It's Lonely at the Top: Pricipals and Superintendents

The education world was stunned earlier this week when it learned that Denice Dee Denton the chancellor of University of California, Santa Cruz, had jumped to hear death on Saturday. Obviously Dr. Denton, a renowned scientist and advocate for women in science, had significant psychological issues and could have benefitted from serious professional help. However, just as Dr. Denton taugt an important lesson about the potential of women during her lifetime, perhaps her death can teach another important lesson. Her death might refocus us in thining about the perils and problems of leadership.

Dr. Denton oversaw a large university system and made a substantial salary of nearly $600,000 a year. Leaders in the K-12 system do not typically earn these types of salaries. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find principals in large high schools earning salaries that compare to their highest paid teachers. Despite the similar salaries principals have far more responsibility. They must often attend after-school and evening programs four or five nights a week. Many principals have said that its impossible to be the type of principal that they would like to be and the type of father that they dream about being, at the same time. There simply aren't enough hours in the day. The highest paid teacher in the school simply doesn't have this challenge. I'll never forget the time that I heard the director of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals say that somebody doesn't know what its like to be a principal until a parent gets in his face and starts yelling and threatening him. I later learned that he was correct.

Superintendents don't have it much easier. The superintendent turnover rate is incredibly high. In large districts its rare for a school leader to stay in place for even three years. When a district encounters problems the superintendent is the first to go. When a school board changes composition the new board often wants to bring in its own leader. It's no surprise that fewer and fewer people seek to become superintendents.

Would't it have been nice if Dr. Denton had been able to get the help that she so desperately needed? Certainly not every school leader is on the verge of taking their own life. However, they need our support. They need to know that they are not alone. After all, they are leading the development of the next generation. Take a momen in the next few weeks and call a school leader that you know and simply say "Thank You."

Funding Pre-School Education

When I was a very young child, my mother discovered that I could not speak properly. I had a major speech problem and a deficit of gross motor skills. I was enrolled in a special education preschool and received both speech therapy and counseling. Today, I hold a B.A. from an Ivy League University and have completed advanced doctoral work in Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy at Michigan State University. I'm lucky that my mother had the wherewithall to identify my challenges and seek out appropriate help. If it hadn't been for her, I would likely not be writing this post today. Indeed, I'd likely be working for somebody else as a skilled laborer.

My mother had the social and cultural background to get me the help that I needed. Unfortunately, many young children don't have the "luck of the womb," to borrow Warren Buffet's phrase, and are born to parents who lack social and cultural resources. Research demonstrates that a parent's socio-economic status significantly influences the level of their childrens' educational attainment and educational attainment has a significant correlation with one's own socio-economic level. To put it simply, parents who have attained a high quality education value knowledge and skills and work hard to ensure that their children develop these same values.

In recent years policymakers and social advocates have increasingly supported the importance of publicly provided pre-school education. Their arguments make sense. When young children have the opportunity to attend pre-school they are exposed to early education. Their teachers read to them, they learn to draw and manipulate objects, and they develop an early awareness of letters and sounds. In short, pre-school has the potential to provide disadvantaged children with similar resources that are available to their more advantaged peers. Perhaps pre-school has the potential to serve as a great equalizer of opportunity.

On June 28th, the Committee on Economic Development, a Washington, D.C. based business and policy forum released a report entitled "The Economic Promise of Investing in High Quality Preschool: Using Early Education to Improve Economic Growth and the Fiscal Sustainability of States and the Nation." According to the report, not only individuals will benefit from attending pre-school, but our entire society will benefit. Tax bases will increase, crime rates will decrease and culture will flourish.

Consider it: if we spend the money now on preschools we may not have to spend it later on social welfare programs and prison systems.

Social Studies Under No Child Left Behind?

Yesterday CBS News published an article titled, "Dumbed Down Schools Hurt Students." The article begins, "History, science, and the arts are being de-emphasized by most schools in order to make room for teaching basic reading and math skills, according to a recent study. Who's to blame for this? Critics of reform point to the No Child Left Behind law." As a strong supporter of No Child Left Behind, I'm a bit perplexed about this situation.

I do believe that schools are not paying enough attention to writing, civics, history, science and the arts. Furthermore, I recognize these subject matters are absolutely essential to the creation of smart citizens and productive members of society. To put it simply, if people don't understand civics and the foundations upon which the government of the United States stands that foundation will become significantly weakened. If people don't understand the importance of democracy they cannot consider important public issues. If people don't understand science technological progress will slow down or come to a grinding halt. They must learn this knowledge and skills in school. However, many schools are not teaching it.

Schools are teaching the subject areas that are tested under federal mandate. Educational critics like E.D. Hirsch argue that schools should teach reading by having students read substantive content material. Hirsch makes this argument in his new book, "The Knowledge Deficit." He suggests a wide variety of material including fables, essays about history, scientific information, etc. He argues that schools should develop the highest quality curricula that simultaneously teach students the material that they will be tested on and more. His argument makes sense; however, I don't think its very practical. Simply put, neither textbook companies nor school systems will structure their curricula in this way without external pressure. They'll maintain the status quo, doing what they feel works best, unless they are forced to experiment with other strategies and content. I personally don't blame schools for this. After all, most people do what they think works best.

