A tip of my cap to Ann Rosen

My decision to run for school board significantly predated the dismissal of Robert Zimmerman as Superintendent of Schools. That decision; however, certainly broadened the field of candidates. It also stirred a hornet's nest of public indignation.

I've looked into this matter about as deeply as one can - who wasn't directly involved - and I can't say with any certainty whether that decision was proper. I will once again say, though, that the School Board gave the community little cause to have confidence in their decision.

That result caused a level of outrage which seemed to overwhelm sober reflection for a lot of people. This "throw the bums out" mentality made campaigns seriously challenging for two incumbents - Kim Barnbrook and Ann Rosen, and they each reacted in very different ways.

Ms. Barnbrook maintained a low profile and didn't appear at any of the sponsored events I attended. Ms. Rosen, on the other hand, was at most of them, sought endorsements and ran a very active campaign. Picture someone power walking upstream, making steady progress.

On top of that, Ms. Rosen's presence at these events was quite valuable in and of itself. Several times she gently reminded everyone of the boring, mechanical, yet critical aspects which burn up time and resources for the school corporation and its leadership. She didn't try to discourage anyone from vision strategy, but I think she knew from her own experience that it could be quite discouraging for someone unfamiliar with the day to day drudgery involved in just making the machine run.

In fact, Ms. Rosen had and has a vision of her own. And thanks to Joe Dits and the South Bend Tribune more people know about it:

SOUTH BEND -- As the minutes closed on her last school board meeting last week, Ann Rosen spoke of "the elephant in the room that we don't talk about."

Over several years, she said, the students of the South Bend Community School Corp. have changed. More of them are poorer and are minorities. As a result, the needs of students have changed. The schools must do a good job of educating both the kids with these needs and the kids who excel, said Rosen, whose term on the board is ending.

Rosen pointed to research from 1998 that found that children in welfare families heard one-half to one-third as many spoken words as children in more affluent households. And the kids' vocabulary reflected that.

"This language gap deeply affects children's ability to read," said Rosen, a consultant with a local group called the Family Connection.

Indeed, numbers from the Indiana Department of Education show that minorities have grown steadily in the school corporation since 1990, from 35 percent of the student body to 59 percent. During the same time, minorities grew from almost 14 percent of students across Indiana to 24 percent.

Hispanic youth grew from 7 percent of the school corporation's student body to 15.5 percent.

And the percent of South Bend students on free lunch programs has grown from 42 percent in 1996 to a high of 58 percent this year -- while students with reduced-price lunches have gone from 6.5 percent to a high of 10 percent in that time, according to the DOE.

"If I had one wish for the community," Rosen said, "it's that it would invest in quality early childhood education." She said James Heckman, a Nobel Laureate economist at the University of Chicago, argues that it's wise for communities to invest in good early childhood education to ward off social problems.

I think somebody else has been talking about sort of thing. Hmm...

The editors of the South Bend Tribune put it very nicely:

Outgoing South Bend Community School Corp. Trustee Ann Rosen called the growing privilege gap among students "the elephant in the room that we don't talk about."

It should be a subject South Bend trustees talk about again and again. Nothing is more important. That is because the number of schoolchildren living in impoverished households is growing steadily. So is the number of minority children and the number of children whose first language isn't English.

Rosen's point, that it is important for school systems to invest in quality early childhood education in order to close the education gap, has not gotten nearly enough of the current school board's attention. Much of the board's time has been spent debating the merits of contracts — for buildings, buses or superintendents — instead of talking about kids' educational needs.

We hope that will change, and that those with knowledge of this serious issue — including Rosen — will make themselves heard. As Rosen noted before leaving the trustee stage for the last time, minorities in the South Bend schools have grown from 35 percent to 59 percent since 1990. And just since 1996, the proportion of students receiving free lunches has grown from 42 percent to 58 percent. Poverty is by far the biggest factor in students' failure to learn.

