Operation Public Education believes that the standards movement cannot succeed without adequate and equitable school funding. If we expect children to achieve at high levels, then we must fund all of our schools for success.
But precisely why does money matter? One way of answering this question is to look at the "building blocks" of a quality education. Decades of school reform and extensive research have taught this nation a great deal about what works in helping children learn. As a result, we can list several of the education components to which all students should have access.
| What: | A quality teacher in every classroom |
| Why: | The single most important factor in student achievement is quality teaching. This is something we all know from our own experience. Landmark research on teacher quality comes from statistician William Sanders, who pioneered a technique called value-added assessment. Value-added is a way of looking at student gains - that is, the amount that a child learns from one year to the next. According to Sanders' data, teacher effectiveness is overwhelmingly stronger than any other variable in predicting "value-added." It predicts better than how much money a child's family earns, better than the education level the parents achieved, even better than some of the other strategies we discuss here. |
| How: | Teachers who have a degree in the subject they teach |
| Evidence: | A recent study examined the teacher qualifications that are related to higher student achievement. This investigation concluded that teachers who are fully certified and who have a degree in the subject they teach are the most effective in the classroom. |
| Where we stand: | In Pennsylvania, 16 percent of high school teachers do not have a degree in the field that they teach. That number increases to 22 percent for high-poverty schools and 26 percent for high-minority schools. Many poorer districts are not able to afford teachers with these qualifications; as a result, they are forced to hire less effective instructors. |
| How: | Induction and mentoring for new teachers |
| Evidence: | In Rochester, N.Y., new teachers are regularly paired with a lead teacher during their first year in the classroom. To measure the impact of this program, administrators looked at three groups: new teachers who had mentors, teachers who had experience in other districts but were teaching in Rochester for the first time and did not have mentors, and experienced Rochester teachers. The district found that the new teachers who were paired with mentors were the most effective in boosting student achievement. |
| Where we stand: | Pennsylvania mandates an induction period for novice teachers, but does not fund the more expensive mentoring programs that have proven results. |
| How: | Rigorous, continuous training for all of our educators |
| Evidence: | Ongoing professional development for administrators and teachers is a crucial ingredient in helping all children learn. What we demand of teachers and administrators often exceeds what they learned in college - even more so than in most professions. As a result, it is imperative that educators continue to gain new skills and strategies throughout their professional careers. District 2 in New York City has turned this idea into a way of life. Through a system-wide focus on teaching and learning, that diverse school system has been able to vastly improve student achievement - and sustain the gains. And by doing so, District 2 became a magnet for quality teachers. This, too, makes sense: We know that in the private sector one of the most sought-after benefits of employees is professional growth opportunities. |
| Where we stand: | It is estimated that Pennsylvania's school districts spend between 1 and 3 percent of their budgets on professional development. Experts believe that school systems must invest 10 percent of their total funds in training. |
| How: | Incentives for excellence |
| Evidence: | There are many types of incentives - including those that are earned by individuals, by small groups, and by entire school faculties. Some districts across the country provide bonuses for advanced teachers who take on leadership responsibilities or agree to teach in high-need schools. In addition, incentives can be based on evaluation systems and on advanced credentials. The foremost example of the latter is certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. To earn National Board certification, teachers must undergo approximately 200 hours of preparation, take several tests, and submit portfolios of their own and their students' work. One district - Coventry Public Schools in Rhode Island - found that teachers who have earned National Board certification achieve far greater gains in their students' test scores than do their non-certified peers. |
| Where we stand: | Unlike several other states, Pennsylvania does not encourage teachers to apply for certification by paying their registration fees or providing incentives for National Board teachers. As a result, Pennsylvania has only 29 Board-certified teachers. North Carolina, which provides a 12 percent salary bonus to teachers who have earned NBPTS certification, boasts 2,409 Board-certified teachers. |
What: |
Early childhood education |
|
| Why: | Quality pre-school helps young children enter elementary school ready to learn - especially for students from low-income families. It teaches the fundamental basic skills of literacy and mathematics that are critical for success in the early grades. |
| Evidence: | One study found that when children from poor families attend quality pre-school, their high school graduation rate is 10 percentage points higher than their peers who do not have access to early childhood education. They are also arrested for violent crimes at a significantly lower rate and are 29 percent more likely to complete college. The nationally recognized RAND Corporation concluded that early childhood education produces gains in emotional and cognitive development and ultimately leads to "increased economic self-sufficiency" for the parent and child. |
| Where we stand: | Pennsylvania is one of only nine states that do not provide funding for pre-school. |
What: |
Full-day kindergarten |
|
| Why: | Full-day kindergarten helps children develop as learners and has positive effects that are long-lasting. In addition, children in school for a longer day are able to engage in extended activities without interruption. |
