Curriculum Archive

When Al Gore was announced as a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize last week, the honor seemed to do little to end the international debate over whether his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” should be shown in schools.

While the immediate reaction in the U.S. centered on whether the former vice president will run again for president—or whether the Nobel committee has secret ties to Osama bin Laden, depending on where you get your news—the honor has not vindicated perceptions that the film and the global warming issue are too politicized to teach in public schools.

In Britain last week, a judge ruled that while the film is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,” there are several significant errors, from sea levels rising 20 feet in the near future to bleaching of coral reefs (most of his criticism centered on insufficient evidence to support the claims). High Court Judge Michael Burton ruled, in response to a lawsuit by a parent, that showing the film in schools violates a law that bans promoting partisan political views in the classroom.

There have been a few similar incidents in the U.S., where school boards and administrators have faced criticism from parents who either don’t want “An Inconvenient Truth” shown or want opposing viewpoints presented. The Federal Way, Wash., school board got bashed by critics and supporters of the film in January when it temporarily placed a moratorium on showing the film, then later said teachers must present other viewpoints.

One thing is for sure: there’s a growing drive to educate students about the environment in U.S. schools, including public, private, and parochial schools (some are using their newly built sustainable facilities as a demonstration tool). And even though the mere mention of Al Gore seems to, well, make a few heads explode, more conclusive scientific evidence will become available over time to either further prove or disprove the disputed points in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Just in time for a sequel.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

California schools are no longer a “safe emotional environment for children” after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB777, officially titled the Student Civil Rights Act.

That’s the reaction of some citizens and organizations to recent legislation written to create uniform standards and clear up inconsistencies in state statues dealing with discrimination and bias in education.

Earlier state statutes already banned bullying, harassment, or other discrimination against students based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But any law that mentions both schools and sexual orientation strikes a nerve with some people.

Already there are warnings that the terms “mom” and “dad” could be banned from schools or that gender-specific restrooms could be challenged in court. Campaign for Children and Families released a statement suggesting the law “means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms” through lessons that “positively portray transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.”

Such hyperbole is all too common in today’s take-no-prisoners political environment. But such vehemence has had the unintended result of distracting people from a more reasonable concern about the law.

No one should object to responsible efforts to protect students from bullying or abuse—for any reason. But a more reasonable concern is that, in attempting to stop discrimination, educators could implicitly suggest acceptance of different sexual orientations and inadvertently challenge the moral values that parents are trying to instill in their children.

Which values public schools should teach—and which they should leave to parents—are questions that will be debated until the end of time. But, if one can get past the emotionally charged rhetoric, concerns about how educators will interpret the law are legitimate—and California educators need to address them.

But the law’s intent is simply to protect children from mistreatment. If people keep the focus on that simple goal, then these other concerns—both legitimate and fanciful—should prove unfounded.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

The idea struck me as counterintuitive. After all, how many supervisors would give a worker struggling with a small task a bigger project? Maybe it’s not the best analogy, but it’s pretty close to what New York education officials are proposing for the 12,000 students on the brink of dropping out.

Desperate to keep the students from giving up on school, the state’s Board of Regents approved a plan on Tuesday that would place at-risk students in college courses, where they could earn college credit while still in high school.

Dual-enrollment program have found success in many school districts across the country, but New York’s version would be one of the first to specifically target potential drop outs.

Risky? You bet, though most of the lawmakers and bigwigs in New York seemed willing to take that risk.

“Especially with the expense of college being what it is, if you can get kids from disadvantaged families to complete work in high school, they would be saving substantial dollars,” Manhattan assemblywoman Deborah Glick told the New York Times.

Ok, hold on a minute. We’re not just talking about disadvantaged kids, even though statistically, many underperforming students do come from impoverished backgrounds.

Who we’re talking about are students that, for a variety reasons, have become disillusioned with school and the solution, from a practical and analytical standpoint, doesn’t seem to me to include making what is already difficult for them, even more challenging.

I wouldn’t tell someone who is obese that the way to solve their weight issues is to train for a marathon. The lofty goal may work for some, but it seems that individual would be better served to examine why they battle weight problems in the first place and what they could do simply, everyday to win that battle.

Not all students want to go on to a university and not all students have to. I understand the power of setting goals high, but let’s not set them so high we forget to deal with what’s in front of them.

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Last week I wrote about New York’s big idea for keeping its more than 12,000 potential dropouts in school: Send them to college. I still think the plan is off and in talking with other folks and reading other literature, I have more to say about it.

First, I know the number one reason kids lose interest in school is because they get bored and they don’t see how learning any of “this stuff” matters. The buzz word is relevance.
Time and time again, educators say the solution lies in the instruction. If they want to keep the kids engaged, teachers have to provide a rich and varied curriculum that includes lots of real-world examples and opportunities for students to direct their own learning.

College certainly offers a lot of freedom and choice, but I wouldn’t consider many of my professors (especially the ones in the lower level courses) particularly adept at teaching. Sure, they were geniuses in the subject matter, but professors weren’t always the best at conveying that information. Also, entry-level college courses, which are typically large, lecture-hall formats, aren’t the best place for struggling students.

Now, if we’re talking about elective courses or vocational programs (the latter of which has found success in New York City) that’s different, not only because the class size is probably smaller but also because the class was of particular interest to the student. But that still doesn’t address how that will help students who haven’t mastered basic skills like reading and writing.

So, let me get this straight. In order for New York’s plan to work, it would need skilled instructors who really know how to reach these students and courses that really speak to kids. Hey, isn’t that what high school is supposed to offer? If not, why are we sending students there in the first place?

