Posts About Education

Most people agree that the future success of our nation is largely dependent on how well we educate the next generation. But that’s generally where agreement stops, with debates raging constantly as to the best way to ensure a high quality education for our young people.

Two of the most frequent pleas are for fiscal equity and fiscal efficiency. Advocates of fiscal equity believe the primary issue with school finance is the huge variance in per pupil spending between districts. The camp focused on fiscal efficiency believe the key to better outcomes is for schools to be more efficient with the existing budget.  

However as three new reports from the Center for American Progress point out, these are not mutually exclusive goals. If the focus stays on student outcomes, we can do both: ask that all schools use their budgets more productively to improve performance while recognizing the fact that high-poverty schools have been grossly underfunded.

This is not a new problem.  In a speech given in 1970, President Nixon recognized the disparity in school financing among districts and states and called the gap in educational expenditures between rich and poor jurisdictions a “cause for national concern.” He correctly pointed out that because the majority of schools funding comes from local tax revenue, areas with a low tax base find it difficult or impossible to provide adequate support to their schools.

Of course we want schools to maximize their return on investment with increased test scores and student competency and higher graduation rates, but until there is more fiscal equity between schools, I would argue that we really aren’t capable of making a fair comparison of school’s fiscal efficiency. 

The cycle can be vicious – growing up in a low-income neighborhood leads to attending underfunded school leads to decreased academic achievement leads to securing a low wage job leads to residing in a low-income neighborhood – and on it goes to the next generation. In addition to this reliance on local tax base, many high-poverty schools are not receiving the state and federal money to which they are entitled to. Money that would help make up the difference. Consequently, students in high-poverty schools have fewer resources than their peers who attend wealthier schools.

CSPPs work on the federal Promise Neighborhood Initiative engages in community-driven, place-based efforts to improve educational and developmental outcomes for children in distressed communities. These communities acknowledge the significant educational disparities – Hispanic and African American students, in addition to low-income students, are more likely to be in low-performing school districts – and receive technical assistance in closing educational opportunity gaps, ensuring that all children are performing at grade level and in building capacity to implement a cradle-to-career pipeline that supports youth.

So what else can we do? While the issue of equitable school finance is complex and rife with politics, some initial areas that must be addressed in order to make progress include:

• Improving the quality of fiscal data and making financial information transparent
• Supporting housing policies which address racial and economic housing segregation
• Limiting jurisdictional power to undermine state policy supporting local spending equity

For more details on specific strategies and funding options jurisdictions and states can adopt to improve education outcomes, such as early grade-level reading, high school completion rates and college completion rates, please visit PolicyforResults.org. 

Approximately 20 percent of young people — about 800,000 per year — don’t graduate from high school.

Most of what we know about this group is related to their subsequent outcomes. On average, those who do not finish high school or attain a GED certificate have lower lifetime earning potential, increased likelihood of ending up in prison or other institutions and higher reliance on safety net programs like Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). To date, the tone of the conversation around youth who have interrupted school experiences or do not graduate has been largely negative and focused on broad generalizations. 

But what about the youth themselves? A new report by America’s Promise Alliance addresses that question and reminds us to pick our heads up from the numbers and look at the individual students, both their struggles and their strengths, for ways to help.

The study interviewed more than 200 youth who had left school and analyzed an additional 3,000 surveys completed by youth who either experienced an interrupted school experience or were continuously enrolled until graduation. Results indicate that an accumulation of risk factors (as opposed to any one factor alone) lead youth to stop attending high school. Commonly mentioned factors, which increased the risk of interrupted enrollment, included home or school instability (50%), foster care placement (11%), parental incarceration (79%) and homelessness (87%).

In addition, many non-graduating students report toxic environments with high prevalence of family and neighborhood violence, poverty, feeling unsafe while at school and family health challenges. Overwhelming life circumstances can simply push school attendance down on the priority list, suggesting that school personnel, community leaders and other youth-serving professionals should surround students who experience these life circumstances with additional support. While the specifics would vary based on the youth and circumstances, additional concrete supports could include tutoring, counseling, crisis assistance with housing or health issues or assessment for other services during times of need.

