Sharpening Our Focus To Save Students
Monday, September 7th, 2009In recent visits to Congress, I noted much talk about “fixing” the high schools in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and secondary Education Act. One speaker characterized the 2,000 high schools in the United States that have 40 percent dropout rates as “Dropout Factories.”
Without question, it’s tragic for all of us when any student drops out. However, the term Dropout Factories is an incredibly offensive and flawed characterization of those 2,000 high schools.
Make no mistake; I am not defending lousy teachers or administrators. However, this term ignores both the valiant efforts by dedicated educators and the societal issues that script a life plan for thousands of students in our nation’s schools.
AASA Executive Director Paul Houston noted that we have only recently become worried about dropouts because we now are in the era when most students graduate successfully, thus the dichotomy of seeing those who don’t graduate smacks us in the face.
Every student who drops out represents a citizen with limited opportunities. I don’t disagree. However, I do take issue with how we address the dropout issue.
Some legislators are convinced that monies from the Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation will save our high schools and thus the futures of our students. Unfortunately, those monies are funneled to the wrong place. One doesn’t fix the dropout problem by focusing on the end point.
Extensive research tells us to focus on the beginning. If we want to have 100 percent of our students graduate, we must tackle issues such as poverty levels, student health, fair housing, economic opportunities and universal early childhood education. Education Testing Service research points us to school attendance and home habits such as reading to a child and decreasing the amount of TV children watch as key predictors of their success in school.
So how can we raise the level of conversation with our legislators about these important topics as they consider ESEA reauthorization? Call them. Let them know your opinions about the real needs in education. Share with them AASA’s recommended legislative agenda, which includes:
* connecting the many disjointed programs in ESEA to create a succession of services and support to meet a continuum of needs;
* providing a continuum of ESEA funds based on percentages of children who qualify for free and reduced cost meals; and
* integrating health, mental health, dental, child care, early childhood education and before-school and after-school programs from all federal agencies at the school level where poverty is most concentrated.
This approach, which you can review in more detail on AASA’s website, is based on four basic assumptions:
* Federal dollars will never amount to more than a tiny fraction of total K-12 funding, so the dollars must be carefully targeted.
* Money makes a difference, so concentrating federal funds where they are most needed will result in better education outcomes for children in high-poverty schools.
* Serving the whole child with health, mental health, dental, child care, early childhood education and before-school and after-school services will lead to better education outcomes than relying on educational services alone.
* Data describing services and outcomes can help teachers, principals and superintendents improve educational, health and human services for children and inform state and federal policymakers about the effect of federal dollars and where specific improvements are needed.
When funding is limited, the most effective place to focus it is at the front end of the process. Our federal government must renew its commitment to eradicate poverty as a parallel commitment we educators are making to eradicate illiteracy.
More must be done and can be done if we sharpen our focus on the real roots of the problem.
