Youth Social Workers UNITE!: http://www.vindy.com/news/2014/nov/06/increasing-r...: http://www.vindy.com/news/2014/nov/06/increasing-rejection-of-levies-for-ohio-/ This articles first outlines the foundation of school fund...
I don't understand how it can be found unconstitutional 4 or 5 times and remain the standard business as usual. Who holds accountability for this and why call it unconstitutional if nothing's done?
Thursday, March 26, 2015
http://www.vindy.com/news/2014/nov/06/increasing-rejection-of-levies-for-ohio-/
This articles first outlines the foundation of school funding in Ohio. Some dollars come from federal sources, some from state, and some from local. The local dollars are on a levy system, meaning that schools propose levies and the constituents of that area vote whether to renew (continue) or pass new levies. This system was found to be unconstitutional decades ago, but little has changed.
Unfortunately in this system there is much inequity. Additionally, there is little hope for the schools to gain the necessary funding to be successful in a myriad of sectors: safety, academics, resource management, etc... Statewide, new levies pass at a rate of 29% which means that most of the schools are not receiving the money that they felt it was dire to ask for to improve the lives of children in Ohio.
This articles first outlines the foundation of school funding in Ohio. Some dollars come from federal sources, some from state, and some from local. The local dollars are on a levy system, meaning that schools propose levies and the constituents of that area vote whether to renew (continue) or pass new levies. This system was found to be unconstitutional decades ago, but little has changed.
Unfortunately in this system there is much inequity. Additionally, there is little hope for the schools to gain the necessary funding to be successful in a myriad of sectors: safety, academics, resource management, etc... Statewide, new levies pass at a rate of 29% which means that most of the schools are not receiving the money that they felt it was dire to ask for to improve the lives of children in Ohio.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Education in Juvenile Detention
Lawsuit: Juvenile Solitary Confinement Blocks Education
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/03/lawsuit_juvenile_solitary_confinement_blocks_education.html
The following article published by Colorlines discusses the conditions experienced by incarcerated youth and youth involved in the juvenile system with a particular emphasis on educational resources. The article follows a lawsuit that was filed against Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall in for placing children with disabilities in solitary confinement for 23 hours, denying them any contact, and preventing their access to education resources. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three youth of color, one of whom spent a total of 90 days in solitary confinement triggering a psychotic break that resulted in three weeks of hospitalization.
The article highlights a number of problematic practices inside Contra Costa and facilities across the nation. Such as the practice of placing youth are "suspended" from the detention center school into solitary confinement. All of these issues prevent youth from keeping up with their education and significantly reducing the likelihood that they will be able to graduate from high school or continue with school upon their release. In mid-February, the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice released a joint statement in response to the lawsuit asserting that youth with disabilities in solitary confinement are entitled to appropriate public education.
There is a lot of complexity within this issue that raises many questions about education, but also the juvenile justice system, mental health system, disabilities and race. Many juvenile facilities do not provided adequate education for youth and even less so provide special education resources, despite the fact that the majority of youth involved in the system has special education needs and disabilities. Some youth may be able to continue their education while detained, only to find out their credits aren't accepted at their public school once released.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/03/lawsuit_juvenile_solitary_confinement_blocks_education.html
The following article published by Colorlines discusses the conditions experienced by incarcerated youth and youth involved in the juvenile system with a particular emphasis on educational resources. The article follows a lawsuit that was filed against Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall in for placing children with disabilities in solitary confinement for 23 hours, denying them any contact, and preventing their access to education resources. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three youth of color, one of whom spent a total of 90 days in solitary confinement triggering a psychotic break that resulted in three weeks of hospitalization.
The article highlights a number of problematic practices inside Contra Costa and facilities across the nation. Such as the practice of placing youth are "suspended" from the detention center school into solitary confinement. All of these issues prevent youth from keeping up with their education and significantly reducing the likelihood that they will be able to graduate from high school or continue with school upon their release. In mid-February, the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice released a joint statement in response to the lawsuit asserting that youth with disabilities in solitary confinement are entitled to appropriate public education.
There is a lot of complexity within this issue that raises many questions about education, but also the juvenile justice system, mental health system, disabilities and race. Many juvenile facilities do not provided adequate education for youth and even less so provide special education resources, despite the fact that the majority of youth involved in the system has special education needs and disabilities. Some youth may be able to continue their education while detained, only to find out their credits aren't accepted at their public school once released.