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Some of us ASBJ editors have been debating the merits of New York City’s plan to put some struggling students into postsecondary courses to keep them from dropping out. Whether that becomes a model for other districts or a disaster swept under the rug, or something in between, I’m sure Naomi Dillon will let us know in a couple years.

But a similar concept that’s quickly gaining ground is high school majors. Yes, majors for 13- and 14-year-olds, just like colleges. Florida, South Carolina, and numerous school districts have policies that require students to choose a course specialization, and other states and districts are taking similar approaches through similar concepts, such as career academies.

My first reaction when I started research for a School Board News story was to roll my eyes, and apparently a lot of parents have the same reaction. After all, what eighth-grader (most of the plans required students to choose their topic of specialty even before entering high school) has much of an idea what career path they will pursue? And when I looked at Florida’s laundry list of approved subject majors—which included strands like sculpture and culinary journalism—my response (which cannot be printed in its entirety) included the question, “Who do they think is going to teach all this?!”

But after talking to a few folks I was persuaded that the programs have potential, albeit with a lot of caveats.

Administrators who favor majors think they will give students more focus and more ambition during their high school careers, much like a specialized magnet school or career academy, and boost their college applications. Most majors would only be taken through electives, usually one course the first two years and two courses in the junior and senior years, although the theme of the major could also influence the teachings of some of the core classes. Plus, administrators say many students already know their interests, and this could be a way to help students engaged. Gene Bottoms, a vice president at the Southern Regional Education Board, notes that while so many national groups are sounding alarms about 21st century skills and more rigor in core classes, not much is being done to figure out how to keep kids interested in school.

The concept has merit, at least for some students, in some schools, some of the time. Certain conditions need to be met: Students need flexibility to try out different majors, and shouldn’t be forced to choose if they aren’t passionate about their schools’ offerings; majors should be broad enough to allow students to explore different areas within a field; and, perhaps most importantly, the school must have the capacity to teach these courses well.

Will these programs become a model or be impossible to implement? Stay tuned; I’ll check back in a couple years.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

For centuries, the education system in America was a way to streamline the population, especially foreigners, into a certain way of thinking, acting, and contributing to society. Some might even argue, myself included, certain aspects of that uniformity still exist in schools.

But such lock-step mentality was as dangerous and short-sighted then as it today. Want proof? Take a look at what “civilizing” did for the Cherokee Nation, whom historians referred to as one of the Five Civilized Tribes because of their advanced system of government, laws, and education.

In 1821, the famed Cherokee leader, Sequoyah, is credited with introducing a syllabary upon which the Cherokee language is based. Within six years, the publication of a bilingual newspaper and other materials result in 90 percent of tribal members being literate in their native language; Oklahoma Cherokees even had a firmer grasp on English than whites in Texas or Arkansas.

But despite operating what one official called “the finest school system west of the Mississippi River,” the Cherokees first saw the federal government place one of its own officials in charge of Cherokee education and then eventually saw the abolishment of the system all together once Oklahoma became a state.

A half-century later, the result of such a takeover is documented in the 1969 Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education Hearings, which found adult Cherokees completed an average of 5.5 years of schooling, drop out rates for Cherokees in public schools were as high as 75 percent, and 40 percent of adult Cherokees were functionally illiterate.

It was a sharp and tragic decline for the Cherokees and a lesson to everyone about the hazards of ignoring the differences and unique qualities that everyone possesses.

For more information on educating Native Americans, see my article, “How One District Is Improving Native American Achievement,” at www.asbj.com.

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Oh, the unintended consequences of being assigned Mutiny on the Bounty as eighth-grade summer reading. I know because I was so assigned. My parents knew because of the salty effect it had on my language.

I remember one morning at breakfast:

Mom: What will you have for breakfast, Larry?

Larry: “By God, I’ll have pancakes!”

Mom: “O … K. And what would you like with that?”

Larry. “Orange juice…… By God!

Mom: I think we need to talk about your language.”

Yes, that happened (more or less as stated). But, joking aside, reading the Nordhoff and Hall novel of adventure on the South Seas -- its tale of loyalty and betrayal, and of the indistinct line between good and evil -- was incredibly enriching. So was reading the other novels I was assigned in the upper elementary and middle grades: Old Yeller, The Yearling, The Call of the Wild, A Member of the Wedding. I only vaguely remember the stories, some of which I might never have read if not introduced to them in school. What I do recall is the effect they had on me, how they helped me visualize a boundless world outside myself.

I thought about this yesterday while reading a letter from a Maryland woman in the New York Times. She was responding to an article about a National Endowment of the Arts report on the endangered status of reading for fun. (“Study Links Drop in Test Scores to a Decline in Time Spent Reading” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/arts/19nea.html?ref=opinion). And she praised, albeit ironically, the Times headline for making the connection between test scores and reading, “because only the evidence of lower test scores will move the myopic beast loosed by No Child Left Behind to change its course.”

Then, the kicker. “My son attends arguably the best public middle-school program in Baltimore,” the letter writer, Christina Myers, said, “and the language arts teachers there have been told not to teach novels until the spring, after the state testing is over.

“The absurdity might almost make me laugh, if it weren’t so horrifying in its implications.”

I would have used the word “sad” -- how sad that these children, and so many others like them, are being denied the kind of transformative experiences I remember from my youth.

Please, don’t let this happen in your schools.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Who is Mike Rose, and why is he so darned reasonable?

At a time when the Democratic presidential candidates are busy shredding each another in Iowa, and pundits on the Left and Right are deeming each other mortal threats to the America; when Ann Coulter is declaring a 10th Crusade against Islam, and a responder to ASBJ’s Your Turn poll ignores the month’s question to scrawl: “Impeach Cheney, then Bush!” … Amid all this, some UCLA education professor has the temerity to take on the most controversial K-12 issue of our time and come up with a most thoughtful, clear-headed, and non-biased analysis.

