Reasons Why High School Students Should Stay in School

In an economy that is just barely starting to get back on its feet now more than ever people need to as much education as they can to survive. A high school diploma is the bare minimum to get any type of job. However, about a quarter of California counties have high school dropout rates of 20 percent or more, including Los Angeles (20.3 percent). This trend is very disheartening especially since many of these students come from lower income families and drop out of school out of necessity rather than a lack of desire to graduate.

The National Dropout Prevention Center/Network has come up with five reasons why high school seniors should stay in school.


Reason #1: High school dropouts are four times as likely to be unemployed as those who have completed four or more years of college.

As mentioned above finding a job is hard enough as it is. In an increasingly competitive market employers are looking for educated and skilled workers. Applying as a high school drop out significantly lowers your chances of getting a decent job.

Reason #2: Graduating from high school will determine how well you live for the next 50 years of your life. High school graduates earn $143 more per week than high school dropouts. College graduates earn $336 more per week than high school graduates ($479 more per week than high school dropouts);

That means that high school graduates make over $7,000 more a year than drops outs and college graduates make almost $25,000 more a year than drop outs. That could be the difference between putting a down payment on a home or renting for years.


Reason #3: Dropouts are more likely to apply for and receive public assistance than graduates of high school;

While welfare does help people who need it there is a certain pride that comes from living off your own labor.

Reason #4: Dropouts comprise a disproportionate percentage of the nation's prison and death row inmates. 82% of prisoners in America are high school dropouts;

Many of those who drop out end up turning to crime and gang activities to earn money. Staying in school give the student something productive to do instead of roaming the streets and getting into trouble. The school also provides a support system and advisers to help the student make good decisions.

Reason #5: School districts all over the country provide alternative programs for students who are not successful in the usual school setting. 



No matter how hard it is getting there are ways to get help. School want to see the students succeed as if they were their own child. If the student has even a little bit of motivation there are places they can go to get extra academic support.

Raising the Teaching Bar

Children are the future. They are each potential doctors, lawyers, politicians and scientists. Yet for such valuable resources it is surprising the kinds of hands we place their minds into. There is reason to believe that over the last couple of decades the quality of K-12 teachers has declined, a phenomenon that should alarm every parent in America. If our teachers are not properly prepared for their jobs why should we expect our children to be?

Recently the American Federation ofTeachers has proposed that all aspiring teachers take an entrance exam similar to the bar exam lawyers must take.

A nationwide test that examined not only the teacher’s knowledge on certain subjects but also their level of caring, competence and confidence would go a long way in separating the good teachers from the not so good teachers. Holding our teachers to a high standardized level of education, experience and emotional stability is necessary to ensure the future of our nation.

As it is now each state has a different set of criteria a person must meet before they are allowed to teach. Every state requires at least a bachelor’s degree and varying amounts of time spent in the classroom. The AFT has in the works a plan to get rid of all those different tests and evaluations and to replace them with one standardized teaching bar exam/requirements.

Is this a good idea? In many ways it is. President of the AFT, Randi Weingarten, has outlined three basic provisions of such a program. First, all parties would have to agree on the standards. This part may be difficult to coordinate as there are several current standards they must sift through and determine which are useful and which are a waste of time.

Secondly, all teachers would take the same assessments. Currently some teachers attain certification through traditional means by completing an accredited teacher education program. Others earn their certification through alternative means, usually a potpourri of course and fieldwork.  

The last provision of the exam is that the teachers and teacher educators would govern it. This is the most important change in the system that the exam provides. Weingarten argues that for too long too much of the education business has been controlled by testing companies instead of what the profession thinks is important. Medicine, law and engineering are all regulated by the profession so why not teaching?

The understanding is no one knows better than a teacher what makes a good teacher. Opponents to this exam claim that tests are not sure fire ways to determine the effectiveness of a teacher and this is true.

However, these critics are not taking into account that teachers will create this proposed exam for other teachers. When constructing the exam, and the its supporting requirements, they will know what specific traits to look for and what environments to train the future teachers in to make them as effective as possible.  

There is fear that creating too many hoops for hopefuls to jump through (especially considering the low financially return) will deter potential teachers. Yes, some college students will look at the list of requirements and opt for a career in business or medicine instead. I myself have given great thought to whether or not I’d like to make coupon clipping a serious part of my future.

As inconvenient as they may be, these hoops are necessary. Weingarten points out that the countries that out compete the U.S prepare their teachers like the U.S prepares its doctors. There should be no disgruntlement at the thought of making sure our teachers are as prepared as our doctors. Of course it would help if teachers were paid like doctors but that is another discussion.

A dangerous rebuttal to the above argument is that the U.S is doing just fine in the global market. It has the highest GDP so why is everyone worrying about education, teachers, and test scores?

Well it takes time for the effects of such neglect to become noticeable. There will come a time when the generation of children who did not learn to think critically, explore the sciences or see themselves as global citizens will emerge into the workforce. It will become difficult for the U.S to continue to compete with countries whose workforce is filled with sharp and skilled young people.

