Governor Gina Raimondo and Education Commissioner Ken Wagner held an open forum earlier this week at Warwick Vets High School, and in general the audience, many of them teachers, school committee …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
Governor Gina Raimondo and Education Commissioner Ken Wagner held an open forum earlier this week at Warwick Vets High School, and in general the audience, many of them teachers, school committee members and parents, appeared frustrated at the state of Rhode Island’s educational system. There are numerous programs in the pipeline for the next school year, but without immediate results people are anxious to see change.
Since coming into office, Raimondo has been hard set to improve Rhode Island’s economy, in part by improving the educational system, making sure students are prepared for the workforce or for higher education by working toward “skills that matter for jobs that pay.” With universal full-day kindergarten, free PSATs and SATs, and funding for special needs, the plan is to provide opportunity for all as the state faces a transitioning economy.
Although all of these initiatives may show progress and improvement once implemented, there are telltale concerns that remain; how exactly special needs funding will be appropriated, how teachers will be held accountable, and of course when schools can see more funding.
Raimondo argued that more money isn’t the only answer and that the state ranks in the top 10 for investment in education and is on par with Massachusetts in spending. Yet, teachers, students, and parents continue to be disenchanted with many aspects of the school system. Even with numerous programs on the way, they are overeager to see progress.
But with so many stakeholders at the table, with so many disciplines, types of students, and priorities fighting for reform, for resources, funding and support, can we make everyone happy? There is always a loser, supporting computer sciences may mean English falls to the back burner. Is there a comprehensive way to ensure schools and districts receive what they need? No matter what programs and initiates are implemented, there will always be a group still advocating for change in the field of education because as the world around us changes, the same discrepancies are amplified in the school setting, trying to play catch-up to new technology, new industries, new expectations, and new standards.
Wagner and Raimondo have proposed a voluntary empowerment plan that would let individual schools make decisions for themselves, with more flexibility to use their funding in ways they see best fit. With this system schools may have a better opportunity to combat a changing world with less red tape to jump through every time something new needs to be changed. Schools will be able to evolve faster and best to the needs of their specific students as they come through the school.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JohnStark
Much like Head Start, "universal full-day kindergarten" sounds great when you say it fast. But also like Head Start, full-day kindergarten has been a spectacular failure everywhere it's been attempted. After untold billions spent on Head Start, results from the 2014 Head Start Impact Study Final Report show that "no significant impacts were found for math skills, prewriting, children's promotion, or teacher report of children's school accomplishments or abilities." Swell. Of course, nobody's supposed to mention that. Data concerning full-day kindergarten is similar. That is, any marginal academic gains are short-lived, at best, and undetectable by third grade when compared to a control group. But that's not even the point since this has never been about academics. Rather, this is about alleviating parents of the burden of child care. So let's just call it that and be done with it without the dishonest pretense of some sort of mystical academic gain: Taxpayer funded day care masquerading as an 'opportunity provider'.
Thursday, May 12, 2016 Report this
Ken B
Instead of providing funds to a few lucky companies with grants in aid, low interest loans or tax breaks Rhode Island should use these funds to increase its funding for education to a point where local communities could reduce their property taxes by 15%. Next, Rhode Island’s sales tax rate should be reduced to 3% on all taxable items and services and food, clothing and boats should be included in the list of taxable items. Finally, Rhode Island should reduce its tax on gasoline and diesel fuel to 20 cents per gallon.
When this tax plan is implemented, total sales tax revenue would increase because the sale of vehicles, jewelry and other big ticket items would increase. Upper income Rhode Island residents and tourists spend huge amounts on food and clothing. Next, every Rhode Island business owner and homeowner would save 16 cents on every gallon of fuel they buy, 4% on every item or service they buy and 15% on their property taxes. Businesses would expand and hire more employees and home owners would have the money to make improvements to their homes or to buy a more valuable home. Finally, every vehicle going to Northeastern New England or Cape Cod has to pass through Rhode Island. Thousands of these vehicles would stop to buy fuel in Rhode Island each day and each vehicle driver would spend a lot of time and money in Rhode Island. Yearly fuel tax revenue would probably double and this new tax plan would provide the funds to fully fund education, to eliminate the car tax and to repair Rhode Island’s road infrastructure.
