Research
The following are three research projects that I have completed for my Educational Leadership degree. The first is a research project based on the improvement of literacy in a local high school. The second is a project that is based on school finance. The third project is based on a school law case.
Literacy Case Description
Context
Town High School (THS) is a fictitious name for an actual southeastern Connecticut suburban school with a total population of 958 students with 19.4% total minority (80.6% White, 8% Hispanic, 5.4% Asian American, and 4.8% Black). Nine point nine percent of students receive free/reduced-price meals, 1.1% are not fluent in English, 7.4% are identified as gifted and/or talented, and 10% are students with disabilities. THS employs 76.33 teachers, 13.62 paraprofessionals, 3 administrators, and 5.8 counselors, social workers and school psychologists. During the 2010-2011 school year, THS scored above the state in all subject areas on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). THS has a 96% graduation rate with 83.2% of graduates pursuing higher education and 9.1% employed, a civilian or in the military.
Issue/Dilemmas
The most pressing issue that Town High School faces is in the area of literacy. There are two student groups that have achievement problems in this area. There is an achievement gap in reading scores between boys and girls, where the boys scored significantly lower on the reading section of the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). The "overall" reading scores indicate a significant gap between the achievement of boys and girls. The percentage of students at or above goal shows girls scoring at 83.3% while boys significantly lag behind with 57.5% at or above goal.
The second issue impacting literacy is among the student sub-group that receives free/reduced lunch. Students that receive free/reduced lunch scored at 51.1% in writing and ranked 11th out of 19 schools in their District Reference Group (DRG). Students at THS that do not receive free/reduced lunch scored at 86.1% in writing and ranked 4th out of 19 in their DRG.
Attempted Solutions
According to the Town School Improvement Plan 2011-2013, the school is committed to improving student performance in the area of literacy by improving literacy instruction. Solutions to improving literacy include having the teachers implement literacy instructional practices into daily instruction, analyze student performance data with literacy tasks and adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers were also asked to make commitments to instruct particular literacy strategies to all students while embedding 21st century literacy skills into learning tasks (pg. 3).
In addition to the above solutions, action plans put in place to raise literacy achievement included:
Literature Review
Based on the significant issues of this case, it is the writer's intention to shed light on these issues by communicating to the reader various reviews of literature. There has been significant research done in the areas of literacy pertaining to the achievement gap in reading between boys and girls. There has also been significant research done on the achievement of lower socioeconomic students. This achievement gap research is found mostly with a generalization of the achievement of lower socioeconomic students.
Boys Reading
The reading gap of boys in the United States is an issue in every state. A report by the independent Center on Education Policy (CEP), which outlined results on state accountability tests, noted that the percentage of boys scoring "proficient" or higher in reading was below that of girls at all grade levels tested and in every state for which sufficient data were available. Results for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed similar patterns. Boys in all 50 states and the District of Columbia reached each of the three NAEP reading achievement levels (Basic, proficient, and advanced) at lower rates than girls with only two exceptions - and in those cases, boys and girls were essentially tied (Sadowski pg. 1).
In addition to there being a national issue regarding the reading achievement of boys, it also seems to be an international issue as well. In the United Kingdom, the All-Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Commission's report compiled by the National Literacy Trust reveals research that found that:
The Commission also found that within schools, what texts are read, and how reading is taught and assessed can impact on boys' achievement (pg. 1).
It is a universal understanding that reading skills are an important tool that pupils need to become academically successful (Merisuo-Storm pg. 111). In the USA, boys are significantly less successful in school and score significantly lower on standardized measures of reading achievement (Bronzo 2002). In PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment, of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]), Finnish children and teenagers showed significantly higher mean achievement in reading literacy than their peers in any other country, however, girls scored better than boys in all OECD countries including Finland (Merisuo-Storm pg. 112)
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
Literacy, in general, is a significant issue in the United States. At Town High School, and across the US, students of lower socioeconomic background have difficulty in this area. Richard Rothstein (2008) contends that students of socioeconomic disadvantage have lower average achievement than more fortunate students. He also states that poor children are, in general, not read to aloud as often or exposed to complex language and large vocabularies. He also states that such children are at a disadvantage because they more often come from single-parent families and so get less adult attention, therefore have fewer cross-country trips, visits to museums and zoos, music or dance lessons, and organized sports leagues to develop their ambition, cultural awareness, and self-confidence.
According to Karen Chenoweth (2008), she contends that it is true that, in general, high-poverty and high-minority schools are low achieving. She explained that earlier in that year, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina said, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I will show you the worst test scores.” Chenoweth believes that, although this is a problem across the United States, schools with disadvantaged students can succeed and closing the achievement gap. As expected, not only do disadvantaged students have difficult with literacy, they have difficulty in all of their schooling.
Santiago, Ferrara, and Blank contend that students of lower socioeconomics enter school with problems that affect their readiness to learn (April 2008). They also believe that their families struggle to afford adequate housing, child care, nutrition, and health care. These students may also face stresses such as legal status, acculturation, language barriers, frequent moves, disrupted schooling, and separation from family. It is no question that this will have an impact on their education.
According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, it is important that the school leader possess a current, research- and experience-based understanding of learning theory and human motivation, and uses this understanding to promote the continuous improvement of student learning. It is essential that the leader knows that there has been much research done on the achievement of boys as it pertains to reading and of lower socioeconomic students and how it pertains to literacy in general. From this research literature, the leader must work with the school staff to improve the quality of school programs by reviewing the current practices on student learning, considering promising alternatives, and implementing program changes that are designed to improve learning for all students.
Analysis
Boys Reading
At Town High School, boys have fallen behind the girls as it pertains to higher achieving reading skills. This also has a significant effect when it comes to reading in other disciplines. Sadowski (2010) argues that many boys’ literacy deficits put them at a disadvantage not just in English language arts but across the curriculum. He points out that many state math tests contain nothing but word problems, as do the SAT and ACT college admission tests. Many boys can’t wade through the puzzling words and sentences to get to the actual math calculation (pg. 1). Sadowski also agrees that there is an “ideological stalemate” that has dominated the research and reporting on boys’ academic struggles for years. On one side, he states, are “educators, researchers, and reporters who use data about gender gaps and brain research argue for single-sex education and widespread changes to school practices and curricula to make them more ‘boy-friendly,’ on the other side are those who say these sorts of changes could disadvantage girls.”
Research has shown that boys and girls like to read and write about different subjects and that it may matter whether a male or female is their teacher. According to Jen Horsey (2006-2011), a researcher for the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, “In a culture that favors equal opportunity and advocates political correctness, some have found that it is difficult to discuss this troubling gender gap without entering into the touchy domain of sexism.” She goes on to say that, “Some boys continue to lag behind in reading because of what is called the ‘feminization’ of education, that teaching is becoming dominated by women as more young women enter the profession and more older men retire.” She believes that it leaves boys with few male role models in the classroom (Pg. 2).
Research has also shown that there are many reasons for boys not achieving as high as girls on reading. Bronzo (2002) believes that peer pressure discourages a boy from reading, an activity that is not considered “cool.” Male reluctance to read leads to a decline in reading skills. She believes that this, together with the consequent feeling of incompetence, causes (real or pretend) indifference towards reading, and this indifference catalyses the decline in the boy’s reading skills (Pp. 11-13, 154). Wilhelm (2000) believes that boys prefer texts that have a purpose: getting information, making things, and helping others. In order to encourage boys to read, schools should expand their view of what is worthwhile reading and connect literacy instruction to male interests. Worthy (1996) stresses that pupils who are not interested in schools’ reading material never engage in reading at all, and often develop an aversion to reading that may be lifelong. She points out a significant impact on teaching and learning by saying that despite the wealth of children’s literature available, it is difficult to find reading material that would interest pupils who have already developed a dislike for reading. The impact on the school leader pertains to the school’s climate and culture. According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, the leader must be able to use multiple strategies to shape the school’s culture. This would need to happen to encourage and get boys excited about reading.