We need good teachers. Instead of punishing teachers who don’t perform well creating a universal system that gives teachers all the tools they need to help their students succeed is the right way to go. This proposed bar exam is a good starting point. There should be a high standard. We cannot afford anything else. 

Interns Teaching Special Ed and English Language Learners

Recently the California Credentialing Panel has placed stricter controls on teaching interns. 

Before the panel made this adjustment young Teach for America interns had been allowed to teach students with learning disabilities and whose first language was not English after just five weeks of training. The panel will continue to allow the to teach these students but only under "only under stricter state controls over their training and supervision".  

This issue drew attention because it brought into question the rights of students with learning disabilities, English language learners and students from economically disadvantaged background as these are the student who routinely receive instruction from novice Teach for America interns. Currently LAUSD employs 199 interns, 75% of whom work with special education students. Are these students not also entitled to the best teachers the district has to offer? 

At a hearing in Sacramento parents, teachers unions and civil rights organizations alike all protested the use of poorly trained interns to teach disadvantaged students. They claim that the disproportionate use of these teachers in low income areas is a blight violation of the children's right to equal education. 

Of course several people spoke on behalf of Teach for America and the negative effect stricter controls would have on the number of applicants to the program. But is that what they should really be worried about? They shouldn't be worried about whether or not the program is difficult to get into because it is not able applicant. It is about the students and how these teachers can best educate them. 

Not surprisingly, the LA reform crew (John Deasy, Mayor Villaraigosa, and charter operators) opposed any change to the current intern teaching credentials. They argued that it would create "needless burdens". Because ensuring quality for needy students is a burden. 

Technology in the Classroom

In the search for more effective teaching methods a new technique called The Blended Learning Model (BLM) seems to be showing great promise in LA schools.

In 2008 Mayor Villaraigosa created a partnership between 22 impoverished and failing schools in LAUSD and the City of Los Angeles.  This partnership, called The Partnership for LA Schools, strives to be an example for other failing LAUSD schools on how to achieve success. It is one of the largest turnaround projects in the nation.

The Partnership accredits its success to the BLM. This model redesigns the traditional classroom structure of one teacher to up to 30 students and shrinks that ratio to 16:1 or better. It accomplishes such low ratios by incorporating computer lessons into the curriculum. The students spend a portion of class time working on individualized lessons online and a portion of their time face to face with a teacher. The Partnership’s BLM focuses its students on STEM (Science, technology, engineering and Math) education.

Each individual school in The Partnership has management and budgetary independence as granted by the agreement with the LAUSD. Its action plan to fix the failing schools is to address instructional, cultural and policy issues like teacher effectiveness, targeted student intervention and family and community engagement.

Providing hardware and software for its 16,000 students is not a cheap task. The partnership has received $200,000 fromDirecTV to fund their new online math programs and incentive program.  As a part of this incentive program teachers and parents may also earn rewards if their student performs well. Students that perform well may earn iPad Minis and DirecTV service for a year.

Other schools in LA and state wide are also starting to implement more technology into their classroom routine especially after the state gave out $212 million in technology vouchers to LA public schools in 2004. The funds stem from the unclaimed portion of an $1.1 billion antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The state allocated more funds to schools that served more impoverished neighborhoods. The downside to these vouchers is school must pay for the technology first with their own funds and then apply for reimbursements. Many schools may not have the money upfront to purchase the hardware and software necessary to create their own BLM.

The time to use the vouchers is running out. One set expires in April and the rest in September.  $66 million remained unused including more than $10 million for LAUSD. Unfortunately schools that do not have the money upfront may never be able to redeem their vouchers. They may not be able to implement a BLM for a while yet.

One elementary charter school that has been able to implement the BLM is KIPP’s Empower Academy. Similarly to how The Partnership schools run their BLM this school rotates students between face to face instruction and time on the computers right there in their classroom.  Depending on the subject the class may be split in half between a teacher and the computers or between two teachers and the computers.  This allows the teachers to keep a steady 14:1 student to teacher ratio. 

KEA is unique in that each child receives individualized instruction on the computer. If they are doing well they can continue at a fast pace but if they are not understanding the material the program continues with the same material. Their system is also helpful in that it collects and reports data to teachers about what specific concepts a student is struggling with. This is beneficial to the student because in a large class setting a teacher may not be able to pick up on a student’s weakness right away. 

Another school that has taken on the BLM is Alliance Tennenbaum Family Technology High School with success is. This school is part of a charter management organization called Alliance College Ready Public Schools. Their system is unique in that they have added a third component to their rotation. Not only do students work face to face with a teacher and spend time with the computer but they also are able spend a portion of their class time working with their peers.  

Some, like managing editor at Education Sector Susan Headdean, consider schools that implement the BLM as risk takers because the effectiveness of the BLM has little research behind it. She also says that, “For technology to make a difference in student learning, it must be integral to instruction, and it must come with humans attached.”