Just who does he think he is?

In his recent Education Week commentary, “Seek a ‘Fuller Language of Schooling’’ (www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/07/11rose.h27.html), Rose explores the kind of education NCLB, and its testing regimen, fosters and asks a basic, philosophical question: “What kind of education befits a democratic society?”

It is undeniable that the federal law “shines a bright light on those underserved populations of students who get lost in averaged measures of performance,” Rose writes. The assumption that all children can learn, that public institutions such as schools have a responsibility to their citizenry, that schools can be improved -- these are the democratic promises of NCLB.

“What is worth exploring, though, is the degree to which these tenets are invested in an accountability mechanism that might restrict their full realization,” Rose writes. He then discusses the advantages and disadvantages of standardized tests and their impact on teaching, particularly in school serving disadvantaged children.

Clearly, “NCLB has jolted some low-performing schools to evaluate and redirect their inadequate curriculum,” he writes. The question is: Have they done this “through a strictly functional and unimaginative curriculum (which, admittedly, might be better than what came before) or through a rich course of study that, as a byproduct, affects test scores?”

Rose, of course, argues for the latter and says “there are signs that we as a country are beginning to seek some fuller language of schooling” that goes beyond “scores, rankings, and an elaborate technology of calibration and compliance.”

“The No Child Left Behind Act will undoubtedly be reauthorized,” Rose concludes. “But my hope is that as we debate its merits and flaws, we will begin to develop more fitting ways to talk about children and the schools that shape their lives.”

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

I’m jealous. When I was a kid, bringing a comic book to school was a capital offense.

Now, some schools actually encourage students to read comics.

That’s the case at Cypress Bay High School in Broward County, Fla., where students can enroll in a course called "Literature and the Arts/Graphic Novels."

In this class, teacher Margarete Marchetti seeks to promote literacy among “reluctant readers who might not pick up anything besides a comic book,” reports the Sun-Sentinel.

According to Marchetti, her students aren’t reading the latest exploits of Superman or Batman. Graphic novels have longer and more complex story lines, and the “literary” works she has selected include a memoir about a Polish Jew surviving the Holocaust and a woman’s childhood after the Iranian revolution.

“Almost every assignment involves some sort of critical thinking, through writing, creating, and illustrating,” the Sun-Sentinel reports. And, by the end of the course, Marchetti “wants her students to transfer the skills they use to read comics into other materials.”

Some people might raise an eyebrow at this approach. But it’s more common than you’d think. The Teachers College at Columbia University supports a Comic Book Project, and hundreds of in-school and afterschool programs using comic books exist across the nation.

And there’s at least one education publisher printing comic book accounts of the lives of Queen Elizabeth I, Anne Frank, and Julius Caesar.

I leave it to you: Is this idea just plain stupid? Or is it an innovative way to encourage struggling and uninterested young readers—and put some fun back in learning?

Del Stover, Senior Editor

As we celebrate or bemoan the sixth anniversary of No Child Left Behind, the obsession with testing and data -- and what we do with those numbers -- is now the pervasive dilemma for just about everyone in the education policy field.

From a journalist’s perspective, the vast array of numbers coming from NCLB requirements have given us many stories and many more story ideas. But what I’ve found is that for all the slicing and dicing, statistics and test scores never tell a complete story about a school. There’s always a story behind the data -- and occasionally that might be a totally different picture than expected.

Perhaps a school with abysmal test scores is tackling gang violence and helping students stay in school. Another might have promising strategies for teaching migrant students. Or a school making Adequate Yearly Progress may be ignoring its gifted and talented programs.

The only way to find out is to visit schools, talk to people there (everyone from the superintendent to paraprofessionals), spend time in the community, consult with researchers and policy wonks, and look at data. I once worked on a report with an editor who started by pulling together experts to discuss current research, data, and trends for a particular subgroup but also sent several of us on site visits to document real-life examples. The end product was a tapestry that we felt gave readers a rich understanding of all the issues and the factors that brought about the data. It made the national news and won praise from the education community, as well as a couple journalism awards.

I later worked with a group whose strategy was to use independent researchers to gather all the test scores and reports they could find, and then write a report from their notes. The project team never set foot in a school or talked to any administrators or teachers, and the editor’s mantra was, “Let the data tell the story!” Not surprisingly, that report ended up getting lampooned by the local press, and I’ll bet most of the copies ended up in recycling bins.

People, not statistics, are what make public education. In this new year, which may or may not see an NCLB reauthorization, our responsibility will be finding and bringing to light the stories behind the statistics.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Around this time, kids across the country (after feeling euphoric and content during the holiday break) will start to experience a slow feeling of dread come over them.

The winter term is ending, grades are being calculated and by month’s end, report cards will be sent home. Duh-duh-duh! All of this, of course, will be followed by the obligatory and sometimes tense parent teacher conference. But these meetings needn’t be so awkward or angst-inspiring.

Among the best ideas Al Summers said he ever instituted as a middle school teacher was to place his students in charge of these face-to-face progress reports.

“It’s different than a teacher-led conference, where a kid is usually there only if it’s a bad meeting,” Summers, who is director of professional development at the National Middle School Association, says. “When it’s student-led, the student says ‘Here were my goals in the beginning of the class, here’s my grade and the places I’ve met my goals, and here’s what I will do to reach the ones I haven’t yet.’ The teacher is used as a resource.”

The strategy not only worked to double parent attendance rate to about 85 percent, but it also helped instill in students one of the greatest predictors of future academic success: ownership.

