100% found this document useful (2 votes)
81 views37 pages

Previewpdf

good reads

Uploaded by

focus copy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (2 votes)
81 views37 pages

Previewpdf

good reads

Uploaded by

focus copy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 37

Understanding Key

Education Issues

In this age of education innovation and reform, schools must evolve and
react to current policy trends. This accessible book offers research-based
insights into six key educational trends and issues that are impacting K-12
learning today: year-round schooling, assessments, educating minorities,
anti-intellectualism, issues of social promotion and retention, and school
design. Each chapter unpacks research and policy issues relating to these
topics and provides administrators with practical advice on how they should
approach these issues to improve learning in their schools. The ideas and
strategies in Understanding Key Education Issues will help educators across
the country achieve greater efficiency, better results, and a higher purpose.

Matthew Lynch is an award-winning writer, activist, and president of Lynch


Consulting Group. Formerly, he was the Dean of the School of Education,
Psychology, and Interdisciplinary Studies and an Associate Professor of
Education at Virginia Union University, USA.
Other Eye on Education Books Available from Routledge
(www.routledge.com/eyeoneducation)

Ten Steps for Genuine Leadership in Schools


David M. Fultz
College for Every Student:
A Practitioner’s Guide to Building College and Career Readiness
Rick Dalton and Edward P. St. John
Leading Learning for ELL Students: Strategies for Success
Catherine Beck and Heidi Pace
Leadership in America’s Best Urban Schools
Joseph F. Johnson, Jr., Cynthia L. Uline, and Lynne G. Perez
The Power of Conversation: Transforming Principals into Great Leaders
Barbara Kohm
First Aid for Teacher Burnout: How You Can Find Peace and Success
Jenny G. Rankin
What Successful Principals Do! 199 Tips for Principals, 2nd Edition
Franzy Fleck
The Revitalized Tutoring Center: A Guide to Transforming School Culture
Jeremy Koselak and Brad Lyall
7 Ways to Transform the Lives of Wounded Students
Joe Hendershott
School Leadership through the Seasons:
A Guide to Staying Focused and Getting Results All Year
Ann T. Mausbach and Kimberly Morrison
Distributed Leadership in Schools:
A Practical Guide for Learning and Improvement
John A. DeFlaminis, Mustafa Abdul-Jabbar, and Eric Yoak
The Leader’s Guide to Working with Underperforming Teachers:
Overcoming Marginal Teaching and Getting Results
by Sally Zepeda
Five Critical Leadership Practices: The Secret to High-Performing Schools
Ruth C. Ash and Pat H. Hodge
Understanding Key
Education Issues
How We Got Here and
Where We Go From Here

Matthew Lynch
First published 2017
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
The right of Matthew Lynch to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lynch, Matthew, 1978–
Title: Understanding key education issues : how we got here and where we
go from here / by Matthew Lynch.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2017. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016048422 | ISBN 9781138285675 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781138285682 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH: Education—United States.
Classification: LCC LA210 .L96 2017 | DDC 370.973—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016048422
ISBN: 978-1-138-28567-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-28568-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-26881-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Optima
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This book is dedicated to the teachers, administrators, parents, citizens,
and politicians who have been fighting for genuine school reform in the
United States for decades. Thank you for caring about our children.
This book is also dedicated to the children who were not properly
educated by the US educational system. These children are the
collateral damage that should spur us to create lasting change.
Contents

Preface viii
Acknowledgments xi
Meet the Author xii

1 How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next? 1

2 Year-Round Schooling: The Unexpected Solution to


America’s Education Woes? 20

3 Examining the Present and Future of K-12 Assessments 41

4 Black Boys in Crisis: What Can We Do? 61

5 Combating Anti-Intellectualism and Academic


Disengagement83

6 Responding to Social Promotion and Retention 107

7 Rethinking School Design for Better Learning


Outcomes127

vii
Preface

The formal education system was designed to meet the economic demands
of the industrial revolution. However, in the current global economic cli-
mate, the established education system is struggling to meet the needs of a
hyper-connected society that is in a constant state of evolution.
In this age of education innovation and reform, the pre-K through 12
classroom must evolve in order to adapt to the times. As a result, practices
and policies are continually being reexamined and adjusted. The problem
with many of these policy trends, however, is that they are strong on pas-
sionate discourse but weak on practical implementation and ideas. Fur-
thermore, many are not based on evidence.
That is where this book comes in. It offers objective, research-based
insights into six key educational trends and issues that are impacting
the K-12 learning process: year-round schooling, assessments, educat-
ing minorities, anti-intellectualism, multiage classrooms, and the twin
issues of social promotion and retention. At the same time, the book
addresses controversial but important questions that relate to the future
of public K-12 education in America. In addition, the book provides
educators and administrators with practical strategies on how they
should adjust to these new trends and issues, and how they can take
advantage of them.
The first chapter looks at the history of the US education system. As
America has grown in its nearly 250 years of existence, its public-school
system has adjusted with the times. Various theories on properly educating
our future generations have been introduced, tested, established, and then
thrown out. Each new evolution of the public-school systems in the United
States has built upon the lessons of the previous iteration, for better or for
worse.

viii
Preface

By identifying these historical trends and issues, we can start a journey


that will lead us toward better outcomes for future generations. The prem-
ise of chapter one is that in order to understand where we are going and
avoid the mistakes of the past, we first need to take a look at the history of
education in America, focusing on past trends and issues. The chapter ends
with an introduction of current trends and issues, which offers a perfect
segue into chapter two.
The second chapter considers the current US school calendar, arguing
that it is woefully outdated. It also makes suggestions on how the country
can seamlessly transition into the more viable year-round calendar. The tra-
ditional school year, with roughly three months of vacation every summer,
was first implemented when America was an agricultural society. Currently,
over two million students in forty-six states attend school on year-round
schedules. Based on current information, year-round schooling appears to
offer an academic advantage to students. In particular, at-risk students fare
better without a long summer break. I propose ways that the United States
can transition fully to a year-round model and ditch the outdated tradi-
tional calendar for good. I also provide practical tips and strategies on how
districts can seamlessly transition to a year-round schedule.
In chapter three, we look at standardized exams and other assess-
ments. Many educators view standardized testing as a necessary evil of
the improvement process. Proponents of standardized assessments say that
without them, there is no adequate way to enforce educator accountability.
Assessments are a necessary part of education. This chapter outlines
the steps needed to make K-12 assessments applicable to today’s students,
while discussing the assessment strategies that teachers and administrators
need to use in order to positively impact academic achievement.
Chapter four looks at educating young black males in the United States.
Study after study points to a crisis among African-American boys. The cri-
sis begins in homes, is exacerbated by K-12 educational experiences, and
often leads to a cycle of incarceration. What can be done to save this group
of children that consistently seems to fall through the cracks? In this chap-
ter, I look at the crisis among black males and provide educators with prac-
tical strategies for helping them succeed academically.
Chapter five looks at anti-intellectualism and academic disengage-
ment in the American education system. All schools in the United States
would claim to have an academic mission, but few seem interested in cul-
tivating intellect. Every day 150 teens drop out of our schools and into

ix
Preface

poverty and prison. Too often, the culprit is a culture of anti-intellectualism.