Is science a new area of segregation?
Science and engineer sectors have made great contributions to building a diverse labor forces in current American. However, we may notice that women and minority groups have fewer participation in those sectors. Therefore, a question has been proposed "is science a new area of segregation.
The author presented the statistics as below:
African American accounted 12% of population and 11% of all students beyond high school, however, there is only 7% of African American earn a bachelor degree in STEM field, 4% of African American earn master degree of STEM, and 2% of AA earn PhD in this field. There is only 6% of African American work in the field of STEM.
In terms of women, although female account half of the workplace, there is only 26% of female work relate to STEM.
The multiplying and decent paid job in STEM, as well as the long-term under-representative of female and minority in this field, have aggravated the entrenched economic inequality by race and gender.
Some reasons for this reality have been proposed as "a complex equation of self-doubt, stereotype, discouragement and economics, and sometimes just wrong perceptions of what math and science are all about".
Some solutions should be made to promote the diversity in the field of STEM to tackle with the inequality caused by gender and ethnicity, the inequality that might be deepened as the science and engineer sectors keep on developing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/opinion/charles-blow-a-future-segregated-by-science.html?_r=0
The author presented the statistics as below:
African American accounted 12% of population and 11% of all students beyond high school, however, there is only 7% of African American earn a bachelor degree in STEM field, 4% of African American earn master degree of STEM, and 2% of AA earn PhD in this field. There is only 6% of African American work in the field of STEM.
In terms of women, although female account half of the workplace, there is only 26% of female work relate to STEM.
The multiplying and decent paid job in STEM, as well as the long-term under-representative of female and minority in this field, have aggravated the entrenched economic inequality by race and gender.
Some reasons for this reality have been proposed as "a complex equation of self-doubt, stereotype, discouragement and economics, and sometimes just wrong perceptions of what math and science are all about".
Some solutions should be made to promote the diversity in the field of STEM to tackle with the inequality caused by gender and ethnicity, the inequality that might be deepened as the science and engineer sectors keep on developing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/opinion/charles-blow-a-future-segregated-by-science.html?_r=0
Class In Classrooms, Kathy Drobny
In December of 2011, Helen F Ladd,
a professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, and Edward B. Fiske, a
former education editor, wrote an editorial piece for The New York Times that exposes the elephant in the room regarding
policy makers and education. Despite the good intentions of legislators, the
authors assert that denial prevails regarding poverty. The authors believe that policy makers continually ignore
the impoverished socioeconomic environments in which many school children live.
Legislators do this by believing that schools are capable of offsetting poverty
through various programs such as No Child Left Behind and The Occupy Movement,
which Ladd and Fiske argue has actually heightened anxiety regarding poverty.
The authors cite a study by
Stanford University in which the achievement gap over the last 50 years between
high and low income families is reportedly far greater than the gap between
Caucasian and African-American students.
Additionally, Ladd and Fiske cite data from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, which shows that, nationally, greater than 40 % of the variation in
reading scores and 46% of the variation in average math scores are linked to
the variation in child poverty rates.
When creating programs, policy makers have not addressed students’
challenges that stem from the poverty they carry into the classroom each and every
day. The authors recommend that since
the education system cannot eradicate poverty, policy makers should try to
provide similar support and experiences to impoverished students as received by
their higher socioeconomically advantaged peers. Examples
of such support include afterschool programs, summer camps, mentors, enrichment
services, health centers, counseling and food provisions, all of which need improved funding. I completely agree with the
authors of this editorial. It seems
ironic to me that our politicians spend an abundance of time arguing about money when so many individual citizens suffer from not having any money at
all. Rather than argue about cutting
funding in one education program in order to create another program in
education, consistent support and consistent prevention methods should be of
primary focus, particularly when impoverished children have little support outside
of school. Denial may seem easier for
some policy makers, but advocacy is far stronger. Based on Ladd and Fiske’s article, it seems
that strong legislators are needed in order to push that elephant out of the
room.