A Dec. 21 interview with Superintendent James Kapsa by Tribune staff writer Alicia Gallegos also touched on the impact that poverty has on achievement. That, in Kapsa's words, is something "we need to keep in mind on a daily basis."

Whether this will be a successful community — with crime under control, a pool of skilled workers able to meet the needs of professional and industrial employers, and a generally high quality of life — will depend
very much on how well public education meets the challenges facing it. We are glad Rosen mentioned that fact and hope it will get much more than a mention in the months and years ahead.

Had I known of Ms. Rosen's quality earlier (and thought it would do her any good), I may well have decided to leave the race and publicly endorse her. That ship has sailed.

I salute her hard work, her gentle, determined nature - and hope to be able to work with her in the future on these issues we both feel so strongly about.

Crossposted from Progressives, South Bend

How about a "Teach For South Bend" initiative?

What a wonderful achievement and honor Tania Harman of Warren Primary Center accomplished. As announced in the South Bend Tribune on Sept. 23, Ms. Harman is our Indiana Teacher of the Year.

Something that particularly grabbed my attention is that Ms. Harman volunteered to leave a comfortable post at Wilson Primary Center to take on a new challenge at Warren. She is to be commended for that. From the Tribune:

Maritza Robles, director of the corporation's bilingual program, said she knew long ago that Harman was a special teacher and tremendous asset to the ENL program.

So much so that Robles went to her when the ENL program expanded to Warren. "Based on seniority, she didn't have to leave Wilson," Robles said. "She said, 'I will go wherever you need me to.' To me, that's when you know she wants what's best for students."

This is Harman's 21st year as a teacher in South Bend. She also has taught at Kennedy, Monroe and Lafayette.

There are a lot of gifted teachers in our corporation, and not all of them are willing to be as selfless as Ms. Harman. I don't blame them. It's not reasonable for us to expect that.

But what if we could create incentives to provide for those folks willing to take on the extra challenge?

I will never forget the young mother who addressed the School Board in June and asked "Why is it that we seem to be making good progress in Primary Centers on the perimeter of the corporation, and doing so much less well in schools near the center?'

The simple (and not very satisfying) answer, I believe, is that it's a harder job. I gather that very well meaning people go into these situations, become discouraged fairly quickly, and leave. I've heard from people who've studied this issue that mentoring is critical to helping teachers succeed in situations like these. So it seems clear that we need teachers in the tougher schools with the proper skills and experience and/or strong mentors to guide them. We won't be able to anything like this for free, of course.

But the business community, and the Chamber of Commerce in particular, have displayed a real eagerness to be part of the solution to the challenges we face. So what if we were to ask them to handle fund-raising and administration of a new program "Teach For South Bend", which would provide grants/stipends/bonuses to our gifted teachers willing to take on the extra challenge?

I will be meeting with the Chamber next month, and will ask for their feedback. I've discussed this idea informally with the NEA-South Bend leadership. Though it won't fit into our current agreement, that agreement ends soon. I was assured a well-crafted proposal along these lines would be considered seriously.

A New Partnership: The School Board and The Community

There is a puzzling question I've been asked a number of times by groups contemplating endorsements of SBCSC Board candidates. It's been phrased in different ways, but the gist is "What would you do if you win and discover there is 3-3 split on most issues?" This particular phrasing first evoked a slightly light-hearted response from me: "Oh, in other words, I'm Sandra Day O'Connor?"

I guess that reaction was a response to how weird the question struck me. It seemed weird that a non partisan body with a strict mission could ever be in that place, and it seemed weird that anyone would think I would adjust my actions because of this sort of political intrigue.

Eventually, when you hear similar questions enough times, you realize it isn't that the question is weird. It is, rather, that the situation is weird. Long time Board observers already know this, but I'm a newbie.

It would appear that one member of the Board (not up for election) is something of a control freak, and an adherent to the Joan Raymond regime. I've been warned that this person would likely attempt to assimilate (Borg-style) any new member to the collective. "Resistance is futile..."