Chapter five looks at aspects of anti-intellectualism and provides teachers
and administrators with strategies for confronting anti-intellectualism and
academic disengagement in their school districts.
Chapter six considers how social promotion and retention are equally
negative educational outcomes. Research shows that students who are
held back, or who are socially promoted to the next grade, do not tend to
do better in school and are at greater risk of dropping out. Students who
experience these inappropriate grade-level shifts tend to be at higher risk
of academic, social, and economic problems.
Chapter seven brings the book to a close by imagining what the nec-
essary redesign of the American educational system might look like. This
chapter delves into the idea of multiage and multi-ability classrooms, which
loosen the strictures on children and teachers alike. Multiage classrooms
have proven a resounding success where they have been tried. They tend
to take care of the problems of social promotion and retention, and create
a more stimulating learning environment. However, the shift to multiage
classrooms requires an adjustment at all levels of the educational structure.
The chapter looks at what those adjustments entail and at ways to simplify
the redesign process.
The strategies in this book are deliberately designed to be workable
in the educational system. If nothing else, I hope this book provides some
discussion surrounding important questions that are often overlooked or
under-considered in the current educational policy arena.

x
Acknowledgments

First, I would like to thank God for being my strength and my refuge. I would
also like to acknowledge the collective unconscious of my ancestors. You
paved the way for my ascendancy into the upper echelons of academia and
served as a catalyst for my intellectual development.
Of course, I have to acknowledge my parents, Jessie and Patsy Lynch,
for giving me their love and support. Also, I want to thank my sisters,
Tammy Kemp and Angelina Lynch, for having my back. To their children,
Adicuz, Kayla, Kerri, and Kelton: I hope my accomplishments will motivate
each of you to live up to your limitless potential. No matter what, remem-
ber that your uncle loves you. You are the reason I am so passionate about
reforming America’s schools.
I would like to acknowledge my mentor, Dr. Rodney Washington, for
his invaluable support, guidance, knowledge, and inspiration. Thanks for
being the big brother that I never had! I also would like to acknowledge
the invaluable support and guidance of my editor at Routledge, Heather
Jarrow.
I also have to thank the scholars and academics who agreed to review
this manuscript and provided invaluable feedback. Your assistance has
ensured that my book is of the highest quality and will make a solid contri-
bution to the K-12 educational arena.

xi
Meet the Author

Dr. Matthew Lynch is an award-winning writer, activist, and president of


Lynch Consulting Group. Formerly, he was the Dean of the School of Edu-
cation, Psychology, and Interdisciplinary Studies and an Associate Profes-
sor of Education at Virginia Union University. Prior to his career in higher
education, he spent seven years as a K-12 teacher—an experience that gave
him an intimate view of the challenges facing genuine education reform.
Dr. Lynch has focused the second stage of his career on researching
topics related to educational reform, the achievement gap, and teacher
education. He believes that improving teacher education is an essential
component in closing the achievement gap.

xii
Meet the Author

Dr. Lynch’s articles and op-eds appear regularly in the Huffington Post,
Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, and Education Week. He has written
numerous peer-reviewed articles, which have appeared in academic jour-
nals such as the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, International
Journal of Progressive Education, and Academic Leadership Journal. In
addition, he has authored and edited a number of books on school reform
and school leadership. These include It’s Time for a Change (Rowman &
Littlefield, 2011), A Guide to Effective School Leadership Theories (Rout-
ledge, 2012), Before Obama: A Reappraisal of Black Reconstruction Era
Politicians (Praeger, 2012), and The Call to Teach (Pearson, 2014).
Please visit his website at www.drmattlynch.com for more information.

xiii
How Did We Get
1 Here, and What’s
Next?

● The state of the American school system: What do our schools look like
to an outside observer?
● The birth of the American public school: The European origins of our
school system and the one-room schoolhouse.
● The Mann reforms to public education: Horace Mann’s nineteenth-century
advancements, which continue to influence educational policy.
● Public education as national requirement: The first public schools and
how they operated.
● Unified, then divided, public schools: Unity following the World Wars
soon dissolved.
● A nation of public-school students at risk: The realization that America
was no longer on top of the world, and the attempts to rectify that.
● Minority education in America: A look at the horrific legacy of disen-
franchised students, which continues to the present day.
● A melting pot of educational ideology: A look at the present cacophony
of ideas and programs, and a glance toward the future.

Innovation has always driven Americans and continues to be a driving


force today. It’s what has simultaneously given us the labels of “crazy” and
“genius,” and is what makes Americans a global power to be reckoned
with. The Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver,
Henry Ford, Steve Jobs . . . the list of world-changing thinkers and inventors
is long. Without the many Americans who have stepped outside the lines to
better their own ways of life and those of their fellow citizens, this nation
would not be considered the greatest on the globe.

1
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

That creative spirit is born in our public schools. The students who will
dream up tomorrow’s major inventions and come up with plans to improve
the American way of life and fill every job in between are in our K-12 class-
rooms today. In spite of all their problems, public schools remain a stead-
fast reminder of all that is great and inspirational about the American way.
As America has grown in its nearly 250 years of existence, its public-
school system has adjusted with the times (Urban and Wagoner 2009).
Various theories on properly educating our future generations have been
introduced, tested, established, and then thrown out. Each new evolution
of the public-school systems in the United States—from the one-room
schoolhouse to compulsory education to opening the doors of education
for all citizens—has built upon the lessons of the ones before (both good
and bad).

The State of the American School System


What do our school systems look like from an objective perspective? If
you base your knowledge of the nation’s public schools on news headlines
alone, you might have a bleak perception of what is happening in the K-12
classrooms funded by our tax dollars. A report issued by the US Depart-
ment of Education in April of 2014 showed that high school seniors did not
show any signs of improvement in math and science scores from 2009 to
2013 (Nation’s Report Card 2014). When compared with other developed
countries, US students lag seriously behind in areas such as math and sci-
ence, too. The students who are bringing down the national averages are
not just from underprivileged areas. A Washington Examiner report found
that more than half of fifteen-year-olds from homes with well-educated
parents are not proficient in at least one of the three key subject areas:
reading, math, and science (Peterson 2014).
Despite these and numerous similar reports, US high school seniors
are graduating at a record rate of 80 percent (Hefling 2014). This is a statis-
tic that should no doubt be celebrated, but it does raise a question mark:
How are so many US students lagging behind in so many vital academic
areas, yet graduating from our schools at record rates?
The truth is complicated. Standards for exactly what students should
be learning at every step of their educational journey have never been
more stringent. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation enacted in

2
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

2001 heightened educator accountability systems and put stricter assess-


ment processes in place to measure the true learning outcomes of students
(Klein 2015). Teacher accountability was in place before NCLB, and so
were state assessment tests, but the legislation placed both on a pedestal
that many schools are still unable to attain. By setting blanket benchmarks
for the entire nation, based on limited testing materials, teachers were
essentially stripped of their free will when it came to educating and were
forced to begin “teaching to the test.” For many educators, NCLB marked
an end to learning for learning’s sake in classrooms. For some, it meant
dumbing down materials to ensure all students scored well on those vital
assessments.
Fast forward twelve years to the recent enactment of the Common Core
Standards in forty-four states and the District of Columbia, and account-
ability and assessments have even more to contend with. Tied to President
Obama’s federal funding program Race to the Top, Common Core bench-
marks were determined by the National Governors Association. States
could choose to opt in or out, with pressure to conform enhanced by the
promise of plentiful funds. Like NCLB legislation (which still exists along-
side Common Core requirements), the new set of initiatives seeks stronger
student outcomes in areas such as math, science, and technology (Core
Standards 2016).
In theory, Common Core Standards should work: Place more focus on
the subjects where American students need extra help, attach some money
as an incentive, and then watch the test scores rise. The true effectiveness
of these standards remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine that placing
greater concentration on a narrower range of subjects will end up assisting
this generation of K-12 students (Mathis 2010).
Assessments and teacher accountability tethered to funding are just
the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the issues holding back the actual
process of learning in our public schools. Overcrowding and inequality
of resources, as well as a cultural shift toward anti-intellectualism, weigh
heavily on the schools within our borders.
By identifying the major trends and issues that hinder the effectiveness
of the public schools of our nation, we can start a journey that will lead
us toward better outcomes for future generations. It is not a task reserved
for educators alone, however. To bring about the necessary changes, it will
take the involvement every parent, business owner, and community mem-
ber. But in order to understand where we are going and avoid the mistakes

3
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

of the past, we first need to take a look at the history of education in Amer-
ica, focusing on the anti-intellectual trends.