In 2010 one research review found that students that completed part or all of their classes online did better on average than their peers who did not. However the review proposed that a mix of face to face and online instruction was better than either one alone. 

How States Can Get Their Funding Right This Time Around

For decades school reform tactics have failed to bring about the change desired by conservatives and liberals alike.  It seems to be an issue that both sides are equally clueless about. Now that Obama has re-announced his Zero toFive plan, primarily to increase funding to early childhood education efforts, it is very important that both sides take a good look at past programs and realize that their successes stemmed from their commitment to building strong families and communities.  States should take advantage of the increased funding by recreating the preschool into a center for families to gain access to services that reduce the effects of poverty on a child’s academic success.

Obama plan will allocate $10 billion year to early childhood education efforts and also will require states to match federal contribution.  This plan gives states the power to decide where and how they will spend the money. Incorporating service centers into preschools is by far the best way to go. Many families that live at or below the poverty line have a difficult time accessing programs such as WIC, Medicaid, children’s health insurance, housing assistance, family counseling and unemployment insurance.

What is stopping families from getting the assistance they need? Reliance on public transportation makes it nearly impossible for families to make it to assistance office buildings during regular office hours or around their strict work schedules. Misinformation about eligibility and purpose of the services stops many families from even applying. Long application processes leave a lot of room for confusion as to the proper steps involved in filing paper work. The stigma associated with applying for welfare also discourages many parents from walking into the office buildings in the first place.

Situating all these services in the child’s preschool would motivate parents to seek out the appropriate benefits for their child. There would be no issue getting to the offices because they are located where the parents regularly drop off and pick up their child. The teachers and staff members that work with the child and his or her family daily would be able to identify what the exact needs of the family are, prepare an individualized plan for them, and direct them to the proper office.

Any well-meaning program like this could fail due to under staffing and inadequate staff training. States should aim to keep these offices running smoothly by maintaining a high level of employee qualification. Employees should have a strong command of English as well as whichever language is dominant in the area. The staff members should receive extensive training on the use of an operating system that links all the offices and programs together so that a single family may easily traverse multiple programs at once.

Other important services states should include directly inside the preschool facilities are health and nutritional services on site for the child. Studies show that children in lower income families often times have illness that go untreated for quite some time such as ear and respiratory infections, asthma, and malnutrition (Jensen). These children have a hard time concentrating on school when they are sick and possibly in pain. The teachers should receive the proper training to be able to recognize the signs of such illness. Once they recognize the symptoms onsite medical facilities should provide the proper treatment for these children.    

A year ago I worked for AmeriCorps Jumpstart for Young Children in one of USC’s partner preschools.  Although it was a small school right across the street there was a trailer set up as a mini doctor’s office.  If a child was having breathing difficulties due to pneumonia or asthma a teacher could take them across the street to receive a nebulizer treatment. The school also invited dental students to speak to the children and parents about dental hygiene. They provided the families with free dental examines and supplies.  The parents were very grateful to receive such services in an environment they felt comfortable in.


The preschool should be a place where children and their families feel free to learn and grow. For young parents especially it is important to be a part of a caring community. By situating financial, medial, and social services in the preschool states will create the much needed community setting and help stabilize the family unit. Once the family stabilizes parent involvement increases and this is what increases a child’s success in the classroom. The positive skills they learn as a family from the preschool center will follow the child throughout their school days and well into their adulthood. This is an effort that states should be proud and willing to fund.


Jensen, Eric. "How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance." Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does to Kids' Brains and What Schools Can Do about It.

A Small Win for the Big Budget Reformists This Election

On March 5th the voters of Los Angles spoke and they said they wanted to keep Steve Zimmer despite the enormous effort from the big budget reformists (The Coalition for School Reform and co.) to oust him. Zimmer managed to win district 4 with 52% of the votes against Kate Anderson, the coalition’s main interest this election. Their other candidate, Monica Garcia of district 2, won with 56% of the votes. While they would have liked Antonio Sanchez to win in district 6 he will participate in a runoff come May 21 to determine his position on the board.  

For all the hoopla and attention surrounding this election nothing major actually changed. The gridlock against the two sides (Coalition vs. UTLA) may just have to continue over the next four years.

It is no surprise that Garcia was able to win in her district. She has been board president for two terms and is quite popular with the people. Although the UTLA has voiced dissatisfaction with Garcia their president Warren Fletcher stated, “We’vehad definite differences with Monica Garcia’s vision for LAUSD. But… we have,despite not seeing eye to eye, worked with her on several issues. We’re readyto work with her for the next four years.”

The big battle took place in district 4 where Zimmer held his ground against the Coalition. The Coalition is comprised of LAUSD superintendent John Deasy, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and other big names that support punitive accountability using test scores and the Charter movement such as NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Michelle Rhee. They have deep pockets and a financial stake in the Charter movement’s success. LAUSD is the second largest district in the country and therefore an essential part of their agenda. They spent more than $4 million on their three candidates this election. They spent $1 million alone on Garcia while the runner up raised a mere $20,000. The bulk of their money went towards supporting Anderson because they wanted Zimmer gone at all costs.