I've mentioned many times that the Board has a lot of work to do to repair it's relationship with the community and that it is imperative that it do so. What I am learning is that some of the problems go back to decisions made during the Raymond regime.

I got my first clue about this when I proposed that School Board meetings should happen in schools - and at an hour when people who work hard for a living can get cleaned up and grab a bite to eat, and come hear what's going on and pitch in if they want to. Know what? Half the meetings used to be done that way - prior to the Raymond regime.

Now, all the meetings are held in the downtown building at 5:30. It's a scramble to find parking, and the room is miserable. There's limited seating for spectators. The board is seated in a U shape, on risers. Spectators on the wings are treated to views of Board member's backs. As I put it to the South Bend Tribune's Editorial Board, "The likelihood is that the people most likely to deal with this level of inconvenience are those who are really, really mad at you. Is that the only group you want in front of you? Does that seem like a good strategy?" Not to me.

Another precept of the era seems that honest debate in front of the public is discouraged. I'm sure that idea was designed to present a united front. I think we can safely conclude that hasn't worked. And when you think about it, that united front could only come from behind the scenes conversations and negotiations. That way I read the law - that would be illegal.

The open meeting act was designed to include the public in decision making. At the very least, the idea was that citizens should be given an understanding of what leads to the decisions made in public policy. It wasn't created just for citizens to witness an event. At last week's "No Excuses" vision meeting, I explained why I think this is so important.

First of all, if there is no vigorous discussion of issues in public, citizens are likely to conclude (rightly or wrongly) that "the fix" is in. Secondly, serious debate will help citizens understand that this stuff is really, really hard.

The new partnership requires honest debate, more transparency, making it easier for community participation and making community participation matter.

That's how I see it.

"Redshirting" Kindergartners - what the studies tell us

It is an increasingly popular trend to delay entry to the public school system - particularly in more affluent households (and particularly with boys). The thinking is, roughly, to gain social and physical advantage. Many school systems don't discourage this practice because these older students often test slightly better than their more age-appropriate classmates. This reflects thinking of short term advantages for school status as opposed to long term benefit to our children.

It turns out that there are significant downsides to this practice. In Indiana, these are more pronounced.

The birthday cutoffs span six months, from Indiana, where a child must turn 5 by July 1 of the year he enters kindergarten, to Connecticut, where he must turn 5 by Jan. 1 of his kindergarten year. Children can start school a year late, but in general they cannot start a year early. As a result, when the 22 kindergartners entered Jane Andersen's class at the Glen Arden Elementary School near Asheville, N.C., one warm April morning, each brought with her or him a snack and a unique set of gifts and challenges, which included for some what's referred to in education circles as ''the gift of time.'' ( from the New York Times )

From a recent Harvard study (by David Deming and Susan Dynarski), we note changes in Kindergarten composition:

Forty years ago, 96% of six-year-old children were enrolled in first grade or above. As of 2005, the figure was just 84%. The school attendance rate of six-year-olds has not decreased; rather, they are increasingly likely to be enrolled in kindergarten rather than first grade. This paper documents this historical shift. We show that only about a quarter of the change can be proximately explained by changes in school entry laws; the rest reflects "academic redshirting," the practice of enrolling a child in a grade lower than the one for which he is eligible. We show that the decreased grade attainment of six-year-olds reverberates well beyond the kindergarten classroom. Recent stagnation in the high school and college completion rates of young people is partly explained by their later start in primary school. The relatively late start of boys in primary school explains a small but significant portion of the rising gender gaps in high school graduation and college completion. Increases in the age of legal school entry intensify socioeconomic differences in educational attainment, since lower-income children are at greater risk of dropping out of school when they reach the legal age of school exit.