The Birth of the American Public School


There were public schools in America as far back as the mid-1600s, in the
Massachusetts Bay Colony, but the precursors of the modern public school
began appearing in Pennsylvania at the end of the eighteenth century. Even
the poorest of citizens was welcomed through those schoolhouse doors
and offered a public education. (Note, however, that African Americans
and Native Americans were not considered citizens at that time.) The New
York Public School Society was established in 1805, and by 1870 all states
had at least a minimal public program in place to educate students en
masse. These programs were mostly voluntary, however—compulsory edu-
cation would not become widespread until the beginning of the twentieth
century (Urban and Wagoner 2009).
What was taught in these early schools varied by region but was
grounded in a basic set of rules. Public education was meant to unite
American families through a common interest: raising educated children
who would soon be at the helm of the nation’s future. Basic education was
not something reserved for the elite. Reading, writing, and basic arithmetic
were necessities of living as Americans and were important when it came
to guiding the young nation (Urban and Wagoner 2009).
The learning resources of early America were understandably limited.
There was not much variety in American-made textbooks or other learning
tools. Much of what was used in these schools were texts developed in
England and repurposed for American pursuits. Educators recognized the
need for purely American educational texts, though, and slowly they began
to take shape (Urban and Wagoner 2009).
In the 1780s, Noah Webster set out to create a textbook that would
teach children the realities of spelling in the new land. Until that point,
spelling textbooks were primarily imports from England that sought to teach
kids the most unusual and difficult, yet least used, words in the English
language. Webster saw the impracticality of this and set out to change it.
The American Spelling Book became a staple for learning in homes and in
the few organized educational schoolrooms that existed. In accomplishing
this, Webster established the first systematic method for learning in the

4
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

young country. It was practical, easy to navigate, and widely used. As late
as 1866, after many other spelling books had been written and updated,
Webster’s original version was still selling nine million copies annually
(Svobdny 1985; Webster 1783).
From the outset, public education in the United States was about mov-
ing students collectively in the direction the nation wanted to go. Individu-
alism and customized learning were certainly not common terms, and the
choices for education were slim. The accepted curriculum for one Ameri-
can was deemed good enough for another. This base learning was rooted
in the need to not only obtain knowledge, but to use education as a way to
build up a nation that was still teetering dangerously on the edge of failure.
Parents did not encourage their children to learn spelling or arithmetic so
they could have a better life, but so they could continue to have a free one.
Education was a means of survival, and banding together with the same
education goals, at least when it came to common people, was a way to
build the entire nation up. Certainly there was some educational elitism
through private schooling and university systems, but when it came to the
public institutions of learning, every student encountered the same knowl-
edge set (Unger 2007).
As the country continued to expand, both in population and land
mass, public education became more segmented. Until the 1840s, pub-
lic schools were under local control, with little input from the state and
virtually no federal oversight. Attendance was rising, however. The US
Census from 1840 shows that 3.68 million children from ages five to fif-
teen attended school, representing about 55 percent of the population
in that age bracket. Around this time the idea of one-room schoolhouses
took shape, with the older students acting as helpers for the younger ones.
There was no formal credentialing for teachers. This was why young single
women often filled the roles: Unlike young men, who were toiling on the
farms, young women were available, so they served as teachers until they
got married (Unger 2007).

The Mann Reforms to Public Education


The first attempt at regulating exactly what American students were learn-
ing in those early schoolhouses came in 1837 from education reformer
Horace Mann. When he took over the role of Secretary of Education in

5
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

Massachusetts, he set out to create a common way of teaching educational


content, particularly to elementary students. For the most part, he adapted
his ideas from a Prussian model that stressed training for educators (Mes-
serli 1972).
Along with shared content, Mann’s reforms brought about the first
age-grade systems where students were promoted based on age, not aca-
demic aptitude. While this led to greater concentration on subjects that
increased in difficulty as students grew older, it also planted the notion that
American students should be passive learners, as opposed to active ones.
The idea that each student should master by a certain time content based
on broadly accepted criteria was established as a way to keep students
moving through the public-education system (Messerli 1972).
States rushed to duplicate Mann’s ideas in their own schools and mul-
tiage classrooms disappeared in the coming decades. As the American
population rose, it made sense to accommodate students in a more seg-
mented way. Age-grading was meant to improve efficiency of classrooms
and the entire public-education system. The more students who could be
passed through the public schools, the better. It made economic sense and,
in the minds of reformers such as Mann, it would lead to a more highly
educated public (Messerli 1972).
Though Mann’s system for age grading was introduced over 175 years
ago, it remains the primary form of organization in American schools today.
While some students are retained (or held back) when they do not master
the material at hand, the idea of socially promoting students based solely
on their ages is more popular than one might think. It is difficult to measure
exactly how many students are passed on to the next grade based more on
age than academic merit, because teachers are obviously not keen to admit
it. Retaining students is simple to measure but only tells half the story. Of
the students who are not retained, how many of them should be? (Messerli
1972).
Sending children to school later throws a wrench in the traditional
age-grade system. Teachers are often ill prepared to deal with students who
are outside the age specifications in their classrooms, and in cases where
both a five- and seven-year-old are in the same classroom, there are nat-
urally differences in behavior and maturity. By adhering strictly to an age-
grade system for just some, it puts a strain on the others. Teachers who hope
to avoid problems for their colleagues in higher grades often take the easier
route of age-grading promotion.

6
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

Despite the pitfalls engendered by the age-grading system, the positive


impact of Mann’s endeavors should not go unnoticed. Along with age-
grading, he emphasized the need for mandatory attendance. Mann insisted
that public education was not a perk of American life; it was a necessity
for the well-being of our nation. He believed that for the nation to truly
advance, its youth belonged in classrooms, not just in fields or factories, and
that states should implement attendance policies to support this view. While
it took some time for his ideas to see mass adoption, his advocacy for man-
datory public schools found some resonance. By 1900, thirty-four states had
implemented required-schooling laws, thirty of which required students to
stay in school until the age of fourteen. Ten years later, 72 percent of the
children in the United States went to school. Just a decade after that, every
state had required attendance policies. By 1940, half of all young adults in
the United States were high school diploma recipients (Wells 1975).