“The really successful middle schools … are the ones that have democratic classrooms, where the students truly have a say in what they learn, how they learn it, and their progress,” Summers says.

To learn more about what schools are doing to help students successfully move into middle school and beyond, read my story, “School Transitions Made Easy” in this month’s American School Board Journal .

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

“I’d scrap it!”

I could have sworn I heard (and saw) Hillary Clinton say those words on TV, counterintuitive though it may sound. Why, I asked, would the Democratic front runner go out on a limb and trash NCLB when she could get by with something bland like: “It should be reformed?”

So I got on Nexis and typed something like: “Hillary and Child and Left and Behind and scrap.”

Nothing.

How about: “Clinton and No and Child and scrap?”

Nope.

Try: “Big and bureaucratic and law and drill and kill and bye-bye arts and music -- and scrap?”

Actually, I didn’t do that last one. But I found that it wasn’t Clinton who had spoken of abolishing NCLB, but fellow Democratic candidate and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, hovering somewhere in the low single digits in popularity and having little to lose. The law, he said, is “a burden on schools, it’s an unfunded mandate, it hurts all kinds of kids and achievement.”

That’s not going to happen, of course. Once federal programs get created they have a way of hanging around far after their usefulness has expired, and NCLB will probably be no exception. There will be more “reform,” more “safe harbor” provisions, more arcane federal regulations and procedures that fill countless computer files and sap the time and energy of school boards, teachers, and administrators.

But what if? What if, by some miracle, Richardson got his way and NCLB was indeed abolished? What if the federal government simply declared victory and went home? You could argue that the bad things about NCLB would be gone but the good would remain. There would be much less fear of failure among school staff -- much less teaching to the test and “drill and kill” -- and more thoughtful approaches to educating the whole child. At the same time, states and school districts would have set up mechanisms for tracking the progress of all students, from all ethnic and economic groups, and would be unable to hide behind average scores, as they might have done in the past.

Some would argue that, absent the threats of NCLB, schools would return to past practices, and poor and minority kids would be left behind. Maybe. But I think there is enough of a public mandate to educate all children -- even without NCLB -- that dispensing with the law would have mainly good consequences.

What do you think? I’d be interested to hear your comments.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

The aliens are coming! In fact, they’re already here. They’ve infiltrated your neighborhoods, your businesses -- they’re even in your schools. But don’t worry: members of the Virginia General Assembly are on patrol. In fact, they’ve introduced more than 100 immigration-related bills to deal with the invasion.

Among the Virginia offerings: one bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public colleges, and another requiring K-12 students to present valid birth certificates before enrolling. But my home state isn’t the only one getting into the border enforcement business. In Oklahoma, for example, State Rep. Randy Terrill has introduced a bill requiring schools to report how many illegal immigrant children are in their classes and the cost of educating them.

“Show of hands, please. We can just report that with our AYP.”

As you can imagine, illegal immigrants everywhere are flocking to turn themselves in.

Actually, no. In fact, according to a New York Times article last week about the city of Waukegan, Ill., near Chicago, much of the community is living in fear, avoiding public places, cancelling school meetings, bypassing downtown. The crackdown has even hurt legal immigrants, whose ethnic businesses are failing because customers are too afraid to shop. (To which, I, a loyal Know Nothing, can only say: “Who’d have thunk?”)

I could go on, but you get the point. Yes, we have an illegal immigration problem in this country. But the answer is not to victimize children and families and young people who want to better themselves (and, in the process, America) by getting a college education.

The Urban Institute (www.urban.org) touches on a small part of the issue in its 2007 report Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America’s Children. One of the communities studied -- Grand Island, Neb. -- was also featured in 2007’s Education Vital Signs.

I haven’t had space to even mention the presidential campaign and the contest, on the Republican side, to see who can sound the toughest on a group that represents some of America’s poorest and most vulnerable residents. Maybe later.

But it’s going to get ugly, if it hasn’t already; and educators better be prepared for the impact of all this turmoil on their students.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Chalk it up to January blahs, but I just can’t get excited about this new coalition and its call for more imaginative and creative instruction in the public schools. According to the group’s recent poll, a solid 30 percent of voters -- the so-called “Imagine Nation” -- say “incorporating building the capacities of the imagination into core courses is extremely critical.”

And what’s wrong with that, oh bilious blogger? Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s just that, well … Isn’t it obvious?

Apparently not.

“Educators get it. Students get it. The public gets it,” said John Wilson, executive director of the National Education Association, speaking at a news conference in Washington, D.C., last week “We hope the policymakers get it.”

I fear, like those at the press conference, that No Child Left Behind has so pushed instruction -- especially instruction for disadvantaged kids -- to the “drill and kill” side of the spectrum that it will take years to undo the damage. However, speakers at the press conference say there’s a large constituency that will back candidates who support more enlightened instruction.

Trouble is, Mr. Pessimist points out, there’s no NCLB militating for more imaginative and creative classrooms. At least not yet, and I don’t know how you would devise one.

It seems the pendulum swings this way and that, and never stops in the middle. Are you for “imagination and creativity” or “Core Knowledge?” “Direct instruction” or “project-based learning?” Well, can’t you be for all of them? For example, I could imagine a U.S. history course in which students would be taught the basics of what’s happened, from colonial America onward. They would even know a few names and dates! There would even be lectures! Part of the class would be devoted to this teacher-directed instruction, but there would also be class discussion of compelling themes in U.S. history. Finally, students would have the chance to pursue subjects that interested them in greater depth, in the form of projects, performances, and research papers.

The key is finding teachers who could do this kind of teaching. And, studies show, it’s disadvantaged children who have less access to them. For example, a University of Missouri study released this month found that “67.6 percent of high-socioeconomic status students are taught by highly qualified teachers, compared with 53.2 percent of low-socioeconomic status students.”