Another consistent theme in the interviews was the youths’ search for supportive connections with peers and adults. The presence (or absence) of these had a strong influence on their decision-making regarding school attendance and completion. This aligns with Youth Thrive, CSSP’s own framework around protective and promotive factors for youth. Caring connections at home, in the neighborhood and in school are important, but insufficient for these youth. The accumulation of risk factors necessitate that caring be combined with connections to people and concrete services, like those mentioned above, which can actually help youth solve the problems that get in the way of school achievement.

A remarkable level of resiliency, another protective/promotive factor identified in the Youth Thrive framework, was displayed by the youth interviewed, many of whom have since reengaged with education programs. As adults, we have to remember that when faced with extreme adversity, resilience may mean focusing on basic needs and supporting your family rather than on obtaining a high school diploma. If youth have access to concrete supports and supportive connections, these adaptive traits of autonomy and sense of self-efficacy may enable them to stay in school.

It’s time to change our lens when talking about youth who leave high school. Rather than continuing to use negative language (such as “drop out”), it’s time to recognize them for what they are: resilient youth doing the best they can with what life has presented them. Investing in these students, by providing the emotional and tangible supports they want and need to navigate their complex life circumstances, would strengthen them and, in turn, our society as a whole.

The recent Supreme Court decision to uphold Michigan’s Proposal 2, a ballot initiative that bans public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin in public education, public employment or public contracting, has stirred controversial issues of race in America.

The measure prohibited the use of affirmative action in the state of Michigan and was further confirmed last month in a 6-2 Supreme Court decision in Shuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. In Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, she strongly expresses the importance of race-based preferences:

"Race also matters because of persistent racial inequality in society—inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities.

And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man’s view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman’s sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, 'No, where are you really from?', regardless of how many generations her family has been in the country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here.'”

The micro-aggressions that Justice Sotomayor explains in her dissent perfectly highlight the problems that minorities are faced with today. The barriers minorities experience in educational and professional settings are no longer obvious forms of discrimination, but rather, subtle instances of not belonging. These micro-aggressions can be attributed to the lack of diversity within these environments, which further stresses the need for affirmative action policies as opposed to the alternative: avoiding race-based preferences altogether.

Affirmative action has played a significant role in facilitating the growth of a diverse nation since the civil rights movement by actively implementing policies that provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups and women in education and employment. However, affirmative action policies have yet to accomplish what they were intended to address decades ago- something that is still essential today.  Equal access to opportunities.

Policies with regard to race-based preferences that help to provide equal access to opportunities in education and job placements for disadvantaged minorities are statistically proven to increase minority enrollment in college and universities. According to the Pew Research Center, higher educational attainment is one of the most important pathways out of poverty and into the middle class, so policies that promote equitable outcomes are essential in leveling the playing field.

The benefits of affirmative action are far-reaching. In addition to having universities demographically reflect their surrounding communities, beneficiaries of affirmative action- like Justice Sotomayor- have had the opportunity to pursue better jobs, wages and overall quality of life as a result of policies in place. Most importantly, increasing diversity on campus and within the workforce has a positive impact on the quality of education students and workers receive by creating a platform of various perspectives, which is essential in an increasingly diverse America.

The Center for the Study of Social Policy always emphasizes the need to promote policies with a racial equity lens because minority populations experience high levels of disproportionality in income levels and health outcomes and are less likely to have access to educational opportunities. Ignoring these issues can only exacerbate this problem. As Justice Sotomayor eloquently states in her dissent, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race…”

As highlighted in the principles guiding CSSP’s policy work, we believe no public policy is –or can be - race or ethnicity neutral. 