Class Matters. Why Won't We Admit It? The New York Times, December 11, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?_r=0
Ohio's Unconstitutional School Funding
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/03/25/15-years--no-school-funding-fix.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/04/20/revisiting-derolph.html
The issue touched on this week is Ohio's system of school funding. In 1991, the second article points out that the controversial words "thorough and efficient" have caused a system of school funding that is primarily based off property taxes. This system has been ruled unconstitutional four times and has led to an incredibly wide range of disparity in the quality of education offered inside the state. It has led to district battles for the approval of emergency levies to continue education as usual. It has created wealthy districts that are miles away from districts that are underfunded and overpopulated.
Clearly, money isn't the complete reason for quality education inside of a school system. Many factors contribute to the success of young adults among which are curriculum, teaching expertise, parental involvement, etc. However, money is a powerful resource that can attract skilled teachers, provide resources for students inside the system and create staff-pupil ratios that promote academic excellence. Until school funding is repaired, these inequalities will needlessly exist and larger, poor districts will continually remain a step behind wealthier districts. I do not pretend to have any concept of a possible solution to resolve these issues.
On an anecdotal level, this was my experience on a small scale. I attended Columbus public schools and what I witnessed spoke to the issues surrounding school funding. The Columbus public property taxes are dispersed to over 70 schools and many of them are run down, old, and simply underfunded. It was evident that the schools I attended and played sports in were woefully maintained. This contrast was especially clear when comparing Columbus Public to the surrounding districts. Upper Arlington, New Albany, Bexley and Dublin were all within a fifteen minute drive of Columbus Public schools and were tremendously wealthier. This vast difference in wealth only reinforces stereotypes of "city kids" and can do nothing but hinder long term goals and perceptions. I'm passionate about this issue because education plays such a vital roll in the outcome of individuals and until this issue is fixed, students' projections will be negatively affected.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/04/20/revisiting-derolph.html
The issue touched on this week is Ohio's system of school funding. In 1991, the second article points out that the controversial words "thorough and efficient" have caused a system of school funding that is primarily based off property taxes. This system has been ruled unconstitutional four times and has led to an incredibly wide range of disparity in the quality of education offered inside the state. It has led to district battles for the approval of emergency levies to continue education as usual. It has created wealthy districts that are miles away from districts that are underfunded and overpopulated.
Clearly, money isn't the complete reason for quality education inside of a school system. Many factors contribute to the success of young adults among which are curriculum, teaching expertise, parental involvement, etc. However, money is a powerful resource that can attract skilled teachers, provide resources for students inside the system and create staff-pupil ratios that promote academic excellence. Until school funding is repaired, these inequalities will needlessly exist and larger, poor districts will continually remain a step behind wealthier districts. I do not pretend to have any concept of a possible solution to resolve these issues.
On an anecdotal level, this was my experience on a small scale. I attended Columbus public schools and what I witnessed spoke to the issues surrounding school funding. The Columbus public property taxes are dispersed to over 70 schools and many of them are run down, old, and simply underfunded. It was evident that the schools I attended and played sports in were woefully maintained. This contrast was especially clear when comparing Columbus Public to the surrounding districts. Upper Arlington, New Albany, Bexley and Dublin were all within a fifteen minute drive of Columbus Public schools and were tremendously wealthier. This vast difference in wealth only reinforces stereotypes of "city kids" and can do nothing but hinder long term goals and perceptions. I'm passionate about this issue because education plays such a vital roll in the outcome of individuals and until this issue is fixed, students' projections will be negatively affected.
Comprehensive Sex Education in Ohio
I figured I'd stay true to the trend and post another piece of moving legislation for this final blog. This time around it deals with revising the teaching of sexual education in Ohio. Well, the bill is actually pretty big and wide-reaching, but specifically, Section 3313.6011 revises sex education in Ohio. The full bill can be reached here: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-132, in case anyone is interested in seeing the language.
First, the bill strikes out the current language, which emphasizes abstinence education as the only reliable methods of avoiding pregnancy and "venereal disease." Additionally, the stricken language focuses on the consequences, physical, psychological, and financial dangers of sex outside of marriage, as well as stressing adoption as an option for unintended pregnancy.
The new language begins with the following two definitions:
(1) "Age-appropriate" means appropriate for a pupil based on the social, cognitive, and emotional level of the pupil.
(2) "Comprehensive sexual health education" means education regarding human development and sexuality that includes education on sexual health, family planning, and sexually transmitted infections.
