10ideasfor Education

July 2010 | Featured IdeaNorth Carolina’s Segregated Schools

10 Ideas for EducationJuly 2010

National DirectorHilary Doe

National Network CoordinatorTarsi Dunlop

Lead Strategist for EducationKirsten Hill

Managing EditorGracye Cheng

The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network455 Massachusetts Ave NW

Suite 650Washington, DC 20001

Copyright © 2010 by the Roosevelt Institute. All rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors. They do not ex-press the views or opinions of the Roosevelt Institute, its officers, or its directors.

10 ideasfor

Education

Congratulations to Grayson Cooper,

author ofBrown v. Board of Education 55 Years Later:

North Carolina’s Charter Schools

Nominee forPolicy of the Year

Requiring New Jersey High Schools to ReportAlternative Education Data

Casey Maliszewski

Holistic School Assessment through Comprehensive EvaluationsDanielle Collins

Creating Meaningful Teacher Evaluations in New York StateMaddy Joseph

Brown v. Board of Education 55 Years Later:North Carolina’s Charter Schools

Grayson Cooper

A Path to Licensure for Special Education AssistantsAnna Peterson

Closing the Reading Gap: Educating Teachers in Student Home Dialects

Joelle Gamble

Universal, State-Regulated Pre-Kindergarten EducationElena Malkov

Funding Arts Programs in Low-Performing Schoolsthrough USPS Fundraising Stamps

Erika K. Solanki and Shah-Rukh Paracha

Increasing Access to Information Networksfor Community College StudentsNathan Maton and Leslie Faylor

Expanding the Growth Model Testing Pilot ProgramAaron Goldstein

Roosevelt Review Preview:Refugee Policy - Implications for the Admission of Iraqi Refugees

Adina Appelbaum

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

29

Inside the Issue P

p Letter from Washington

We are pleased and proud to present the second edition of the 10 Ideas Series. Comprised of six journals, these articles represent the best of our student policy work across the country. Throughout the past year, our national policy strategists have sup-ported hundreds of students chapters stretching from New England and Michigan to California and Georgia. As a peer-to-peer network, our student strategy team is unlike any other - they are both friends and mentors, strategists and promoters. Instead of waiting for their ideas to be approved in Washington, our Washington team looks to the field for our most innovative policies - and it is the student network that votes on the best proposals of the year.

Within this volume, you will find a variety of ideas in motion. Some are new proposals being spread for the first time; others have already gained traction in their local com-munity, as our campus chapters work to enact their policies today. Some will rise to higher prominence in the months ahead, gathering momentum as the idea is adopted throughout our national network of 8000 members. A few will be adopted by state legislatures and city councils; some make it all the way to Capitol Hill.

A year ago, one Colorado student published an idea about improving remote access to health care via unused television waves; the state of California is now working with him to make that idea a reality. A pair of students in Chicago postulated that their school could start a revolving loan fund for energy efficient building and development; they now help administer such a fund at Northwestern.

Whether intensely localized or built for the nation at large, these ideas all have the po-tential to become realities. We look forward to what comes next for these authors - and if you can be a part of that change, we hope you’ll join us.

Sincerely,

Tarsi DunlopNational Network Coordinator

The United States is struggling to educate the next generation. Budget cuts are forc-ing massive layoffs, reduction of vital programs, enlarged class sizes, and tuition increas-es. Current policies and practices are simultaneously limiting access to educational op-portunities and creating environments that are not conducive to learning. As students, we know this must change.

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Education Policy Center provides students with the tools and support they need to play an active role in education policy. Through engagement with local and national education systems, students are offered a voice in the reform process and are empowered not only to conduct research, but also to reflect on and share their personal experiences with education.

Students are the true experts in the realm of education. As students, we have a unique perspective: not only are we often directly impacted by the policies that are imple-mented, but as active participants in these education systems, we are able to research, collaborate, and rally with other students, both sharing our ideas and actively promot-ing reform. Education policy issues resonate with us, because as students we’ve been there, are there, or are soon going to be there. Our proximity to the issues and unified identity as students generates a passion that has fostered the creation of an abundance of progressive policy ideas and projects at Roosevelt chapters across the nation. From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s work to start a local charter school to Wesleyan University’s efforts to strengthen university-public school partnerships, Roosevelters are engaging themselves with their local communities as they work hard to improve educational experiences for current and future generations of students.

With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the hori-zon, now is a critical time for the Millennials to step up and impact education reforms. In these ten policy proposals, students have tackled key areas outlined in the U.S. De-partment of Education’s A Blueprint for Reform, suggesting innovative solutions for im-proving assessments, enhancing teacher quality, closing achievement gaps, and better preparing students for college and careers.

As Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “We may not be able to prepare the future for our children, but we can at least prepare our children for the future.” These 10 Ideas for Education are an exciting step in that direction.

Kirsten HillLead Strategist, Education

Strategist’s Note P

In combating the dropout crisis, New Jersey should collect annual alternative educa-tion program data from schools to help evaluate alternative programs.

There are no laws in New Jersey requiring schools to have alternative programs for students who are at high risk for dropping out of high school, yet many schools use alternative programs as a dropout prevention strategy.1 Apart from regularly collected data and special education data, there is no state reporting required on alternative education programs. Without systematic and separate data collection, there is no way to tell if the alternative education programs are effective, which programs are working best for which types of students, and which programs may need adjustments to better serve students.

New Jersey’s Department of Edu-cation should collect annual data on alternative education programs. This information would be collect-ed from a staff representative of the school’s alternative program and would be categorized into four data areas: a) program specif-ic information, including the type of students served by the program and program characteristics, b) en-trance criteria, c) exit criteria, and d) outcomes, including including how many students: 1) are served, ii) have made academic progress, iii) have graduated, and iv) have been reintegrated a traditional program and/or classroom. To reduce development costs, New Jersey can utilize existing models of alternative education data collection, such as a survey done by the National Center for Educational Statistics in 2002 and surveys implemented in Indiana, Oregon, and California.4

AnalysisOther states that have implemented such data collection systems have had great suc-cess. Indiana collects data annually from schools, including individualized education plan progress for each student, dropout rates, graduation rates, and information from surveys administered to students and teachers about their opinions of the programs. From this information, state officials are able to see the results of each school’s pro-gram.5 Using a “risk index,” the state is also able to calculate how many students were prevented from dropping out or being expelled from school because of alternative education programs.6 They use all of this data to evaluate policy, propose state legisla-

Requiring New Jersey High Schools to Report Alternative Education Data

Key FactsThe Alliance for Excellent Education estimates •that New Jersey had 15,573 high school drop-outs in 2008.2If all high school dropouts graduated, they •would have had a proejcted additional lifetime income of $5,088,980,000.3Many high schools in New Jersey use alterna-•tive education programs as a high school drop-out prevention strategy.4

New Jersey schools are not required to submit •information about alternative education pro-grams to the state separately from regular and special education data (except if the school is classified as an alternative education school).5

Casey Maliszewski, Mount Holyoke College

8

tion, and set and assess state goals pertaining to alternative education.