Boys reading skills play a bigger role than just how well they perform in school. In Merisuo-Storm’s study shows, boys are less successful students than girls due to their poor reading skills (Pg. 123). Brozo (2002, pg. 11) suggests that poor reading skills and the learning difficulties caused by them often predict unemployment, crime, homelessness, and drug problems. Therefore, it is crucial to pay serious attention to boys’ literacy needs. Teachers should find out what their pupils’ interests are and use that information when planning their literacy teaching. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that boys are afraid of being labeled un-masculine if they enjoy reading and writing. The approval of their friends and peers is important to them. Schools should offer boys reading material that they can regard as interesting and masculine. Boys are not, in most cases, as interested as girls in the texts that are commonly used in school. According to the results of this study, boys and reluctant readers are interested in comics and humor (Merisuo-Storm, Pg. 123). The impact of these findings are significant as they pertain to the school leader, in that, the leader must possess an understanding of learning theory and human motivation, help develop such understanding in teachers and parents, and use this to improve student learning.
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
Writing improvements in students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are just a sample from a larger picture. Richard E. Nisbett (2010) contends that few questions in education are more pressing than this: How can we reduce academic achievement between middle-class and poor children (Pg. 10)? Nisbett feels that the barriers to reducing the gaps are large. He goes on to say, “It’s doubtful that we can ever bring the class gap to zero; people with more money are always going to see to it that their children get more and better education than the children of people with less money” (Pg. 12). It is apparent from this that this issue at hand, writing of the free/reduced lunch students at Town High School, would fall into the category of an achievement gap.
Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, has come to the conclusion that closing or substantially narrowing the achievement gaps requires combining school improvement with reforms that narrow the vast socioeconomic inequalities in the United States. Without such a combination, he believes, demands (like those of No Child Left Behind) that schools fully close achievement gaps not only remain unfulfilled, but also will cause us to foolishly and unfairly condemn our schools and teachers.
There is a wide variety of research that pertains to the raising of the achievement of lower socioeconomic students. There are more general strategies proposed than there are specific ones. Julie Landsman (2006), visiting writer and college instructor, has talked with teachers, administrators, and professors of education about qualities it takes to work successfully with students who live in poverty. Successful teachers take a hopeful approach to their job and their students, no matter what grade or subject they teach. They do not lower their expectations in terms of class participation or work. But they do show compassion and flexibility in helping such students succeed. While trying to find solutions for each student given his or her home situation, they strive to provide the most engaging, challenging, and relevant classroom experience they can (Pg. 27). The school leader must possess knowledge of teaching and use that knowledge to foster teachers’ reflection on the impact of their professional beliefs, values, and practices in student learning.
Analysis Summary
There are key organizational leadership issues facing the leaders of Town High School. There are literacy achievement gaps between boys and girls and between students of lower and higher socioeconomics. The key issues for the school include: The Learning Process, The Teaching Process, School Culture, and School Improvement. In The Learning Process, leaders must know and understand the research, help develop such understanding in teachers and parents, and use this to improve student learning. The leader must understand the teaching process regarding these issues, its research, and its impact on the teachers. The leader must be able to use multiple strategies to shape the school’s culture to help foster the achievement of boys and lower socioeconomic students. The leader must work with the staff to improve the quality of the school programs. This will also extend the leader to work with staff to review organization and resources, develop and implement policies and procedures to improve program effectiveness, staff productivity, and learning.
Recommendations
Boys Reading
There are many recommendations that researchers have made regarding the desire to raise the reading achievement of boys. As stated earlier, All-Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Commission's report compiled by the National Literacy Trust reveals research that found that boys are more likely than girls to believe that someone who reads is boring and a geek, that more boys than girls can't find anything to read that interests them, boys are less likely to be given books as presents than girls, that boys are more likely than girls to say they prefer watching TV to reading. The Commission also found that within schools, what texts are read, and how reading is taught and assessed can impact on boys' achievement (pg. 1). Boys prefer texts that have a purpose: getting information, making things, and helping others (Wilhelm 2000). According to Jen Horsey (2006-2011), a researcher for the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, believes that boys have few male role models in the classroom (Pg. 2). As stated earlier, peer pressure discourages a boy from reading, an activity that is not considered “cool” (Bronzo 2002).
I would recommend using materials that the boys would enjoy reading. This will have an impact on the curriculum as it pertains to reading material suited for both boys and girls.
Considerations when assigning boys a book and materials to read:
In addition to the material that will help the boys be better readers, there are also classroom strategies that will help boys. Things to consider and incorporate in the classroom:
In addition to the above recommendations, I would also recommend the following:
I would continue to have the school do what was outlined in the Town School Improvement Plan. The attempted solutions include: improving literacy includes having the teachers implement literacy instructional practices into daily instruction, analyze student performance data with literacy tasks and adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers were also asked to make commitments to instruct particular literacy strategies to all students and embed 21st century literacy skills into learning tasks (pg. 3). I would also recommend that the following be continued with an emphasis on the area of boys’ achievement:
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
There are many recommendations that researchers have made regarding the desire to raise the writing achievement of students of lower socioeconomics. Students of socioeconomic disadvantage have lower average achievement than more fortunate students, that poor children are, not read to aloud as often or exposed to complex language and large vocabularies, that such children often come from single-parent families and so get less adult attention and enrichment opportunities (Rothstein 2008). Not only do disadvantaged students have difficult with literacy, but they have difficulty in all of their schooling (Chenoweth 2008). Others contend that students of lower socioeconomics enter school with problems that affect their readiness to learn: families struggle to afford adequate housing, child care, nutrition, and health care, stress, acculturation, language barriers, frequent moves, disrupted schooling, and separation from family (Santiago, Ferrara, and Blank, April 2008).
I would recommend that school leaders make sure that students are assessed accurately and frequently to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses. These pre-assessments can be done in the classroom with teachers, by using the MAP test, and by analyzing the results of prior standardized tests and transcripts. Once these students are identified, teachers can expose these students to materials of interest, tutor them after school, tutor them in an in-school academic study, and increase the amount of reading required.
I would also recommend that the teachers conduct their own professional development and implement proven strategies to raise the writing achievement of the students of lower socioeconomics. Some strategies conducted could include the following:
The above strategies can be used for all students as it pertains to writing. What is needed are specific strategies used to help raise the achievement of students of lower socioeconomics. I recommend the following strategies that are characteristic of “High-Impact” schools as descried in the research presented by Deborah Perkins-Gough (February 2006). To find out what practices enabled these schools to accelerate, researchers found that the following played a significant role:
These strategies are not only good for lower achieving students, but they are good for all students. The current trend is to have academic success plans for all students. The above research is evidence of that need.
Recommendation Summary
According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, it is important that the school leader possess a current, research- and experience-based understanding of learning theory and human motivation, and uses this understanding to promote the continuous improvement of student learning. It is essential that the leader knows that there has been much research done on the achievement of boys as it pertains to reading and of lower socioeconomic students and how it pertains to literacy in general. From this research literature, the leader must work with the school staff to improve the quality of school programs by reviewing the current practices on student learning, considering promising alternatives, and implementing program changes that are designed to improve learning for all students.
In addition to involving the leaders, teachers and support staff, I would also recommend involving the students and their parents. The information that they can provide can help the school understand them better. The leader must understand the role of education in a pluralistic society, and work with the staff, parents, and community to develop programs and instructional strategies that incorporate diverse perspectives.
