Improving Urban Schools needs the Involvement of Urban Parents

Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting two schools from suburban school districts and left realizing how different the experiences of suburban schools are to urban schools. The Philadelphia School District is a Title I district, as a considerable number of its population is considered socioeconomically disadvantaged. Title I provides 100% federally funded supplemental education for educationally disadvantaged children (PDE, 2014). The problem is that even with the Title I funding, urban schools are still left wanting.  Equitable educational opportunities are not the experiences of urban public schools when compared to most suburban school districts.

During my visit, I began to wonder whether educational reforms really make a difference as the NCLB act clearly has not been able to improve urban schools.  The questions as to what makes a great school began to fill my mind. Certainly great teachers help to make a great school, a great principal helps to make a great school, and a supportive community helps to make a great school. The more the suburban principals talked, the more I realized that one of the greatest advantages suburban schools have that urban schools do not have are a majority of parents who demonstrate involvement and investment into the urban school. The affluent parents of suburban schools seem to hold schools more accountable for upholding excellence. They also volunteer as one school had a parent creating beautiful murals throughout the library, others donated monies to provide field trips for students. A parental presence is one of the most consequential influences in suburban schools as urban schools must learn from them. Although the financial base of suburban parents may be deeper, urban parents can offer other kinds of involvement; like volunteering in the oversized classrooms, or using one’s skills to improve the appearance of an urban school, or helping with anti-bullying in the schools.

The federal and state governments provide funding in various forms to support the urban public schools as well as tax dollars of residents. Unfortunately, the white flight to the suburbs left urban schools with an abundance of disadvantaged minorities and segregated schools.  Studies show that when racial segregation exists for minorities, health risks, and poorer schools follow, as teens also have lower test scores in these segregated areas. The obvious social distance is exacerbated between the white majority and minorities when minorities grow up in poverty (Haines, n.d.). Social development cannot be overlooked when comparing the two kinds of districts as many poor students have limited experiences beyond their urban settings.

Although gentrification is beginning to occur in many parts of Philadelphia, the poor still remain in most areas and they cannot be ignored. Certainly the tax dollars of the new and wealthier urbanites are needed and welcomed; however, the people must take ownership of their schools while not looking for someone else to do the work. Urban parents must see themselves as the keepers and preservers of their communities and schools. Although, the new neighbors bring increased economic activity as seen through the sale of real-estate, the demographics change; while median income increases, and new culture and community characteristics become evident (POV, 2014), the responsibility to improve one’s public school lies in the hands of the parents within the school community.  

School District of Philadelphia Teachers Protest SRC's Plans to Make Cuts to Health Benefits

Volunteering for Education

Met some PFT Colleagues on the campaign today. Tom Wolf promises to give money back to public schools when he becomes governor in Pennsylvania. I volunteered on a grassroots level to help his campaign and went door to door to talk to the community. The morning was beautiful today. We started canvasing at 10:00 am and ended at 12:00 noon.

Saving Philadelphia Schools “By Any Means Necessary”

The FDA requires a health warning for cigarette advertisements and cigarette packages because in the United States, Tobacco use is the foremost cause for preventative and premature death. The death rate from using Tobacco is 443,000 yearly while the cost to the economy for low productivity and medical expenses, are $200 billion dollars. The Tobacco Control Act requires that cigarette advertisements and cigarette packages have warnings placed on them. Nine different warnings from Tobacco smoke are mandated from the Tobacco Control Act including Tobacco smoke can harm your children, to Tobacco smoke can kill you.

Such irony is evident as the news finally came regarding Pennsylvania’s state lawmakers deciding to pass legislation for the purpose of generating the needed $90 million dollars for funding the school district. This announcement obviously brings relief to children, parents, teachers, and superintendents. According to Superintendent Hite, without passing the cigarette tax bill, the district would have had to lay off 1300 educators and delay opening schools for the fall.

Have we become a society willing to save our schools and economy, by any means necessary? I am a strong advocate of education and believe that if we will ever expect our children to develop robust character into adulthood, where they are able to positively impact society, then we as parents and leaders must begin to demonstrate that we do not compromise our values. Upholding unwavering character decisions, and values that will emphatically preserve society are what parents, leaders, and educators are supposed to represent. We are the elders who should have gained wisdom over the years. Drugs, gambling, Tobacco, Pornography and the like are not supposed to be what sustains a respectable society. If we have become so desperate, that we will use the convenience of dishonorable methods, then we have lost our focus as leaders. Surely, someone could have suggested a more respectable means to support our children. The packages say “Tobacco smoke can harm your children”, yet the decision to fund the education of the children comes from the selling of a product that harms our children. This is certainly mockery and although the financial need is being met, I believe parents and leaders should reconsider how our hearts have grown cold to the moral values we once had, as we once sought to protect our children and now, the” by any means necessary” rule is applied to the most important people in our world.