Requiring schools to submit data on alternative education programs will benefit New Jersey and serve a number of purposes. First, it will allow the New Jersey Department of Education to ensure that alternative programs are following the New Jersey admin-istrative code 6A:16-9.2, which establishes criteria schools must follow if they choose to implement an alternative program.7 Secondly, requiring schools to report informa-tion will better facilitate alternative program evaluations within each individual school district. Third, if data is collected and shared on a regular basis, schools will be able to share best practices, resulting in higher quality programs. When alternative education is developed to its maximum potential, more students will stay in school and graduate.

Next Steps New Jersey should first create an explor-atory committee or commission to make decisions on an alternative education pro-gram data collection process, including both the framework of data required from schools and the technological process for schools to submit the information. After the process is developed, the New Jersey Board of Education should develop an ad-ministrative code that calls for schools to submit this information annually. Once the code is established, schools will be able to submit information to the Department of Education, providing a rich source of data for educators and policymakers alike.

Endnotes1. Casey Maliszewski, “Alternative Education in New Jersey High Schools: Policy and Practice. Survey

from New Jersey High Schools.” 2010 Mount Holyoke College: South Hadley, MA. 2. Alliance for Excellent Education. 2009. The High Cost of Dropouts in America. http://www.all4ed.org/

files/HighCost.pdf. (accessed January 30, 2010).3. Ibid.4. Casey Maliszewski, “Alternative Education in New Jersey High Schools: Policy and Practice. Survey

from New Jersey High Schools.”5. New Jersey Department of Education. 2009. DOE Data. http://www.state.nj.us/education/data/. (ac-

cessed March 25, 2010). 6. National Center for Educational Statistics. 2002. District Survey of Public Alternative Education Pro-

gram and Schools. Department of Education: Washington, DC.7. Indiana Department of Education. 2009. Alternative Education 2007-2008 Summary Report. http://

www.doe.in.gov/alted/pdf/alted_0708-summary_report.pdf. (accessed January 15, 2010).8. Sue Foxx. Interview. Dec. 4, 2009. 9. New Jersey Department of Education. 2009. New Jersey Administrative Code. http://www.state.nj.us/

education/code/current/. (Accessed January 20, 2010).

Talking PointsWithout systematic and separate data •collection, there is no way to tell if the alternative education programs are working, which programs are work-ing best for which types of students, and which programs may need adjust-ments. Collecting annual data will ensure ac-•countability with alternative programs and help schools learn about best practices within the state.

9

Public schools should be comprehensively evaluated by teams of educational ex-perts, with funding available to meet specific goals defined by evaluators and school stakeholders, in order to boost under-achieving schools and provide a system of fair school assessment.

Data collected since the 2003 implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) sug-gests that the standardized testing model of school assessment has done little to improve national educational standards, and might be detrimental to educational progress in some respects. Schools should adopt more holistic models to assess students, including examina-tion of student work, interviews with students and parents and incremental improvement of the school environment. School assessment centered in evaluation of classroom teaching and student output allows educators to de-velop improvement plans tailored to meet the needs of each school, avoiding the pitfalls of the standardized testing model.

The federal government and individual states should adopt a more holistic and com-prehensive school assessment program as an alternative, or supplement, to using stan-dardized test scores to determine school funding.4 This model of school evaluation should be based on successful school assessment programs, including those enacted in Rhode Island and the United Kingdom(UK).

In Rhode Island, schools are assessed using the School Accountability for Learning and Teaching (SALT) program. A school improvement team analyzes the school’s status based on standardized tests and surveys of parents, teachers and students. The team of educational experts then drafts an improvement plan for the school with a set of specific goals. Every five years, the SALT team visits the school to assess its progress. Schools that have failed to make progress or meet stated goals are referred to a special intervention program called Progressive Support and Intervention.

The inspectorate system currently in place in the UK provides another model. The Office for Standards in Education contracts with private firms to provide inspectors. These school inspectors are typically retired teachers and principals, and they assess the school in a comprehensive way by interviewing students and teachers, observing classroom teaching, and examining student work.5 This system of assessment paints a more holistic picture of the school environment and enables schools to make individu-alized progress tailored to the needs of the student population. It also bypasses some

Holistic School Assessment Through Comprehensive Evaluations Danielle Collins, Tufts University

Key FactsDuring the 2006-2007 school year, •30% of schools failed to make “ad-equate yearly progress” and expe-rienced punitive action.1In 2009, one-third of states were •found to have lowered their stan-dards in order to avoid harsh penal-ties stipulated under the policy.2Current legislation requires learn-•ing disabled students and non-English speakers to meet the same standards as other students being assessed.3

10

of the pitfalls of the standardized testing model, including narrowed curriculum and lowered standards.

AnalysisThe government should adopt a model of school assessment that combines the SALT program and the inspectorate system. These models offer numerous advantages, including greater community involvement and input, and individualized progress plans tailored to each school. A team of retired educators will conduct in-depth, ho-listic assessments of schools every five years. In addition to evaluating test scores and academic proficiency, the team will look at building conditions, school climate, and students’ physical, social and emotional health. In conjunction with other stakeholders such as parents and school officials, the team will draft a school improvement plan to be enacted over a five-year period. The individualized nature of this program makes it less likely that schools will be unable to meet goals, because school officials will shape those goals to a large degree based on their current needs and resources available. Schools that do fail to meet their goals will be subject to closer scrutiny and more frequent vis-its to determine the cause of the problem, and to set more realistic goals.

Next StepsThe next step in enacting this policy is to design a pilot program to be implemented in one school district, preferably a district with high ethnic and socio-economic diversity. A good place to begin implementing more holistic methods of school assessment would be in Rhode Island, where constituents and educators are familiar with the SALT pro-gram. School districts currently using SALT begin collecting data on the effectiveness of the program; from there, other school districts around the country can choose to implement the model and tailor it to the needs of their district. Rather than dropping NCLB immediately, the federal government should allocate additional funding for face-to-face, team based assessments and slowly transition towards reducing or eliminating standardized tests.

Endnotes1. “NCLB.” US Department of Education, 06 11 2008. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://ed.gov/nclb/accountability/

results/progress/nation.html>.2. Sam Dillon, “Federal Researchers Find Lower Standards in Schools.” The New York Times. http://www.

nytimes.com/2009/10/30/education/30educ.html?_r=1 (accessed November 15, 2009). 3. Mark Jewell, “No Child Left Behind: “Implications for Special Education Students and Students with

Limited English Proficiency.” New Horizons for Learning. Washington State Office of State Superin-tendent of Public Instruction, n.d. Web. 15 November 2009. <http://www.newhorizons.org/spneeds/improvement/jewell.htm>.

4. Jay Matthews, “Class Struggle - An Intriguing Alternative to No Child Left Behind.” Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/05/an_intriguing_alternative_to_n.html (ac-cessed November 15, 2009).