Evaluation
A good evaluation process is a key factor in the success of an implementation. How one would evaluate the effectiveness of the actions/recommendations, the processes used, the people involved, and the criteria used to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions plays a major role in the success of an action.
Boys Reading
The first recommendation is to find material that boys would enjoy reading. A focus group possibly consisting of teachers, leaders, students, community members would have to go to the curriculum to determine if the reading materials used in a course would be of interest to the boys. This focus group would have to conduct information gathering, analyze the information to facilitate summary, conclusions, recommendations, and possible revision of the curriculum. The criteria used would be from the list of recommendations stated earlier.
To evaluate whether or not boys enjoyed reading the books and materials of a class can be done by the teachers, counselors, and/or the leaders of the school in the form of quantitative data by administering a survey. Have the boys rate the materials on a scale that would reflect their interest in the materials. Descriptive qualitative data can also be collected to determine interest by doing formal and informal interviews with boys to gather data as to the effectiveness of the materials used.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendation for raising the reading achievement of boys, formative evaluations can be used by having the PLCs that meet weekly review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction. Scores from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test (formative) are a valuable indicator for achievement on the CAPT. Results from the MAP test can also be used by the teachers and counselors as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations and to assign extra opportunities as needed. Have all PLCs continue to evaluate the Reading for Information (RFI) in all classes and have all the teachers use the results of their RFIs as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
The first recommendation is that school leaders make sure that students are assessed accurately and frequently to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses. These assessments can be done in the classroom with teachers, by using the MAP test, and by analyzing the results of prior standardized tests.
The next recommendation, that the teachers conduct their own professional development and implement proven strategies to raise the writing achievement of the students of lower socioeconomics, can be evaluated by using the formative assessments and by having the PLCs that meet weekly review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction.
The recommendation of using the strategies that are characteristic of “High-Impact” schools can be evaluated in many ways. An evaluation for these characteristics is as follows:
An evaluation for these characteristics is as follows:
As with the evaluation of boys and reading achievement, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the recommendation for raising the writing achievement of students of lower socioeconomics would ultimately be done in the form of a summative evaluation by analyzing. Formative evaluations can also be used by having the PLCs that meet weekly review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction. Scores from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test are a valuable indicator for achievement on the CAPT. Results from the MAP test can also be used by the teachers and counselors as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations and to assign extra opportunities as needed. Having all PLCs continue to evaluate the Reading for Information (RFI – includes writing) in all classes. Have all the teachers use the results of their RFIs as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
Evaluation Summary
The school leader must do everything to raise the achievement of all students. Evaluating the action steps taken is crucial to school improvement. According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, the school leader must engage staff, parents, and the community in developing a common vision that includes a program that is student-centered. The school leader must develop procedures to monitor the achievement of the school’s goals. This is where effective evaluation plays a crucial role.
References
Bronzo, W. G. (2002). To be a boy, to be a reader: Engaging teen and preteen boys in active
literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2008). Connecticut School Leadership Standards.
Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/educatorstandards/ccl-csls.pdf
Evans, R. (1996). The Human Side of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Horsey, J. (2006-2011) Boys continue to struggle with reading and writing. National Association
for Single Sex Public Education. Retrieved from: http://www.singlesexschools.org/links boysreadwrite.htm
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006, April). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 50(2), 111-125. Retrieved from: http://ebookbrowse.com/girls-and-boys-
like-to-read-and-write-different-texts-pdfd37545739
Nisbett, R. E. (2010, November). Think big, bigger…and smaller. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 10-15.
Perkins-Gough, D. (February, 2006). Accelerating the learning of lower achievers. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 88
89.
Rothstein, R. (April, 2008). Whose problem is poverty? Educational Leadership, 65(7), 8-13.
Santiago, R., Ferrara, J., Blank, M. (April, 2008). A full-service school fulfills its promise.
Educational Leadership, 65(7), 44-47.
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational Behavior in Education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Waterford High School Strategic School Profile (Report) (Connecticut State Department of Education, Comp.). (2010).
Connecticut Education Data and Research.
Waterford High School Strategic School Profile (Report) (Connecticut State Department of Education, Comp.). (2011).
Connecticut Education Data and Research.
Wilhelm, J. D. (2000). When reading is stupid: The why, how and what to do about it. In E.
Close & K. D. Ramsey (Eds.), A middle mosaic: A celebration of reading, writing, and reflective practice at the middle
level (pp. 3–10). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Worthy, J. (1996). A matter of interest: Literature that hooks reluctant readers and keeps them reading. The Reading
Teacher, 50(3), 204–212.
School Finance Case Study
EXAMINATION OF NORTH CAROLINA FINANCE SYSTEM
Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997)
Introduction
This paper is an examination of the North Carolina litigation, Leandro v. State, as it pertains to the state’s school finance system. Included in this summary is how this litigation shaped the current major state mechanism to schools and districts in the state. Included is the condition the plaintiffs objected to and the law they argued of which the state was in violation. A description is presented of the fundamentals of the state aid system that resulted in terms of how student characteristics and taxpayer/tax base characteristics drive state aid. A comparison to Connecticut school aid system and recommendations are also presented.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The Leandro case was a lawsuit filed in 1994 in North Carolina on behalf of students and parents from five low wealth school systems. According to Ann McColl, “A group of poor school districts (along with some of the school children attending schools in these districts and their guardians ad litem) initiated the suit, alleging that the state had violated constitutional rights to education. The plaintiff school districts are relatively poor, with relatively few local resources. Several urban school districts (and some of their children and guardians at litem) joined the suit to assert the needs of urban school districts” (pg. 3). According to the Duke Law case summary, “The heart of the Plaintiff's case was the argument that the quality of child's education ought not be dependent upon the wealth of the family and community into which that child was born. It costs more to properly educate disadvantaged children, but the State had not done enough to equalize school funding across NC. The Plaintiff's proposed solution was a higher level of stable funding for these low-wealth counties. They claimed that their schools were burdened with large numbers and heavy concentrations of disadvantaged and more-costly-to-educate students.
Therefore, they argued that the State Constitution requires North Carolina to provide schools anywhere in the state with "adequate" resources to fully educate disadvantaged - that is, poor, special education and Limited English Proficient – students” (1997).
State’s Position on School Finance System
The state of North Carolina’s position on its finance system is that it met the constitutional requirements. According to the case,
Further, as the North Carolina Constitution so clearly creates the likelihood of unequal funding among the districts as a result of local supplements, we see no reason to suspect that the framers intended that substantially equal educational opportunities beyond the sound basic education mandated by the Constitution must be available in all districts (page 6).
According to the National Access Network, In 1987, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in Britt v. North Carolina State Board of Education, 361 S.E.2d 71, denied review of an appellate court decision dismissing plaintiffs' case, which had claimed that the state's education finance system violated the state constitution because it caused disparities in school programs and facilities. Ten years later, however, the state's supreme court distinguished the Britt "equity" decision, in Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997), and remanded plaintiffs' "adequacy" claims for trial. The court declared that the right to education in the state constitution "requires that all children have the opportunity for a sound basic education" (2011).
Prior School Funding
North Carolina uses a flat grant system to assist local districts in financing their schools. These grants deliver a uniform amount of funds per pupil, per teacher, per administrator, and
fifteen other categories. The primary unit of allocation is average daily membership (ADM). ADM figures are established based on the higher of (a) actual ADM from the prior year, or (b) projected ADM for the current year.