The Coalition took issue with Zimmer once it became clear that they could not control him. As an independent Zimmer had openly questioned the lack of oversight of charter schools which obviously threaten the Coalition. Of the seven board members about three already had intentions to get rid of Deasy. Zimmer was a wildcard. He could possibly provide the last vote to fire Deasy when the time came which would jeopardize the bulk of the Coalition’s influence over LAUSD. Zimmer had to go. In his place they offered up Kate Anderson the former congressional staffer and corporate lawyer and mother of twins.

At the end of the day their money could not save them. In fact it may have been their money that cost them the election. Vice president of the UTLA, Gregg Solkovits, postulated that, ““People don’t like it when out-of-state billionaires decide they can interfere with races when it’s a local issue.” TheCoalition received $1 million from Mayor Bloomberg, $340,000 from the California Charter Schools Assn., $250,000 from an organization led by former District of Columbia schools chancellor Michelle Rhee and $250,000 from a New York-based subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. It’s possible that voters were upset that people with no children in the schools and no ties to the community were fighting hard to make decisions in it.

Zimmer on the other hand was a man of the people from the beginning. He started out in the grassroots and people remember that. Zimmer displayed his true desire to help the children of LAUSD. He strongly supports the arts and the pursuit of an innovate curriculum. His personal connection to the community which he serves is the main reason he was able to win his district.

During the campaign there was much mudslinging from both the coalition and the UTLA. Although Zimmer has never stated outright his desire to see Deasy go some now believe he has a reason to. Zimmer announced that he will continue to cooperate with Deasy for the benefit of the children. 

John Deasy to Speak at USC

Tomorrow evening USC will host a panel discussion featuring John Legend (Grammy award-winning artist and philanthropist), John Deasy (superintendent of LAUSD), Ana Ponce (CEO of Camino Nuevo Charter Academy) and Hrag Hamalian (Founder and Head of Valor Academy).  March is national education month and tomorrow Deasy, Ponce and Hamalian plan to discuss ways in which USC students can help reduce the achievement gaps in LA and the current state of LA’s school district. 

But is John Deasy really the best person to deal out information on effective education reform? 

Deasy has been a strong force in education reform since the issue regained popularity. He has earned the support of Mayor Villaraigosa, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and the endorsement of the five top mayoral candidates in LA (the big budget team). His big push for teacher accountability via testing data has made him a big enemy to the teacher’s union and a hero to other reformists. 

Deasy’s track record so far is not pretty. From an allegedly fake Ph.D to accusations of title I, II, III funds theft to his suspicious involvement with big corporations that run Charter schools such as the Gate’s and Board Foundations it appears that Deasy took on the role of superintendent with his own agenda in mind. His is an agenda that seeks to maximize profits by selling off public schools to private corporations (Charters). These Charters have access to federal funds but are subject to much less scrutiny as to how they handle that money. This means that while they may collect money for let’s say special needs students if they do not have any special needs students (and they more often than not do not accept these students) that money could go right into the board’s pocket. There is no oversight when it comes to Charterfunds. With this in mind it makes sense that Deasy would support such institutions. Many of these companies fund Deasy’s agenda. They support him financially and in return he dismantles poor inner city schools giving the companies access to more students.  

NCLB and other standardized test regimes gave Deasy the ammunition he needs to take out teachers and entire schools. From the beginning he made it clear that he was fueled by standardized test data and clung tightly to the belief that data should drive instruction.  He refused to spend time and money on programs that did not directly affect test scores. As a result, many children said goodbye to recess. He has gotten rid of early childhood programs, adult education, and cut art and music programs in hundreds of schools. His next goal was to get rid of ineffective teachers relying solely on test scores. However, test scores alone are not very reliable indicators of teacher effectiveness. Regardless, since his term Deasy has sent out well over 9,000 layoff notices to LA school facility members.

Those that remain are forced to adhere to the “teach to the test” method.  While this method may reflect well on the tests it severely limits the amount of knowledge a child actually absorbs. It restricts critical and creative thinking and instead focuses on teaching kids to fill in the bubble the test wants them to. This method in the long run may cause more harm than good because it is producing a generation of children that are not able to think outside the box, or in this case bubble. 

Recently his attempt to seek No Child Left Behind waivers and create a new data-based accountability system for his district and nine others did not succeed because the resistance to evaluate teachers based on test scores has started to push back.   Union members also look unfavorably towards Deasy because of his mass closing and breaking up of high schools.

It will be interesting to see what kind of policy changes Deasy speaks about at USC especially in regards to school closings. In all likelihood Deasy will remain the superintendent after the upcoming elections. Similar to what has and is happening in New York City the effects of Deasy’s reform tactics may fully emerge once extensive damage has been done.    