“This opportunity gap of 14.4 percent is significantly larger than the international average of 2.5 percent,” the report says.

So it’s not just a problem of educational theory and practice: It’s a problem of equity as well.

I applaud the coalition for pushing for more creative and innovating classrooms in the public schools, and for championing the arts and music, which are so vital to a well-rounded education. I just feel it’s got a big job ahead.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Earlier this week, Florida’s Board of Education voted 4-3 to approve new science standards that, unlike former standards, include evolution.

Although this may seem like a victory for pro-evolution groups, both sides of the argument have concerns about the revision.

The new standards require increased instruction in the “scientific theory of” evolution, an improvement over standards from 1996 that didn’t even mention evolution, instead calling it “change over time.” The standards also call evolution “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.”

Groups advocating for intelligent design or those skeptical of Darwinian evolution wanted a provision to allow teachers to “engage students in a critical analysis of evidence” for and against evolution. Their request was denied.

But those who support teaching evolution in schools disapprove of the wishy-washy language--“theory” instead of “law” or “fact”--in the new standards.

“It doesn’t destroy them,” Joe Wolf, director of Florida Citizens for Science, told the Associated Press. “It weakens them.”

Instead of improving outdated standards, Florida’s board, in an attempt to appease both parties, seems to have thoroughly pleased no one. Taking the middle ground on this issue has produced confusing standards that leave instruction up to the subjectivity of the teacher.

Stacey Hollenbeck, ASBJ spring intern

I traveled to Tampa last week to attend the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) conference and I have a prediction to make: Daniel Pink will be the new Thomas Friedman.

As you certainly already know, Friedman and his book, The World Is Flat, have dominated education discussion for years, with his galvanizing message about the realities of globalization.

Pink is poised to take the conversation further. Granted, Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future, has not sat atop the New York Times bestseller list for a year, the way Friedman’s did.

That notwithstanding, nearly everyone I bumped into or stood in line with at the AASA conference was talking about Pink. His keynote speech was packed.

Pink says that the skills we emphasize heavily in schools – the so-called left brain skills like logic, computation, and linear thinking – are not as important in the new global economy as the right-brain skills like creativity, design, and big-picture thinking.

Left-brain skills are still important, he says, but the right-brain stuff is essential. Put another way: Left-brain skills are the easiest to automate or outsource. The ability to design, create, interpret, and make connections – not so easy for a computer to master.

I confess that my over-developed right brain was cheering Pink on, while my puny left brain couldn’t put up much of a fight.

This was the second time I’d heard Pink speak. He’s an engaging and entertaining speaker, and clearly his message is resonating with educators, school leaders, and parents weary of the constant grind of standardized testing and drill-and-kill curriculum.

In case you missed him, Pink will speak at the National School Boards Association’s conference in Orlando in March. Check him out: Your right brain will be thrilled.

Kathleen Vail, Managing Editor

Journalists—at least the ones I know—tend to forget stories shortly after they are published. But occasionally there’s one so compelling that you have to go back.

I first heard about Brick Township, N.J., a decade ago while writing a story on autism for Education Week. In the late 1990s, very little was known about treating the disorder, much less the causes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was studying Brick because of a perceived “autism cluster,” given its seemingly high rate of children diagnosed.

The quiet oceanside village was bombarded by press, and parents and residents were frantic to know why so many of their children were afflicted. Most believed environmental contaminants played a role, although medical mishaps and genetics were also frequently mentioned. School officials, though, pointed to an entirely different supposition—since Brick was one of the first places to provide educational services specifically for children with autism, desperate parents were moving to send their children to Brick schools.

When I decided to write about autism for ASBJ—this time looking at the costs, treatments, and how little is still known about the causes—the first place I researched was Brick. Surely by now there would be an answer to this medical mystery, the CDC must have found some fascinating evidence to explain the autism cluster, right?

Instead, I found that Brick’s rate of identification is now the norm in New Jersey, probably because medical experts’ heightened awareness of the disorder means many more children have been identified. And the CDC report raised more questions than it answered, essentially laying out in painstaking detail the lack of good national data and information.

But what Brick and several other districts have figured out is that, regardless of causes, they must educate and embrace these children. My story in this months’ ASBJ shows how they’re doing it.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Congratulations to Senior Editor Del Stover for winning first place in the Education Writers Association's 2007 National Awards for Education Reporting for his series of stories on schools dealing with racial issues.

Del’s stories – “Moment of Truth” (April), “Summer of Fate” (August), and “The Vicious Circle” (December) – were recognized in the Special Interest, Institutional and Trade Publications category. Only four awards were given in the category this year.

ASBJ is one of 15 finalists for the Fred M. Hechinger Grand Prize for Distinguished Education Reporting, which will be awarded April 26 during the EWA’s 61st National Seminar in Chicago.

The EWA contest, which honors the best education reporting in print and broadcast media, is the only independent contest of its kind in the United States. This is the first time in the contest’s history that ASBJ has taken first place two years in a row; last year’s first place winner was the magazine’s series on Gulf Coast schools in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

What are you preparing your students for?

Getting a well-rounded education? Passing their classes? Graduating? Going to college?

Unfortunately, a strong secondary education can only get them to the third tier. A lack of sufficient funds means college isn’t an option for a growing number of high school graduates.

According to a press release from Public Agenda, a nonprofit that conducts public opinion surveys, college costs as a share of household income have doubled for all but the most affluent Americans in the past 20 years.

The average student debt has more than doubled to $20,000 since 1997.

Attitudes about college costs have soured as well, meaning more and more struggling families don’t consider college a feasible option for their kids.