I want the children to know that they deserve better. They deserve a good education, but the means should first come as a result of strategic planning that upholds a moral value system so as to preserve our society. Prayer used to be important but has now been replaced with “by any means necessary”. If the schools will be healed and the children educated and prepared to thrive in this global economy, then we must find a way to return back to moral decision making. Unbridled decision making will ultimately lead to failure of our schools and failure of our society.

The Laws To Destroy Public Education in America

With the selling of public school buildings; like the William Penn High School to Temple University, strategically situated in North Philadelphia; and the closure of so many public schools, as in Philadelphia where 32 public schools were closed in 2013, one has to wonder about the future of public schooling. The existence of public schools in the next ten years, school closures in the near future, and public school as a priority in America remain in question as I believe that the destruction of public schooling is not a coincidence and has been strategically designed. Consider that in 1647, Puritan children read the bible in public school to learn about their Calvinist religion. Although public education in America was first established for educating citizens to read the bible, the bible has since been abolished from public schools in America as the purpose for public education has obviously changed. In 1790, the Pennsylvania constitution addressed free public education for educating poor children while rich children were expected to pay for their own education. By 1827, public education was free for all children in Massachusetts. By 1830, laws were such that slaves were not permitted to learn to read while those who did learn to read risked their own safety. However, between 1866 and 1877, African Americans mobilized to have free public schools for the first time in the south although whites benefited more than the African Americans. In 1954, the supreme court ruled the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka that segregated schools were inherently unequal and were to be abolished (Center for Racial Justice, n.d.). However, the move to be separate has not been put to rest by many. The attack on public schools through American laws has continued to be motivated by those who want to be separate through choice.

Historically, over the past 100 years, public schools have been expected to serve as multi-purpose institutes so as to discipline, feed hungry children, encourage and identify talented children, raise self-efficacy and test scores, have winning sports teams, accommodate student learning styles, and provides students with skills that are sensitive for the present economy. The weight and responsibility of public education is unlike any other institution. Unfortunately, those who teach and administrate in public education are often blamed and scrutinized as teachers are penalized and despite the expectations for educators from the public, their value as high professionals has not been recognized (Reese, 2007). Vilifying public schools has been a mission for republicans who in 1983 had controlling power over the U.S. Department of Education and the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE, 1983). The hidden agenda of NCEE was that of debasing the public school system as the republicans have not changed today. Vilifying public schools is a way republicans have used for introducing school choice, vouchers, and privatization and dualism (Tienken & Orlich, 2013).

Considering how public schools have been blamed in the past, we can consider the launching of Sputnik by the Russians in 1957, policy makers viewed that event as a signal that American education was inadequate. Education has been considered a national security priority by American educational policy makers and Sputnik has often been the catalyst for educational reform (Tienken & Orlich, 2013). Feeling inferior to other nations particularly the Soviets led to A Nation at Risk as the report described American instruction mediocre and if it were imposed on Americans by an unfriendly nation, we would view the instruction as an act of War (Tienken & Orlich, 2013). President George Bush resided over the time of recession and again public school was blamed, not economic policy as the weak economy was blamed on a poor school system. Although the Sandia Report proved that the system was not at risk, proponents of charter schools, vouchers, school choice continue to energize the dual kind of system. The Sandria Report can be found @www.ed.gov/pubs/natAtRisk/risk.html (Tienken & Orlich, 2013).

The NCLB act is found to have never been for the purpose of strengthening public education. Susan Neuman the former secretary of ESEA said in Time Magazine on June 8, 2008 that some in the Bush administration viewed NCLB as a means for destroying public education and the population would support marketization and privatization as the Law played as a wedge between the public and public education to create the dual system (Wallis, 2008). Bush’s administration overplayed charter schools without discussing the downsides including economic segregation, and lack of substantive empirical finding on student achievements of students in Charter schools as compared to similar students in traditional schools (USDOE, 2004, 2005). Ironically, schools are required to use data to improve their programs but the Bush administration did not use data to drive charters schools. Barach Obama who is a democratic president; reauthorized NCLB as sanctioned by President George Bush in 2001 and again the charter schools are springing up all over the country.

Under the guise of improving public education came NCLB, whose agenda was for discrediting public education and for promoting a dual educational system. The rich will be with the rich, the poor will remain with the poor and money will be taken from the general school funds for funding those schools where the child attends as charter schools will take the place of the public school. Who should want this this? The one who will have the crumbs from the rich man’s table? In most urban areas, the greatest amount of income tax for funding schools does not come from the rich, but rather the poor but the most affluent are in the suburbs. If those who are prosperous take their money from public and transfer to private schools, public schools will have even less to educate students. I believe charter schools are a hoax and will be until they can prove with data that they are the cure for public education.