The recently released Strong Start for America’s Children Act was introduced to improve and expand access to high-quality prekindergarten programs for all low-income children to ensure kindergarten readiness. Through a federal-state partnership, the legislation would fund preschool for 4-year old children from families earning at or below 200% of the federal poverty level and encourage states to provide support for families just above that income threshold. The bill would also provide resources, such as voluntary home visits by nurses and social workers, to at-risk families as well as new funding for high-quality learning programs for infants and toddlers.

High-quality early education is crucial in preparing young children for future success, unfortunately high-quality early education is cost-prohibitive for many low-income families, leaving many young children without that important foundational opportunity. Research has shown that investing in early education can lead to short- and long-term benefits, including better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower levels of crime and delinquency. This legislation, by off-setting the cost associated with quality early learning opportunities, aims to provide low-income children with a more equitable start – with the hopes of reducing the achievement gap between low-income children and children from more affluent families.

Increasing access to high-quality, affordable preschool programs for young children is a step in the right direction toward advancing the outcomes of vulnerable children and families. Policies that work to invest in children and support families have significant positive returns on future generations. Policymakers should prioritize early education to enhance opportunities for all children and increase equity.

For more information on The Strong Start for America’s Children Act, click here.

To read about the importance of investing in early childhood education, click here.

To read about the role of quality preschools in closing the opportunity gap, click here and here.

For results-based policy resources to support young children – please read CSSP’s report on Supporting Early Healthy Development.

Today, Kids Count at the Annie E. Casey Foundation released a new policy report, The First Eight Years, that highlights the importance of making early investments in young children. Unfortunately, despite the fact that most brain development occurs in the early years of childhood, federal spending for children is lowest during this period of their growth. The new report from Kids Count states that investing in the first eight years of a child’s life is critical for children to succeed, both while they are in school and in their future. The Kids Count report highlights three primary goals with related policy recommendations.

 The report includes detailed analysis under each goal and policy recommendation. The goals in the report include:

(1) Support parents as they care for their children

• States should establish or continue to expand voluntary, evidence-based home-visiting and parent-training programs for children at risk of falling behind.
• States should Increase mental health services.
• States should boost economic stability by improving income supports such as SNAP, EITC, and child support and expand educational assistance and job-training programs for parents.
• States and the federal government should align eligibility and recertification dates, streamline benefits packages and offer one-stop locations for job training and other programs that serve low-income parents.

 (2) Improve access to quality early care

• States should adopt early learning and development standards that set clear expectations for child development.
• States should set child-care reimbursement rates at levels that allow providers to retain a skilled child-care workforce and maintain age-appropriate instructor-child ratios.
• States can expand and improve Head Start and Early Head Start that combine early education services for parents and access to other resources.
• States should provide voluntary, full-day, high-quality and developmentally appropriate prekindergarten programs that serve all children, beginning with investments that target low-income 3- and 4-year olds.
• States should provide supports needed for all children to reach important benchmarks, and continue to implement rigorous, state-developed college and career-ready education standards.
• States should ensure that children have access to affordable and comprehensive health care from a primary care provider who can manage and coordinate their care. 

(3) Ensure that care is comprehensive and coordinated for all children from birth through age 8  

• States should use consistent measures of child development that provide broad assessments of child well-being.
•  States should develop linked data systems, which include as many early care and education providers as possible that should help administrators ensure that children who need services receive them and identify additional resources that children need to flourish.
• States should increase coordination efforts to include better integration and transitions among early education, K-12, health care, and family support systems.

The findings of The Kids Count policy report demonstrate the need for high-quality early childhood programs, which include supports for families, that can have a powerful and lasting impact on young children—an impact that continues into adulthood. Policymakers can advance their efforts to support young children by looking toward evidence on best practices across early childhood fields, which can be used to make the case for policies supporting a comprehensive and integrated birth through age 8 system that ensures all children have a real chance to be successful and contribute.

Visit Kids Count at the Annie E. Casey Foundation for more details from this policy report.  For a complementary resource focused on Supporting Early Healthy Development please read CSSP’s Policy for Results report, scheduled for release on November 12, 2013.  Stay tuned!