As it pertains to Leandro, Justice Orr states his observation (pg. 12):
Statistics employed by both plaintiffs and the state show, for example, that for the 1990-91 fiscal year, the funding for operation of the state's public school system came from the following sources:
Capital outlay expenditures, the allocation was as follows:
He goes on to state, “These statistics show without question that a sizeable portion of funding, particularly in the area of capital outlays, falls upon local governments. Consequently, wealthier counties are more capable of meeting their educational needs than are economically disadvantaged counties. These allegations, if true, are more than adequate to state a claim under both the right to a sound basic education and the right to a substantially equal opportunity to get the best education possible.”
Resulting School Funding
Although the flat grant funding as a primary source has not changed, more money has been directed toward districts with low incomes and to underperforming students. According to Ann McColl:
The state of North Carolina is allocating more to low income school districts to help close the achievement gap by allocating money to Pre-K students. In recent events, according to the North Carolina Justice Center (2012):
In 2004, as part of the ongoing Leandro litigation, the N.C. Supreme Court held that at-risk prospective enrollees in the state’s public schools had been denied their constitutional right to the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.
A 2011 Budget Bill stated that the state:
Synthesis
North Carolina does its best to provide relief to districts by providing a substantial amount of funding to local districts. The wealthier districts continue to be less burdened by a property levy than the poorer districts. In an effort to help the poorer districts, North Carolina initiated supplemental funding for low-wealth counties and small counties in 1991–1992. In 1998–1999, 85 school districts received additional aid through this funding mechanism.
Although the total appropriations for public schools in North Carolina continues to increase, public schools are receiving less of the General Fund appropriations. Since 1970, the public school’s percentage share of the State’s General Fund has decreased by 11.2%. If public schools were still funded at the FY 1969–70 rate, there would be an additional $1.37 billion dollars in the Public School Fund (Testerman).
Connecticut’s use of Education Cost Sharing (ECS) is an example of the District Power Equalization model of school finance. This approach to financial equalization has proven to work fairly well. The state’s intension to provide poor school districts with the power to obtain as much revenue per student as more wealthy districts making the same local tax effort is commendable. Unfortunately, several factors (politics, flat funding) in some districts have made it impossible to reach that higher level. In relation to North Carolina’s funding, Connecticut too has underfunded each reach town as it pertains to the cost of providing students equal opportunity for a quality education.
Other Wisdom
One would think that each state would learn from each other. There are many ways to provide a quality education equitably for each student. Granted, the more wealthy towns will always want and be able to spend more on the education of their children. North Carolina can learn from Connecticut and vice versa. There are benefits to the state formulas for teacher and administrator and teacher pay that could work well in Connecticut. Some people may not move from one district to another in Connecticut if they knew that the pay would be the same. The wealthier towns can pay more and thereby attract a larger talent pool for their positions.
North Carolina would be better by getting farther away from the grant system and use a more appropriate pupil weight. Another remedy would be to move more toward a District Power Equalization model.
One would think that with all the bright people we have in this world that someone would come up with a better solution to the fifty different state school finance systems that we currently have in the United States. As collaboration is a key to the success of a school leader, maybe it would be the key to success as it pertains to school finance.
References
Brimley, V., Verstegen, D. & Garfield, R. (2012). Financing Education In A Climate of Change.
11th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Duke Law Review (2012).
http://law.duke.edu/childedlaw/schooldiscipline/attorneys/casesummaries/leandrovstate/
Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997) McColl, A. (2001, Summer). Leandro: Constitutional
Adequacy in Education and Standards Based Reforms. Retrieved from
http://sogpubs.unc.edu//electronicversions/slb/slbsum01/article1.pdf?
Testerman, J. (2011, May). North Carolina Litigation. Retrieved from http://schoolfunding.info/states/nc/lit_nc.php3
Thompson, R. (2012). Leandro and the 2012 Court of Appeals Decision on NC Pre-K.
Retrieved from http://www.ncjustice.org/?q=education/leandro-and-2012-court-appeals decision-nc-pre-k
School Law Case Study
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Florida, 2006
206 Ed. Law Rep. 756, 919 So. 2d 393
Facts: The issue is whether the State of Florida is prohibited from giving public funds to students who attend private schools. The law in question is the state’s school voucher system which is known as the “Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP).
History: Under the OSP (2005) a student from a public school that fails to meet certain minimum state requirements has two options:
1. Move to another public school with a satisfactory record under state standards or
2. Receive funds from the public treasury, which would have gone to the student’s school district, to pay the student’s tuition at a private school.
Decision: OSP is in direct conflict with the mandate in Article IV, section 1(a) that it is the state’s “paramount duty” to make adequate provision for education and that the manner in which this mandate must be carried out is “by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools. As it pertains to:
Free Public Schools:
Uniformity:
Summary:
Literacy Case Description
Context
Town High School (THS) is a fictitious name for an actual southeastern Connecticut suburban school with a total population of 958 students with 19.4% total minority (80.6% White, 8% Hispanic, 5.4% Asian American, and 4.8% Black). Nine point nine percent of students receive free/reduced-price meals, 1.1% are not fluent in English, 7.4% are identified as gifted and/or talented, and 10% are students with disabilities. THS employs 76.33 teachers, 13.62 paraprofessionals, 3 administrators, and 5.8 counselors, social workers and school psychologists. During the 2010-2011 school year, THS scored above the state in all subject areas on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). THS has a 96% graduation rate with 83.2% of graduates pursuing higher education and 9.1% employed, a civilian or in the military.
Issue/Dilemmas
The most pressing issue that Town High School faces is in the area of literacy. There are two student groups that have achievement problems in this area. There is an achievement gap in reading scores between boys and girls, where the boys scored significantly lower on the reading section of the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT). The "overall" reading scores indicate a significant gap between the achievement of boys and girls. The percentage of students at or above goal shows girls scoring at 83.3% while boys significantly lag behind with 57.5% at or above goal.
The second issue impacting literacy is among the student sub-group that receives free/reduced lunch. Students that receive free/reduced lunch scored at 51.1% in writing and ranked 11th out of 19 schools in their District Reference Group (DRG). Students at THS that do not receive free/reduced lunch scored at 86.1% in writing and ranked 4th out of 19 in their DRG.
Attempted Solutions
According to the Town School Improvement Plan 2011-2013, the school is committed to improving student performance in the area of literacy by improving literacy instruction. Solutions to improving literacy include having the teachers implement literacy instructional practices into daily instruction, analyze student performance data with literacy tasks and adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers were also asked to make commitments to instruct particular literacy strategies to all students while embedding 21st century literacy skills into learning tasks (pg. 3).
In addition to the above solutions, action plans put in place to raise literacy achievement included:
- Define literacy at faculty meeting.
- Administering practice CAPT assessments for ninth graders.
- Each Professional Learning Community (PLC) will schedule a visit with the literacy specialist.
- Administrative Team will do PLC rounds twice per month in core areas with a focus on literacy instruction.
- Reading for Information (RFI) will continue in all classes (includes writing).
- PLCs will meet weekly to review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction.
- Academic studies will be provided to students who are failing in literacy.
Literature Review
Based on the significant issues of this case, it is the writer's intention to shed light on these issues by communicating to the reader various reviews of literature. There has been significant research done in the areas of literacy pertaining to the achievement gap in reading between boys and girls. There has also been significant research done on the achievement of lower socioeconomic students. This achievement gap research is found mostly with a generalization of the achievement of lower socioeconomic students.
