack of research based facts and overuse of “hunches”. It was argued that real reform could not occur until teachers were paid and trained better.
Anomaly
The downfall of the arts in public education has been overly exaggerated according to new data from the National Center for Education Statistics tweeted by Education Week. Data was collected from public schools (K-12) and it was found that the availability of music and visual arts has remained high over the last decade, “The vast majority of public elementary schools (94 percent) offered music instruction in 2009-10.”Although, many argued that those in high-poverty schools were still suffering. The largest difference can be seen with visual instruction at the elementary level for dedicated rooms with special equipment as the primary space for instruction: Low poverty 76% and High poverty 59%. The problem may be the way in which the information is reported, because disparities still persist among different socioeconomic groups.
Paper
Diane Ravitch tweeted a critique of media coverage on education reform.
Farhi, Paul. “Flunking the Test.” American Journalism Review. (2012): n. page. Web. 2 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ajr.org/index.asp?artType=2>.