| Evidence: | One study found that "when compared to half-day kindergarteners, full-day kindergarteners exhibited more independent learning, classroom involvement, productivity in work with peers and reflectiveness." Research indicates that full-day kindergarten is most beneficial for at-risk children, and that its effects are still measurable years later. One investigation looked at 1,000 second-graders. Its authors found that children who had been in full-day kindergarten instead of half-day kindergarten performed significantly better in both reading and mathematics. |
| Where we stand: | Fewer than 17 percent of Pennsylvania's public schools offer full-day kindergarten. |
What: |
Small class size in kindergarten through third grade |
|
| Why: | By keeping classes limited in size during the early years, teachers are able to provide more personal attention to students during a crucial developmental period - when it is most important, for example, that they learn to read. One teacher simply cannot teach to the unique learning levels and styles of 30 seven-year-olds. In a class of fewer children, though, it is possible to identify the abilities and needs of each student as an individual learner. Teachers have more opportunities to work one-on-one with the children and to carefully analyze their work. |
| Evidence: | In the classic study on reduced class size, the STARS project in Tennessee randomly assigned students to one of three groups: teachers with small classes of 13 to 17 students, teachers with 22 to 26 students, or similarly large classes with a teacher and an aide. The data demonstrated that the children in the reduced-size classrooms performed at significantly higher levels than their peers. At the end of elementary school, they were still out-performing the other students. And a recent study reports that even in high school, those children who had been in smaller classes in the early grades continue to do better than the other students. |
| Where we stand: | Nearly one in 10 classrooms in Pennsylvania had 30 or more students during the 1999-2000 school year. In this state's elementary schools, roughly one in eight classrooms has at least 30 students. |
What: |
Up-to-date instructional materials and technologies |
|
| Why: | In our rapidly changing world, we expect our children not only to understand and know how to use technology but also to be lifelong learners - able to employ what they know to figure out what they don't. Can you imagine using decades-old science books in this information age? Or not having enough money to develop a curriculum that matches the high standards that we have set for all of our children? These are the sad circumstances in too many of our schools. And if districts cannot afford books and curriculum, they certainly are not able to purchase the latest technologies. |
| Evidence: | A lack of technology deprives children of innovative ways to learn in all subjects. As evidence, students perform worse on the math section of the National Assessment of Educational Progress - "the nation's report card" - when they do not have access to computers as part of regular classroom instruction. |
| Where we stand: | There are no statewide data on instructional materials, but anecdotal evidence reveals that many poorer districts are using textbooks that are significantly older than modern curriculum demands. And the facts reveal that the "digital divide" is a serious problem throughout the state. The state average is seven students to each computer, but even this is not the case in many schools. While some districts are able to provide one computer for every three students, others can only afford one computer per 20 students. |
What: |
Extra time for learning |
|
| Why: | The heart of the standards movement is that all children can achieve at high levels. But it will take enormous changes in how our schools operate in order to get there. For their entire history, America's public schools held time constant - six or so hours a day, 180 days a year, for 12 years - and let student achievement vary. Now we have to turn that system on its head. The goal of the standards movement is for all children to succeed. We must therefore hold the standards constant and instead vary the amount of time and the level of resources it takes to get there. For many students - in well-off as well as disadvantaged communities - that means providing extra time for instruction. To do this, schools can provide after-school tutoring, Saturday classes or summer instruction, and they can use a larger portion of the school day for "basics" like reading and math for struggling students. |
| Evidence: | In Boston, the school district early-on identified students who needed extra help. They then implemented many of the extra-time strategies listed above for these children over a 15-month period. When all of the district's students were subsequently tested in reading and math, the "struggling" students who received the extra help passed at the same rate as their peers who had been doing fine all along. |
| Where we stand: | Many Pennsylvania districts offer some form of tutors or after-school help, and the state has a new grant to provide limited support, but there is no comprehensive strategy for ensuring that all children achieve at or above the standard. Thus, while a full 50 percent of the Commonwealth's students scored below "proficient" on the statewide assessment this year, Pennsylvania lacks a plan for providing support so that students improve. |
What: |
Adequate facilities |
|
| Why: | Adequate facilities are a basic prerequisite for educational success. We cannot expect students to learn, or administrators and teachers to do their jobs, until we can guarantee four solid walls, a roof that does not leak, and a decent floor. |
| Evidence: | There are no statistics on the impact of inadequate facilities, just our common sense. In our own jobs, we know that if it is far too hot or far too cold we are unable to perform at our best. Fortunately, few of us have experience with the other characteristics of shoddy facilities - such as continuous leaks, a lack of even a basic library, lead in the water and paint, insufficient space, and decrepit surroundings. |
| Where we stand: | A 1996 report by the U.S. Congress's General Accounting Office found that 21 percent of Pennsylvania school districts had at least one "inadequate building." Reports from the schools indicated that a full 70 percent of facilities needed upgrades or repairs in order to be in "good condition." |
| | |