Boys Reading
The reading gap of boys in the United States is an issue in every state. A report by the independent Center on Education Policy (CEP), which outlined results on state accountability tests, noted that the percentage of boys scoring "proficient" or higher in reading was below that of girls at all grade levels tested and in every state for which sufficient data were available. Results for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed similar patterns. Boys in all 50 states and the District of Columbia reached each of the three NAEP reading achievement levels (Basic, proficient, and advanced) at lower rates than girls with only two exceptions - and in those cases, boys and girls were essentially tied (Sadowski pg. 1).
In addition to there being a national issue regarding the reading achievement of boys, it also seems to be an international issue as well. In the United Kingdom, the All-Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Commission's report compiled by the National Literacy Trust reveals research that found that:
- Boys are more likely than girls to believe that someone who reads is boring (18% vs. 12.7%) and a geek (22.3% to 18.5%).
- More boys than girls can't find anything to read that interests them (30% vs. 23%).
- Boys are less likely to be given books as presents than girls (79.9% to 85.3%).
- Boys are more likely than girls to say they prefer watching TV to reading (62% vs. 45%).
The Commission also found that within schools, what texts are read, and how reading is taught and assessed can impact on boys' achievement (pg. 1).
It is a universal understanding that reading skills are an important tool that pupils need to become academically successful (Merisuo-Storm pg. 111). In the USA, boys are significantly less successful in school and score significantly lower on standardized measures of reading achievement (Bronzo 2002). In PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment, of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]), Finnish children and teenagers showed significantly higher mean achievement in reading literacy than their peers in any other country, however, girls scored better than boys in all OECD countries including Finland (Merisuo-Storm pg. 112)
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
Literacy, in general, is a significant issue in the United States. At Town High School, and across the US, students of lower socioeconomic background have difficulty in this area. Richard Rothstein (2008) contends that students of socioeconomic disadvantage have lower average achievement than more fortunate students. He also states that poor children are, in general, not read to aloud as often or exposed to complex language and large vocabularies. He also states that such children are at a disadvantage because they more often come from single-parent families and so get less adult attention, therefore have fewer cross-country trips, visits to museums and zoos, music or dance lessons, and organized sports leagues to develop their ambition, cultural awareness, and self-confidence.
According to Karen Chenoweth (2008), she contends that it is true that, in general, high-poverty and high-minority schools are low achieving. She explained that earlier in that year, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina said, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I will show you the worst test scores.” Chenoweth believes that, although this is a problem across the United States, schools with disadvantaged students can succeed and closing the achievement gap. As expected, not only do disadvantaged students have difficult with literacy, they have difficulty in all of their schooling.
Santiago, Ferrara, and Blank contend that students of lower socioeconomics enter school with problems that affect their readiness to learn (April 2008). They also believe that their families struggle to afford adequate housing, child care, nutrition, and health care. These students may also face stresses such as legal status, acculturation, language barriers, frequent moves, disrupted schooling, and separation from family. It is no question that this will have an impact on their education.
According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, it is important that the school leader possess a current, research- and experience-based understanding of learning theory and human motivation, and uses this understanding to promote the continuous improvement of student learning. It is essential that the leader knows that there has been much research done on the achievement of boys as it pertains to reading and of lower socioeconomic students and how it pertains to literacy in general. From this research literature, the leader must work with the school staff to improve the quality of school programs by reviewing the current practices on student learning, considering promising alternatives, and implementing program changes that are designed to improve learning for all students.
Analysis
Boys Reading
At Town High School, boys have fallen behind the girls as it pertains to higher achieving reading skills. This also has a significant effect when it comes to reading in other disciplines. Sadowski (2010) argues that many boys’ literacy deficits put them at a disadvantage not just in English language arts but across the curriculum. He points out that many state math tests contain nothing but word problems, as do the SAT and ACT college admission tests. Many boys can’t wade through the puzzling words and sentences to get to the actual math calculation (pg. 1). Sadowski also agrees that there is an “ideological stalemate” that has dominated the research and reporting on boys’ academic struggles for years. On one side, he states, are “educators, researchers, and reporters who use data about gender gaps and brain research argue for single-sex education and widespread changes to school practices and curricula to make them more ‘boy-friendly,’ on the other side are those who say these sorts of changes could disadvantage girls.”
Research has shown that boys and girls like to read and write about different subjects and that it may matter whether a male or female is their teacher. According to Jen Horsey (2006-2011), a researcher for the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, “In a culture that favors equal opportunity and advocates political correctness, some have found that it is difficult to discuss this troubling gender gap without entering into the touchy domain of sexism.” She goes on to say that, “Some boys continue to lag behind in reading because of what is called the ‘feminization’ of education, that teaching is becoming dominated by women as more young women enter the profession and more older men retire.” She believes that it leaves boys with few male role models in the classroom (Pg. 2).
Research has also shown that there are many reasons for boys not achieving as high as girls on reading. Bronzo (2002) believes that peer pressure discourages a boy from reading, an activity that is not considered “cool.” Male reluctance to read leads to a decline in reading skills. She believes that this, together with the consequent feeling of incompetence, causes (real or pretend) indifference towards reading, and this indifference catalyses the decline in the boy’s reading skills (Pp. 11-13, 154). Wilhelm (2000) believes that boys prefer texts that have a purpose: getting information, making things, and helping others. In order to encourage boys to read, schools should expand their view of what is worthwhile reading and connect literacy instruction to male interests. Worthy (1996) stresses that pupils who are not interested in schools’ reading material never engage in reading at all, and often develop an aversion to reading that may be lifelong. She points out a significant impact on teaching and learning by saying that despite the wealth of children’s literature available, it is difficult to find reading material that would interest pupils who have already developed a dislike for reading. The impact on the school leader pertains to the school’s climate and culture. According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, the leader must be able to use multiple strategies to shape the school’s culture. This would need to happen to encourage and get boys excited about reading.
Boys reading skills play a bigger role than just how well they perform in school. In Merisuo-Storm’s study shows, boys are less successful students than girls due to their poor reading skills (Pg. 123). Brozo (2002, pg. 11) suggests that poor reading skills and the learning difficulties caused by them often predict unemployment, crime, homelessness, and drug problems. Therefore, it is crucial to pay serious attention to boys’ literacy needs. Teachers should find out what their pupils’ interests are and use that information when planning their literacy teaching. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that boys are afraid of being labeled un-masculine if they enjoy reading and writing. The approval of their friends and peers is important to them. Schools should offer boys reading material that they can regard as interesting and masculine. Boys are not, in most cases, as interested as girls in the texts that are commonly used in school. According to the results of this study, boys and reluctant readers are interested in comics and humor (Merisuo-Storm, Pg. 123). The impact of these findings are significant as they pertain to the school leader, in that, the leader must possess an understanding of learning theory and human motivation, help develop such understanding in teachers and parents, and use this to improve student learning.
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
Writing improvements in students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are just a sample from a larger picture. Richard E. Nisbett (2010) contends that few questions in education are more pressing than this: How can we reduce academic achievement between middle-class and poor children (Pg. 10)? Nisbett feels that the barriers to reducing the gaps are large. He goes on to say, “It’s doubtful that we can ever bring the class gap to zero; people with more money are always going to see to it that their children get more and better education than the children of people with less money” (Pg. 12). It is apparent from this that this issue at hand, writing of the free/reduced lunch students at Town High School, would fall into the category of an achievement gap.
Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, has come to the conclusion that closing or substantially narrowing the achievement gaps requires combining school improvement with reforms that narrow the vast socioeconomic inequalities in the United States. Without such a combination, he believes, demands (like those of No Child Left Behind) that schools fully close achievement gaps not only remain unfulfilled, but also will cause us to foolishly and unfairly condemn our schools and teachers.