OK, you wonder, what are the downsides? Also from the Harvard paper - the conclusion:

First, increases in the age of legal school entry intensify socioeconomic differences in educational attainment. Lower-income children are at greater risk of dropping out of school when they reach the legal age of school exit; increases in age at school entry therefore disproportionately decrease their completed education. Further, young children who enter school later spend more time in unequal environments. Whether at home or in formal care, children who start school later linger in settings whose quality is positively correlated with parents’ human capital. This point is exactly the one made by advocates of early childhood interventions: insofar as home environments are unequal, delaying public schooling increases the likelihood of unequal outcomes (Kirp, 2007; Heckman and Masterov, 2007).

Second, red-shirting disadvantages children who enter school on time. In kindergarten, the most advantaged children are the oldest in the class, reinforcing socioeconomic gaps in school readiness: “[C]hildren who may be at academic risk from factors associated with poverty face the additional hurdle of being compared to advantaged children 12 to 15 months older. . . . the youngest children may appear to be immature and unready to tackle the tasks their significantly older classmates find challenging and intriguing” (Crosser, 1998). Younger children in the classroom are more likely to be labeled as
learning disabled (Elder and Lubotsky, forthcoming). Ironically, the racial and socioeconomic segregation of the United States softens this dynamic, since in our school districts the most advantaged and least advantaged children rarely share a classroom. But the standardized test scores of children of the same grade are compared across districts and states, and the relative ages of these children will contribute to the distance between the scores of rich and poor districts.

(much more source material is linked in the left margin of the blog)

As Dr. Robert Zimmerman put it, the most challenging aspect we face is creating successful outcomes for our most disadvantaged children. Optional Kindergarten and delayed entry don't seem to work towards overcoming this hurdle. Maybe we should try something else.

Opportunity lost - but we must perservere

Recently, Maureen McFadden, news anchor of WNDU television, conducted a forty-five minute interview with former South Bend School Corporation Superintendent Dr. Robert Zimmerman.

Ms. McFadden did a very nice job of drawing Dr. Zimmerman out. In early part of the interview, Dr. Zimmerman was quite reserved and diplomatic in his responses to questions about how he and the SBSC Board got along. Later on, he was much more animated when asked about his accomplishments and the challenges we still face.

"If you look at the 20 months we were here, we implemented an awful lot of initiatives, we did our study and brought the community involved in the Career and Technical Education and created a five year plan for that," he explains.

Last year saw some improvement in South Bend's graduation rate and ISTEP, but Zimmerman says the biggest issue facing South Bend Schools is not the teachers, the board, or the superintendent.

When Ms. McFadden asked this question, we got a pretty clear view of opportunity lost for our children.

McFadden: "Now that you've distanced yourself, what do you think is needed for South Bend schools to succeed?"

Zimmerman: "I continue to think that it's got to be an initiative of the entire community. We really have got to get our hands around how we deal with children of poverty. Generational poverty continues to be the number one difficult issue that any large urban district is dealing with. Most of the kids that struggled in our system were kids who came out of generational poverty."

He says a lack of education affects the whole community, and we can all make a difference."You can do your part by stepping in there and being a mentor and reading to a child and helping to make a difference in that one child's life," he says.

And he's proud of what he did in 18 short months on the job.

"I feel that I can walk away, in the short time that I was here, and not second-guess my reasons for making the decisions I did. My decisions were always around what was best for the kids."

full video at: http://www.wndu.com/specialfeatures/headlines/27156489.html#

Dr. Zimmerman described in great detail the challenges of engaging students from multi-generation poverty households, and what it takes to turn them around. The link above with take you to the site where you can watch the entire interview. It's well worth your time.

As I watched the interview, I saw someone who probably knows as much about the impact of generational poverty on childrens' futures as anyone I've come across. His recounting of conversations with students in this trap was revealing and amplified that his awareness comes not just from study - but from practical experience as well.

It was also helpful to me as a School Board candidate, that an expert identified the single biggest challenge to our success, as what I've always felt it was. That, and the fact he was positive that steady progress was attainable, energizes me as I try to make my case to my fellow citizens.