Earlier this month, Washington Post education reporter Valerie Strauss posted a blog asking if the U.S. Department of Education is “obsessed with data” when it comes to their Promise Neighborhoods grantees.

The answer is, yeah, kind of.

But we’d argue the real obsession is with results.

Focusing on specific indicators means focusing on progress. What the government is doing is creating a new level of accountability. Of shared accountability that every partner in every Promise Neighborhood site is clear about.

Why are they doing this? Because to make sure that every child in a low-income neighborhood has the opportunity to get to and graduate from college means everyone involved has to understand what’s going on. Everyone has to be on the same page. And unless you’re tracking along the way – watching data on daily school attendance or critical milestones like reading well by the end of third grade – you risk waiting until kids fail to realize there’s a problem.

Another reason the focus on data and results is so important? It makes for much more efficient use of the resources at hand. Because as Strauss points out, there’s far less funding for Promise Neighborhoods than other education initiatives.

And so yes, it might take some time to get some of the details worked out on the best indicators organizations should be collecting and reporting. But it’s all part of a bigger picture. 

Working with each of these communities, we know what’s at stake. We’re glad the Department of Education, neighborhood stakeholders, parents and everyone else who touches the lives of children in Promise Neighborhoods are relentless about results. It’s because they all understand what the end goal is.

And we’d argue that’s something worth being obsessed with!

Frank Farrow is the director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy, the training and technical assistance provider for the federal Promise Neighbhorhoods initiative.

On average state and federal corrections spending amounts to more than double the total state and federal spending on education. A recent report released by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Maine found that if states were to invest in early childhood care and education, they would reduce spending on corrections over time. According to another report released by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Illinois states investing in early care and education will experience long term savings of 16$ for every 1$ initially invested.

Investing in quality early childhood care and education can lead to a reduction in the number of student with developmental delays, grade retention and helps to reduce crime rates. These investments will also lead to an increase in high school graduation rates, improvements in the learning environments of classrooms across the nation, better educational performance, increases in literacy rates and reductions in the need for special education services for students later on in their schooling.

The need for special education services would decrease because quality early childhood education programs address certain developmental delays found in at-risk preschool aged children. These programs also help children to acquire the necessary social and self-control skills that are needed to address the problematic behaviors sometimes found in elementary class rooms.  This decrease in the need for special education is paramount for states because special education services cost nearly double the cost of general education. And because schools are legally obligated to provide appropriate special education services to students in need investing in high quality early education could lead to significant long term savings for states.

Sixty-one percent of American children under the age of five currently attend an early childhood education or care program. According to a study done by Margret Burchinal the need for high quality programs is important because low quality early education and childcare programs can increase the risk of school failure, crime, and other negative outcomes.  High quality early childhood education and care programs would include some of the following characteristics: Highly skilled teachers, comprehensive, creative, and age-appropriate curriculums, strong family and community involvement, appropriate staff to child ratios, small class sizes, appropriate screening and referral services for special health, behavior, and developmental needs

States can increase their early childhood care and education programs by partnering with federal initiatives like The Race to the Top- Early Learning Challenge and the Pathways and Partnerships for Childcare Excellence. Legislation that ensures support for early childhood education and care, quality education, and special education services are all ways that policymakers can help support the educational needs of children while reducing both crime and spending. To learn more about the quality of early care and education policymakers can also research their state’s Quality Improvement System. For more information on results-based policies that support young children and families visit Policyforresults.org.

With so many working families relying on care outside the home, access to affordable, high-quality child care is not only important for children’s well-being, it is important for national economic productivity. Research  suggests that access to quality child care has a positive impact on parents’ productivity by reducing absenteeism, tardiness and lack of concentration at work. Through reforming child care assistance programs and establishing thorough regulation of child care facilities, policymakers can play an important role in ensuring that more children in working families have a healthy start.