Thursday, May 12, 2016 Report this
GeoffSchoos
I'm unclear which of the many Head Start Studies is referred to in this chain, but since the year 2014 was referenced, I'll use Head Start Impact Study and Follow-up, 2000-2015 to respond. Mr. Stark is correct in his assertion - to a point. According to the study I read, it was determined that there was no discernible academic impact by grade 3. So for so good for Mr. Stark's assertions, but there's the rest of the story that we should discuss.
The Head Start Study I reference shows that there is measurable improvement, both cognitively and socially during the two year Head Start experience. Obviously part of the problem with discussions like this is that there isn't enough space to parse out the various aspects of the study and its results, but suffice to say that kids who enter Head Start for one or two years exhibit improved performance in a variety of areas. So the obvious question is why those improvements are not carried over into K-3?
Instead of using Head Start studies to justify the opposition to universal all-day kindergarten, these studies should be the starting point to examine and improve the public school experiences of not just these Head Start kids, but all kids. Throwing up one's hands in opposition to an all-day kindergarten program is easy; the hard job is to improve the experiences and outcomes for all kids in our public schools. If results of prior achievements are not carried over, the better effort would be to improve, not abandon, the kindergarten initiative. Using this study and Mr. Stark's logic, based on this Head Start study we may as well abandon grades 1 - 3 as well.
One final point, Mr. Stark asserts that the universal kindergarten initiative is not about academics but, "...about alleviating parents of the burden of child care." This comment is not merely dismissive, but insulting. There are as many studies published as there are opinions they support. However, while not conclusive, there are some interesting results coming from a variety of areas of inquiry. One that should strike home is a study of Philadelphia kids that showed that exposure to all-day kindergarten was more likely to keep those kids on track, advancing without having to repeat a grade, than their peers who graduated from half-day programs. As a result of the lower retention rates for kids who graduated from all-day kindergarten, limited educational dollars were saved over the long term, more than justifying the expense of an all-day kindergarten program. Is there room for improvement of kindergarten through grade 12 programs? Absolutely. And that's why it's vital that we all take a part in the effort to improve - this is the hard work previously spoken of - our public schools and not take the easy way out of dismissing any such effort some glorified day care program.
Friday, May 13, 2016 Report this
JohnStark
Schoos: I'd be with you on your general point of improving the educational experience of children. The problem is that you only want to improve this experience for children in government-run (i.e. public) schools. Look around. Outside of a few wealthy communities, government-run schools are an abject failure state wide, and the same holds true nationally. This is especially true of districts servicing low income, frequently minority kids in which a disproportionate amount of taxpayer dollars are spent on various preschool schemes. While you wish to rearrange the deck chairs on the SS Government Schools, I would offer that we give these same kids a chance on a different ship altogether. More specifically, give these kids vouchers to attend whatever government, private, or parochial school that best meets their needs as determined by their parents, and not their zip code. In the interim, my observation of full-day kindergarten may very well be "dismissive" and "insulting", but it is also quite accurate. Sorry about that. I'm sure The Blob (a term coined by a former US Secretary of Education to describe teacher unions and middle management beaurocrats) would thank you for overlooking the awkward fact that the Philadelphia full-day kindergarten study was not normalized for parental income or parental education level. Well educated, upper income parents have an uncomfortable habit of giving birth to kids who stay "on track", independent of whether they attended all-day or half-day kindergarten. In short, I do not question that all-day kindergarten is beneficial, as it clearly benefits the day care needs of Warwick parents greatly. But let's not pretend anything more. Fifteen years from now I don't doubt that The Blob will be endorsing the merits of prenatal education. After all, it will be 'for the children'.
Friday, May 13, 2016 Report this
danfire
Warwick's new logo
WHILE TEACHERS GET LAID OFF ADMINISTRATORS GET LAID
Warwick's new logo under Phil Thornton leadership.
Saturday, May 28, 2016 Report this