Blacketor gets it really wrong

crossposted from Progressives, South Bend

The Tribune editors are right -- the education of our children in the South Bend Community School Corp. should become a critical concern for all people living in South Bend, as well as the entire county.
Public education affects all aspects of our community -- business, government and families.

Thus begins former School Board Trustee Jo Blacketor's OpEd piece in today's South Bend Tribune. She and I can agree on this part, but little else in her analysis seems on target.

I have no reason to believe that Superintendent Robert L. Zimmerman was not a good and honorable man, but I do believe the challenges of the South Bend school system exceeded both his expectations and abilities. This same observation holds true for interim Superintendent James Kapsa. We need leaders with great courage, fortitude and the disposition of an alley cat because renewing hope requires breaking ineffective habits and dismantling entrenched positional policymakers.

If one claims lack of ability, particularly on the part of the current administrator, some evidence would be nice. Or at least her reasoning. And what in the world does that last sentence even mean?

She then provides us with her suggestion of a revised Board make-up.

The board makeup could be: four elected at-large representatives and three appointed. This would take care of the fact that =presently none of the "district" boundaries are aligned with the so-called district elected members. Two elected members could be chosen during presidential election and two elected during the mayoral election cycle. The appointees could be: one from the mayor's office, one from the Parent Teacher Association and one from the Chamber of Commerce. These appointments could be staggered every two years so that at any time the board would have a blend of new ideas with veteran wisdom and discernment.

Everyone's entitled to his/her view, but these kinds of suggestions often come from people who think we should elect judges. In a way, they must think setting policy for a school system is more complicated than making studied decisions of law. I'm not sure that's true. I do think the idea of dumping the district concept has some merit (since most kids' families have some choice in where their children go).

This particular setup is vaguely reminiscent of how Hong Kong used to be administered.

I've been pretty fond of the Representative Democracy model, myself. And in most local governmental units and most businesses (with Boards), it's fairly standard practice to elect the policy makers, who then appoint the administrator.

The problem isn't the one she describes. The task is to get the community more involved in the election process. The recent actions of the South Bend School Board have probably gone a long way in furthering that.

As far as this next part - I find many problems with her conclusion(s).

But, what plan does South Bend have for academic improvement? The recent accountability process reveals that among 1,896 schools statewide, 40 are marked as failing for the fourth year. All four of South Bend's high schools are among those 40. With all the good works happening in the K-5th grade (i.e., Wilson LiPS reading program), if we lose our kids at middle or high school level, can we claim success?

As far as I know, the only real Primary Center success stories are Kennedy and Tarkington (magnet programs) and Hay (the only neighborhood school to have used Wilson LiPS for more than a year). I'd point out as well, that most Primary Centers have yet to see Wilson LiPS in their schools. The struggling Freshman in our High School was in Kindergarten nine years ago. The school that child went to is very different than the one that exists today.

It's just crazy to think everything works great for kids until they leave their neighborhood primary center. What seems more likely is that kids leave the Primary Centers unprepared for the next step. That's what needs to be addressed. Improving the Intermediate level and High schools is certainly important, but getting children started on the right path early in their lives will always need to be the top priority of any school board.

There are some fairly obvious first steps. Kindergarten should be mandatory, and it should be full day. For kids like our daughter with two years of great pre-school - its not that important. But some of the children who give up in high school may well have been planted in front of a TV in some relative's home until they were dropped off for the First Grade. We can sympathize with that family's challenges, we can scorn them, but what we can't do is pretend that sort of thing never happens. We, as a society, can't afford to take that chance. It's both a matter of morality and self-interest.

And the answers are not going to come by ceding our authority and responsibilities as citizens. There is a lot of energy for success in this city, and I saw plenty of it at the infamous School Board meeting of early June.

It is up to those of us who are energized to infect others with the urgency this task will require.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.