5. Jay Matthews, “Class Struggle - An Intriguing Alternative to No Child Left Behind.”

Talking PointsUnder current legislation school curric-•ulum is narrowed and teachers forced to cut enriching material, such as arts and sciences.Teams of school inspectors will be able •to look at the entire school environ-ment and promote goal-oriented, indi-vidualized progress.

11

New York State should reform its guidelines for teacher evaluations to require dis-tricts to make effectiveness as an instructor – as measured by observations and mea-sures of student learning – the central criterion of evaluations.

Teacher quality is the most important con-tributing factor to student achievement. A student who learns from a teacher in the top 25% of the teaching pool will learn, on average, one-third more material than a student who learns from a teacher in the bottom 25%.1 To improve teacher quality, it is important that districts use meaningful teacher evaluations that identify and mea-sure instructional effectiveness.

Effectiveness as an instructor – the ability to implement lessons that help students’ progress – is at the heart of a teacher’s responsibilities. New York State should mandate that districts make instructional effectiveness the main criterion in professional performance review plans. Three mea-sures should constitute the determination of instructional effectiveness. First, teach-ers should be observed annually. Second, observers should be required to consider measures of student achievement that indicate student progress towards state learn-ing standards. Finally, the state must allow and encourage evaluations to be tied to personnel decisions.

According to a 2008 report by the National Council on Teacher Quality, which made similar recommendations about teacher evaluation reform, only Florida mandated ob-servation, use of student data, and an emphasis on instructional effectiveness.5 Many individual districts, however, including New York City and Washington, DC, have pro-grams or pilots that include comprehensive evaluations.

Evaluations increase the effectiveness of individual teachers by providing them with feedback about the effectiveness of their teaching methods and about ways to im-prove. Evaluations can improve the overall effectiveness of the teaching force when tied to personnel decisions such as hiring, firing, and granting tenure.

New York State’s current teacher evaluation requirements create a barrier to raising student achievement. Instructional effectiveness is not one of the criteria required in yearly evaluations, nor is an annual observation mandated. Though teachers are evaluated on their use of student data to shape instruction, districts are in fact forbid-

Creating Meaningful Teacher Evaluations In New York StateMaddy Joseph, Columbia University

Key FactsA student who learns from a teacher in •the top 25% of the teaching pool will learn on average three months more material than a student who learns from a teacher in the bottom 25%. That is one-third more material.2 In 2008, only 15 states required an •objective measure of student learning to be an element of a teacher’s yearly evaluation, and only four states man-dated that student progress be the main criterion for evaluation.3 26% of teachers saw their last evalua-•tion as “useful and effective.”4

12

den from using student test data in tenure determinations.6

Analysis State expenditures should be restricted to developing programs and monitoring district programs’ effectiveness. Individual districts must invest in professional devel-opment to train observers and provide tar-geted support for teachers. If the program were implemented using expert evaluators like those in DC’s IMPACT program, the costs would be higher.

Meaningful teacher evaluations would be a powerful tool for principals facing retention and dismissal decisions, and could help districts correct the gross inequality in teacher assignment between affluent and high-poverty schools that accounts for as much as one-third of the achievement gap.

Next StepsAn appeal should be made to the legislature to pass these reforms. The current admin-istration is moving to tie teacher evaluations and student achievement more closely together. New York, which did not receive Race to theTop grants in round one, can improve its chances of receiving future federal funding by requiring teachers to provide evidence of student learning and improvement over the course of the school year.

Endnotes1. Reagen Miller and Robin Chait, “Teacher Turnover, Tenure Policies, and the Distribution of Teacher

Quality: Can High-Poverty Schools Catch a Break?” Center for American Progress. http://www.ameri-canprogress.org/issues/2008/12/pdf/teacher_attrition.pdf.

2. Miller and Chait, “Teacher Turnover, Tenure Policies, and the and the Distribution of Teacher Quality: Can High-Poverty Schools Catch a Break?”

3. National Council on Teacher Quality, State Teacher Policy Yearbook, National Council on Teacher Qual-ity, http://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/stpy_newyork.pdf.

4. Ann Duffett, Steve Farkas, Andrew J. Rotherham, Elena Silva, “Waiting to be Won Over: Teachers Speak on the Profession, Unions, and Reform,” Education Sector, http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/WaitingToBeWonOver.pdf

5. National Council on Teacher Quality, State Teacher Policy Yearbook, National Council on Teacher Qual-ity, http://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/stpy_newyork.pdf.

6. New York State, “General School Requirements,” New York State Department of Education, http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/part100/pages/1002.html.

Talking PointsReform New York’s teacher evalua-•tion requirements as a step towards increasing overall teacher quality in the state. Create a meaningful measure of in-•structional effectiveness that can be used in employment decisions and allow officials and administrators to identify excellence and address struggling teachers.

13

Reduce racial segregation and the black-white achievement gap in North Carolina by creating a performance-based capital funding structure encouraging the estab-lishment and expansion of successful charter schools.

The innovation associated with charter schools has the potential to be hugely beneficial to education; however, this innovation also makes such schools inherently risky. To mini-mize the negative impacts on schools systems that may arise from a charter school’s innovation, the ability to fail and be reprimanded is crucial. Current legislation that prevents charter schools from receiving capital funds minimizes the fiscal impact of failure, but limits schools’ potential by restricting resources.

To limit risk, capital funding for charter schools should be contingent upon the growth and diversity that they exhibit, with subsequent years of success result-ing in greater access to monies for capi-tal projects. Schools underperforming in measures of student growth or demo-graphic representation are to be warned by the charter-granting agency, and if their performance fails to exceed that of the traditional public schools, they should be closed.

Although Brown v. Board of Education eliminated de jure racial segregation of public schools in 1954, de facto racial segrega-tion is still present in North Carolina’s charter schools. A student enrolled in a charter school in North Carolina is more than 2.5 times as likely to be enrolled in a racially seg-regated school than a student in a traditional school.5 In this context, racially segregat-ing schools are defined to deviate from the area demographics by more than 20% the cutoff typically employed by court ordered desegregation. The resulting racial isolation reduces black student achievement and contributes to a widening achievement gap.6 In these charter schools, students as a whole experience .16 standard deviations less annual growth in math compared with their previous performance in a traditional public school. This growth disparity is even greater for black students.7

Expansion of charter schools, which is highly emphasized by the Race to the Top Fund,8 is one of North Carolina’s greatest weaknesses in consideration for this grant. North Carolina’s strategy for its Race to the Top application essentially ignores charter school development.9 Currently, North Carolina’s charter schools do not have access to capi-tal funds and are limited to a maximum of 100 schools, a ceiling that has already been reached. To be eligible for future federal funds in the expanded Race to the Top Fund,

Brown v. Board of Education 55 Years Later: North Carolina’s Charter SchoolsGrayson Cooper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Key FactsThe North Carolina Charter Schools •Program increases racial segregation and the black-white achievement gap.1One of the six primary goals of the •Race to the Top Fund is to reduce the Achievement Gap.2Two of the nineteen primary selection •criteria for the Race to the Top Fund ad-dress charter school accountability and increasing charter school supply.3 North Carolina’s strategic plan for Race to the Top fails to address these issues.4

14

including $400 million for 2011, North Carolina will need to further examine the struc-ture and funding model for charter schools and make significant changes.10 Moving for-ward with charter school reform in North Carolina requires accountability in terms of student improvement across all subgroups identified in the No Child Left Behind Act. Additionally, successful reform is de-pendent upon charter schools enrolling student populations representative of the area in which the charter school is located.