Will public schools remain a viable institution for the future? Consider that if one has a special needs child, they are not accommodated in charter and many private schools. If one's child has poor behavior problems they will not be admitted into charters or private schools. So, what does that tell one about the future of public education? If one views public education as having value to one’s children, one will need to be aware of what is occurring before our very eyes. Dualism is winning. We must insist on restructuring without NCLB and recognize that NCLB is corrupt. We must demand that morality and social justice be the pillar of our public schools and demand that moral leaders and policy makers and not politicians devise plans for these schools. Funding is being withdrawn while charters and vouchers will take the place of education in America as the laws of the land have been so sophisticated as to deceive the people.

Choice and Accountability or Equity and Shared Responsibility for American Schools?

According to Michael Fullan, countries struggling to move ahead in education use the wrong propellers or drivers. He says instead of professionalism they use accountability; instead of collegiality they use “individual teacher quality”; instead of pedagogy, they use technology; instead of systems thinking, they use fragmented strategies. The model of Finland clearly proves that educational success for children must focus on shared responsibility and equity and not choice and accountability (Sahlberg, 2012). Interestingly, America has emphasized accountability, assessments, and choice as the vehicles through which to achieve student proficiency. The problem is that accountability, assessments, and choice are not the answers. Equity, social justice and shared responsibility as the Finland schools embrace, connote responsibility from humanity that requires moral goodness. Choice and accountability are indicative of the American “have it your way” lifestyle which are cloaked in selfishness, and liability. This eliminates the moral responsibility for equal education for all Americans.

The article "A Model Lesson" by Pasi Sahlberg addresses Finland schools as schools where lessons can be learned. She emphasizes that choice and competition do not lead to educational success but rather education must be viewed as a shared responsibility and with equity for all children. Finland is said to have the most educated citizens in the world as their egalitarian approach to educating their citizens has proven exemplary as educational opportunities are not based on societal status. They serve as a model for the United States and others for showing that equal education is possible. Over the past thirty years Finland has gone from mediocrity to being a strong model for the world to see. They are an equitable system showing little to no variation in student performance. This is achieved by using a reasonable resources with an emphasis on social justice while providing early interventions with those needing additional attention while exchanging between social and health sectors as Finland is a democratic welfare state (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Free lunches, social welfare services, and support for special need students is not new to the United States; however, holistic approaches with the incorrect strategies is; and will not produce success. As Finland takes great pride in their public education, the United States is in the process of seeking to end public education while privatization is being thrust upon school age children.

In 1972, a new “peruskoulu” of Finland was implemented focusing on social justice and equality where a merger of all civic schools, grammar schools, and primary schools occurred to become municipal schools. The previous placement of students ended and the placement of students regardless of social-economic status, domicile, or interest enrolled in the same schools run by the government authorities. The old structure focused on everyone cannot learn and that talents were not equally distributed within society as the new structure is diametrically opposed to the old. Critics said the plan was not possible with so many backgrounds into one place; however, the plan prevailed and the National Curriculum for the Comprehensive School” was what led the content, pace and the organization through Finland. Special education needs were identified and treated early on (Sahlberg, 2012).

Differentiated tools were provided for students of different abilities and personalities for the first several years of the program as options were provided in math for ability levels but then by 1985, all ability groups were abolished for all subject matters and since then, students have the same syllabi and curriculum. As education became compulsory, so became career counseling to provide systematic counseling on career options after school. The new comprehensive schooling belief was that all students can learn if provided the opportunity and support while acknowledging that learning through the diversity of humans is a goal as schools function through small democracy cells. This is borrowing off of the belief of John Dewey. Teachers were encouraged to perceive teaching as a high profession as they differentiate learning for students through well designed environments. This led to increased teacher reform for high-quality instruction and professional development for teachers (Sahlberg, 2012).

Standardized testing is not the focus for instruction but rather instruction is viewed as the key element for student success. Teachers are encouraged to individualize their teaching approaches for achieving student success. Finland, Japan, Canada, and Korea are known to produce consistent student results regardless of socioeconomic status. In the 1980’s, learning expectation became equal for all students resulting in a decrease in gaps between high and low achievers. The consistent focus on shared responsibility and equity instead of choice and competition created a climate for all children learning better. The special education process does not carry a stigma as approximately one third of students were in alternative programs as 23 percent of their students were enrolled in part time special education during the years 2009-2010 as they focused on curing dysfunctions and the remaining 8.5 percent were in permanent special education schools or groups, or classes. Over the past ten years, that number has doubled and half of the students who complete compulsory education by sixteen years of age have had special education at some point (Sahlberg, 2012).