Battling Poverty in Preschool Classrooms

Studies show that girls born to teenage mothers are more likely to become mothers before the age of 18 than girls born to more mature women (Flanagan). Children whose parents smoke are twice as likely to begin smoking between the ages of 13-21 than children whose parents do not smoke (Schwarz). In a more positive light, children of college graduates are more likely to do well in school and go on to graduate college themselves than children with parents who did not graduate college (Hick). These statistics are just a few examples of how familial cycles are difficult to break. The same is true when it comes to poverty. A child born into poverty is more likely to remain in poverty into adulthood and to continue the cycle. Since the Great Depression many presidential administrations have designed and launched programs to end poverty in the United States. By and large these programs failed to realize that the most effective strategy to eliminate poverty is to ensure children of poor parents break the cycle and never enter poverty as adults. One way children can break the cycle is by succeeding in school. Educational reforms today focus heavily on improving K-12 schools. A well needed and admirable pursuit yes, but the level of achievement a child reaches later in life is largely determined by the quality of preschool education he or she receives early on in life. The problem remains that preschool education in California for low income families is sparse and not as effective as it could be.  Local and state governments, as well as the federal government, must create and direct funds towards preschool programs specifically designed to counter the adverse effects of poverty on a child’s academic and social success. These programs must address the psychological, familial, physical, social and cognitive needs of children in poverty in order to ensure they build a strong educational foundation. Investing in this foundation will pay off over time as the children will be less likely to continue in poverty, less likely to turn to crime and more likely to be productive citizens.    

For decades education reform tactics have failed to produce a long lasting effect on children in America. The reason for such minimal success stems from a variety of factors. One important factor is the decrease in money spent per child nationwide and the increase in educational budget cuts across the country. This budget cuts hit the children in low income areas the hardest because they are already victims of underfunded schools. When their schools do not receive enough funding they close and send students to equally underfunded schools. When there is not enough money for the staff school boards fire quality teachers based on the “first hired, first fired” doctrine. They cut art and physical education programs and shorten or reduce school days altogether. Over the past decade, “funding for state pre-K programs has plummeted by more than $700 per child nationwide” (McNeely). Underfunded preschool programs have a difficult time being efficient and end up nothing more than day-care centers. Another important factor for the limited success educational reform has seen is due to the over testing of students under No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers spend much of their time teaching for these tests and neglect to teach the students based on their individual needs. As a result children whose first language is not English and those who have special needs do not perform well on these tests and they are not learning beneficial subject material. It is a lose-lose situation. Most importantly educational reformed has focused primarily on K-12 education. In recent years a big push for breaking up large high schools in favor of smaller and privatized high schools has caused the destruction of many public high schools and has been ineffective as well. Public school advocates, such as Diane Ravitch, call for the madness to stop and point to many examples of privately funded high schools that have failed such as the Gates Foundation and the many small schools that Mayor Bloomberg’s administration created in New York City. The problem with aiming reform at high schools is by the time students reach that level they are too far behind to catch up in just a few years. Education reform would be most effective when directed towards children ages 3-5. It is during these critical years that children start on a path towards success or failure.

It is common knowledge that poverty adversely affects a child’s academic success. Before one can hope to combat these effects it is very important to understand exactly what it is about poverty that threatens a child’s success. According to Eric Jensen author of Teaching with Poverty in Mind there are four important risk factors children in low income families face: emotional and social challenges, acute and chronic stressors, cognitive lags, and health and safety issues (Jensen). Emotional and social challenges refer to the maladaptive behaviors children take on as result of a caregiver’s decreased sensitivity towards the child during infancy. This is in no way a claim that parents of low socio-economic status are bad caregivers. Rather, over- burdened and young parents have less time and energy to engage with their infants. Also depression and inadequate health care correlate with less sensitivity towards an infant (Jensen). The bond an infant forms, during a process called “attunement”, with his or her caregiver is very critical in determining the type of relationship the child will have later on with classmates and teachers. A lack of proper attachment during infancy manifests itself as a lack of curiosity, arousal, emotional regulation, independence, and social competence in children. Children who have not been able to bond with a caregiver also tend to, “get so easily frustrated that they give up on a task when success was just moments away” (Jensen). Stress, defined as, “the physiological response to the perception of loss of control resulting from an adverse situation or person” is actually healthy when in manageable doses (Jensen). It is what motivates humans to be productive.  Acute stress however is not healthy as it is a result of abuse or violence. When this stress is prolonged or maintained over time it become chronic. Unfortunately, children in low income families are more likely to fall victim of these type of stress: criticism, neglect, social exclusion, lack of enrichment, malnutrition, drug use, and exposure to toxins, abuse, or trauma (Jensen). Acute and chronic stress has many negative effects on children in school. For example it impairs attention and concentration, reduces cognition, creativity and memory, reduces motivation, determination and effort and it reduces neurogenesis (Jensen). Highly stressed children also become more impulsive, an exaggerated stress response that functions as a survival mechanism (Jensen). What is worse is as a child takes on more and more stress each one compounds the previous stressor leaving the child feeling helpless and unable to focus in class.         

