Friday Blog Round Up

This week's best blog entries, in no specific order:

Mary Ann Zehr on Presidential Candidates and Bilingual Education (quoting Hispanic Link).

Tech in the Class on The Importance of Technology Education. A comprehensive look at California's CTE programs and how they can be improved and expanded.

The Quick and the Ed on Same Sex Education and its impact on minority kids.

The TFA Trenches on Nationwide Assessment.

Career and Technical Education (Part II)

A continuation of yesterday's "Wednesday Issue:"

When discussing CTE, we must weigh the good with the bad. For all of these benefits of these programs, I still have my questions and reservations about CTE. Primarily, I take issue with the way that CTE has been operated in the past – as a tracking system that diverts minority kids from college prep programs. With CTE, low expectations are a very dangerous temptation. (“Oh, Miguel isn’t doing well in his academic classes, but it doesn’t matter - he doesn’t need US History to be a mechanic.”) Therefore, when designing CTE programs – particularly CTE programs that will cater to minority students – there must be equal emphasis on academic instruction and career training. We must ensure that these programs are preparing our children for all of the opportunities that they will face after graduation – in both the workforce and the academic world.

My other reservations about CTE are more philosophical. While well-balanced CTE programs surely have the potential to produce students who are both technically skilled and intellectually creative, I often wonder if a focus on “marketable skills” reduces students to robot workers. Intellectual curiosity and creativity must not be sacrificed in the name of career preparation – especially since they are essential to so many careers. Having a wide exposure to different subjects and disciplines is as important as having specialized training and CTE programs must be carefully designed to include both.

Interrupting the flow..

I will return to CTE later today, but before that, I wanted to put this out there:

The Pew Hispanic Center has released a report on English Usage Amongst Hispanics in the US, which can be found here.

According to the study 88% of US-born adult Latinos say that they speak and read English very well. In contrast, only 23% of foreign-born Latinos say that they speak English very well.

The study is somewhat imperfect - as its asks for mere opinion and doesn't actually measure the participants' English fluency - but it is sure to be important data for the bilingual education community.

Wednesday Issue: Career and Technical Education (Part I)

When we talk about educational options, oftentimes, traditional models come to mind: charter schools, homeschooling, private schools, etc. One educational option frequently ignored, however, is career and technical education (CTE), formerly referred to as vocational/technical education. Considering the needs and values of the Latino community, CTE proves to be a very important educational option for Hispanics. Today’s analysis will take a very quick look at the positive opportunities that CTE offers to the Latino community. Tomorrow, we’ll take a more critical look at these programs and consider their flaws.

Before any real analysis can begin, however, one must understand the full breadth of the term “Career and Technical Education.” CTE is no longer just the auto mechanics class that meets in the back of the school; numerous pedagogical and institutional models fall under the category of CTE. One example is dual enrollment programs, where high school students attend college classes (and receive credit for them) while pursuing their high school diplomas. Another example is Tech Prep programs, which generally begin in the ninth grade and provide students with technical training to pursue a career in engineering, mechanics, agriculture, or a number of other fields. Students often graduate these programs with an Associate’s degree or a professional certificate in their field. Many other models exist for CTE, but all share one main purpose: prepare students to pursue higher education and a specific career field.

Although each CTE model is unique (and thus, has its own positive and negative quirks), CTE programs benefit Latino students in similar ways. Firstly, most of these programs allow students to receive college credit for the classes that they are taking. While this is an obvious “plus” for any child, it is especially helpful for Latinos whose families may struggle financially and are unable to pay college tuition. Research from the organization Excelencia in Education reveals that Latino students are much more likely than other undergraduates to be from a low-income family. Earning college credits in a CTE program can allow Latino students to “speed up” their university careers, reducing their financial obligations and making it more likely that they will graduate from college.

In addition to helping Latinos get an educational and financial “head start” on college, many of these programs equip students with marketable skills that can help them during their undergraduate careers and beyond. For example, many programs train students to work as auto mechanics. Being able to work as an auto mechanic during an undergraduate career is surely a much lucrative option than say, working at McDonald's (or the school's dining hall, like I did).

Thirdly, while I would love to see every Latino child in America (in fact, every child in America) graduate from college with a 4-year degree, that is not the wish or destiny of every student. Some students cannot or do not want to attain a bachelor’s; for these, CTE provides major opportunities. According to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis, the average full-time worker with an Associate’s degree will earn $1.6 million over the course of his/her working life. In contrast, the average full-time worker with only a high school diploma earns a mere $1.2 million. That’s some difference. By providing students with an easy opportunity to attain an Associate’s degree or professional certificate (which also has extra earning power), CTE programs ensure a better future for that student – a future which holds not only increased earning power, but also increased employment options.