AnalysisThe proposed guidelines reward high per-forming charter schools with capital funds, and close low performing charters. They would also increase state support of char-ter schools that demonstrate exceptional outcomes by giving them the same fund-ing as traditional public schools. Addition-ally, these guidelines will ensure that failing charter schools will have a minimal fiscal impact on other public schools. Ultimately this model encourages responsible growth of charter schools, and will allow North Carolina to eliminate the current cap. Consequently, this new legislation would make North Carolina eligible for future Race to the Top funds, and greatly improve school quality for students.

Next StepsThis proposal could be achieved by any of several avenues. It could be reached as a settlement to the current lawsuit identifying the lack of capital funding for charter schools as unconstitutional.13 Alternatively, the state legislature could propose a bill that extends these powers to the State Board of Education in an effort to not only in-crease charter school access, quality, and equity but also to enhance North Carolina’s future competitiveness in Race to the Top.

Endnotes1. Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd, “School choice, racial segregation, and test score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school

program.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 26(1), (2007), 31. 2. Arne Ducan, “Race to the Top Fund.” Washington, D.C.: (2009). http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-3/072909d.

html. (Accessed 23 April 2010).3. Ibid.4. N.C. Department of Public Instruction, “NC Race to the Top Proposal.” Raleigh, NC. 2009. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/princi-

palsarchive/resources/nov10webinar.ppt. (Accessed 23 April 2010).5. Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd, “School choice, racial segregation, and test score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school

program.” 6. Shelley Brown-Jeffy, “The Race Gap in High School Reading Achievement: Why School Racial Composition Still Matters. Race, Gender,

& Class.” (2006). 13(3/4), 268.7. Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd, “School choice, racial segregation, and test score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school

program.”8. Arne Ducan, “Race to the Top Fund.”9. N.C. Department of Public Instruction, “NC Race to the Top Proposal.” 10. Arne Duncan, “Race to the Top.” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/funding.html. (Accessed 14 July 2010).11. General Court of Justice, 24 Sess. (2009). http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/09/Charter%20schools.pdf. (Accessed 23 April

2010).12. Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd, “School choice, racial segregation, and test score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school

program.”13. General Court of Justice, 24 Sess.

Talking PointsA current lawsuit alleges that the •absence of governmental funding for capital projects in North Carolina Charter Schools is unconstitutional.11Academics are only one area in which •parents select a school for their children. Other major factors include school racial composition, school location and assessment strategies.12 As a result, some freedom of choice models for school desegregation have been ruled unconstitutional (see Green v. County School Board of New Kent County).

15

To increase the quality of special education and the pool of well-qualified special education teachers, North Carolina should develop a scholarship program to encour-age special education assistants to pursue a bachelor’s degree and become licensed teachers.

Through a program similar to Teacher Education and Compensation Helps (TEACH) Early Childhood, special education assistants employed in North Carolina public schools will have the opportunity to apply for scholarships to cover the costs of at-tending an accredited college. Scholarship recipients will continue working as special education assistants as they make progress toward their degree, incorporating what they learn into their educational practices. Unlike those in the TEACH program, these scholarship recipients will have a clear goal: a bachelor’s degree in education and a license to teach in North Carolina public schools. Once they complete the program, these special educators will be promising new teachers with extensive experience and dedication to their field, helping to fill North Carolina’s growing and unmet need for special education teachers.

Since the Child Care Teacher Education and Compensation Program began in 1990, thou-sands of childcare providers have received scholarships to take classes in early childhood education and development.4 Piloted in central North Caro-lina by the Child Care Services Association, the program be-came known as TEACH Early Childhood. The program pro-vides scholarships for childcare workers to take classes at a local community college or uni-versity and subsidizes wage increases for the participants to reward increased educa-tion even if scholars do not complete a degree. The TEACH program, implemented in 20 other states, has been successful in increasing the education of childcare workers, and consequently, improving the educational quality of childcare programs.5

AnalysisThe success of TEACH Early Childhood can be replicated and expanded through a program that offers scholarships to special education assistants. Similar to TEACH Ear-ly Childhood, scholarship recipients will improve their education, however this program will go beyond simply taking classes. Scholarship recipients will be required to stay on

A Path to Licensure for Special Education Assistants

Key Facts• TEACHEarlyChildhoodhasimprovedtheeduca-

tion of more than 14,000 childcare workers and can be replicated for special education assistants.1

• Education requirements for special educationassistants vary by school district, but assistants working at Title I schools must have an associate’s degree, two years of college, or pass a qualifying exam, while fully licensed teachers must have at least a bachelor’s degree.2

• In 2007, North Carolina public schools employedmore than 8,700 special education assistants. More than 1,000 of these assistants did not meet IDEA standards for qualification.3

Anna Peterson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

16

track to earn a bachelor’s degree and qualify for teacher licensure, eventually enabling them to change jobs. This part of the program, which extends far beyond TEACH Early Childhood, will help decrease the teacher shortage and encourage the hiring of in-state teachers.

Unlike many teacher scholarship programs, this program will tar-get potential teachers who have already demonstrated a com-mitment to the field of special education. By building on that prior classroom experience, this program will produce dedicated and qualified teachers and help to improve the quality of special education programs.6 The school districts in Wake, Durham, and Orange counties in North Caro-lina serve a large number of spe-cial education students and would benefit from more licensed teachers in this field of education. Just as early childhood-focused non-profit organizations provided the first funding for TEACH Early Childhood, non-profits serving disabled populations may make contributions to begin a program of this sort. The North Carolina General As-sembly provided funding to TEACH within a few years of its creation and could do the same for this program. Additionally, the program would be eligible for federal education grants through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.7

Endnotes1. Child Care Services Association. The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project. 2006. http://www.childcare-

services.org/ps/teach.html2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Teacher Assistants.” Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos153.htm3. Office of Special Education Programs & U.S. Department of Education. “Part B Personnel,” Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Data, https://www.ideadata.org/PartBPersonnel.asp4. Child Care Services Association. The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project. 5. Miller, Joyce Ann, and Tania Bogatova. 2009. “Quality improvements in the early care and education

workforce: Outcomes and impact of the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood Project.” Evaluation & Program Planning 32, no. 3: 257-277.

6. Brownell, Mary T., et al. “Special Education Teacher Supply and Teacher Quality: The Problems, The Solutions.” Focus on Exceptional Children 35, no. 2 (October 2002).

7. U.S. Department of Education. Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004. 2009. http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

8. U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education Policy & Budget Development Staff. Teacher Shortage Areas nationwide listing for the years 1990-91 through 2009-10. March 2009.