Contributing to the success of Finland’s schools are the facts that child poverty is less than four percent of the population as compared to the United States where the levels are 20 percent. The welfare state pays a big role in providing equitable conditions for families and children. Repeating grades is viewed as demoralizing and not efficient for fixing social or learning deficiencies and does not allow one to focus on areas needing help. Retention cast a negative shadow on the individual even into adulthood. Grade repetition leads mostly to social inequalities rather than allowing students to overcome learning problems. The principal that all students can achieve the common educational goals if organized individualized learning and instruction takes place is foundational which means that ability grouping and retention are viewed as negative approaches for fixing problems. Finland’s minimizing the grade retention is due to the special education emphasis which is integral to all Finland schools (Sahlberg, 2012).

The problem is that although the United States intended the basis of NCLB to be for providing equitable opportunities for all students regardless of socioeconomic status, NCLB has failed the American students. Americans know that Race to the top with emphasis on competition as in a race, and NCLB’s emphasis on accountability and assessments are not what are needed for producing a successful educational system. The idea of shared responsibility and equality in education connote social justice and requiring human goodness. Unfortunately, America enjoys the idea that various socioeconomic levels exist, including extremes, from the elite to those who live in extreme poverty. To develop a system requiring moral goodness would contradict what American society has represented. Having a more compassionate society where everyone takes on a responsible role as to be his brother’s keeper to ensure social justice is not an integral part of American society as social justice has been and is far reaching. America keeps trying to fix an educational system that is broken and corrupt, to make something good. Good cannot occur when the very foundation is corrupt. Since the foundation has been inequality and racism, affecting all decisions, how can American schools ever become model schools? The motives must first be pure without perpetuating any race or ethnicity. Replacing what has deteriorated with substitutes (charter schools) will not fix the problem. American policy makers must realize that we are falling far behind other nations who have adapted social justice as their agenda and not competition or accountability. I believe that success will be the byproduct of goodness as we genuinely seek to do what is right for all American children.

Design Schools to Meet Ethnic Needs in a Culturally Diverse Society

Countries like Finland, Canada, and China, are known for academic achievements in mathematics. Although the United States remains an economic power in the world, American students are said to have weak math and problem solving skills as compared to other countries in the developed world. Consequently, the United States are preoccupied with competing to gain the advantage over other societies to ensure their rightful place in the global economy. As the United States has shown considerable population growth over the years, the country’s ethnic census proves that American society has become more culturally diverse and projects even greater changes over the next several decades.

An interesting study on the theory of cultural discontinuities is regarding China as they have experienced great success using ethnic mathematics for teaching math. The theory carries the concept that every minority has their own culture while every ethnic culture is suitable.

According to Zhao, (2011) teachers should address teaching math through ethnic mathematic knowledge to help eliminate cultural discontinuity. Mathematics is found to be not only objective but subjective and cultural. Zhang (1996) says that school math and ethnic math come from two separate cultures as school math is developed from the ancient Greek culture and considered universal and objective, ethnic math is developed from cultural contexts as to bind together a practical thinking system within a cultural community (Xia, 2000). From the angle of the cultural anthropologist, students have an ethnic kind of mathematics before they go to school. As I intersperse a personal experience here to validate this concept, I can recall when my two girls were advanced in math and reading before they entered kindergarten and were invited to attend a private girl’s school on full scholarship after their entrance exams. I was asked to stop teaching them because the math culture I communicated at that time created conflict for the school math culture which was predominantly upper middle class Whites. My children obviously needed to learn a new culture and if they were to succeed, the sooner they adapt the better.

According to Zhao (2011), different minorities have different mathematics. In exploring the Chinese and how they succeed in math, he says that they employ the national curriculum in math but they use local ethnic mathematics for the different needs of the 55 nationalities residing in China. They have the national, local and school-based levels of school management system. Some develop school-based kinds of curriculums to address the ethnic needs. American anthropologists say the design of the school must consider the cultural background of the students (LI, 2004), as if preset cultural backgrounds of the “school mathematics” are not removed, then the ethnic student will have difficulty causing psychological burdens for learning school mathematics. Teachers are encouraged to use math knowledge so that students understand so as to stimulate interest for math and student creativity (Zhao, 2011). Exploring ethnic history, ethnic mathematical thought patterns and methods are the first steps for developing relevant materials for ethnic math. Zhao says that excavating cultural connotations of math, while embodying internal connections with the national mathematics curriculum, and providing an angle of ethnic mathematical history will give students greater appreciation for their native mathematics.