Public Education as National Requirement


By the early 1900s, the idea that every American child had the right to an
education had gained mass adoption. Even students destined for a life in
the mines or on the railroads deserved basic spelling, arithmetic, and sci-
ence lessons. Public schools were a place to absorb the common learning
priorities that other students were also absorbing throughout the country.
This view of public schools gave all (white) children an equitable start in
life, at least when it came to actual curriculum presented. From there, the
students were free to carve out the lives they wanted, or follow a predeter-
mined path based on family or geographic limitations (Unger 2007).
Just after the start of the twentieth century, a new public-education
ideology began to emerge that hinted that schools should be utilized as
more than places to memorize facts. According to reformers such as Uni-
versity of Chicago professor John Dewey, public schools needed to serve a
greater good—for the individual and the country. Dewey was a figurehead
of the Progressive Movement, which insisted schools be socially conscious
places where more than book learning took place. While Dewey’s theories
were widely discussed, they did not see blanket adoption at the height
of his popularity. Much like the public-school districts of today, Dewey
faced red tape at every turn and an entrenched antipathy toward change
(“John Dewey” n.d.). In the eyes of education bureaucrats, schools were

7
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

established for learning what was written in a textbook, not for stimulating
students to think about social issues.
Though slow to gain adoption in his own time, Dewey’s notion of pub-
lic schools as agents for socialization and change for the better is certainly
evident in school systems today. Consider public awareness campaigns,
like First Lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” initiative, which infiltrated
schools in the 1980s, or the emphasis on Earth Day every April in pub-
lic schools throughout the nation, or First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s
Move” campaign, which offers health-awareness programs to schools.
Along with the basic knowledge that accompanies the facts in text-
books, K-12 students in America are expected to acquire a set of life truths
before they graduate, such as that smoking and drugs will kill you, and
stealing is bad. Though not religious institutions, public schools have trans-
formed in the past century from agents of factual information to ethics
delivery centers. It is not enough for students to pass a test at the end of
each grade and at the end of a K-12 career; to be true contributors to soci-
ety, they must have moral compasses and understand the responsibilities
of citizenship.
Though his theories were not particularly political, Dewey’s ethically
minded approach fed into the nation’s thirst for patriotism. Part of contrib-
uting to society was having an appreciation for society and its symbolism.
Consider the morning ritual of every public school in the nation since the
early 1920s: reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (Biography n.d.).

Unified, then Divided, Public Schools


Public education in the United States remained primarily unchanged
throughout the First and Second World Wars. Improvements in communi-
cation, particularly through radio transmissions, offered schools a window
into the worldwide battles. Though not part of any textbook or measured
testing, wartime knowledge was prized in public schools and patriotism
swelled. Unlike the Civil War, which divided the nation, the World Wars in
the first half of the twentieth century knit the union more tightly together.
As millions of men fought outside US soil, women filled historically male
job roles and children continued to attend school. Going to school and
learning became a sign of solidarity with the soldiers on the frontlines
(Spring 2009).

8
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

However, the sense of unity in public education was all but destroyed
in the 1950s and 1960s as issues of desegregation plagued the nation. Most
Americans celebrated the changes, of course, but enough citizens opposed
desegregation that it was a bleak time in US public-school history. If public
education was, after all, meant to provide common knowledge and life
skills in equal ways to all children in America, then the theory of “separate
but equal” certainly needed to be deposed. Change is difficult, though,
even in one of the most progressive nations in the world. The solidarity in
public-school classrooms faded and was replaced with controversy. These
two decades mark an important shift in the role and perception of pub-
lic schools in America. Before schools started taking on bigger issues like
desegregation, abuse, and childhood hunger, they were places that served
the needs of the nation. That tide turned in the mid-1900s, as public schools
began to lead instead of follow. Public schools stopped adhering to what
was dictated for its next generation in terms of learning and citizenship and
began to blaze a trail for the rest of society where collective belief systems
were concerned. It may have been too late to change the minds of disen-
franchised adults who had grown up accepting their worlds in a particular
way, but it was still possible to change the minds of students (Spring 2009).
Schools became the vehicles for future change, starting with the youth
of the nation. The focus was no longer just on economics or raising ideal
citizens; core ideologies were being shaped in public-school classrooms
across the nation.
This characteristic of public schools is still evident today. Take anti-
bullying campaigns, for example—particularly as they relate to lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender students. While many parents (and even
some school boards) are fighting against anti-bullying policies that are
designed to protect LGBT students, schools across the country are adopt-
ing them at a rapid pace. The same is true of healthy eating programs and
the push to get kids away from television and computers and involved in
active pursuits. Schools cannot change what is being taught at home, or
even what students themselves believe. However, by implementing change
through example and policy, the hope is that future generations will have a
different take on important issues than their parents did. Like the efforts of
Dewey, public schools try to establish principles that will then influence a
particular group of K-12 students as adults (Spring 2009).
The 1970s brought even more equality to public schools with the pas-
sage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This was the first

9
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

federal regulation mandating that public schools accepting federal funding


also provide a free education and meals to children with mental or phys-
ical disabilities. It was not enough to simply accept the students; schools
had to create a teaching plan that would give these students as close to
a typical education as their non-handicapped peers as possible. Though
separate classrooms were inherent to the plan, schools were instructed
to keep special-education students in as close physical proximity to their
peers as possible. Public schools thus became even stronger when it came
to truly opening their doors for all students and being a right of American
life (Spring 2009).

A Nation of Public-School Students at Risk


During the 1980s, American educators and the public first became con-
cerned in a sweeping way about the quality of education in tax-funded
schools. In 1981, the National Commission on Excellence in Education
was formed. The group released A Nation at Risk, an in-depth report that
warned against the dangers that could result from mediocrity in US public
schools. Though the concern should have been purely based on the learn-
ing aspect of American students, there were larger worries that loomed,
primarily concerning the nation’s economic future. It marked the first time
in the history of public schools in America that citizens began to compare
students to those in other developed countries such as Japan, China, and
even England. The assumption that America the Beautiful was also the best
at everything, including educating children, was shaken. People started to
worry about where the youth of the nation would guide them in coming
years (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983).
Reforms started to take place, but at the local level. Schools took it
upon themselves to correct the problem of incompetent and uncaring stu-
dents by adding graduation requirements and raising teacher salaries. Uni-
versities jumped in by heightening the requirements for young educators to
earn their degrees in an attempt to give K-12 students an advantage through
the resource of stronger teachers. Free-response and short-essay options
were beginning to gain favor with educators across the country as indica-
tors of what students had really comprehended. Multiple-choice options
started to fade from routine school exams, though we should note that they
are still the primary way state assessments are delivered today. As a matter

10
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

of efficiency, these easily scanned answer sheets make the most sense. As
a way to truly assess what students do and do not know, however, they are
lacking (Spring 2009).
The drive for higher quality education carried over into the 1990s,
but instead of a renewed dedication to the goals of public education, the
American public and reformers looked outside for answers. The phrase
“school choice” began to resonate throughout the country, with people
wondering what could be done to funnel public dollars to alternatives to
public schools. Funding for religiously aligned schools had been discussed
over a hundred years earlier, when it was first suggested that parochial
schools receive a government stipend to help with expenses. Fearing the
rising Irish Catholic population, state lawmakers put the kibosh on any
such plans, citing separation of church and state. As parents began to ques-
tion the value of the public-school education provided to their kids, they
began to feel entitled to different choices when the tax-funded school in
their area performed under par (Spring 2009).
A new ideology began to take shape in the form of charter schools—
publicly funded non-religious schools that were given the freedom to
innovate outside the constraints of public-school regulations. To some, it
seemed like a smart way to provide more educational options while light-
ing a fire under public schools, which until then had faced no real compe-
tition. To critics, the plan to use taxpayer dollars to fund new schools only
directed the money away from the place where it was really needed: actual
public schools. The school-choice debate still rages today, with a renewed
call for vouchers for religious schools thrown into the mix (Spring 2009).
The 1990s also ushered in a new age of accountability in public
schools, triggered by the quality concerns raised in the 1980s. The roots
of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act were planted in 1990s educational
reform movements. NCLB was a reenactment of the outdated Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Both acts focused on ways to bring
higher levels of equality to public education, but NCLB also had a strong
focus on bolstering student test scores and ensuring teachers were liable.
NCLB put new pressures to heighten achievement on every educator, from
top education policymakers to teachers in the classroom (Klein 2015).
While NCLB has been under fire almost from its genesis, the truth is
that it remained a large part of the educational system in America’s public-
school classrooms until 2015. The release and adoption of Common Core
Standards in 2013 took the ideology of NCLB to a new level. Though their