9. McLeskey, James, Naomi C. Tyler, and Susan Saunders Flippin. “The Supply of and Demand for Special Education Teachers: A Review of Research Regarding the Chronic Shortage of Special Education Teachers.” Journal of Special Education 38, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 5-21.

10. Brownell, Mary T., et al. “Special Education Teacher Supply and Teacher Quality: The Problems, The Solutions.”

Talking Points• The Office of Postsecondary Education of the

Department of Education has labeled North Carolina a “Teacher Shortage Area” in the field of special education.8

• Traditionalteachereducationprogramshavenotproduced enough special education teachers to meet the nation’s growing need.9

• Retentionratesforspecialeducatorsarelowestin the first two years of a teacher’s career. By encouraging committed special education assis-tants to become licensed teachers, North Caro-lina can lower this rate of teacher attrition.10

17

The gap between the reading and writing scores of students from non-Standard English linguistic backgrounds and Standard English students is widening. Due to the complex language and dialect diversity among Los Angeles students, teach-ers should be trained in the basic grammatical and phonetic structures of students’ home dialects.

Back in 1979, a US Circuit Judge ruled in the case of Martin Luther King Jr. El-ementary School Children v. Ann Arbor School District that the school system failed to take students’ home dialects into account and that this led to a lowering of students’ reading abilities. Since then, several in-the-classroom studies have proven that inclusion of students’ home dialects in reading and writing curriculums can increase ability to learn Standard English, thus improv-ing performance in reading and writ-ing.4

English as a Second Language (ESL) students in metropolitan, under-served commu-nities are performing significantly lower on standardized tests in reading and writing than their white counterparts.5 In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), African American, Hispanic/Latino and Pacific Islander students consistently represent a lower portion of advanced reading and writing high school students.6 Basic training in the grammatical and phonetic structures of students’ home dialects will enable LAUSD teachers to apply this knowledge to Standard English reading and writing curricula, improving performance of ESL students on reading and writing assessments.

Numerous plans have been proposed to heighten the academic performance of mi-nority students, the most recent of which is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. This act included measures to provide federal funding for schools promoting the success of students on skill assessment exams, based on the standards set by each in-dividual state. Reports suggest that NCLB has not been an effective method of closing the education gap between ESL and white students.7 As a result, many school districts with ESL students are not prioritized in the funding allocation process.

The Obama administration is proposing a new method for allocating funds and promot-ing academic progress in America’s schools. In addition to eliminating the 2014 deadline for academic progress standards set under NCLB, the administration plans to acknowl-edge progressing schools and providing funding to failing schools.8 As many failing

Key FactsFor the 2007-2008 school year, only 28 % •of African American students in the Los Angeles area achieved an advanced profi-ciency in reading and writing.1For the same year, 25 % of Latino students, •32 % Pacific Islander, and 58 % of non-La-tino white students achieved % advanced proficiency in reading and writing.2Under NCLB, schools that do not meet •their targets for student assessment scores face harsher sanctions that can in-clude staff dismissals and closings.3

Closing the Reading Gap: Educating Teachers in Student Home DialectsJoelle Gamble, University of California Los Angeles

18

schools have a disproportionate share of minority students, this funding can in part be put towards the development and implementation of home dialect training programs, which will improve ESL students’ performance in reading and writing.

AnalysisIn Chicago, a professor tested a new meth-od for Standard English writing among her students. Students performed contrastive analyses between AAVE (African American Vernacular English) and Standard English. Those who participated showed a 59 per-cent reduction in the use of AAVE in Stan-dard English settings. In contrast, those who studied with traditional methods, which did not incorporate their home dialect, showed an 8.5 percent increase of improper use of Standard English in formal writing as-signments.9 Teachers who understand the structure of students’ home dialects will be able to incorporate these structures into reading and writing curricula, thereby increasing students’ ability to properly use Standard English in the classroom and on assessment tests.

Next StepsLos Angeles School Districts can begin to educate teachers in student home dialects through brief conferences or trainings before the start of the school year. Using exist-ing infrastructure that provides leadership and training to teachers and administrators would be the simplest way to jumpstart this process. For example, the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools already has structures designed to provide resources for its teachers, and similar structures exist throughout the system. Teacher training in stu-dent home dialects can be incorporated into most major metropolitan areas with large minority populations and historically widening reading and writing gaps.

Endnotes1. Nation’s Report Card,“White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander fourth-graders scored higher in 2007 than in

1992.” National Assessment for Educational Progress. (http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0009.asp). (Ac-cessed 14 July 2010).

2. Nation’s Report Card, 3. Sam Dillon, “Obama to seek sweeping change in ‘No Child Law’.” New York Times, January 31, 2010. http://www.ny-

times.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?ref=todayspaper. (accessed January 31, 2010)4. Evelyn Freeman, “The Ann Arbor decision: The importance of teachers’ attitudes toward language.” The Elementary

School Journal 83, no. 1 (1982): 40-475. Nation’s Report Card. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0009.asp6. Nation’s Report Card. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0009.asp7. Sam Dillon, “Obama to seek sweeping change in ‘No Child Law’.” 8. Sam Dillon, “Obama to seek sweeping change in ‘No Child Law’.” 9. Taylor, Hanni. “Black English and Biadialectalism.” New York: Peter Lang, 198910. Public Broadcasting Netwrk. “African American Varities-African American Vernacular English.” Do You Speak Ameri-

can?. http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/AAVE/ebonics/ (accessed November 30, 2009)11. Taylor, “Black English and Biadialectalism.”

Talking PointsStudies have shown that many stu-•dents speak a dialect of English en-titled AAVE, which has phonetic and grammatical rules and structures dif-ferent from Standard English.10Trials have proven that even moderate •training and incorporation of home dialects into current curriculums will help enable historically low-scoring students to learn the Standard Eng-lish necessary for college and the pro-fessional world.11Training teachers in students’ home •dialects is a simple way to modify reading and writing curricula to allow more ESL students to learn profes-sional Standard English.

19

Providing federally funded and state regulated pre-kindergarten education to all American children between the ages of three and five will generate a wide variety of educational, economic, and social benefits.

Studies show that when children receive a quality pre-kindergarten education, it pro-vides numerous benefits to American society. For instance, the crime rate among mem-bers of pre-k programs is lower than that of non-members.1 In a study done on the participants of the Chicago-Parent Center Prekindergarten Program, only 16.9% had been arrested by the age of 18, as opposed to 25.1% of non-participants.2 Additionally, participants in pre-k programs have an even lower rate of teen pregnancy.3 Aside from these societal benefits, pre-k programs actively prepare children for the education sys-tem. Therefore, they require fewer expenses at the K-12 level due to a reduced need for special education courses, as well as resulting in fewer instances of grade failure.

