Why Is There an Education Gap?

To view graph, CLICK HERE.
Tom Henry began his career as a researcher at the medical schools of the U. of Pennsylvania and Boston University. In 1967 he joined the faculty at Cumberland County College. Over 24 years his service included being a Professor of Biology and Vice President of Development. In 1991 he was named an Assistant Commissioner of Education with responsibilities for Adult and Vocational Education. During his career he has served on numerous state and national committees dealing with workforce development policy. He currently resides in Palermo with his wife of 45 years, Loretta.
By TOM HENRY
Everyday newspapers carry articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor about our education system. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these items focus on the cost of the education and, in particular, the supposedly outrageous sums for teacher’s salaries and benefits. Little, if any, at-attention is directed to a real discussion of how well the American education system is doing. Many believe that local schools are doing well (it’s the large city schools that are terrible) and that entering college is the goal… The purpose of this three-part series is to examine how the system is working and to make suggestions for improvement.
A review of each State’s Constitution indicates that children are entitled to a fair chance to develop their individual gifts and talents in order to obtain gainful employment and to manage their lives, thereby serving their own interests and those of society. In New Jersey, this assurance is contained in Article VIII, Section IV, 1 which states: ”The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years” (New Jersey Constitution).
In reality, the Constitutional promise of a good education fails the majority of students. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued a Report entitled “A Nation At Risk” which claimed that “…our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world”. The Report further noted that while America could take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges had historically accomplished, the educational foundations of society were being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity. The educational gains made after the National response to the Sputnik challenge were squandered. The Commission concludes “if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”
The response to “A Nation At Risk” was multifaceted. Prodded by business leaders and the National Governor’s Association, national and state education agencies began the process of increasing the effectiveness of the educational system. At the local/regional level, Business/Education Partnerships were established to discuss the disconnect between the knowledge and skills possessed by high school and college graduates with those required by industry. Federal education laws were amended to address the new national concerns. The Congress enacted a series of alphabet soup programs within Department of Labor (CETA, JTPA, and WIA) to address the skill needs of unemployed and underemployed individuals as part of a second chance system.
One response to “A Nation At Risk” was further studies on the underlining issues limiting student achievement in both society and the educational system. One of the more influential studies of the post “A Nation At Risk” era was the report by the National Center on Education and the Economy entitled America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages. The Report found that since 1969 average weekly earnings declined by more than 12 percent. However, this burden was very unequal—the incomes of the top 30 percent had risen while the incomes for the other 70 percent had spiraled downward. The report predicted one of two futures. Either the top 30 percent will grow wealthier while the bottom 70 percent becomes progressively poorer or we will all slide into relative poverty together. In retrospect it appears our nation moved toward Option One.
The America’s Choice Report presented five recommendations that paved the way for future educational change initiatives. These were:
1. A new educational performance standard should be set for all students, to be met by age 16. This standard should be established nationally and benchmarked to the highest in the world.
2. States should take responsibility for assuring that virtually all students achieve the Certificate of Initial Mastery. Through the new local Employment and Training Boards, states, with federal assistance, should create and fund alternate learning environments for those who cannot attain the Certificate of Initial Mastery in regular schools.
3. A comprehensive system of Technical and Professional Certificates and associate’s degree should be created for the majority of students and adult workers who do not pursue a baccalaureate degree.
4. All employers should be given incentives and assistance to invest in the further education and training of their workers and to pursue high productivity forms of work organization.
5. A system of Employment and Training Boards should be established by Federal and state governments, together with local leadership, to organize and oversee the new school-to-work transition programs, and training systems we propose.
The Report concludes with a series of questions that everyone should consider and develop local answers. These are:
1. Do we continue to define educational success as “ time in the seat”, or choose a new system that focuses on the demonstrated achievement of high standards?
2. Do we continue to provide little incentive for non-college bound students to study hard and take tough subjects, or choose a system that will reward real effort with better pay and better jobs?
3. Do we continue to turn our backs an America’s drop-outs, or choose to take responsibility for educating them?
4. Do we continue to provide unskilled jobs, or train skilled workers and give companies incentives to deploy them in high performance work organizations?
5. Do we continue in most companies to limit training to a select handful of management and professionals, or choose to provide training to front-line workers as well?
6. Do we cling to a public employment and training system fragmented by institutional barriers, muddled by overlapping bureaucracies and operating at the margins of the labor market, or do we choose a unified system that addresses itself to a majority of workers?
7. Do we continue to remain indifferent to the low wage path being chosen by many companies, or do we provide incentives for high productivity choices?