Finally, I must examine CTE from a former teacher’s perspective. Another reason why I support CTE is that students actually like it. The practical approach of these programs provides concrete goals for students to work towards and keeps them invested in their education. When I was teaching in DC, our high school had an extremely popular culinary program. This program funneled students into post-secondary culinary schools, but aside from giving them that opportunity, it kept them interested in their high school work. Needless to say, that is no small feat. Being able to engage students who have been historically alienated by our school system is one major benefit of CTE programs and, in my opinion, all the more reason to support them.

Of course, CTE programs are not perfect. Although they offer many excellent opportunities to Latino students, there are also aspects of CTE which must be criticized. Tune in tomorrow to hear more about the challenges of CTE programs.

Vouchers versus CTC Scholarships, Part II

Today's goal is two-fold:

1.) Point out some of the philosophical differences between vouchers and CTC scholarships.

2.) Discuss how these philosophical differences could affect the CTC push in Utah.

Numero uno:

School choice opponents are often quick to label tax credit scholarships as "vouchers," however, in reality, the two models operate quite differently - and have different philosophical underpinnings.

Vouchers come from public tax dollars - essentially, as money "returned" to the citizen for his/her own use. Voucher systems function on the belief that individuals have the right to control how their tax dollars are used for their children's education. Generally, voucher programs are proposed as "universal" and available to all residents of a particular state. This fits with their underlying philosophy - after all, if one family has the right to decide how its tax dollars are used, all other families should have the same.

On the contrary, corporate tax credit scholarships are created by the donations of various corporations. The donating corporation is the one who receives the tax credit; the student is the individual who receives a scholarship for private school. Rather than emphasize taxpayers' rights, CTC programs emphasize a philosophy of responsible business. They are also generally targeted to a specific audience - low-income families, for example. This results in a feel-good situation for both businesses and the general public. By participating in a CTC program, businesses enjoy a tax break and the squishy "I made a difference" feeling while families receive the money they need and the comforting thought that Big Business cares.

Numero dos:

The difference between "taxpayers' rights" and a focus on philanthropy cannot be understated for the Utah case. Utah's legislators would be seriously remiss to assume that their constituents who favored vouchers will also support a CTC scholarship program. My guess, based on what happened earlier this month, is that Utah's citizens will not be particularly enthusiastic about CTC scholarships.

To back this up, I must again refer to the Salt Lake Tribune poll, which found that only 6% of Utah voucher supporters favored the program because it would "help the poor." For most voucher supporters, "parental choice" was the driving factor in their approval. However, if a CTC program is initiated, it is likely to be restricted to low-income families. Thus, it will focus exclusively on helping the poor.

It's a recipe for resistance. While voters may not decide the future of this program, they'll have plenty to say to their legislators, who will be listening.

Additional Notes:

One of the most common misconceptions and fears about the Utah voucher program was that it would "take money away from public schools." Since the CTC program clearly has nothing to do with public funds, Utahns may be much more supportive of it despite the fact that it conflicts with some of their original reasons for supporting vouchers.

I will also be watching to see how the idea of competition figures into this debate - will the proposed CTC program actually provide enough scholarships and influence to change the public system itself? We shall see...

Tomorrow Wednesday Issue is Career and Technical Education, so stay tuned for some good information and hopefully, lively discussion!

"I'm Not Dead Yet!" : Utah Voucher Update

Okay, the Monty Python reference was cheap, but I decided to go for it anyway...as it appears, the Utah vouchers are NOT dead yet.

Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that the Utah legislature is considering starting a Corporate Tax Credit (CTC) scholarship program following the defeat of voucher legislation that would have created a universal voucher program in the state.

We have seen this happen before in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Minnesota. At one point, these states all had voucher legislation on the table, but when the legislation was defeated, the states came back with CTC scholarship programs. And they won.

So what are the chances that this program will pass? When asking yourself that important question, here are some facts to consider:

1.) This campaign will be different. First of all, let's remember that the original voucher legislation passed in the House and Senate and was signed into law by the governor. Then, and only then, was it defeated in a voter referendum. The proposed CTC scholarship program will likely never go to a voter referendum, so instead of convincing everyday citizens, the school choice movement will have to focus their efforts on people in power.