Though the benefits of pre-k are vast, the current set-up is disorganized and unco-ordinated. While 39 states and the District of Columbia offer state-funded pre-k pro-grams, only Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma offer such programs universally. Only six states provide monetary support for pre-k programs through their formulas for school funding, and only 18 states and DC require pre-k teachers to hold BA degrees. Further-more, pre-k programs are generated by a variety of private and public agencies, which means all programs are set up with differing systems and standards. Lack of standardization has lead to inefficient use of funding, as well as unsystematic management. Current programs lack standardized curricula and education prerequisites for teachers, creating programs that provide only limited benefits for the same costs.8

The first research and exploration of pre-k programs began in the 1960s. In 1965, Law-rence J. Schweinhart and David Weikart initiated a study in Ypsilanti, Michigan called the Perry Preschool Project. The study found that participants of the pre-k program had a higher rate of graduation and employment, and a lower rate of teen pregnancy than their peers. The study greatly contributed to the rise in popularity of Head Start, a pre-k program also created in 1965.9 Though Head Start has produced some sat-isfactory results, it is not an optimum pre-k program. Created mostly to help at-risk children transition to the school environment, it alone does not necessarily provide all the aforementioned benefits. A state-run program available to all different types of children would be more all encompassing and beneficial.10

Elena Malkov, Wheaton College

Key Facts39 states and DC currently offer •state-funded programs.4 Only 6 states provide support for •pre-k programs through their formu-las for school funding.5 Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma are •currently the only states that offer pre-k to all four year olds.6 Only 18 states and DC require BA •degrees for pre-k teachers.7

Universal, State-Regulated Pre-Kindergarten Education

20

AnalysisWhile creating a pre-k program can be expensive at first – the investment per child can range from four to fifteen thousand dollars – the returns are even greater.11 One study shows that each child who goes through a pre-k program will save their school district from $2,600 to $4,400 over their K-12 experience, as there is a dramatic de-crease in grade repetition, need for special education courses, teacher turnover and a variety of other costly factors.12 Additional financial benefits come from increased work productivity among pre-k graduates, as well as higher income.13 States should cre-ate pre-kindergarten educational programs with statewide curricula and an education requirement for program teachers (such as a bachelor’s degree in education or another subject). Funding for pre-kindergarten education should come from both the national and state level. Regulations regarding programs, teaching requirements and curricu-la should be addressed by state legislature. Members of federal and state Congress should work with advocacy groups such as Pre-K Now, a sub-group of the Pew Center on the States, to refine regulations and funding of pre-kindergarten programs.

Next StepsThough the initiative to create regulated and all-encompassing pre-k programs should come primarily at the state level, sev-eral federal funding opportuni-ties are already in place for their commencement. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has pledged $2.1 billion to Head Start and Early Head Start programs, $53.6 billion to stabilize early childhood, elementary and secondary education, as well as $27.2 billion to other education programs. Pre-k programs must work in tandem with strong school programs to take complete effect, therefore, federal funding may additionally be used to reform the current public school system in a way that promotes and builds on the foundation set by pre-k programs.

Endnotes1. Albert Wat, “Dollars and Sense: A Review of Economic Analyses of Pre-K” (Washington DC: Pre-K Now, 2007), 17. 2. Robert B. Lynch, Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2007), 32.3. Wat, 16.4. “School Readiness: A federal agenda in support of pre-kindergarten education” (Washington, DC: Pre-K Now), 3.5. Ibid 4.6. Ibid 6.7. Ibid 4.8. Ibid 2-6. 9. Constance Holden, “Head Start enters adulthood (Head Start program evaluated after 25 years of operation” (Science,

1990).10. Ibid.

11. Wat 5, 15.12. Wat 17.13. Wat 20.14. “Leadership Matters: Governors’ Pre-K Proposals Fiscal Year 2010” (Washington, DC: Pre-K Now, 2009), 12.15. Ibid 5.16. Ibid 5.

Talking PointsAlthough funding exists for early childhood edu-•cation programs, it is often used inefficiently due to lack of proficient program management.15 Due to the large variety of pre-k programs such •asHeadStartandfaith-basedcenters,noonesetof regulations and requirements is applied, which results in a lack of a standardized curriculum or an education prerequisite for teachers.

21

To close the achievement gap between high and low-income school districts, Con-gress should authorize a new U.S. postal service semipostal, or fundraising stamp, for the purpose of improving the access to, and quality of school arts programs. The funds raised per semipostal sold will be distributed by the Department of Education to thirty historically low-performing K-12 school districts in the nation.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is the nation’s second largest district, with a dropout rate near 40%.1 LAUSD is a prime example of a histori-cally low-performing district that needs additional funding to prevent further cuts to its arts programs. In Decem-ber 2008, LAUSD instituted a funding freeze in an attempt to recover from a $375 million budget deficit. As a result, the district canceled all Arts Commu-nity Partnership Network programs and services, affecting over 80 artists and arts organizations as hundreds of scheduled arts activities were canceled or put on hold indefinitely. Studies have demonstrated the positive effects of drama, music, visual arts, and dance programs on student learning, including: improved reading and language skills, sharper mathematic skills, better critical thinking skills, enhanced social skills, a higher motivation to learn, and a more positive school environment. Fund-ing art programs via postal service semipostal is an innovative and cost-effective means to revitalize school art programs and work to close the achievement gap.

Analysis Multiple studies concur that vibrant arts programs and student achievement are posi-tively linked with improved reading and language skills, sharper mathematic skills, bet-ter critical thinking skills, enhanced social skills, a higher motivation to learn, and a more positive school environment.5 A study conducted by The College Board shows a strong linear correlation between arts program participation and SAT scores—students with less arts coursework in high school scored 58 points less on the verbal portion and 38 points less on the math portion of the SAT on average.6 Studies find that students en-gaging in dramatic enactments have measurably better reading comprehension, story understanding, and writing skills.7 Arts programs are a postive motivator for students at risk of not graduating.8 Overall, integrated arts programs enhance school environments, as demonstrated by the Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education and the A+ Schools Program in North Carolina, both of which increased collaboration between teachers and the community, resulting in higher standardized test scores.9

Funding Arts Programs in Low-Performing Districts Through USPS Fundraising StampsErika K. Solanki & Shah-Rukh Paracha, University of California Los Angeles

KEY FACTS• Evidence from the YouthARTS Develop-

ment project exhibited an inverse relation-ship between an increase in art programs and decrease in criminal behavior, and im-proved attitudes towards education.2

• During budget crises, arts programs aredisproportionately affected negatively.3

• Since 1998, the United States Postal Ser-vice has sold more than 785.6 million Breast Cancer Research stamps, with 100% of profits contributing to breast can-cer research and treatment programs.4

22

Semipostals will raise additional funds for specific districts and dwindling art programs. Each semipostal stamp will sell for fifty-five cents, while First Class stamps cost forty-six cents. The U.S. postal service has only ever issued three fundraising stamps; the Breast Cancer Research stamp leads in popularity and is the only semipostal currently in circu-lation. The Dept. of Education will distribute the difference of eleven cents per stamp sold to art programs among thirty historically low-performing school districts across America. The mechanisms to start semipostal production immediately are already in place, and the cost of the semipostal production will be covered by the stamp price.