11
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

adoption is voluntary, these new accountability measures seem eerily sim-


ilar to the federally mandated ones of NCLB. Instead of getting away from
empty assessments that often take the shape of multiple-choice questions,
it seems that public-school systems are simply adding to the void. It’s not
a pretty picture, but it is the reality of what educators are facing right now,
and it will certainly impact this generation of K-12 students (Klein 2015).
At the end of December 2015, President Obama signed the Every Stu-
dent Succeeds Act (ESSA) into law, effectively sweeping away NCLB (Nel-
son 2015). The new bill made major changes to federal education policy.
One thing that changed with the ESSA was how teacher performance is
evaluated. States now have the ability to individually appraise how well
its teachers are doing performance-wise. Another alteration under the new
law will allow states “to come up with their own way to determine the
quality of their local schools.” This means that test scores are no longer the
sole deciding factor for school performance.
ESSA lists music as a component of a well-rounded education and gives
it more support than previous policies when it comes to access and fund-
ing. The law also means federal grant funding is opened for states and local
school districts to support music education programs and further train music
teachers. ESSA has been a long time coming. Considering that NCLB had
needed an update since 2007, it is shocking how long it took to sign this
new law.

Minority Education in America


The recounting of education to this point has been just one side of the
American story. There are, of course, many parallel versions of how the
youth of America have been educated since the founding of the nation.
Perhaps the most impactful is the history of how black children, before and
after Abolition, have fit into the educational system.
In the early days of the nation, there were no public-school options
available to black children. Even states that outlawed slavery did not offer
public education to residents who were of color. In Southern states deeply
entrenched in slave culture, the education of black children was actually
illegal. White slave owners believed that literacy and knowledge would
threaten the slave system and so laws were passed to forbid it. For example,

12
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

in South Carolina a sum of one hundred pounds was demanded of anyone


caught teaching a slave to read or write (PBS n.d.).
Slavery laws aside, the first fifty years following the signing of the
Constitution were not focused on education for children of any race. For
black children, there were some limited educational options in the form of
religious schools. The exact intent of these schools was likely more about
conversion than bringing equality to black Americans through education,
but the learning scenarios did exist. The French Catholics in Louisiana had
established schools for black students as early as the 1600s, and the Penn-
sylvania Quakers would follow suit in the 1700s (Questia 2014). The first
African Free School opened in New York City in 1787 with the express
mission of educating black children in order to bring them educational
equality with their white peers (Dubois and Provenzo 2002). Like other
schools of the time period, the African Free Schools began as one-room
schoolhouses. Public funds were first funneled to these schools in 1824—
an extreme departure at the time (Spring 2009).
Public schools for slaves and free black children in larger numbers
began to pop up in the nineteenth century. Maine was the first state to
grant public-school privileges to students of all races in 1820, and Rhode
Island voted to do the same in 1843. Black teachers at public schools made
less than their white counterparts—with the exception of Washington, DC,
where teachers were considered federal employees and were paid the
same regardless of where they taught (Spring 2009).
In 1849, a young African-American girl, Sarah C. Roberts, was refused
entrance to the public school that was closest to her home “on the sole
ground of color.” Her father, Benjamin F. Roberts, was told by the author-
ities that he would have to enroll his daughter in one of the two public
schools in Boston that catered to black students. Both schools were a con-
siderable distance from his home, and getting his daughter to and from
school would have dramatically inconvenienced his family. Roberts tried
in two successive years to enroll little Sarah in the nearby school. When he
was rejected for the second time he brought a lawsuit against the city, cit-
ing a Massachusetts statute stating that any person who was excluded from
attaining a public-school education could recover damages from the city.
Though Roberts’s lawsuit eventually failed, it generated enormous public
interest and considerable sympathy for the plight of African-American stu-
dents. Seven years later, largely as a knock-on effect of the Roberts case,
the Massachusetts legislature changed the state policy to make it illegal to

13
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?

refuse any public-school student based on race. The case was to influence
the Supreme Court when, three-quarters of a century later, it would look
at segregation in schools in the famous Brown v. Board of Education case
(Kull 1992).
Even when public schools opened their doors to black students, they
were separated from their white peers, thus establishing the practice of seg-
regation in America’s public schools. Following the Civil War, states were
required to provide public education to black students, thus ushering in the
establishment of Jim Crow laws pertaining to education. These practices
followed the law when it came to providing a public education to black
Americans, but kept black students separate from white ones. The phrase
“separate but equal” was offered as justification for the segregation, but
public schools were far from equitable (Spring 2009).
Schools for black children throughout the country lacked resources
and overcrowding flourished despite there being many less black children
in school than white ones. As far back as 1900, black schools in Virginia
had 37 percent more students per school building than white ones and, in
the late 1930s, black school properties were valued at only one-third of
white ones (Virginia Historical Society n.d.).
Despite all the strides public education has made in equality in the
past 150 years, schools with majority black populations still tend to be
the most overcrowded and underfunded. In the summer of 2013, the Chi-
cago Board of Education voted to close fifty public schools in the city. Of
the students impacted by the school closures, 88 percent were black and
94 percent came from low-income households (Kilkenny 2013). Those stu-
dents were then sent to other schools, further crowding them. During the
school year ending in 2011, there were 670 New York City schools with
student-to-teacher ratios above accepted contract levels—the majority of
which served minority students (Kuczynski-Brown 2012). Despite the guise
of public, equitable schools, overcrowding remains a very significant prob-
lem when it comes to the nation’s black and disadvantaged students.
The results of limited black public and private primary education in
the nineteenth century were the first African-American college graduates.
Following the end of the Civil War, the first “black” colleges were estab-
lished and, by 1900, more than two thousand African-American students
had earned college degrees. However, despite a dramatic rise in that num-
ber over the next century, it was not until 1985 that Harvard University
appointed its first black tenured professor (Fitzgerald 2011).

14
How Did We Get Here, and What’s Next?
Biography. n.d. “John Dewey.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.biography.com/people/john-dewey-9273497.
Core Standards. “About the Standards.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/.
Dubois, W.E.B. , and E. F. Provenzo . 2002. Du Bois on Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Fitzgerald, Jim . 2011. “1st Tenured Black Professor at Harvard Law Dies.” Yahoo! News.
Accessed September 9, 2016. https://www.yahoo.com/news/1st-tenured-black-professor-
harvard-law-dies-194952120.html.
Hefling, Kimberly . 2014. “Report: 4 in 5 U.S. High School Students Graduate.” The
Associated Press, 4(28), 1.
Kilkenny, Allison . 2013. “Teachers, Parents Complain Overcrowding, Lack of Support Plague
‘Welcoming Schools’.” The Nation, 12(9), 2. Accessed June 3, 2014.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177515/teachers-parents-complain-overcrowding-lack-
support-plague-welcoming-schools#.
Klein, Alyson . 2015. “No Child Left Behind: An Overview.” Education Week, April 10.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-
behind-overview-definition-summary.html.
Kuczynski-Brown, Alex . 2012. “New York Class Size: Nearly Half of Public Schools Have
Overcrowded Classrooms, UFT Says.” The Huffington Post, September 26, 2012. Accessed
September 9, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/new-york-class-size-
uft_n_1914357.html.
Kull, A. 1992. The Color-Blind Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mathis, W. J. 2010. The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool?
Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research
Unit.
Messerli, J. 1972. Horace Mann: A Biography. New York: Random House.
National Assessment of Education Progress. 2013. “Achievement Gaps.” Accessed June 8,
2014. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Arlington, VI: Eric Document Reproduction Service.
Nation’s Report Card. 2014. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/#/.
Nelson, Libby . 2015. “How Schools Will Be Different Without No Child Left Behind.” Vox.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9889350/every-student-
succeeds-act-schools.
PBS. n.d. “Africans in America.” Accessed June 3, 2014.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2945.html.
Peterson, Paul E. 2014. “Study Finds U.S. Students Lag Behind Those in Other Industrialized
Countries.” Washington Examiner, 5(13), 1.
Questia . 2014. “History of African-American Education.” Accessed June 2, 2014.
http://www.questia.com/library/education/education-in-different-countries-and-states/history-
of-african-american-education.
Spring, J. 2009. American Education. 14th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Svobdny, Dolly . 1985. Early American Textbooks, 1775–1900. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Unger, H. G. 2007. Encyclopedia of American Education. 3rd edition. New York: Facts on
File.
Urban, W. J. , and J. L. Wagoner . 2009. American Education: A History. New York:
Routledge.
The Virginia Historical Society. n.d. “Beginnings of Black Education.” Accessed June 3, 2013.
http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/civil-rights-
movement-virginia/beginnings-black?legacy=true.
Webster, N. 1783. The American Spelling Book. Self-published.
Wells, Elizabeth M. 1975. Divine Songs by Isaac Watts. Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press.
White House. n.d. “Educate to Innovate.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/educate-innovate.
White House. n.d. “Race to the Top.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/race-to-the-top.