There is a wide variety of research that pertains to the raising of the achievement of lower socioeconomic students. There are more general strategies proposed than there are specific ones. Julie Landsman (2006), visiting writer and college instructor, has talked with teachers, administrators, and professors of education about qualities it takes to work successfully with students who live in poverty. Successful teachers take a hopeful approach to their job and their students, no matter what grade or subject they teach. They do not lower their expectations in terms of class participation or work. But they do show compassion and flexibility in helping such students succeed. While trying to find solutions for each student given his or her home situation, they strive to provide the most engaging, challenging, and relevant classroom experience they can (Pg. 27). The school leader must possess knowledge of teaching and use that knowledge to foster teachers’ reflection on the impact of their professional beliefs, values, and practices in student learning.
Analysis Summary
There are key organizational leadership issues facing the leaders of Town High School. There are literacy achievement gaps between boys and girls and between students of lower and higher socioeconomics. The key issues for the school include: The Learning Process, The Teaching Process, School Culture, and School Improvement. In The Learning Process, leaders must know and understand the research, help develop such understanding in teachers and parents, and use this to improve student learning. The leader must understand the teaching process regarding these issues, its research, and its impact on the teachers. The leader must be able to use multiple strategies to shape the school’s culture to help foster the achievement of boys and lower socioeconomic students. The leader must work with the staff to improve the quality of the school programs. This will also extend the leader to work with staff to review organization and resources, develop and implement policies and procedures to improve program effectiveness, staff productivity, and learning.
Recommendations
Boys Reading
There are many recommendations that researchers have made regarding the desire to raise the reading achievement of boys. As stated earlier, All-Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Commission's report compiled by the National Literacy Trust reveals research that found that boys are more likely than girls to believe that someone who reads is boring and a geek, that more boys than girls can't find anything to read that interests them, boys are less likely to be given books as presents than girls, that boys are more likely than girls to say they prefer watching TV to reading. The Commission also found that within schools, what texts are read, and how reading is taught and assessed can impact on boys' achievement (pg. 1). Boys prefer texts that have a purpose: getting information, making things, and helping others (Wilhelm 2000). According to Jen Horsey (2006-2011), a researcher for the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, believes that boys have few male role models in the classroom (Pg. 2). As stated earlier, peer pressure discourages a boy from reading, an activity that is not considered “cool” (Bronzo 2002).
I would recommend using materials that the boys would enjoy reading. This will have an impact on the curriculum as it pertains to reading material suited for both boys and girls.
Considerations when assigning boys a book and materials to read:
- Gender of author – have a balance of gender.
- Gender of protagonists – have as many male protagonists as female, or at least male protagonists that which the boys can identify.
- Shift from feeling to analytical – have the subject matter will appeal to both boys and girls.
- Fiction/Non-fiction – have a balance of fiction and non-fiction. Research shows that girls tend to like fiction while boys prefer non-fiction.
- Examples of exemplary writing by males – good examples by males are needed for which the boys can identify. Use male teacher writings as an example (modeling).
In addition to the material that will help the boys be better readers, there are also classroom strategies that will help boys. Things to consider and incorporate in the classroom:
- Frequency of boys reading aloud – have the boys read aloud as much as the girls.
- Frequency of boys being called on – have the teachers call on boys as much as girls.
- Level of questioning – have the level of questioning just as high for the boys.
- Engagement – make sure boys are as engaged as the girls.
- Gender of teacher – put the lower achieving boys with the teacher who is best at raising the score of boys.
In addition to the above recommendations, I would also recommend the following:
- Have the ninth graders take the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) test – this will help our teachers understand the achievement level of their students. It will also help the guidance counselors when assigning students to classes and teachers.
- Make every effort to balance gender and ability is the classroom.
- Physical placement of boys in the room – have the lowest achievers more toward the front of the room.
- Ratio of boys to girls in classroom – make sure classes are not dominated by one gender.
- Survey the class regarding materials studied. Analyze the data provided by both genders.
I would continue to have the school do what was outlined in the Town School Improvement Plan. The attempted solutions include: improving literacy includes having the teachers implement literacy instructional practices into daily instruction, analyze student performance data with literacy tasks and adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers were also asked to make commitments to instruct particular literacy strategies to all students and embed 21st century literacy skills into learning tasks (pg. 3). I would also recommend that the following be continued with an emphasis on the area of boys’ achievement:
- Administrative Team will do instructional rounds twice per month in core areas with focus on literacy instruction.
- Reading for Information (RFI) will continue in all classes (includes writing).
- PLCs will meet weekly to review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction.
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
There are many recommendations that researchers have made regarding the desire to raise the writing achievement of students of lower socioeconomics. Students of socioeconomic disadvantage have lower average achievement than more fortunate students, that poor children are, not read to aloud as often or exposed to complex language and large vocabularies, that such children often come from single-parent families and so get less adult attention and enrichment opportunities (Rothstein 2008). Not only do disadvantaged students have difficult with literacy, but they have difficulty in all of their schooling (Chenoweth 2008). Others contend that students of lower socioeconomics enter school with problems that affect their readiness to learn: families struggle to afford adequate housing, child care, nutrition, and health care, stress, acculturation, language barriers, frequent moves, disrupted schooling, and separation from family (Santiago, Ferrara, and Blank, April 2008).
I would recommend that school leaders make sure that students are assessed accurately and frequently to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses. These pre-assessments can be done in the classroom with teachers, by using the MAP test, and by analyzing the results of prior standardized tests and transcripts. Once these students are identified, teachers can expose these students to materials of interest, tutor them after school, tutor them in an in-school academic study, and increase the amount of reading required.
I would also recommend that the teachers conduct their own professional development and implement proven strategies to raise the writing achievement of the students of lower socioeconomics. Some strategies conducted could include the following:
- Have students write about anything they wanted.
- Have students write about a given subject.
- Show exemplary writing examples by their peers.
- Show exemplary writing examples by their teachers.
- Show exemplary writing examples by famous authors.
- Help students with editing and revising.
- Conduct pre-writing strategies.
- Conduct post-writing strategies.
The above strategies can be used for all students as it pertains to writing. What is needed are specific strategies used to help raise the achievement of students of lower socioeconomics. I recommend the following strategies that are characteristic of “High-Impact” schools as descried in the research presented by Deborah Perkins-Gough (February 2006). To find out what practices enabled these schools to accelerate, researchers found that the following played a significant role:
- Culture. High-impact high schools had a culture of high expectations. Policy documents focused on academics; school practices were geared toward preparing students for college and careers; and teachers and administrators consistently stressed achievement and either embraced external standards or created their own.
- Academic core. Educators took responsibility for helping all students succeed. They removed barriers to high level courses and encouraged students to take on academic challenges. They used assessment data to plan for the future and improve the curriculum.
- Support. Provide extra instructional time for students that started ninth grade behind their peers and keep students on track with college preparatory requirements. Counselors took an active role in monitoring student performance and arranging help were needed.
- Teachers. Establish teaching assignments to meet the needs of the students. Support for new teachers focused on instruction and curriculum. Reduce class sizes to provide more attention for struggling students, even if it meant larger classes for other students.
- Time and other constraints. Use instructional time more efficiently and deliberately.
These strategies are not only good for lower achieving students, but they are good for all students. The current trend is to have academic success plans for all students. The above research is evidence of that need.
Recommendation Summary
According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, it is important that the school leader possess a current, research- and experience-based understanding of learning theory and human motivation, and uses this understanding to promote the continuous improvement of student learning. It is essential that the leader knows that there has been much research done on the achievement of boys as it pertains to reading and of lower socioeconomic students and how it pertains to literacy in general. From this research literature, the leader must work with the school staff to improve the quality of school programs by reviewing the current practices on student learning, considering promising alternatives, and implementing program changes that are designed to improve learning for all students.
