The Baltimore Sun reported that hundreds of educators in Maryland met in late June to focus on three questions - what drives students out of school - what will it take to get them to stay – and how can we get them back if they leave?
This news story caught my eye because we have students in this class from Maryland and because from the story’s description of the meeting it sounded very similar to the ND Dropout Prevention Summit held June 8-9, 2009 in Bismarck.
It turns out both gatherings, in Maryland and ND, were two of dozens supported by America's Promise Alliance. The alliance, which is chaired by Alma Powell, the wife of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, aims to have 50 state and 50 city summits by 2010.
ND’s summit was an awesome example of what can occur when all entities of education and community recognize a common problem and work together to find solutions. The ND Education Association, the ND Council of Education Leaders, the ND School Boards Association, the ND Department of Public Instruction, the ND Chamber of Commerce and the ND Governors Office all partnered in this summit.
According to America’s Promise, on a national level, more than 1.2 million students a year leave high school without a diploma - or about one-third of students overall. In ND 778 students dropped out of school during the 2006-2007 school year.
The dropouts from the nation’s class of 2008 represent more than $319 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity for their life spans. The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that over the course of a lifetime each dropout will earn about $260,000 less than they would have earned with a high school diploma. For ND’s group of 778 that equals a whopping $200 million! The ND Insurance Department estimates they will also cost the state about $2 million per year in public health care assistance.
This is a problem we have to address now! All educators know our dropout crisis is not something that begins in high school. Educators at all levels have a responsibility to recognize struggles and predictors in students’ lives even in their earliest elementary years.
Both Maryland’s and ND’s summit arrived at similar conclusions: The transition from ninth grade to 10th grade exhibits the greatest risk for students. If they have failed classes their 9th grade year they are not likely to recover those credits and choose instead to drop out; Major early indicators are poor attendance and behavior, and failing math and English. Maryland’s State Schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick says it well. "Teachers as early as elementary school could predict that a student will struggle later. We have a responsibility to intervene early and provide services at the very beginning of a student's academic career."
I whole-heartedly agree and I am so proud of both Maryland and ND educators for taking a look at this important problem.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Supreme Court Decides Special Education Case
The New York Times reported on a Supreme Court decision that could help disabled students obtain needed services and cost school districts millions of dollars, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents of special-education students may seek government reimbursement for private school tuition, even if they have never received special-education services in public school!
The case involved a struggling Oregon high school student, identified in only as T. A., had been evaluated for learning disabilities but he was found ineligible for special-education services.
According to the Hoover Institute, as of 2004, private schools served, at public expense, a total of 88,156 students with disabilities of the 5,963,129 students with disabilities nationally, which amounts to 1.48 percent.
This court decision is ground-breaking because previously only students who received special-education services in public school were eligible to receive private school tuition assistance for those services.
The court’s dissent opinion discussed the high costs of private-school placements. “Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote.
I understand the child’s parents wanting to place him in a private school for all of the special amenities private offer, but I don’t agree that special education services is any better in private schools than it is in public schools. In fact, in my school district it is exactly the same. The speech pathologists, the LD teachers, reading teachers, and other specialists use part of their day to provide service to students enrolled in our parochial schools in town. They are required by law to do this. How then, can the special education be better? I see it as just being more expensive! The issue of the quality of private vs. public school is one that I am sensitive about. I think private education is a wonderful option for many, but I don’t think public money should be diverted from public education to provide it. Along this same line, among the many rules of NCLB is one that states that if your school is on school improvement the district must pay for tutoring services at places such as Sylvan Learning Centers.
The sad part about this rule is twofold: the teachers at these tutoring centers are not required to be highly qualified in their subject areas as defined by the law; and any student in a school on an improvement plan can receive tutoring services paid for by the district, not just the ones who didn’t score at the proficient level. This means that a student can score at the proficient level (or above) and still go to private tutoring paid for with public funds. Most likely the kids that need it the most (those below proficiency) still won’t receive tutoring because their parents won’t invest the time to get them there. Much like we see with public school extended year programs; the students who really don’t need the extra help show up, but those that desperately need extra instructional time do not.
I am a very strong proponent of RTI so we can help students like T.A., before he and his family feel the need to label him as special ed and remove him from a great public education system.
The case involved a struggling Oregon high school student, identified in only as T. A., had been evaluated for learning disabilities but he was found ineligible for special-education services.
According to the Hoover Institute, as of 2004, private schools served, at public expense, a total of 88,156 students with disabilities of the 5,963,129 students with disabilities nationally, which amounts to 1.48 percent.
This court decision is ground-breaking because previously only students who received special-education services in public school were eligible to receive private school tuition assistance for those services.
The court’s dissent opinion discussed the high costs of private-school placements. “Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote.
I understand the child’s parents wanting to place him in a private school for all of the special amenities private offer, but I don’t agree that special education services is any better in private schools than it is in public schools. In fact, in my school district it is exactly the same. The speech pathologists, the LD teachers, reading teachers, and other specialists use part of their day to provide service to students enrolled in our parochial schools in town. They are required by law to do this. How then, can the special education be better? I see it as just being more expensive! The issue of the quality of private vs. public school is one that I am sensitive about. I think private education is a wonderful option for many, but I don’t think public money should be diverted from public education to provide it. Along this same line, among the many rules of NCLB is one that states that if your school is on school improvement the district must pay for tutoring services at places such as Sylvan Learning Centers.
The sad part about this rule is twofold: the teachers at these tutoring centers are not required to be highly qualified in their subject areas as defined by the law; and any student in a school on an improvement plan can receive tutoring services paid for by the district, not just the ones who didn’t score at the proficient level. This means that a student can score at the proficient level (or above) and still go to private tutoring paid for with public funds. Most likely the kids that need it the most (those below proficiency) still won’t receive tutoring because their parents won’t invest the time to get them there. Much like we see with public school extended year programs; the students who really don’t need the extra help show up, but those that desperately need extra instructional time do not.
I am a very strong proponent of RTI so we can help students like T.A., before he and his family feel the need to label him as special ed and remove him from a great public education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