Year-Round Schooling
Adler, Rachel , Rebecca Franckle , and Kirsten Davison . 2014. “Accelerated Weight Gain
among Children during Summer versus School Year and Related Racial/Ethnic Disparities: A
Systematic Review.” Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, 130355. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130355.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. n.d. “WatchingTV/Screen Time and
Children.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-
And-Watching-TV-054.aspx.
“Benefits of Year-Round Schools Touted.” n.d. Education News. Accessed September 9,
2016. http://www.educationnews.org/articles/benefits-of-year-round-schools-touted.html.
Breslow, Jason . 2012. “By the Numbers: Dropping Out of High School.” PBS Frontline.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/by-the-numbers-
dropping-out-of-high-school/.
Burgess, Matt . 2013. “Mapped: How Many Hours Do Children Spend at School around the
World?” Help Me Investigate. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://helpmeinvestigate.com/education/2013/04/mapped-how-many-hours-do-children-
spend-at-school-around-the-world/.
California Department of Education. 2015. “Year-Round Education Program Guide.”
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/yr/guide.asp.
Chaika, Gloria . 1999. “Is Year-Round Schooling the Answer?” Education World. Accessed
September 9, 2016. http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin137.shtml.
Dessoff, Alan . 2011. “Is Year-Round Schooling on Track? Summer Learning Loss and
Overcrowding Drive Alternative Schedules.” District Administration. Accessed September 9,
2016. https://www.districtadministration.com/article/year-round-schooling-track.
Fitzgerald, John . 2009. “Minnesota School Year Requirements Too Casual.” Minnesota
2020. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-
matter/education/minnesota-school-year-requirements-too-casual.
Holzman, Seymour . n.d. “Year-Round School: Districts Develop Successful Programs.”
Education USA. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED062682.
K12 Academics. n.d. “Education Policy: Advantages.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.k12academics.com/education-policy/year-round-
school/advantages#.V9VFZ_krLDd.
Lederman, Doug . 2009. “The Impact of Student Employment.” Inside Higher Ed. Accessed
September 9, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/work.
Mendez, Edgar . 2014. “Congressional Report Highlights Year-Round Schools.” Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel, July 8. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/news/266264841.html.
Morin, Amanda . 2016. “The Pros and Cons of Year-Round Schooling.” Child Parenting.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://childparenting.about.com/od/schoollearning/a/year-
round-school-pros-cons.htm.
O’Brien, Daniel M. 1999. “Family and School Effects on the Cognitive Growth of Minority and
Disadvantaged Elementary Students.” University of Texas at Dallas. Accessed September 9,
2016. http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp-
erc/pdf/wp_obrien_1999_family_school_affects.pdf.
“President Obama Wants to Keep Kids in School Longer: Extended Days, Weekend Hours,
Shorter Summers.” 2009. NY Daily News, September 28. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/president-obama-kids-school-longer-extended-
days-weekend-hours-shorter-summers-article-1.407418.
Quinlan, Claire , George, Cathy and Emmett, Terry . 1987. Year-Round Education: Year-
Round Opportunities: A Study of Year-Round Education in California. Los Angeles, CA:
California State Department of Education.
Rogers, Kate . 2014. “How to Keep Your Electricity Bills Cool This Summer.” Fox Business.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/05/27/how-to-keep-
your-electricity-bills-cool-this-summer.html.
Von Hipple, Paul . 2007. “Save Iowa Summers.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.saveiowasummers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Paul-von-Hipple-
Research1.pdf.
Washington, Jessica . 2013. “Year-Round School Could Be the Answer to the Minority Drop-
Out Problem.” Politic365. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://politic365.com/2013/05/20/year-round-school-could-be-the-answer-to-the-minority-drop-
out-problem/.

Examining the Present and Future of K-12 Assessments


Baker, Al . 2012. “At Top School, Cheating Voids 70 Pupils’ Tests.” New York Times, July 7.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/nyregion/70-students-at-
stuyvesant-to-retake-exams-after-cheating-case.html?_r=0.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. “Read the Standards.” Accessed July 17, 2013.
http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/.
Common Sense Media. 2009. “35% of Teens Admit to Using Cell Phones to Cheat.”
Common Sense Media. Accessed July 13, 2014. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-
us/news/press-releases/35-of-teens-admit-to-using-cell-phones-to-cheat.
Elder, Linda , and Richard Paul . 2012. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your
Learning & Your Life. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
LaBree, Shannon . 2016. “Technology and Change: School Then vs. Now.” Edmentum.
Accessed September 9, 2016. http://blog.edmentum.com/technology-change-school-then-vs-
now.
Leal, Fermin . 2012. “Report: U.S. Students Lack Writing Skills.” The Orange County
Register, September 14. Accessed July 8, 2014. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/students-
371409-writing-graders.html.
Nolop, Bruce . 2013. “Our College Graduates Can’t Write!” Wall Street Journal, October 9.
Accessed July 8, 2014. http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/10/09/our-college-graduates-cant-
write/.
Overman, Stephanie . n.d. “Fighting the Stress of Teaching to the Test: Educators Cope with
Test Stress in Unique Ways.” National Education Association. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.nea.org/tools/fighting-stress-teaching-to-Test.html.
Paul, Richard . 2004. “The State of Critical Thinking Today.” Critical Thinking. Accessed July
25, 2014. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-state-of-critical-thinking-today/523.
Rich, Motoko . 2012. “U.S. Students Still Lag Globally in Math and Science, Tests Show.”
New York Times, December 11. Accessed July 8, 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/education/us-students-still-lag-globally-in-math-and-
science-tests-show.html?_r=2&.
Strauss, V. 2012. “One Teen’s Standardized Testing Horror Story (And Where It Will Lead).”
Washington Post, November 9. Accessed September 9, 2016.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/11/09/one-teens-standardized-
testing-horror-story-and-where-it-will-lead/.
Wang, Yanan . 2016. “Proposed Texas Textbook Says Some Mexican Americans ‘Wanted to
Destroy’ U.S. Society.” Washington Post, May 24. Accessed September 9, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/24/proposed-texas-
textbook-says-some-mexican-americans-wanted-to-destroy-u-s-society/.
White House. n.d. “Race to the Top.” Accessed September 9, 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/race-to-the-top.