The language goes on to specify that HIV/AIDS education is not comprehensive education and that all presented material shall be "medically and scientifically accurate" as defined by being published in peer-reviewed journals and recognized as accurate by medical professionals.
However, the legislation only allows that schools may offer comprehensive sexual education, and dictates that abstinence still be stressed as it is the only foolproof method of avoiding sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies. However, regardless if schools elect not to offer comprehensive sexual education information on contraceptives and infection reduction measures shall not be excluded in favor of abstinence only education.
Schools that do elect to offer comprehensive sexual education have to a list of requirements in order to meet the definition of "comprehensive sexual health education" above, such as additional information around the topic of navigating intimate relationships, recognizing sexual harassment and assault, the effect that drugs and alcohol have on the possibility of sexual violence, methods of resisting unwanted sexual advances, all health benefits and side-effects of contraceptive and infection reduction methods, etc. Additionally, the bill prohibits material from promoting any religious doctrine and requires that it be appropriate for all pupils, regardless of gender, race, ethnic and cultural background, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
This bill is a step in the right direction, though I'm not crazy about the fact that schools have the right to opt-out of comprehensive sexual health education. However, at least those schools are prohibited from teaching "abstinence only" education under this bill. I'm also a little surprised that the language specifically mentions sexual orientation and gender identity, as that seems surprisingly progressive for Ohio. There are a mix of additional good aspects. The broader approach, including the social aspect of navigating relationships and recognizing, as well as what to do about, unwanted or violent sexual interest, is refreshing, rather than dealing solely with the act of sex, and seems very progressive. The material presented is also supposed "emphasize personal accountability," and "resisting peer pressure," which reeks of victim blaming. Along with the ability for schools to opt-out and for parents to prohibit their children from receiving this education, there is a certain amount of continuing conservative sentiment among all of the progressive portions of the bill.
First, the bill strikes out the current language, which emphasizes abstinence education as the only reliable methods of avoiding pregnancy and "venereal disease." Additionally, the stricken language focuses on the consequences, physical, psychological, and financial dangers of sex outside of marriage, as well as stressing adoption as an option for unintended pregnancy.
The new language begins with the following two definitions:
(1) "Age-appropriate" means appropriate for a pupil based on the social, cognitive, and emotional level of the pupil.
(2) "Comprehensive sexual health education" means education regarding human development and sexuality that includes education on sexual health, family planning, and sexually transmitted infections.
The language goes on to specify that HIV/AIDS education is not comprehensive education and that all presented material shall be "medically and scientifically accurate" as defined by being published in peer-reviewed journals and recognized as accurate by medical professionals.
However, the legislation only allows that schools may offer comprehensive sexual education, and dictates that abstinence still be stressed as it is the only foolproof method of avoiding sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies. However, regardless if schools elect not to offer comprehensive sexual education information on contraceptives and infection reduction measures shall not be excluded in favor of abstinence only education.
Schools that do elect to offer comprehensive sexual education have to a list of requirements in order to meet the definition of "comprehensive sexual health education" above, such as additional information around the topic of navigating intimate relationships, recognizing sexual harassment and assault, the effect that drugs and alcohol have on the possibility of sexual violence, methods of resisting unwanted sexual advances, all health benefits and side-effects of contraceptive and infection reduction methods, etc. Additionally, the bill prohibits material from promoting any religious doctrine and requires that it be appropriate for all pupils, regardless of gender, race, ethnic and cultural background, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
This bill is a step in the right direction, though I'm not crazy about the fact that schools have the right to opt-out of comprehensive sexual health education. However, at least those schools are prohibited from teaching "abstinence only" education under this bill. I'm also a little surprised that the language specifically mentions sexual orientation and gender identity, as that seems surprisingly progressive for Ohio. There are a mix of additional good aspects. The broader approach, including the social aspect of navigating relationships and recognizing, as well as what to do about, unwanted or violent sexual interest, is refreshing, rather than dealing solely with the act of sex, and seems very progressive. The material presented is also supposed "emphasize personal accountability," and "resisting peer pressure," which reeks of victim blaming. Along with the ability for schools to opt-out and for parents to prohibit their children from receiving this education, there is a certain amount of continuing conservative sentiment among all of the progressive portions of the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)