Next StepsAccording to standardized test scores, the Dept. of Education should first iden-tify the thirty most underperforming dis-tricts in the nation, and then implement an annual competition for stamp designs with submissions from K-12 students in those districts. Funding for marketing campaigns to effectively promote the Arts for K-12 semipostal should come from federal and municipal education agencies, as well as local and national private organizations including: the Na-tional Assembly of State Arts Agencies, the Arts Education Partnership, and Na-tional Art Education Association, and lo-cal groups like the Los Angeles County Arts Commission and Arts for L.A.

Endnotes1. Dania Morris, “The Dropout Crisis.” http://cislawest.org/dropout-statistics.php (accessed November 28,

2009).2. Heather J. Clawson and Kathleen Coolbaugh, YouthARTS Development Project, Office of Juvenile Jus-

tice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 2001.3. OJJDP, U.S. Department of Justice study. YouthARTS Development Project, pp. 7, 10, 124. Susan G. Komen for the Cure Celebrates the Reauthorization of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Komen Newsletter (2007), http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=7476. (accessed De-cember 7, 2009).

5. Susy Watts, “Arts-Infused Summer School.” http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/arts/watts2.htm (ac-cessed December 3, 2009).

6. 2005 College-Bound Seniors: Total Group Profile Report, The College Board, 2005, Table 3-3; SAT Scores of Students Who Study the Arts: What We Can and Cannot Conclude about the Association, Kathryn Vaughn and Ellen Winner (Fall 2000)

7. Jennifer Ross Goodman, “A Naturalistic Study of the Relationship between Literacy Development and Dramatic Play in Five-Year-Old Children.” In R. Deasy (Ed.), Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Achievement and Social Development, Washington, DC: 2002. AEP.

8. Barry, N., J. Taylor, and K. Walls “The Role of the Fine and Performing Arts in High School Dropout Prevention.” In R. Deasy (Ed.), Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Achievement and Social Development, Washington, DC: 2002. AEP.

9. Sandra Ruppert, Critical Evidence. 2006.10. Stamps and Postcards, USPS. http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/stampsandpostcards.htm?from=Post

alHistory&page=Center_StampsandPostcards. (accessed Janurary 3, 2009).

TALKING POINTS• Art programs have the greatest positive

benefits on the most economically dis-advantaged districts, yet these are the districts that have the greatest funding discrepancies for art programs.

• TheDept.ofEducationwilldistributetheeleven cent difference between a first-class stamp and the semi-postal to art programs in historically low-performing districts.10

• Enhancing art programs in the most un-derserved districts through the institu-tion of a semipostal will avoid controver-sial funding methods.

23

States should pilot programs that support information networks for committed com-munity college students seeking access to better jobs.

Community college students seeking careers that offer economic advancement need access to professional experience, which requires an understanding of how information networks function. Information networks are programs like on-campus recruitment, career fairs, and job shadowing that teach students about diverse industries and give them access to industry leaders who can advise, mentor, hire or recommend them for professional experiences.

Beginning community college stu-dents with access to information net-works are 25% more likely to continue on to their second year of schooling.4 Furthermore, approximately 70% of jobs are found through personal con-nections, making these networking opportunities a requirement for finan-cial security.5 Students have identified these networks as a need; according to one report, students without infor-mation networks reported that they felt as though college “was set up to promote failure and felt frustrated with their institutional experiences.”6

According to Robert Putnam, access to informational networks empowers and pro-vides more opportunities for low-income students.7 These networks used to be public, but over the last fifty years professional associations providing these connections have declined 60% on average.8 Mentorship programs attempt to address these concerns, but are hard to successfully implement. One program currently using this method is the Pathways Program at Holyoke Community College, which has an approximate $1 million grant to create informational networks to support its students in transferring to 4-year institutions and receiving a bachelor’s degree. This program has helped approxi-mately 20% of its annual transfer students enroll in some of the nation’s best colleges, like Amherst and Mount Holyoke.9 Holyoke Community College’s Pathways Program suggests these programs could cost approximately $625 per student.10

AnalysisThese programs should focus on engaging first year community college students, help-ing them develop long-term goals. Students attend community college for various rea-sons, including remedial or elective coursework and professional development. Com-munity college students who have defined career goals are more likely to dedicate

Key Facts• Overhalfofcollegestudentsattendacom-

munity college. Their enrollment will rise by as much as 20% in the next decade.1

• Thelifetimeearningpotentialofanindivid-ual holding an associate’s degree is approx-imately 25% less than that of an individual holding a bachelor’s degree.2

• 41% of incoming community college stu-dents are from households with incomes totaling less than $20,000 per year.3

Increasing Access to Information Networks For Community College StudentsNathan Maton & Leslie Faylor, New York University

24

themselves academically and pursue a four year degree. Information networks benefit these students because they can accelerate an individual’s depth of knowledge in a given field. With these experiences, these individuals develop a vision and a resume that makes them more attractive to competitive colleges and jobs.

Next StepsThe state government should apply for grants that will allow them to pi-lot programs akin to the Pathways Program at local community col-leges while simultaneously evaluat-ing these programs. Measuring the success of the students who partici-pated in this program would allow the state to assess if, and how, these programs are benefiting community college students, as well as the most effective way to build information networks.

Endnotes1. Phillippe, Kent A., and Leila G. Sullivan. National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends & Statistics. Ed.

Deanna D’Errico. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges: Community College, 2005.

2. Ibid.3. Ibid. 4. Karp, Melinda M., and Katherine L. Hughes. “Information networks and integration: Institutional influ-

ences on experiences and persistence of beginning students.” Wiley InterScience 144 (2008): 73-82. Print.

5. Huhman, Heather. “Networking as a job search tool (part 5): Find a mentor.” Examiner. 10 Sept. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. <http://www.examiner.com/x-828-Entry-Level-Careers-Examiner~y2008m9d10-Networking-as-a-job-search-tool-part-5-Find-a-mentor>.

6. Karp, Melinda M., and Katherine L. Hughes. “Information networks and integration: Institutional influ-ences on experiences and persistence of beginning students.” Wiley InterScience 144 (2008): 73-82.

7. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

8. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. Print. Appendix III, 439.

9. Hoover, Eric. “Holyoke Community College Builds on Its Transfer Tradition.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009). 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. <http://chronicle.com/article/Holyoke-Communi-ty-College/49457/>.

10. Hoover, Eric. “Holyoke Community College Builds on Its Transfer Tradition.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009). 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. <http://chronicle.com/article/Holyoke-Communi-ty-College/49457/>.

11. Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Whitmore, 2006 in Phillippe, Kent A., and Leila G. Sullivan. National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends & Statistics. Ed. Deanna D’Errico. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American As-sociation of Community Colleges: Community College, 2005. Accessed online January 27, 2010.

12. Karp, Melinda M., and Katherine L. Hughes. “Information networks and integration: Institutional influ-ences on experiences and persistence of beginning students.” Wiley InterScience 144 (2008): 73-82.

13. Huhman, Heather. “Networking as a job search tool (part 5): Find a mentor.” Examiner. 10 Sept. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. <http://www.examiner.com/x-828-Entry-Level-Careers-Examiner~y2008m9d10-Networking-as-a-job-search-tool-part-5-Find-a-mentor>.