Black Boys in Crisis


ACLU. n.d. “School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Accessed September 10, 2016.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-inequality-education/school-prison-
pipeline.
Arruza, E. 2012. “High School Dropout Shares His Story.” Chicago Tonight, September 24.
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/09/24/high-school-
dropout-shares-his-story.
Chandler, M. A. 2015. “D.C. Schools to Invest $20 Million in Efforts to Help Black and Latino
Male Students.” Washington Post, January 21. Accessed September 10, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-schools-to-invest-20-million-in-efforts-to-
help-black-and-latino-male-students/2015/01/21/27450ca8-a19d-11e4–903f-
9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html.
Cohen, Patricia . 2011. “Genetic Basis for Crime: A New Look.” New York Times, June 20.
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/genetics-and-crime-
at-institute-of-justice-conference.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all.
Crotty, J. M. 2013. “A Broken Windows Approach to Education Reform.” Forbes, August 30.
Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2013/08/30/a-broken-windows-approach-to-
education-reform/#67e6d30b4855.
Crotty, J. M. 2011. “Four Things I Learned from Coaching ‘Poor Black Kids.’ ” Forbes,
December 16. Accessed March 1, 2016.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2011/12/16/5-things-i-learned-from-
coaching-poor-black-kids/#22cdba2d42b4.
Educational Testing Service. 1999. America’s Smallest School: The Family. Princeton, NJ.
Edward Waters College. n.d. “Call Me Mister.” Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.ewc.edu/index.php/academics/academic-programs/elementary-education/call-me-
mister-program.
Grabmeier, J. 2014. “Children with Disabilities Benefit from Classroom Inclusion.” Ohio State
University. Accessed September 10, 2016. https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/07/28/children-
with-disabilities-benefit-from-classroom-inclusion/.
Harper, E. J. n.d. “Disproportionate Impact of K-12 School Suspension and Expulsion on
Black Students in Southern States.” Center for the Study of Race and Equity in
Education—Pennsylvania State University. Accessed March 1, 2016.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/equity/SouthernStates.
Holland, J. J. 2014. “Studies Highlight Teacher-Student ‘Diversity Gap.’ ” Boston Globe, May
4. Accessed September 10, 2016.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/05/04/teachers-nowherenot-diverse-their-
students/Wq6nM4XOyoMwlOYJLtfL3L/story.html.
Holzman, M. H. 2013. Minority Students and Public Education: Black and American Indian
Students and Public Education. Volume 1. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Chelmsford Press.
Karoly, Lynn A. 2005. Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise.
Arlington, VA: RAND Labor and Population.
Kids Count Data Center. 2014. Children in Single Parent Families by Race. Baltimore, MD:
Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Levy-Pounds, Nekima . 2015. “Ferguson and Minneapolis Are Closer Than We Think.”
Minneapolis Star Tribune. Retrieved from: http://www.startribune.com/nekima-levy-pounds-
ferguson-and-minneapolis-are-closer-than-we-think/303713651/
National Center for Education Statistics. 2000. Fast Facts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2015. Rates of School Crime. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. 2010. “Teacher
Qualifications.” Accessed September 10, 2016.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=58.
National Education Association. 2011. “Educating Black Boys.” Accessed September 10,
2016. http://www.nea.org/home/42456.htm.
The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading. 2013. Washington,
DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Postal, Leslie . 2015. “Black Students Disproportionately Suspended, Expelled in Florida
Schools.” Orlando Sentinel. Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/school-zone/os-black-students-florida-
schools-suspensions-post.html.
Powalski, S. 2013. “Bully Proofing: Helping Children Deal with Cruel Behavior.” Mumbling
Mommy. Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.mumblingmommy.com/2013/05/bully-
proofing-helping-children-deal.html.
Reckdahl, K. 2015. “Training More Black Men to Become Teachers.” The Atlantic, December.
Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/programs-teachers-african-american-
men/420306/.
Schools Matter. 2015. “When Marian Wright Edelman Forgot History.” Accessed September
10, 2016. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/02/when-marian-wright-edelman-forgot.html.
The Sentencing Project. n.d. “Racial Disparity.” Accessed March 1, 2016.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122.
Stevenson, J. L. 2013. “State of Equality and Justice in America: The Presumption of Guilt.”
Washington Post, May 17. Accessed March 1, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/state-of-equality-and-justice-in-
america-the-presumption-of-guilt/2013/05/17/49a51a42-
bf07–11e2–89c9–3be8095fe767_blog.html.
Thompson, T. n.d. “Fact Sheet: Outcomes for Young, Black Men.” PBS. Accessed
September 10, 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/tsr/too-important-to-fail/fact-sheet-
outcomes-for-young-black-men/.
United States Courts. 2013. “Supervision Costs Significantly Less than Incarceration in
Federal System.” Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2013/07/18/supervision-costs-significantly-less-incarceration-
federal-system.
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. 2014. Civil Rights Data
Collection—Data Snapshot: School Discipline. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Velez, M. 2015. “100 Black Men Wearing Suits Greeted Kids on the First Day of School for
an Incredibly Vital Reason.” APlus. Accessed September 10, 2016. http://aplus.com/a/100-
men-color-greet-kids-MLK-school-first-day.
White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2014. “Fact Sheet: Opportunity for All: President
Obama Launches My Brother’s Keeper Initiative to Build Ladders of Opportunity for Boys and
Young Men of Color.” Accessed September 10, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2014/02/27/fact-sheet-opportunity-all-president-obama-launches-my-brother-s-keeper-.