2.) The November 6th vote will have a major effect. School choice suffered a major defeat in the voter referendum - a defeat which could alter the outcome of this (possible) legislation in two ways. On the one hand, the voucher defeat could motivate Utahn legislators who support school choice to re-commit themselves to the cause and ensure that the CTC program is passed and protected.. On the other hand, a 60/40 vote against the voucher program is difficult for legislators to ignore. Well, it's difficult for legislators who want to please their constituents to ignore. Granted, the CTC program is not a voucher program, but polls show that the general public is not very well informed on school choice programs; therefore, the nuances of vouchers vs. CTC just might be too much for them.

3.) The NEA still has lobbyists. Tying in to the fact that the general public is uninformed about school choice programs, we must expect that the NEA will vilify the CTC program as an underhanded way to get vouchers into Utah. Not that I'm trying to give them any ideas; I'm sure they're already thinking that. So the school choice side must be prepared with a strong strategy to educate our legislators about the benefits of the CTC program and how it differs from vouchers.

I'm sure I missed a few points there, so please chime in.

Tomorrow I'll take a deeper look at the history of CTC scholarship program legislation in Arizona, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania to explain how Utah can move forward. I'll also ask the more philosophical question: Should CTC scholarships be accepted as a "consolation prize" after the defeat of a voucher program?

Wednesday Issue: Guestblogger Dan Lips on NCLB

Guestblogger Dan Lips, an Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, takes the reins today to share his views on NCLB and its effects on Hispanic children*:

Here’s a fact you probably won’t see in your local newspaper: Half of all Hispanic children in public schools in this country can not read or write the English language. Will Congress and the American people wake up to this grim reality before Congress makes a big mistake in its new version of No Child Left Behind?

The 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals the depth of the crisis in education for Hispanic children. It reports that 50 percent of Hispanic fourth grade students scored “below basic” in reading. Given that statistic, it is no surprise that only 59 percent of Hispanic girls and 48 percent of Hispanic boys end up graduating from high school.

Yet parents shouldn’t look to Congress for an immediate solution. True, Congress is about to decide whether and how to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, which was originally intended to address the problem of low expectations facing many minority students. The law was designed to hold schools accountable for results through annual testing and by giving students trapped in low-performing schools the opportunity to transfer into higher performing schools.

But after five years, NCLB hasn’t solved the problems in American education. Evidence suggests that federal high-stakes testing has led some states to change how their tests are graded, making it difficult for parents to understand whether their children are making progress. Some states have simply lowered standards to make their test easier to pass.

Early discussions on Capitol Hill suggest that NCLB will become worse, not better, if Congress moves forward with reauthorization. Some of the changes that are being considered would put Hispanic children further behind in the classroom. In particular, draft legislation released by Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D–CA) would change current testing policies to give states more leeway in how English language learners are tested. Specifically, the new proposal would reform existing law to allow states to use more subjective portfolio assessments and native language tests for five or more years to measure whether children are learning.

This change would force public schools across the country to make a tough decision: tackle the challenge of teaching Spanish-speaking children English so they can pass regular exams or take the easier path of using native-language tests and portfolio assessments. Because NCLB would continue to pressure schools with high-stakes state tests, federal law would provide an incentive for states to choose the easier path. The result: Fewer Hispanic children would learn the critical skills of reading, writing, and speaking English at an early age.

If Congress doesn’t have the answer, what can be done to address the crisis facing Hispanic children in the classroom? Fortunately, there is a promising solution.

A growing number of states and communities are enacting school choice policies that let parents use their children’s share of public education funding to choose the best school for their child. This gives parents the power to ensure that their children receive a quality education. If a child isn’t thriving in his or her current classroom, parents can pick a new school where the child will receive a better education. Giving parents choices puts pressure on schools to succeed.

And giving parents more control in education is a popular idea. For example, a recent poll conducted by Harvard University researchers found that school choice reforms are popular among Hispanics. Sixty percent of Hispanics support providing school vouchers to disadvantaged students, and 54 percent support giving all children scholarships to transfer out of failing schools.

For far too long, parents have been waiting for government and politicians to fix our schools. Instead, government and politicians should give parents a chance by letting them choose the best school for their children.

From the Daily Grito: I agree with Dan that NCLB is an imperfect law, but I don't necessarily believe that NCLB and school choice are mutually exclusive reform strategies. Although parents should have more educational options (and children have the chance to attend better schools NOW, not ten years from now), I also see the accountability of NCLB as a positive measure to improve public schools. Certainly, NCLB can be improved, but I don't think that it should be abandoned. In an ideal world, America's public schools would be so phenomenal that they would satisfy every child's learning needs. But since they aren't there yet, let's work on improving them while we give children other options and a fighting chance.

* Please note that this has also been published in the Heritage Foundation's Education Notebook.