30 Years After A Nation at Risk - Risky Business

30 Years After A Nation at Risk – Risky Business

By Jonathan T. Jefferson, Ed.D.

Author of MUGAMORE…

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”  In 1983, the once internationally prominent United States education system was unceremoniously awakened.  A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was released by President Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education.  Politics aside, it can be said that this report lead to an assessment crazed generation. 

Standardized tests of achievement (not to be confused with aptitude tests) should be administered at major transition points from one level of schooling to another and particularly from high school to college or work.  The purpose of these tests would be to: (a) certify the student’s credentials; (b) identify the need for remedial intervention; and (c) identify the opportunity for advanced or accelerated work.  The tests should be administered as part of a nationwide (but not Federal) system of State and local standardized tests.  This system should include other diagnostic procedures that assist teachers and students to evaluate student progress.  (A Nation at Risk)

At the time of this Commission’s report, the United States was still among the educational leaders on the world’s stage.  Thirty years later, and our country is struggling to maintain its status in the top twenty.  What is the answer now?  Will Common Core State Standards (CCSS) close the gap?  It remains to be seen whether or not CCSS is the answer, but already risky measures are being implemented.

Statewide assessment tests are being developed to measure how well students are meeting the CCSS.  In some states (e.g. New York), the results of statewide assessment tests are being used to evaluate teachers and principals.  This is quite risky indeed.  There are teachers who have been previously identified as highly effective who are now reluctant to teach struggling learners.  These teachers are concerned that low scores by struggling learners on state assessments will reflect poorly when the teacher is rated.   Other consequences of these measures may include a rush to label students with a disability (ADD, ADHD, ED, etc.).  Once deemed disabled, the onus of the student’s poor test scores is no longer on the teacher or principal.

Common Core State Standards geared toward college and career readiness is a good thing.  Rushing to develop assessments for an overly assessed populous, and connecting those rushed assessments to teachers’ and principals’ evaluations is a dangerous thing.  When every student K – 12 has been educated since kindergarten toward CCSS, then evaluating the impact of CCSS would be justified.

Video of Dr. Jonathan T. Jefferson's Interview on The Dr. Karen Show

Here it is!  The video of my interview on The Doctor Karen Show.  http://youtu.be/lNan9fLbYoQ

Dr. Jonathan T. Jefferson was interviewed in Massachusetts today for The Dr. Karen Show.  Look for its airing within the next two weeks.  These former elementary and junior high classmates make for dynamic discourse!

A Few Words on Leadership

A Few Words on Leadership

By

Dr. Jonathan T. Jefferson

            Leadership is one of those areas that has been, and continues to be, thoroughly researched.  I am one of those guilty academics who spent years in a doctoral program immersed in the topic.  Ironically, it is not empirical peer reviewed literature that has taught me the most about leadership, but personal experience and observations.  My observations of transitional, transformational, democratic, autocratic, and laissez-fair leaders have molded my methods of influencing others.

            Transitional leaders are those in positions of authority during a time of change; specifically, when shifting from one paradigm/policy to another.  Today’s shift to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has exposed a lot of leaders.  Those who were proactive in learning as much as they could about the CCSS before implementation, and sharing what they learned with their colleagues, have not been overwhelmed by its emergence.  The same can be applied regarding the new federal health care legislation.  Don’t simply accept the hype.  Do some homework.

            Transformational leaders arise from every walk of life, and have the ability to move people to give of themselves for the betterment of all without those individuals expecting anything in return.  Malala, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ghandi just to name a few have exhibited transformational traits.  Democratic leaders need to gain the consensus of a majority in order to get issues addressed.  As noble as participatory leadership appears, it can lead to divisiveness, favoritism, and downright cruelty if wielded without integrity.

            On the extremes, there exists authoritarian leaders and those who chose to simply delegate.  Not validating what others bring to the table can only benefit a leader for a limited time.  When their own innovative ideas dry up, so does their effectiveness.  Putting off direct involvement until absolutely necessary can lead to chaos and disorder.  Therefore, those extremes are to be avoided as much as possible.  