Combating Anti-Intellectualism and Academic Disengagement


American Academy of Pediatrics. 2016. “Media and Children.” Accessed September 10,
2016. http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/Pages/Media-and-
Children.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-
000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token.
Baby Center. 2013. “Immunizations for Children: What You Need to Know.” Accessed
September 10, 2016. http://www.babycenter.com/shots.
Bassok, Daphna , and Sean F. Reardon . 2012. “ ‘Academic Redshirting’ in Kindergarten:
Prevalence, Patterns, and Implications.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
Accessed September 10, 2016. doi: 10.3102/0162373713482764.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016. “Occupational Employment and Wages—May 2015.”
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012. “Vaccine Safety.” Accessed September
10, 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/multiplevaccines.html.
Child Passenger Safety Statistics. 2005. Seat Check. Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.seatcheck.org/news_fact_sheets_statistics.html.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. n.d. “About the Standards.” Accessed September
10, 2016. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/.
Cotton, John . 1642. “The Powering Out of the Seven Vials.” Sermon.
Cully, Christine French . 2014. “Confessions of a (Reformed) Helicopter Mom.” Huffington
Post. Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-french-
cully/confessions-of-a-reformed-helicopter-mom_b_5563445.html.
Falco, Miriam . 2012. “CDC: U.S. Kids with Autism Up 78% in Past Decade.” CNN Health.
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/health/autism.
Florida Institute of Technology. n.d. “What Were They Thinking?” Accessed September 10,
2016. http://www.fit.edu/stem-poster/.
Hanushek, Eric A. , Paul E. Peterson , and Ludger Woessmann . 2012. “Achievement
Growth: International and U.S. State Trends in Student Performance.” Harvard Kennedy
School. Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12–03_CatchingUp.pdf.
Hanushek, Eric A. , Paul E. Peterson , and Ludger Woessmann . 2016. “Is the U.S. Catching
Up?” Education Next. Accessed September 16, 2016. http://educationnext.org/is-the-us-
catching-up/.
Hofstadter, Richard . 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Vintage Books.
Jacoby, Susan . 2009. The Age of American Unreason. New York: Vintage Books.
Lynch, Matthew . n.d. “Computer Science in K-12 Classrooms Needs to Catch Up.” The
Edvocate. Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.theedadvocate.org/computer-science-
in-k-12-classrooms-needs-to-catch-up/.
Lynch, Matthew . n.d. “Maryland Aerospace Engineering Program Taking Off.” The Edvocate.
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.theedadvocate.org/maryland-aerospace-
engineering-program-taking-off/.
National Center on Education Statistics. 2012. “Teacher Trends.” Accessed September 10,
2016. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28.
National Center for Education Statistics. n.d. “Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study: Overview.” Accessed September 10, 2016. http://nces.ed.gov/timss/.
Nelson, Libby . 2015. “How Schools Will Be Different Without No Child Left Behind.” Vox.
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9889350/every-student-
succeeds-act-schools.
Pew Research Center. 2013. “Public’s Knowledge of Science and Technology.” Accessed
September 10, 2016. http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/22/publics-knowledge-of-science-
and-technology/.
Rampell, Catherine . “Does It Pay to Become a Teacher?” New York Times, September 11,
2009. Accessed September 10, 2016. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/does-it-
pay-to-become-a-teacher/?_r=0.
Riggs, Liz . 2014. “First-Generation College-Goers: Unprepared and Behind.” The Atlantic,
December 2014. Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/12/the-added-pressure-faced-by-first-
generation-students/384139/.
Salem, Dian Abou . 2013. “Redshirting in Kindergarten Still Subject to Debate.” ABC News.
Accessed September 10, 2016. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/redshirting-kindergarten-
subjectdebate/story?id=19253486.
Spring, J. 2009. American Education. 14th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trip, Gabriel . 2010. “Students, Welcome to College; Parents, Go Home.” New York Times,
August 23. Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/education/23college.html?_r=0.
Trout, Paul . 1997. “Disengaged Students and the Decline of Academic Standards.”
Academic Questions. Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12129-997-1067-3.pdf.
Urban, W. J. , and J. L. Wagoner . 2009. American Education: A History. New York:
Routledge.
White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2015. “Fact Sheet—White House Unveils
America’s College Promise Proposal: Tuition-Free Community College for Responsible
Students.” Accessed September 16, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuitio.
Zimmerman, Christakis . 2005. “Children’s Television Viewing and Cognitive Outcomes: A
Longitudinal Analysis of National Data.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 159, 7.
Accessed September 10, 2016.
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=486070.

Responding to Social Promotion and Retention


Burris, C. C. , and D. T. Garrity . 2008. Detracking for Excellence and Equity. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Coughlan, S. 2004. “Education Key to Economic Survival.” BBC News. Accessed September
12, 2016. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4031805.stm.
Erikson, Erik H. 1968. Identity, Youth, and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Fanguy, J. , and R. D. Mathis . 2012. “Psychosocial Fallout from Grade Retention:
Implications for Educators.” Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 2.
Fashola, O. S. 2005. Educating African American Males: Voices from the Field. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fox, C. L. 1998. The Michigan Multiage Continuous Progress Model. Michigan Department of
Education. Accessed September 12, 2016. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/port-
lets/recordDetails/detailm¬ini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED425524
&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED425524.
Frey, Nancy . 2005. Remedial and Special Education 26(6), 332–346. First published August
18, 2016.
Garland, Sarah . 2010. “Repeat Performance.” The American Prospect. Accessed September
12, 2016. http://prospect.org/article/repeat-performance-0.
Hauser, Robert M. 1999. Should We End Social Promotion? Truth and Consequences.
Center for Demography and Ecology. The University of Wisconsin-Madison Rev. Accessed
September 12, 2016. https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99–06.pdf.
Hong, G. , and B. Yu . 2008. “Effects of Kindergarten Retention on Children’s Social-
Emotional Development: An Application of Propensity Score Method to Multivariate Multi-
Level Data.” Special Section on New Methods in Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 407–421.
Howard Gardner School. n.d. “Our Philosophy and Curriculum.” Accessed September 12,
2016. http://howardgardnerschool.com/about/philosophy-curriculum/.
Hoyt, W. H. n.d. An Evaluation of the Kentucky Education Reform Act. University of
Kentucky. Accessed September 12, 2016.
http://cber.uky.edu/Downloads/kentucky_education_reform_act.htm.
Hubler, S. 1998. “Snatching Victory from the Jaws of Social Promotion.” Los Angeles Times,
June 4. Accessed September 12, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/04/local/me-
56499.
Jimerson, S. R. , and A. M. Kaufman . 2003. “Reading, Writing, and Retention: A Primer on
Grade Retention Research.” Reading Teacher, 56, 7. Accessed September 14, 2016.
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=children-who-repeated-a-grade#_edn1.
National Association of School Psychologists. 2011. “Grade Retention and Social Promotion.”
White Paper. Bethesda, Maryland.
Northern Illinois University Faculty Development and Instructional Center. n.d. “Howard
Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences.” Accessed September 12, 2016.
http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/learning/howard_gardner_theory_multiple_intellig
ences.pdf.
Powell, Pamela . 2010. “A Perilous Policy Path: Grade Retention in the Age of NCLB.”
eJournal of Educational Policy. Accessed September 12, 2016.
https://www4.nau.edu/cee/jep/journals.aspx?id=326.
Rose, Stephanie , and Karen Schmike . 2012. Third Grade Literacy Policies: Identification,
Intervention, Retention. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Song, R. , T. E. Spradlin , and J. A. Plucker . 2009. “Advantages and Disadvantages of
Multiage Classrooms in the Era of the NCLB Accountability.” Education Policy Brief, 7(1),
Winter, 1–8.
Spring, J. 1994. The American School 1642–1992. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tyack, D. , and L. Cuban . 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. n.d. “Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion: A
Guide for Educators and State and Local Leaders.” Accessed September 12, 2016.
http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/socialprom.pdf.
Williams, Darrell L. 2007. “Perspectives of Urban Parents towards Student Grade Retention
in Schools.” Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 69, 59–60.

Rethinking School Design for Better Learning Outcomes


Carter, P. 2005. “The Modern Multi-Age Classroom.” The Whole Child, 63(1), 54–58.
Duffy, H. 2007. Meeting the Needs of Significantly Struggling Learners in High School: A
Look at Approaches to Tiered Intervention. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501084.pdf.
Gajadharsingh, J. 1991. “CEA Research Study on the Multi-grade Classroom.” In The Multi-
Grade Classroom: Myth and Reality: A Canadian Study, 57–81. Edited by Margaret Gayfer .
Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Education Association.
Goularte, R. 1998. “Components of a Successful Multiage Classroom.” Share2 Learn.
Accessed September 12, 2016. http://www.share2learn.com/components.html.
Leeds, A. , and D. Marshak . 2002. The Benefits of the Multiage Classroom: Teaching and
Learning in the Intermediate Classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Lloyd, L. 1999. “Multi-Age Classes and High Ability Students.” Review of Educational
Research, 69(2), 187–212. Accessed September 12, 2016.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&
ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ600456&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ
600456.
Powell, W. W. , and K. Snellman . 2004. “The Knowledge Economy.” Annual Review of
Sociology, 30, 199–220. Accessed September 12, 2016.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/papers/powell_snellman.pdf.
Song, R. , T. E. Spradlin , and J. A. Plucker . 2009. “Advantages and Disadvantages of
Multiage Classrooms in the Era of the NCLB Accountability.” Education Policy Brief, 7(1),
Winter, 1–8.
Stone, Sandra . 2004. Creating the Multiage Classroom. Glenview, IL: Good Year Books.

You might also like