In addition to involving the leaders, teachers and support staff, I would also recommend involving the students and their parents. The information that they can provide can help the school understand them better. The leader must understand the role of education in a pluralistic society, and work with the staff, parents, and community to develop programs and instructional strategies that incorporate diverse perspectives.
Evaluation
A good evaluation process is a key factor in the success of an implementation. How one would evaluate the effectiveness of the actions/recommendations, the processes used, the people involved, and the criteria used to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions plays a major role in the success of an action.
Boys Reading
The first recommendation is to find material that boys would enjoy reading. A focus group possibly consisting of teachers, leaders, students, community members would have to go to the curriculum to determine if the reading materials used in a course would be of interest to the boys. This focus group would have to conduct information gathering, analyze the information to facilitate summary, conclusions, recommendations, and possible revision of the curriculum. The criteria used would be from the list of recommendations stated earlier.
To evaluate whether or not boys enjoyed reading the books and materials of a class can be done by the teachers, counselors, and/or the leaders of the school in the form of quantitative data by administering a survey. Have the boys rate the materials on a scale that would reflect their interest in the materials. Descriptive qualitative data can also be collected to determine interest by doing formal and informal interviews with boys to gather data as to the effectiveness of the materials used.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendation for raising the reading achievement of boys, formative evaluations can be used by having the PLCs that meet weekly review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction. Scores from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test (formative) are a valuable indicator for achievement on the CAPT. Results from the MAP test can also be used by the teachers and counselors as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations and to assign extra opportunities as needed. Have all PLCs continue to evaluate the Reading for Information (RFI) in all classes and have all the teachers use the results of their RFIs as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
Lower Socioeconomic Students and Literacy
The first recommendation is that school leaders make sure that students are assessed accurately and frequently to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses. These assessments can be done in the classroom with teachers, by using the MAP test, and by analyzing the results of prior standardized tests.
The next recommendation, that the teachers conduct their own professional development and implement proven strategies to raise the writing achievement of the students of lower socioeconomics, can be evaluated by using the formative assessments and by having the PLCs that meet weekly review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction.
The recommendation of using the strategies that are characteristic of “High-Impact” schools can be evaluated in many ways. An evaluation for these characteristics is as follows:
- Culture and Academic Core, Support. A quantitative evaluation can be used in the form of a climate and culture survey. Included in taking this survey would be students, staff, school leaders, and community. The results of the survey can be used to determine whether or not:
- all students feel challenged, teachers feel they are challenging students, leaders stress achievement, and at what level the standards are being obtained, and whether the standards are deemed high enough. – Culture.
- all students were encouraged to take high level courses and encouraged students to take on academic challenges. – Academic Core.
- extra instructional time is made for students that start behind their peers and students were kept on track with college preparatory requirements. – Support.
- counselors take an active role in monitoring student performance and arranging help were needed. – Support.
An evaluation for these characteristics is as follows:
- Teachers, Time and other constraints. A quantitative evaluation can be used in the form of a survey. Included in taking this survey would be teachers. The results of the survey can be used to determine whether or not:
- teachers feel that their assignments meet the needs of the students.
- support for new teachers is focused on instruction and curriculum.
- class sizes are reduced to acceptable degree to provide more attention for struggling students.
- teachers feel that instructional time is used more efficiently and deliberately.
As with the evaluation of boys and reading achievement, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the recommendation for raising the writing achievement of students of lower socioeconomics would ultimately be done in the form of a summative evaluation by analyzing. Formative evaluations can also be used by having the PLCs that meet weekly review student work, discuss instructional practices, and analyze data to inform instruction. Scores from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test are a valuable indicator for achievement on the CAPT. Results from the MAP test can also be used by the teachers and counselors as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations and to assign extra opportunities as needed. Having all PLCs continue to evaluate the Reading for Information (RFI – includes writing) in all classes. Have all the teachers use the results of their RFIs as a formative assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
Evaluation Summary
The school leader must do everything to raise the achievement of all students. Evaluating the action steps taken is crucial to school improvement. According to the Connecticut Standards for School Leaders, the school leader must engage staff, parents, and the community in developing a common vision that includes a program that is student-centered. The school leader must develop procedures to monitor the achievement of the school’s goals. This is where effective evaluation plays a crucial role.
References
Bronzo, W. G. (2002). To be a boy, to be a reader: Engaging teen and preteen boys in active
literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2008). Connecticut School Leadership Standards.
Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/educatorstandards/ccl-csls.pdf
Evans, R. (1996). The Human Side of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Horsey, J. (2006-2011) Boys continue to struggle with reading and writing. National Association
for Single Sex Public Education. Retrieved from: http://www.singlesexschools.org/links boysreadwrite.htm
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006, April). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 50(2), 111-125. Retrieved from: http://ebookbrowse.com/girls-and-boys-
like-to-read-and-write-different-texts-pdfd37545739
Nisbett, R. E. (2010, November). Think big, bigger…and smaller. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 10-15.
Perkins-Gough, D. (February, 2006). Accelerating the learning of lower achievers. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 88
89.
Rothstein, R. (April, 2008). Whose problem is poverty? Educational Leadership, 65(7), 8-13.
Santiago, R., Ferrara, J., Blank, M. (April, 2008). A full-service school fulfills its promise.
Educational Leadership, 65(7), 44-47.
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational Behavior in Education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Waterford High School Strategic School Profile (Report) (Connecticut State Department of Education, Comp.). (2010).
Connecticut Education Data and Research.
Waterford High School Strategic School Profile (Report) (Connecticut State Department of Education, Comp.). (2011).
Connecticut Education Data and Research.
Wilhelm, J. D. (2000). When reading is stupid: The why, how and what to do about it. In E.
Close & K. D. Ramsey (Eds.), A middle mosaic: A celebration of reading, writing, and reflective practice at the middle
level (pp. 3–10). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Worthy, J. (1996). A matter of interest: Literature that hooks reluctant readers and keeps them reading. The Reading
Teacher, 50(3), 204–212.
School Finance Case Study
EXAMINATION OF NORTH CAROLINA FINANCE SYSTEM
Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997)
Introduction
This paper is an examination of the North Carolina litigation, Leandro v. State, as it pertains to the state’s school finance system. Included in this summary is how this litigation shaped the current major state mechanism to schools and districts in the state. Included is the condition the plaintiffs objected to and the law they argued of which the state was in violation. A description is presented of the fundamentals of the state aid system that resulted in terms of how student characteristics and taxpayer/tax base characteristics drive state aid. A comparison to Connecticut school aid system and recommendations are also presented.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The Leandro case was a lawsuit filed in 1994 in North Carolina on behalf of students and parents from five low wealth school systems. According to Ann McColl, “A group of poor school districts (along with some of the school children attending schools in these districts and their guardians ad litem) initiated the suit, alleging that the state had violated constitutional rights to education. The plaintiff school districts are relatively poor, with relatively few local resources. Several urban school districts (and some of their children and guardians at litem) joined the suit to assert the needs of urban school districts” (pg. 3). According to the Duke Law case summary, “The heart of the Plaintiff's case was the argument that the quality of child's education ought not be dependent upon the wealth of the family and community into which that child was born. It costs more to properly educate disadvantaged children, but the State had not done enough to equalize school funding across NC. The Plaintiff's proposed solution was a higher level of stable funding for these low-wealth counties. They claimed that their schools were burdened with large numbers and heavy concentrations of disadvantaged and more-costly-to-educate students.
Therefore, they argued that the State Constitution requires North Carolina to provide schools anywhere in the state with "adequate" resources to fully educate disadvantaged - that is, poor, special education and Limited English Proficient – students” (1997).