Children from low income families are more at risk to experience health and safety issues starting with the very homes they live in. The older and poorly kept housing units that many low income families live in expose children to toxins such as lead from paint, radon and carbon monoxide. They are even at risk while they are fetuses as their mother’s work environment exposes them to pesticides. The mothers may also smoke, drink, or do drugs while expecting. Poorer neighborhoods tend to be more dangerous and put children at greater pedestrian risks and gang violence. If the child has no health insurance they do not receive the proper health care for illness sure as asthma, TB, ear and respiratory infections, or malnutrition. When these illnesses go unattended the best case scenario is the children are just distracted in school because many are more likely to die from injuries or infections than their middle class counterparts (Jensen). A risk factor that many studies have looked at is the cognitive lags children from low income families face. The five systems of the brain necessary to function in school are the executive, language, memory, spatial cognition, and visual cognition systems (Jensen). Poverty threatens a child’s language system because they are less likely to experience a rich variety of words and sentences. Similar to the effects they experience with the failed attunement process there is a critical age in which children acquire language. However, because their caregivers often use simplistic language, do not engage in meaningful back and forth, ask fewer questions and explain fewer concepts these children acquire a less advanced vocabulary (Jensen). This decreased vocabulary makes it difficult for children to learn to read efficiently a severe detriment because reading “is one of the most important factors affecting the development of a child's brain” (Jensen). It is possible for all these risk factors to diminish over time if there is an active force working against them. Local and state governments have an obligation to create such forces in the public schools.   

Now more than ever there needs to be a focus on improving early childhood education because 3-4 years old is a critical age in which children learn how to learn and also because caregivers need to begin early learning effective ways of reversing the effects of poverty.  The first step in reversing the effects of poverty is to make quality preschool available to all 3-4 year olds that need it. In his most recent State of the Union Address, Obama revealed his plan to fund universal preschool. This is a step in the right direction and this paper will analyze his plan more in depth later on. As of 2011 only 16% of 3 year olds and 31% of 4 year olds were enrolled in pre-k or Head Start (The State of Preschool). California has been a leader in early childhood education because it was one of the first state to provide the state-funded preschool programs, State Preschool Program (SPP) and Prekindergarten and Family Literacy Program (PKFLP). PKFLP offers preschool to families whose income is at or below 75% of the state median income. The two have since merged into one program called the California State Preschool Program (The State of Preschool). It is important to note that enrollment in pre-k programs has increased over time yet quality has not. Funding has decreased and teachers are not always qualified. Of the 11 benchmark requirements CSPP only met 3, failing on important benchmarks such as teacher and teacher’s assistant level of education, class size and screening, referral, and support services (The State of Preschool). This is important because the services a preschool offers to the families makes all the difference in making it a quality program. Preschools need to become central connection points where families can receive information on housing, health, nutrition and welfare (Bierda and Moses). Many families in poverty face challenges when trying to receive assistance such as WIC, Madicaid, children’s health insurance, housing assistance and unemployment insurance. Attaining these services are difficult because of locations not conducive to families reliant on public transportation, misinformation about eligibility, complicated application processes and because of the stigma associated with applying for such programs (Bierda and Moses). Situating and running these programs out of the preschools diminishes all these issues. Caregivers will be able to easily access documents and live help if the information is in the same where they drop off their children every day. They can build a relationship with their child’s teachers who can then direct them to the exact program they need. Fears of the stigma will also be relieved because no one questions them when they enter a school as they would if they were to enter a welfare office.  Locating such programs in the school will also greatly benefit the children during the school day. Health services can provide nutritious breakfasts, lunches and snacks to the students, prepared fresh on site and also provide medical care to students who teachers notice have asthma, ear or respiratory infections, or other easily treatable illness. Challenges that stand in the way of making these programs a reality are primary due to the lack of funding. There simply are not enough staff members or buildings available to create such programs. If Obama’s Zero to Five plan succeeds it may allow for many of these programs to form.

Aside from the services a preschool program provides another factor that establishes it as a quality program is the level of teacher qualification and the classroom design. Every teacher that interacts with the child on a regular basis should not only have the proper certifications to teach, but should also attend training sessions specifically designed to work with children in poverty, and yearly training sessions. Teachers should regularly undergo observation and revaluations by their peers and students’ parents. They should design their classroom so that children can learn through play. They cannot allow what happened to the kindergarten classroom happen to the preschool classroom as well. Over testing children in kindergarten has left their classrooms closely resembling first and second grade classrooms. Young children need open space, hands on activities, costumes, art supplies, and books to fully grow cognitively and socially.     