            How have I been molded by my experiences?  First and foremost, I am not the perfect leader.  Being human, knowledge of the best leadership approach in specific situations does not always equal application of such.  I do try to be proactive regarding changes coming to my areas of responsibility.  On many occasions I go above and beyond in order to model for my staff the potential benefits bestowed upon the group if each individual can manage to give a bit more.  When I speak from the heart, it often motivates others to further exert.  Validating the opinions and expertise of subordinates never hurts, but the final decision still falls on the shoulders of the person in charge.  Rarely, if ever, am I autocratic.  When I delegate, it is always from a position of trust.  Yet trust, ultimately, is a two-way investment.  The more I procure my subordinates’ trust, and the more they gain mine, the more easily our joint-objectives might be attained.

Is Stop-and-Frisk as Flawed as Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools?

Is Stop-and-Frisk as Flawed as Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools?

By Dr. Jonathan T. Jefferson

Author of MUGAMORE: Succeeding without Labels – Lessons for Educators

There is no empirical evidence that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practice by police has had a significant impact on the reduction in crime.  In a recent New Yorker interview, Mayor Bloomberg himself said, “If I had a son who was stopped, I might feel differently about it.”  Soon to be reported current research may further dampen the ethos of stop-and-frisk.  Another equally damaging, widely used, and seldom debated policy is that of zero tolerance policies in schools.  Unlike stop-and-frisk, there is mounting evidence against the results of zero tolerance.

“Decisions based on zero tolerance policies can have seriously harmful consequences, in particular for first-time offenders-consequences that impair academic progress, reputation, career opportunities, and emotional development especially with regard to trust in the educational system”  (Kajs, 2006, p. 26).  In a study by Kajs (2006), the consequences for an eighth-grade student who brought a pencil sharpener to school happens far too often.  The student’s parent bought the device in South Korea, because it was the same type of sharpener the parent used as a child.  The sharpener had a two-inch blade that folded into the handle.  This high-performing student was removed from the position of student council president, kicked out of the honor society, and required to attend a disciplinary class for a week.  These apparently harsh consequences were met with a federal lawsuit.  Could not reasonable educators see that this was an honest error?  It would seem that simply informing the parent and child, and perhaps issuing a warning, was all this entire event warranted.  However, “zero tolerance laws and policies can prevent school administrators from applying creative and tailored responses to infractions by students” (Kajs, 2006, p. 21).

As a four-year-old kindergarten student in 1974, I was curious about what was behind the large door at the rear of my classroom.  When I saw a girl go behind the door, I thought it was permissible for students to go back there; hence, I followed her.  It turns out the door led to the bathroom.  I sat in a corner of the bathroom while my classmate used the toilet until the teacher’s assistant came in to tell me to return to my seat.  That was the end of it.  I shudder to think how a four-year-old would be treated today.  Would a zero tolerance policy have labeled me a sexual deviant, and placed me in a specialized school while being heavily medicated?  According to Verdugo (2002), the lack of clarity in zero tolerance policies do not consider a student’s intent [innocent curiosity], or circumstances related to the behavior [unfamiliar environment].

Working as a school administrator, I often hear colleagues advocating for treating all students equally.  Hearing this makes me cringe.  Often times, equal consequences are not fair.  Should an eighth-grade honor student with a two-inch sharpener, who has never been in trouble, be treated the same as a high school gang member with a two-inch shank?  How about a four-year-old kindergarten student unwittingly entering a bathroom with a girl being disciplined the same as a 17-year-old boy knowingly entering a bathroom with a girl?  Clearly, equal would not be fair.  Casella (2003) makes the point that discipline policies that criminalize youth cannot be successful.

Casella, R.  (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives.  Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872-892.

Kajs, L. T.  (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An alternative approach to zero tolerance.  Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 16-28.

Verdugo, R. R.  (2002). Race-ethnicity, social class, and zero-tolerance policies.  Education and Urban Society, 35, 50-75.  doi:10.1177/001312402237214