HOW ARE WE DOING?
Reports and Studies like A Nation At Risk and America’s Choice sounded a clarion call for fundamental change in national, state, and local educational policies. One can cite many examples of federal, regional, state, and local initiatives that have effected some change. Examples at the federal level include: No Child Left Behind, the School to Work Opportunities Act, and the Workforce Investment Act. Regional examples include, the High School That Work program started by Gene Bottoms at the Southern Regional Education Board, and Career Academies sponsored by the National Academy Foundation. Rather than develop National Academic Standards, each state developed its own process. In New Jersey, Governor Whitman and her Education Commissioner, Leo Klagholz, sough to develop state standards that addressed the “thorough” clause of the State Constitution. Framing the question as “what should a student know and be able to do after thirteen years of public education”, the Dept. of Education embarked on a year long public discussion to answer the question. The answer came in the form of the Core Curriculum Content Standards. The Standards gave school districts the framework for developing the local curriculum and established the basis for a statewide assessment system.
Other models of school reform include: an expansion of the century old concept of single concept high schools (modeled after high schools such as the Agricultural High Schools in Chicago and Philadelphia and the highly regarded science and performing arts high schools in New York City); charter schools; school-within-the- school models; as well as school choice and voucher programs. Undoubtedly these efforts have produced good results for some students, however when viewed from the perspective of the national education system, we continue to fall behind other countries.
In 2008, the Strong American Schools group concluded that “America is in danger of losing its competitive edge because we are not preparing today’s students to be skilled workers for tomorrow’s economy”. This conclusion was reached because:
• Seventy percent of eighth graders are not proficient in reading—and most will never catch up.
• Every year more than 1.2 million students drop out of high school.
• Compared to students in 30 industrial countries, American 15 year olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science. Even America’s top math students rank 25th out of 30 when compared to top students across the globe.
• Many of those who do graduate are not ready for college, the workplace and for life.
The results of the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment conducted in 65 countries by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show American students trail foreign students in the critical areas of math, reading, and science. In commenting on the test results, U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, stated “the brutal fact here is there are many countries that are far ahead of us and improving more rapidly than we are. This should be a massive wake-up call to the entire country.”
The true condition of the American education system is often lost on parents and taxpayers because of differing state assessment programs, the belief of many parents that their local schools are doing a good job, and the lack of coordination between the exit criteria from high school and the entrance criteria for post secondary education. In New Jersey a major reason for the confusion regarding the success of schools was the use of the Special Review Assessment ( SRA). The SRA was an alternate graduation test given to students who failed the regular High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA). Given and scored by local teachers, the SRA was highly criticized as an easy back door way to graduate. When the number of students passing the SRA was added to the number passing the High School Proficiency Assessment New Jersey had the highest graduation rate in the country.
In 2009 the State replaced the SRA with the Alternative High School Assessment (AHSA) in an attempt to bring the alternate test in line with the HSPA. Almost all of the 10,308 students who took the AHSA in 2009 failed. In 120 districts, not one student passed the language arts portion of the AHSA. The legitimacy of the AHSA is being challenged in court by critics who claim it is too difficult. It must be noted that the students who failed the AHSA had previously failed the regular graduation test- the High School Proficiency Assessment.
The gap between high school exit criteria and college entrance requirements can be seen in the College Placement test results at Atlantic Cape Community College. Table One shows the number of students from each of the County’s public high schools who were recommended for Developmental English and Math as opposed to the traditional College entry level courses, i.e. English 101- Composition 1 or Math 122- College Algebra. As Open Admissions institutions, community colleges have a Mission to admit students who lack the traditional college entrance requirements. The foundation for this philosophy originated in Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 which stated that a student was entitled to financial aid if they showed “the ability to benefit” from a college education.
Admitting students who are not prepared for traditional college work has resulted in a large number of college drop-outs and an increase in the amount of time needed to obtain a college degree. To document the extent of the drop-out/ time to graduate issue, the US Dept. of Education, in 1989, published regulations requiring colleges to track and report on student completion rates. Successful completion was defined as a student graduating within three years of entering a two-year college and graduating within six years of entering a four-year college. According to the latest Completion Rate statistics, the national completion rate for four-year colleges is 54percent. Table Two shows the completion rates for NJ colleges by type of institution: two-year public, four-year public and four-year private.
The cost of admitting unprepared students into college is high. In 2006, the Alliance for Excellent Education estimated the cost of remediation at community colleges to be $ 1.4 billion and $ 45 million for New Jersey’s community colleges. There is no available data to show the costs for remediation neither at four year colleges nor for private trade schools.