State’s Position on School Finance System
The state of North Carolina’s position on its finance system is that it met the constitutional requirements. According to the case,
Further, as the North Carolina Constitution so clearly creates the likelihood of unequal funding among the districts as a result of local supplements, we see no reason to suspect that the framers intended that substantially equal educational opportunities beyond the sound basic education mandated by the Constitution must be available in all districts (page 6).
According to the National Access Network, In 1987, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in Britt v. North Carolina State Board of Education, 361 S.E.2d 71, denied review of an appellate court decision dismissing plaintiffs' case, which had claimed that the state's education finance system violated the state constitution because it caused disparities in school programs and facilities. Ten years later, however, the state's supreme court distinguished the Britt "equity" decision, in Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997), and remanded plaintiffs' "adequacy" claims for trial. The court declared that the right to education in the state constitution "requires that all children have the opportunity for a sound basic education" (2011).
Prior School Funding
North Carolina uses a flat grant system to assist local districts in financing their schools. These grants deliver a uniform amount of funds per pupil, per teacher, per administrator, and
fifteen other categories. The primary unit of allocation is average daily membership (ADM). ADM figures are established based on the higher of (a) actual ADM from the prior year, or (b) projected ADM for the current year.
As it pertains to Leandro, Justice Orr states his observation (pg. 12):
Statistics employed by both plaintiffs and the state show, for example, that for the 1990-91 fiscal year, the funding for operation of the state's public school system came from the following sources:
- State funds (66.1%)
- Local funds (24.5%)
- Federal funds (6.6%)
- Private funds (2.8%)
Capital outlay expenditures, the allocation was as follows:
- State funds (9%),
- Local funds (90%)
- Federal funds (1%)
He goes on to state, “These statistics show without question that a sizeable portion of funding, particularly in the area of capital outlays, falls upon local governments. Consequently, wealthier counties are more capable of meeting their educational needs than are economically disadvantaged counties. These allegations, if true, are more than adequate to state a claim under both the right to a sound basic education and the right to a substantially equal opportunity to get the best education possible.”
Resulting School Funding
Although the flat grant funding as a primary source has not changed, more money has been directed toward districts with low incomes and to underperforming students. According to Ann McColl:
- Since the litigation began in 1994, state funding for public schools has increased by 40 percent.
- Between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, nearly half of the gap between the average teacher salary in North Carolina and the United States was eliminated.
- North Carolina has the highest number of teachers holding National Board Certification in the nation.
- Low-wealth supplemental funding increased from $40 to $60 million.
- Funds for at-risk students in 1999–2000 included:
- $52/average daily membership (ADM)
- $286/low-income students
- $163/every student who scored below grade level in grades three through eight.
The state of North Carolina is allocating more to low income school districts to help close the achievement gap by allocating money to Pre-K students. In recent events, according to the North Carolina Justice Center (2012):
In 2004, as part of the ongoing Leandro litigation, the N.C. Supreme Court held that at-risk prospective enrollees in the state’s public schools had been denied their constitutional right to the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education.
A 2011 Budget Bill stated that the state:
- Must provide NCPK to any eligible at-risk four-year-old who applies;
- Shall not enforce the 20% cap in the 2011 Budget Bill or any other artificial barrier to deny eligible at-risk four-year-olds from enrolling in NCPK.
Synthesis
North Carolina does its best to provide relief to districts by providing a substantial amount of funding to local districts. The wealthier districts continue to be less burdened by a property levy than the poorer districts. In an effort to help the poorer districts, North Carolina initiated supplemental funding for low-wealth counties and small counties in 1991–1992. In 1998–1999, 85 school districts received additional aid through this funding mechanism.
Although the total appropriations for public schools in North Carolina continues to increase, public schools are receiving less of the General Fund appropriations. Since 1970, the public school’s percentage share of the State’s General Fund has decreased by 11.2%. If public schools were still funded at the FY 1969–70 rate, there would be an additional $1.37 billion dollars in the Public School Fund (Testerman).
Connecticut’s use of Education Cost Sharing (ECS) is an example of the District Power Equalization model of school finance. This approach to financial equalization has proven to work fairly well. The state’s intension to provide poor school districts with the power to obtain as much revenue per student as more wealthy districts making the same local tax effort is commendable. Unfortunately, several factors (politics, flat funding) in some districts have made it impossible to reach that higher level. In relation to North Carolina’s funding, Connecticut too has underfunded each reach town as it pertains to the cost of providing students equal opportunity for a quality education.
Other Wisdom
One would think that each state would learn from each other. There are many ways to provide a quality education equitably for each student. Granted, the more wealthy towns will always want and be able to spend more on the education of their children. North Carolina can learn from Connecticut and vice versa. There are benefits to the state formulas for teacher and administrator and teacher pay that could work well in Connecticut. Some people may not move from one district to another in Connecticut if they knew that the pay would be the same. The wealthier towns can pay more and thereby attract a larger talent pool for their positions.
North Carolina would be better by getting farther away from the grant system and use a more appropriate pupil weight. Another remedy would be to move more toward a District Power Equalization model.
One would think that with all the bright people we have in this world that someone would come up with a better solution to the fifty different state school finance systems that we currently have in the United States. As collaboration is a key to the success of a school leader, maybe it would be the key to success as it pertains to school finance.
References
Brimley, V., Verstegen, D. & Garfield, R. (2012). Financing Education In A Climate of Change.
11th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Duke Law Review (2012).
http://law.duke.edu/childedlaw/schooldiscipline/attorneys/casesummaries/leandrovstate/
Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336, 488 S.E.2d 249 (1997) McColl, A. (2001, Summer). Leandro: Constitutional
Adequacy in Education and Standards Based Reforms. Retrieved from
http://sogpubs.unc.edu//electronicversions/slb/slbsum01/article1.pdf?
Testerman, J. (2011, May). North Carolina Litigation. Retrieved from http://schoolfunding.info/states/nc/lit_nc.php3
Thompson, R. (2012). Leandro and the 2012 Court of Appeals Decision on NC Pre-K.
Retrieved from http://www.ncjustice.org/?q=education/leandro-and-2012-court-appeals decision-nc-pre-k
School Law Case Study
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Florida, 2006
206 Ed. Law Rep. 756, 919 So. 2d 393
Facts: The issue is whether the State of Florida is prohibited from giving public funds to students who attend private schools. The law in question is the state’s school voucher system which is known as the “Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP).
History: Under the OSP (2005) a student from a public school that fails to meet certain minimum state requirements has two options:
1. Move to another public school with a satisfactory record under state standards or
2. Receive funds from the public treasury, which would have gone to the student’s school district, to pay the student’s tuition at a private school.
Decision: OSP is in direct conflict with the mandate in Article IV, section 1(a) that it is the state’s “paramount duty” to make adequate provision for education and that the manner in which this mandate must be carried out is “by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools. As it pertains to:
Free Public Schools:
- OSP violates this provision by devoting the state’s resources through means other than a free system of public schools.
- OSP transfers tax money earmarked for public education to private schools.
Uniformity:
- OSP makes no provision to ensure that the private school alternative to the public school system meets the criterion of “uniformity.”
- Private schools curricula and teachers are not subject to same standards as public school.
- Private school standards are not equivalent – not subject to “uniformity.”
- OSP cannot be deemed uniform in accordance with article IX.
Summary:
- Only when the private school option depends on public funding is choice limited.
- Article IX sets out the state’s responsibilities in a manner that does not allow the use of state monies to fund private school education.
- No state money in the form of vouchers will be used for payment to private schools as a choice.