Talking Points• Research shows that “every dollar invested

in a community college yields an average of $3 in benefits back to the taxpayers (ACCT, 2003).”11

• Students without information networks re-ported that they felt as though college “was set up to promote failure and felt frustrated with their institutional experiences.”12

• 70%ofjobsarefoundthroughsocialnetworksso talented community college students with-out information networks outside their low income communities are severely disadvan-taged in access to jobs.13

25

To increase individual academic growth, the United States Department of Education should expand the growth model pilot program, permitting all fifty states to use this innovative and proficient testing system.

Growth model testing is a unique form of computer testing that uses non-standardized tests to produce individual results. These tests are given semi-annually or annually to monitor the progress of students throughout their elementary education. To be permit-ted to use growth model testing, states must go through numerous steps established by the Department of Education to ensure that the growth model tests are an effective tool for monitoring student performance. These additional measures help improve the validity and efficiency of the test, and will help promote closing the achievement gap for all students.3 U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated, “We want to close the data gap that now handcuffs districts from tracking growth in student learning and improving classroom instruction.”4 The U.S. Department of Education has been concen-trating federal efforts to increase the amount of data available to school districts; this will allow for growth models to monitor student’s growth and advance proficiency in all areas of academics. This availability of data encourages the development and analysis of individual student’s progress through their growth model assessments.

The pilot program was established in 2005 with the belief that states should be permit-ted to use growth models to determine the school’s ability to achieve adequate yearly progress instead of standardized testing. There are currently fifteen states that use a growth model test for their statewide testing as compliant with the testing standards of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Department of Education established seven principles that an effective growth model must have. These principles ensure that the achievement gap is closed for all ethnicities. They include annual achievement must be judged based upon grade levels; schools must be accountable for achievement in reading and math; an increased ability to track student progress annually; and the capability to monitor student participation and student achievement as guidelines to an accountable system.5

AnalysisIn March 2008, Colorado had its growth model pilot program approved by the U.S. De-partment of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education. The primary goal of Colorado’s system is that each individual student is compared to their peers in rela-tion to the development of their academic proficiency. The Colorado Department of Education recently released their data from the 2008-2009 growth model tests which demonstrated that there was steady growth among grade levels in various areas includ-

Aaron Goldstein, American University

Expanding the Growth Model Testing Pilot Program

Key Facts• The American Reinvestment and Re-

covery Act of 2009 allocated $300 million for building data systems to increase the accountability of growth model systems.1

• Only 15 states currently use growth model testing to administer stu-dent’s individual progress.2

26

ing “34% of students who scored below proficiency last year in reading were grow-ing fast enough to catch up to proficiency in the current academic year.”6 States that have been compiling data over several years through their growth model systems have proven that growth models can be effective in monitoring individual student’s growth. A common concern with growth models is that there is a lack of definition in what sufficient growth entails. This issue could be easily resolved through common core state standards that have been developed by a consortium of 48 states including governors and chief state school officers. Growth models promote academic progress by providing individual and class scores instantaneously. The typical standardized test meanwhile has a prolonged delay before results are known. Teachers and school admin-istrators are therefore given the tools needed to immediately change the structure of the class in order to address the specific academic areas that are in need of greatest attention.

Next StepsIn order for the growth model testing pilot program to expand to more states, there must be financial incentives to states to utilize the growth model system as an alterna-tive to standardized testing. States should be held accountable under this system for 5-7 years as they analyze individual’s proficiency rates under the new system.

President Obama has proposed a dramatic need for our nation to increase the rate of college graduates as a necessity to compete in the global economy. President Obama said that “we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”7 The I3 fund has great potential for funding a large variety of innovative and unique projects. I3 should be extended and promoted through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in order to promote innovation in education including the use of unique and personalized testing methods like growth models.

Endnotes1. Duncan, Arne. “The Race to the Top Begins.” U.S. Department of Education Home Page. U.S. Department of Education,

24 July 2009. Web. 23 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07242009.html>.2. Spelling, Margaret. “Secretary Spelling Approves Additional Growth Model Pilots for 2008-2009 School Year.” U.S. De-

partment of Education, 8 Jan. 2009. Web. 22 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/01/01082009a.html>.

3. United States. U.S. Department of Education. Growth Model Proposal Peer Recommendations for the NCLB Growth Model Pilot Applications. U.S. Department of Education, 23 Sept. 2008. Web. 23 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/cc2.doc>.

4. Duncan, Arne. “The Race to the Top Begins.” 5. Spelling, Margaret. “Secretary Spelling Approves Additional Growth Model Pilots for 2008-2009 School Year.”6. Stevens, Mark. “New School Accountability Process Builds on Colorado Growth Model; 2008-2009 Results Reveal

How Many Students Are On Track For Proficiency.” Colorado Department of Education Press Release. Colorado Department of Education, 7 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 Dec. 2009. <http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/download/PDF/20090807csapresultsfinal.pdf>.

7. Greene, Robert. “Obama Urges U.S. to Regain World Lead in College Graduates.” Bloomberg. February 26, 2009. Wed. 5 July 2010. <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ao_WPhFqAhzM&refer=us>.

Talking Points• School districts are able to supervise

individual student’s growth annually un-der a growth model system.

• Growth models encourage the in-creased development of students and improve the levels of academic growth among each student by providing class-room teacher’s with the information they need to differentiate instruction.

27

AbstractIn the past three decades, the U.S. has resettled more refugees from around the world than all other developed nations combined. Yet following the U.S.-led war on Iraq in 2003, only minimal numbers of Iraqi refugees have been allowed into the U.S. despite the displacement of over 4 million as a direct result of the war. The U.S. response to the crisis has proved inadequate, especially when compared to previous refugee crises in which the U.S. has been primarily responsible for events that led to displacements. Why has the U.S. failed to react steadfastly and meaningfully to the Iraqi refugee cri-sis?

In order to analyze the U.S. response, this white paper explores the following question: How have U.S. foreign policy interests affected the U.S. response to the Iraqi refugee crisis? The argument postulates that the U.S. has not responded fully to the crisis be-cause it has not been in its foreign policy advantage to do so. The U.S. has had an interest in legitimizing Iraq and its government and, therefore, has not addressed the crisis through special resettlement programs and sufficient aid because doing so would otherwise illuminate Iraq’s instability and thus de-legitimize the U.S. mission there. Be-yond U.S. strategy, the fragmented nature of the international community’s approach to refugee policy and the inadequacies of the USRAP have also been responsible for the cumulative failed response to the Iraqi refugee crisis, particularly the USRAP’s in-consistent and inflexible design which has resulted in dire rates of unemployment and homelessness for resettled Iraqi refugees.

To read more, visit www.rooseveltinstitute.org for the full white paper,part of the forthcoming Roosevelt Review.

29

Roosevelt Review Preview:Refugee Policy - Implications for the Admission of Refugees of the Iraq War Since 2003Adina Appelbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org