The percentage of Americans who feel costs are preventing students from attending college has risen from 47 percent in 2000 to 62 percent in 2007, says Public Agenda. Yet most people consider higher education the key to upward mobility.

Last week, students and education leaders gathered at a C-SPAN forum hosted by Public Agenda and The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to discuss how college tuition costs are keeping young adults from reaching their potential. The group called for collaboration between the government, higher education, and families to address rising costs.

Until then, secondary schools can do their part by encouraging students to apply for scholarships or student aid as well as supplementing college prep with vocational education. Low-income students should be able to envision a bright future without a college degree.

Stacey Hollenbeck, ASBJ Spring Intern

I will be forever grateful to my older brother for programming a version of “Pong” on my TI-83 calculator. Without that moving pixel bouncing from one tiny dash to another, I doubt I would have made it through my high school algebra class.

Like many students, I thought math was both exhausting and dull. But by far, my biggest problem with algebra is that every student gets the same answer.

I preferred creative pursuits, writing stories and designing yearbook pages.

Artistic expression is often times the key to success. Unfortunately, when districts face budget cuts, arts education is the first thing to go.

I recently spoke to Jeff Janiszewski, school board president of Schenectady schools in New York, a district committed to arts education. Janiszewski believes his students’ math and reading scores would decline if Schenectady cut arts education.

“It would be damaging to the education of a lot of students,” Janiszewski said.

The idea that arts education and academic achievement are closely related is gaining support. Some districts have instated arts outreach programs to help develop students’ literacy and language skills.

One program in North Carolina is teaching students to be better communicators by letting them tell stories through paintings. A similar program in California has students narrate a story through photos they took with digital cameras at a local park.

These programs integrate a variety of skills with artistic expression. They not only foster learning, but get students excited about their education, a rarity in today’s accountability-conscious schools.

I didn’t get up in the morning and hop on the bus every day to study the Pythagorean theorem. But my desire to excel in my creative exploits made me a better, and more motivated student.

Stacey Hollenbeck, spring intern

If it’s “natural” it’s got to be better, right?

Across from the magazine offices, there’s a sprawling, high-end supermarket that’s convinced many of us nearby office workers of that fact. And, whether it’s true or not, I can definitely tell you this: If it’s natural, it’s got to be more expensive.

It’s one thing to waste your hard-earned money on natural pretzels and gluten-free cookies. (Bottom line: Not going to hurt you -- at least physically.) But what of the “natural” education we are foisting on our kids? That’s the question E.D. Hirsch asks in his new book, The Knowledge Deficit: Closing the Shocking Education Gap in American Children, a portion of which is excerpted in the spring issue of Policy Perspectives

Didn’t consider yourself a natural education lover? Well, if your schools are like most in America, you are, unwittingly or not. You see, Hirsch says our current approach to reading dates back to the early 19th century Romantics and their notion that academic learning should be as “natural” as learning to sit up or walk. This idea, coupled with an anti-intellectual bias against the accumulation of mere “facts,” has resulted in deadening reading classes where students are supposed to employ reading strategies -- “predicting, summarizing, questioning, clarifying”-- without being exposed to the requisite factual knowledge that would help them truly understand (and maybe, even, love to read).

I strongly agree with Hirsch’s analysis (or, at least, 98 percent of it). His ground-breaking book Cultural Literacy came out in 1987, in the midst of the culture wars, and was misinterpreted -- and, perhaps, appropriated by some conservatives -- to espouse an elitist education that reinforced America’s dominant, white male culture over the voices of minorities and the disenfranchised.

But I’m with Hirsch here. Better to gain a thorough grounding of one culture’s intellectual traditions -- even if it is the so-called hegemonic European one -- than to be offered a smorgasbord of disconnected texts from all over. (That’s not to say, of course, that students shouldn’t read book from other cultures as well.)

Hirsch, by the way, insists that he is not advocating an accumulation of disconnected facts. However, I believe his position has been sadly misinterpreted by some state education departments (in their fact-laden exams) and publishers (in their “mile-wide-and-inch-deep” science and history texts). Of course, Hirsch’s argument wasn’t helped by “The List” he included at the end of the book, which is sure fun to read but tends to reinforce that notion.

I saw the worst of both worlds a few years back when I was trying to tutor an eighth-grader in history. It was sad because he obviously didn’t have the comprehension skills to grasp a paragraph on the origins of World War II. And the text itself didn’t help, being hopelessly cluttered with facts like the 1939-41 Pan American mutual defense pact.

I’m not even sure my student knew who the Nazis were. And no amount of predicting, summarizing, questioning, or clarifying was going to help.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Literary characters familiar to high school students—like Huckleberry Finn, Holden Caulfield, and Anna Karenina—may have to make room for Cain and Abel.

Next year, some public school students in Texas will learn about the Bible and its history through a new statewide elective course.

The course itself, already a reality in dozens of Texas schools, is not a point of contention for concerned parents and education officials. Instead, they argue that the class’s curriculum could be too broad.

Although the bill that allowed for the elective course also called for a specific curriculum, the State Board of Education voted on Friday to apply standard English and social studies guidelines, says the Houston Chronicle.

This lack of regulation drew skepticism from those who feel Texas may be blurring the line between church and state.

The Houston Chronicle story on the subject has generated 125 comments since Friday, some of which advocate for an objective course that encompasses education about many different religions.

When it comes to the Bible, there’s a thin line between studying a text and endorsing a religion. And not crossing that line requires intense oversight.

Stacey Hollenbeck, spring intern

What a game! In the closing minutes of the NCAA Men’s Basketball finals, Stanford edged Davidson College while thousands cheered and….