Head Start is a program that resembles the one described above. Created in 1965 by the Johnson’s administration Head Start has provided preschool education to low income families across the country. Recently however many have called into question the effectiveness of this program. Arguments against Head Start claim that cognitive effects in children nearly vanished by the time the child was in the first grade (Klein). While there are studies to support this claim there are also studies that show that the social effects of Head Start lasted well into adulthood (Rich). Children that have participated in Head Start in the long run are less likely to, “be diagnosed as learning disabled, less likely to commit crime, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, and less likely to suffer from poor health as an adult” (Deming). These positive effects seem to be a result of increased parental involvement during and after the child’s enrollment in Head Start. Although Head Start is not without its problems, quality preschools should strive to include parents in the learning process as Head Start does because that makes all the difference. These programs play a large part in fostering parent-child interaction. By learning how to help their children learn early on parents continue their involvement not only in their child’s academic lives but in other areas as well. The result is a lower teenage pregnancy rate, reduced drug and alcohol use, and reduced juvenile delinquency. Preschool programs should also strive to teach the parents of their students the importance of providing stable and consistent care for their infants so the attunement process can take place (Barnett and Haskins).  

The Obama administration seems to be in favor of supporting early childhood education. Obama recently outlined his Zero to Five plan to invest $10 billion a year to support young children and their parents. His plan includes steps to provide states funding to support zero to five efforts. State will be responsible to match federal funds and have the freedom to decide how to spend funds. He will quadruple the number of children eligible for Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve the quality of both (Weinstein). Most importantly, Obama’s plan will provide funding to and encourage all states to adopt voluntary universal preschool for all 4 year olds (Weinstein). The possibilities with this plan are endless. First, improving the quality of Head Start by learning from the results of past studies, emphasizing skills that are most predictive of later achievement in the classroom, and increasing parental involvement with new technology will make the program effective in maintaining both positive cognitive and social long term effects. By increasing funds to pre-k programs they will be able to better facilitate the much needed collaboration between the federal, state, and local governments.  Increased funding to pre-k programs will also attract more qualified teachers to the schools. Steven Barnett, the Co-director of the National Institute of Early Education Research states that:

Teacher pay and retention in childcare facilities is a problem in most states. “Childcare centers have a labor shortage, and they can’t hire people because Starbucks pays more. We know how to educate kids to increase their school readiness, but we don’t do it. And the primary reason is that we aren’t willing to pay teachers enough to do the job we know they need to do” (Weinstein).

Critics of Obama’s plan fear that funding state preschools will turn the classroom into a center for testing. Children will lose the freedom of free play. This would be a step in the wrong direction because:

A disproportionate emphasis on academic skills in the preschool years violates everything we know scientifically about healthy child development: that three- and four-year-olds learn best when learning is embedded in social relationships, real life experience, and unhurried exploration. In short, young children, like all other mammals, learn through play (Christakis).

This is a valid argument because where state mandates are concerned over testing children usually follows closely behind. One major hope with Obama’s plan is that the states and local governments carefully craft programs based on studies that show positive effects. It is also a hope that states figure out a way to use their increased funding to form a smoother bridge between pre-k and the K-12 public school system. Academic skills can fade over time no matter the quality of pre-k instruction if the K-12 instruction is subpar. 

Although the cognitive benefits of early childhood education may fade over time Head Start is not the only entity to have documented the longer lasting and more profound effects of quality pre-k instruction. In the 1970s a project called Abecedarian took place. This longitudinal study took 111 infants from low-income African- American families and provided them with activities designed to support their language, cognitive, social and emotional development until they reached kindergarten (uncnews.unc.edu). 30 years later 101 of the subjects partook in a follow-up survey. The survey revealed that those who partook in the educational activities were four times more likely to have a college degree than the control group. 75% had worked fulltime in 16 out of the last 24 months compared to 53% in the control group. They were less likely to be on welfare and showed a tendency to delay parenthood two years later than the control group (uncnews.unc.edu). Another study produced very similar results. In the 1960s the Perry School Program provided, “a daily 2 ½-hour classroom session for 3- to 4-year-old black children on weekday mornings and a 1 ½-hour home visit to each mother and child on weekday afternoons” (Rolnick).  The program lasted for 30 weeks and at 27 the researchers interviewed the subjects.  They found that:

During elementary and secondary school, Perry School participants were less likely to

be placed in a special education program and had a significantly higher average achievement score at age 14 than nonparticipants. Over 65 percent of program participants graduated from regular high school compared with 45 percent of nonparticipants. At age 27, four times as many program participants as nonparticipants earned $2,000 or more per month. And only one-fifth as many program participants as nonparticipants were arrested five or more times by age 27 (Rolnick).

Interestingly this study also looked at what happened to the money invested in the children during the study and what types of returns there were. They found that for every dollar invested in the program eight were returned to society (Rolnick). Years later analysts of the study decided that the return would be much greater because the positive effects not only influenced the participants but also their younger siblings and their children. This is a wonderful example of how the chain of poverty can break with a decent early childhood education.    