The push for every student to go to college is now being challenged. A recent Report by Harvard University researchers, entitled Pathways to Prosperity, suggests that an increased emphasis on college may push some students to drop out of high school. The Report also points out that 27 percent of people with credentials less than an associate’s degree earn more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient.
The Road Ahead
The collapse of our economy during the past several years, though not the direct result of a failed education system, and the budget crisis that most states are experiencing gives us the opportunity to make meaningful change. However, meaningful change can only happen when all parties take a step back and objectively assess the problems; stop the blame game, especially blaming the teachers for all of the social and financial ills in schools; and examining all of the best practice approaches to determine what, if any, would best fit in particular settings. It also must be noted that significant research has been done on the subject of individual learning styles. Therefore considerable thought must be given to developing an educational system that maxinimizes the learning potential of all students. A good model for developing a program based on individual student learning style is the Let Me Learn program developed by a professor at Rowan University. This international program has been highly successful. While some will argue that the cost to develop and implement such a system too is high, it is a bargain when compared to the costs for drop-outs, the second chance system, and the criminal justice system (estimated to be $ 46,880/year).
International test comparisons show that American fourth graders compare very well with similar students around the world. It is in the middle grades that American students begin to fall behind and at the high school level are significantly below students from other countries. Thus, school improvement efforts should be focused at the middle and high school levels. All students should take the same core courses in English, writing, math and science. The practice of allowing some student to take simplified “basic” courses must be eliminated. The curriculum of the highly successful High Schools That Work program is based on this philosophy and shows that students rise to the challenge of the more demanding coursework.
Cape May County is small enough that all high school programs should be consolidated and programs developed in accord with the Career Clusters promulgated by the US Dept. of Education. The clusters are: Agriculture and Natural Resources; Architecture and Construction; Arts, Audio/Video Technology & Communications; Business Administration; Education and Training; Finance; Government & Public Administration; Health Science; Hospitality & Tourism; Human Services; Information Technology; Law & Public Safety; Manufacturing; Retail/Wholesale Sales & Service; Scientific Research & Engineering; and Transportation, Distribution & Logistics. The essential elements of a successful career cluster program (also known as Career Academies) are:
• a small learning community
• a college-prep curriculum with a career theme
• partnerships with employers, the community, and higher education
Each cluster should have an Associate, Baccalaureate, and graduate degree articulation strategy that allows students to gain advanced placement at every level of collegiate education. Students enrolled in a cluster should also be provided with work-based-learning experiences so they can experience the practical aspects of the cluster as well as begin determining whether or not the cluster is within their career goals.
As forewarned by A Nation At Risk and America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages we have a choice: either make meaningful reforms to our education system or continue to pay for the costs associated with not doing so — high drop-out rates; 60 plus percent of high school graduates unprepared to enter college or the workforce; and the costs of the unemployment, welfare, and prison systems. References
America’s Choice: high skills or low wages. The Report of The Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. National Center on Education and the Economy. June 1990. Rochester, NY.
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education United States Department of Education. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. April, 1983.
Armario, C. “Wake-up call: U.S. students trail global leaders”. Associated Press. 12/7/2010.
Bradford, D. N.J. diploma scam revealed by stunning new results. E3 (Excellent Education for Everyone. www.nje3.org.
D’Amico, D. “College remedial courses cost all”. The Press of Atlantic City. May 16, 2010. pp. 1 and 7.
Dreifus, C. & Hacker, A. Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids—And What We Can Do About It.
Dreifus, C. & Hacker, A. “Get the biggest bang for the fewest bucks on college investment.” The Press of Atlantic City. Jan. 25, 2011. p. A9
Gorski, E. “Study finds college has little effect on learning”. The Press of Atlantic City. Jan. 19, 2011. P A4.
Halperin, S. “The Forgotten Half” Ten Years Later. American Youth Policy Forum. 2008. Washington, D.C.
Hechinger, J. “Asian teens Ace Global Achievement Test Besting U.S. as Shanghai Excels”. www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07.
Laliberte, R. Do Kids need College? Family Circle. March 2011. pp. 54-60.
Symonds, W.; R. Schwartz; & R. Fergerson. Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Feb. 2011.
The School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. P.L. 103-239. May 4, 1994.
Will, G. “Education Chief has sound ideas on making U.S. competitive”. The Press of Atlantic City. Jan. 27, 2011. P A11.
A Nation at Risk: The imperative for Education Reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education United States Department of Education. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. Washington, D.C. April 1983.
…….. “Time to consider countywide districts” The Press of Atlantic City. April 11, 2010. P. A10.