Not the game you watched last night? Well, it might have been if you were rating the teams’ graduation rates, not their basketball prowess. The analysis of the 64 tournament teams was done by Education Sector and noted recently in a Washington Post opinion piece by Ted Mitchell and Jonathan Schorr, chief executive and partner, respectively, for NewSchools Venture Fund.

Every year we do something like this: We lament the dismal graduation rates of big-time college athletes (and African-American athletes, in particular) then sit back and shamelessly enjoy the game. That’s bad enough. But, as Mitchell and Schorr note in their column, it’s not just athletes who are having trouble graduating, and the problem doesn’t start in college.

According to a study by America’s Promise Alliance, just 53 percent of African-American students are even completing high school. Look the overall gradation rates in some urban school systems -- Cleveland, 34 percent; Detroit, 25 percent -- and the statistics are even more alarming.

We know that dropping out of school is a process, an accumulation of failures that begins long before a student decides to leave school. And while the problem may be most acute in the urban areas mentioned above, no district -- urban, rural, or suburban -- is exempt.

At NSBA’s 68th National Conference in Orlando last week, I facilitated a roundtable discussion about this very issue, how to help those whom ASBJ has called “Children at Risk.” We had representatives from large and small districts, from places like Broward County, Fla., Seattle Wash., Dubuque, Iowa, and Rochester, N.Y. In future blogs I’ll share their concerns and some of the solutions we discussed to perhaps the biggest problem facing education today.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Linda Ríos es muy amigable. Sonríe todo el tiempo. Es alta y bonita.

So who is this Linda, you ask?

Linda, a 16-year-old student in San Antonio, Texas, is the main character in El sueño de Linda, a book written by Tiffany Haney for first-year learners of Spanish. The book is published by Teacher’s Discovery.

And I’m trying to read the darned thing.

I’m not sure how much Spanish I’m learning with this exercise. But I am discovering just how hard it is to master another language.

I’m also gaining a greater appreciation for the immense challenges facing millions of English language learners (ELLs) struggling in our nation’s schools.

These are challenges that school boards ignore at our nation’s peril. In 2000, there were 2 million ELL students; today, there are 5 million. By 2025, one in four students will come from homes where English is not the primary language.

How well will our schools be prepared to educate them? That’s hard to say. Today, the nation’s public schools are doing great things in teaching these students English and raising their academic performance. Yet, the challenges are huge, so the achievement gap of these students remains disturbing—as does their dropout rate.

I wish I had some brilliant advice to give the nation’s school boards. I know they must deal with limited resources, shortages of bilingual teachers, and a host of mandates that also demand their attention.

But I also know that schools are struggling today to serve ELL students—and that doesn’t bode well for their ability to handle greater numbers in the years ahead.

Yet, they must. If America’s schools fall short, our nation will have a growing population that’s linguistically, culturally, and politically isolated. And that’s not a healthy situation for a robust democracy.

So all I can do is offer a reminder that the issue needs your attention. School boards need to look harder at the needs of ELL students. And state and federal lawmakers need to pony up the resources to help local schools meet these needs.

In short, using my modest understanding of Spanish: El futuro está viniendo.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

The light bulb went on for me about 10 years ago, when I was tutoring a middle school student in Northern Virginia.

It wasn’t a great experience. The program wasn’t well run. I had little contact with the classroom teachers. The student was uncommunicative (even by middle school standards) and at times seemed downright hostile. For all I knew, he hated school.

Oh, and did I mention? He couldn’t read.

It’s true, he could mouth the words of his American history text, and he could sort of “read” the sentences. But there was barely a spark of comprehension. It was then that I realized that there is an alarming adolescent reading crisis in this country.

If that sounds overwrought, consider this boy’s future: My tutoring did absolutely no good; what he needed -- if he was to ever learn to read well enough to “read to learn” -- was intensive remediation, and even that might not be enough..

One state that is facing up to this crisis is Alabama, which launched a state reading initiative in the late 1990s. While focused originally on early elementary school, the program is now expanding into middle schools, said Sherrill W. Parris, the assistant state superintendent for reading, who spoke at a Washington D.C. forum last week.

Fourteen schools throughout the state -- “the Fabulous Fourteen” -- were chosen to pilot the adolescent program. To be accepted, the school’s principal had to promise to attend training sessions, and at least 85 percent of the faculty had to commit to ongoing, “job-embedded” professional development. Each school has a literacy coach and a leadership team that meets frequently to assess the program’s success.

Alabama has made remarkable gains in elementary reading, but no measurable progress at eighth grade -- so far. Parris hopes the fledgling adolescent reading program will change that; and it looks, to me at least, like her state is on the right track.

Click here to read more about Alabama’s reading program. And here is the Reading Next report upon which much of that program is derived from.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

I’m a hypocrite.

I recently read that students who pass next year’s Advanced Placement tests at Wilby High School in Waterbury, Conn., will be getting $100 rewards. And I was offended by the idea.

You know the arguments against such payments. Students need to value learning for its own sake. Learning is an investment in the future of students, and they darned well ought to recognize that.

So, why do I say I’m a hypocrite? Because Wilby High has inspired me. Now I’m thinking of paying my son to read a history book.

I hate to do it. I’m a big history buff and a lover of books of all kinds. I think a kid should read a book simply because it’s within arm’s reach.

But my son doesn’t agree. Foolishly, I overlooked the insidious effect of television and video games on my child’s early development. Today, he is yet another sad statistic: a teenager whose life revolves around the plasma TV, PlayStation 3, MySpace, and his iPod.

For him, a book is something you read when forced to by adults.

I have failed him.

They say desperate times require desperate measures. So I have been plotting. My son is receiving a quite solid background in history and civics in the public schools of Fairfax County, Va., so I know he has a brain. Sometimes he even uses it.