            It is an exciting time to be involved in education reform. Policy makers on a federal and state level are beginning to realize what a great investment education is. The benefits of equipping children with the skills necessary to become productive citizens of their country will continue generation after generation. If there is any hope to reduce or even to end poverty in the United States it lays in breaking the continuous cycle of poverty once and for all. Catching and educating children early ensures that they will form a solid foundation from which to grow. Programs like Head Start and other smaller pre-k programs are beneficial but a reshaping of these programs is overdue. Programs now should aim to educate the whole family and create a safe place for children to learn and grow. Once local, state and the federal government collaborate to create and fund highly effective pre-k programs for all young children the county will begin to see a reduction of poverty, teen pregnancy, and crime rates and an increase in college graduates and positive contributions to society.    

Works cited

Barnett, Steven, and Ron Haskins. "Investing in Young Children: New Directions in Federal Preschool and Early Childhood Policy." The Brookings Institution. Center for Children and Families at Brookings, Sept. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Bireda, Saba, and Joy Moses. "Reducing Student Poverty in the Classroom." Center for American Progress. N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. Feb. 2012.

Christakis, Erika. "The Catch-22 of Obam’s Preschool Plan." Times Idea. Time Magazine, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Deming, D. (2009) Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2009, 1:3, p111–134

Flanagan. "The Children of Teen Parents." FSU Center for Prevention & Early Intervention Policy. N.p., 2005. Web. 23 Feb. 2013.

Hick, Sally. "Parents Influence Children's Success, Duke Social Psychologist Says." Duke Today. N.p., 14 Aug. 2005. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Jensen, Eric. "How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance." Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does to Kids' Brains and What Schools Can Do about It. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2009. N. pag. Print.

Klein, Joe. "Time to Ax Public Programs That Don't Yield Results." Time U.S. Time Magazine, 7 July 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2013.

McNeely, Robert. "No Education Reform Without Tackling Poverty, Experts Say." NEA Today RSS. Neatoday, 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2013

Rich, Motoko. "How Head Start Can Make a Difference." Economix How Head Start Can Make a Difference Comments. The New York Times, 2 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Rolnick, Arthur. "Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return - Fedgazette - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis." Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return - Fedgazette - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 1 Mar. 2003. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Schwarz, Joel. "Children Whose Parents Smoked Are Twice as Likely to Begin Smoking between 13 and 21." Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 01 Oct. 2005. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

The State of Preschool 2011. National Institute for Early Education Research, 2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

"Uncnews.unc.edu." UNC News. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Weinstein, Anna. "Obama on Early Childhood Education." Education.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.

Mayor Bloomberg Brings His Agenda to LA

Last week NYC’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $1 million dollars to the Coalition for School Reform created by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. With this large donation Bloomberg hopes to see Monica Garcia reelected in district two, Kate Anderson in district 4 (pushing hard to get rid of Steve Zimmer) and Antonio Sanchez in district 6 come March 5th.

This election is a decisive battle in the war over school reform in the City of Los Angeles. On one side there is the UTLA (United Teachers Los Angeles) and on the other there are the “reformists”. UTLA strives to protect its members from Bloomberg’s recent attempt to bring his school reform tactics to LA and will support Steve Zimmer in his campaigning.  Bloomberg has called Zimmer a “flip-flopper” on reform issues which seems to be a critique of Zimmer’s, as well as the rest of the board’s, leniency on bad teachers in the union. Bloomberg believes that the current system is flawed because nothing can be done to punish ineffective tenured teachers and teachers who do perform well are not rewarded. Superintendent John Deasy has joined forces with Bloomberg and Villaraigosa to clean up the system. Garcia and Sanchez agree with the policies Deasy has tried, but failed, to implement in LA.

On the surface it appears that Bloomberg is supporting a noble cause. In many ways he is. Everyone would like to see children succeed in school. What Bloomberg fails to realize is that his reform measures have by and large been failures. Since he took office in 2002 his administration has closed over 166 schools in NYC some of which they opened themselves. They are constantly shuffling students from one school to the next disturbing any type of stability in the child’s education. His administration emphasizes specialized and charter schools. They break up large public schools and spread out the new ones. Many children have to take long drives and bus rides to get to these new schools. For the children that do not qualify to attend the new schools (English learners, special needs students and children with behavioral problems especially) their only other option is to remain in one of the large public schools which suffer from severe neglect and essentially become what Diane Ravitch calls “dumping grounds”. The situation is messy and with each closed school disdain for Bloomberg and his reform grows in NYC.

It is not entirely surprising that Bloomberg has continued to push hard for charter schools. He is a businessman and corporatizing the educational system could benefit him. By trumping up the prestige of charter schools those that can afford to pay for them will pay what they need to get their children in. Now that Villaraigosa has gotten into bed with Bloomberg he must be held accountable if there are mass school closings in LA in the upcoming years. Even though UTLA has promised to support Zimmer it seems Bloomberg has done a thorough job buying his candidates.