So, not long ago, I introduced him to the HBO television miniseries “Band of Brothers,” which focuses on the story of a group of soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II.

Some battle scenes were not exactly appropriate for a 14-year-old. But I overlooked this inconvenience in the hopes that the true-to-life story would catch his imagination. And it did.

Now I intend to offer a bribe. The miniseries was based on the acclaimed book by historian Stephen Ambrose, and my son will get a payout if he reads it.

This could get costly. I’m not sure what my son will consider the market rate for reading a history book. I do know he’ll count the pages, judge his pain threshold, and check the Apple website to determine the price of upgrading his iPod.

But, as long as I don’t need to mortgage the house, I think I’ll pay his price. I know he’ll love the book. And, while he’s not a reader today, perhaps the experience will spark a greater appreciation of the entertainment (and educational) value of books. (I can dream, can’t I?)

And perhaps I can compensate somewhat for failing to observe that, as a child, my son’s brain was turning to mush in front of the TV.

I wonder if someone offers a grant for this kind of project? At Wilby High, the cash rewards for students are being paid out of money awarded by the National Math and Science Initiative.

It’s still a shameful thing that Wilby High is doing. But now I understand a little better. Educators want so much for their kids. And so does every parent.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

I ran a roundtable session for National Affiliate members at NSBA's annual conference in Orlando at the end of March. One new board member who attended had a story that will sound familiar to many of you.

He was having a problem with another board member. Whenever this member wanted to stonewall an idea, she asked, "is it best practice?"

The gentleman at my session asked, half-jokingly, if a "best practices" manual existed somewhere.

We at ASBJ hope that our Magna Awards program can serve as a starting point toward finding those best practices. For 14 years, we have been recognizing excellence in board and district programs on nearly any topic you can come up with.

Want to know how a district is dealing with dropouts? Magna has it. Want to find out how to engage Spanish-speaking parents with the schools? Magna has it.

Each year, we ask an independent panel of judges to evaluate the 300 or so entries we receive each year and find the standout programs. The entries are in three enrollment categories: under 5,000, 5,000 to 20,000, and over 20,000. This way, districts are competing against other districts of the same size.

We honored the 2008 Magna Award winners at the School Leaders' Luncheon at NSBA's annual conference in Orlando. The three grand prize winners took home checks of $3,500 each; all of the winners are featured in a supplement to ASBJ that ran in April.

Look online at the 2008 winners; then browse through the past winners. You'll find the contact names and e-mails of the district contacts so you can get more details about their wining programs.

While you're on the site, consider applying for a 2009 Magna Award, so you can add your programs to our growing "best practices" list.

Kathleen Vail, Managing Editor

I learned the phrase “24-seven” from a gifted African American student in Prince Georges County, Md. It was 10 years ago, and I was there to do a story on the restructuring of Benjamin Stoddert Middle School, an underperforming school in one of the nation’s largest majority-black counties.

I wonder where he is now, especially after reading a disturbing -- but not altogether surprising -- article in Education Week saying research shows that the greatest widening of the black-white achievement gap occurs not among the general population, but among higher-performing students as they move from elementary school into middle and high school.

In truth, I can’t tell you for sure that he was gifted, just that he was obviously very, very bright. Yet the sad truth was that students like him in Stoddert’s gifted and talented classes would be merely performing on grade level if they moved across the Potomac River to the more affluent areas of Arlington or Fairfax County. That’s what happens, researchers note in the article, if the general population is doing poorly: Teachers tend to teach to the middle, and the middle at Stoddert, located near the distressed neighborhoods that border Washington, D.C., was lower.

After several years of being taught at a level lower than students at more affluent schools, it’s no wonder that the achievement gap tends to widen most noticeably at the top.

There are other possible reasons for this trend. Just as there can be disadvantages in attending a majority black school, some African Americans may feel out of place in an overwhelmingly white one -- and determined not to “act white” and do their best. Out-of-school disparities among families can exacerbate the achievement gap as well: think of the academic advantages provided by computer camps, piano lessons, and private tutoring.

Finally, add the influence of NCLB and its single-minded focus on raising the achievement of students who test below state standards. It’s a worthy goal, of course, but there are fewer of these students in the more affluent schools, and that encourages the teachers in these schools to adopt a more enriching curriculum across the board.

The high-end achievement gap is a serious challenge for board members, teachers, and administrators. But it’s not insurmountable. And educators, who tend to be optimists by nature, know that. The more we learn about the reasons for the achievement gap, the more effectively we can begin to reduce it and move toward a public education system that offers all students the chance to reach their potential. Education is not the only tool in the struggle for equal opportunity and social justice, but it is indispensible.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

A principal at a low-performing school in Sacramento, Calif., changed the racial designation of four of his students—students who were classified as black but whose parents had actually marked “mixed race” or no race on their enrollment forms. By doing so, the principal avoided having his school dinged by No Child Left Behind sanctions because there were not enough students in the low-performing “black” category to count.

Obviously, this principal was gaming the system (apparently with the permission of the parents who were responsible for reporting their child’s race). But his actions raise a lot of questions about the use of race in school data and whether we should rely on strict categorizations or even use race as a factor when overwhelming evidence shows family income level and early childhood development has more bearing on a student’s success.

NCLB was designed in large part to expose the discrepancies between the academic performance of white and Asian students and their black and Hispanic peers. And it has done so. At the same time, we are seeing increasing numbers of mixed-race students enter our schools with no universal guidelines on how to categorize them.

A Sacramento Bee analysis showed the impact a few tweaks can make when using data to analyze a school’s performance. Two years of test data for some 6,000 California schools showed that 80 of thos