I do blame the United States government for the way it has structured No Child Left Behind. All major content areas should be assessed. The old dictum, "What is tested is taught," remains true. It's time for the federal government to expand the subject matters that must be taught and assessed.

Why Do High School Dropouts Make Less Money?

This week Education Week released its first annual report on graduation rates across the nation. The report contains descriptions of each state's graduation rates and the rates in our nation's fifty largest school districts. It also considers the financial costs of not obtaining a high school diploma. Individuals who do not complete high school earn less money than high school graduates. Lynn Olson writes,"In an increasingly competitive global economy, their chances of earning a living wage are grim. In 2003, high school graduates earned, on average, 34 percent more than those without a high school diploma. College graduates made a whopping 132 percent more." I can't help but wonder why this is the case.

Many might argue that when you don't graduate from high school you don't learn knowledge and skills that are essential to the work world. Many high school graduates can't read. Many can't solve simple math problems. They certainly don't know social studies or science. Without knoweldge and skills employees have smaller earnings potential.

Though this argument makes sense, I'm not sure that I accept it. Many high school graduates lack important knowledge and skills. I've taught pre-service teacher education courses in which some students could barely write a coherent sentence. Many high school dropouts can read and compute math problems. I'm simply not convinced that the earnings potential has a direct correlation to the knowledge and skills learned in high schools.

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but perhaps this earnings potential is related to how well you can play a game. The game is life. Two characteristics are esential for winning at this game: savviness and persistence. Savvy kids know how to get through school. They know how to get passing grades in classes even when they can't do the work. This often requires telling the teacher what the he/she wants to hear. At other times it requires smiling and sitting quietly. Savvy people know how to get jobs and earn incomes. This requires telling the boss what he/she wants to hear and sitting quietly at other times. Persistent people recognize that when they fail to get what they want the first time they should try and try again. Indeed they do try until they get what they want. This does not necessarily mean that they try until they get it right. Persistent students will do what it takes to get a passing grade, even when they don't receive it the first time. They will eventually graduate. Persistent employees will do what it takes to fulfill their responsibilities. Perhaps high school dropouts earn less money because they lack savviness and persistence.

I'm not so sure that this explanation of the reason that high school dropouts earn less money should reflect negatively on American public schools. After all aren't savviness and persistence important characteristics? Has a successful business ever been started by somebody who wasn't savvy and persistent? Would you rather have a book smart person work for you or somebody who is savvy and persistent?

Perhaps another blog entry should consider how the standards movement is going to change all of this.

The Coleman Report and the Efficacy of Teachers

In June 1966, James Coleman and his committee on the Equality of Educational Opportunity submitted their report, commonly referred to as the Coleman Report, to the United States Congress. The report explained that a student' family background and the social composition of a school has far more influence the ability of a student to succeed educationally than the quality of the school that the student attends. This report, based on analysis of the achievement of 600, 000 students, was incredibly influential in the Twentieth Century American educational system. It prompted the common tendency of "bussing."

Coleman's report was issued forty years ago, however it continues to influence today's educational system as well. Anybody who has spoken to many teachers know that a few of them believe that their ability to positively influence student achievement is minimal. I've had teachers tell me that they don't want to challenge their students because if the students fail the challenges they will feel like failures. Other teachers have explained that they don't like discussing future opportunities with their students because too many of the students are destined for lives of poverty and lack of opportunity. These teachers have explained that it is unfair to raise false hopes. They lack efficacy. They don't believe that they can have any influence. I couldn't imagine going to a job every day in which I didn't think that I could succeed. It must be a horrible feeling for the teachers. Its even worse for students who aren't encouraged to succeed.

Certainly many inner city teachers do challenge their students. Many teachers help their students recognize that if they work hard they can develop opportunities for themselves, opportunities that their parents did not have. These teachers understand that they can make a difference. They can truly better their students' lives. These beliefs are not unfounded. After all, the American Dream has worked for thousands and thousands of people. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is just one example of an individual who lifted himself up and out of poverty. He's famous. My fatehr is another example of an individual who worked hard and achieved a social and economic status that his father never knew. Examples abound!

The Coleman report was important for its time. Its findings may be correct, in general. However, they do not apply to every single situation. Its findings must not serve as a warrant for not trying to promote the highest quality school systems possible in which students are encouraged to achieve academically and develop opportunities for themselves. Every teacher and school administrator must feel as if there situation is an exemption to the findings of the Coleman report. They must do what it takes to ensure high quality learning and achievement.

Fortunately, I don't think that I'm alone in these thoughts. Indeed numerous educational researchers and leaders are advocating these ideas. We need to continue to push them, however, until every last teachers accepts that they can make a difference. If teachers don't believe that they can make a difference, they should not be teachers.

Summer Homework

When I was a kid summer meant vacation. I used to go to camp to run and play, leaving school work far behind. Not anymore: today's kids have homework all year round and this has become quite a controversy. No intelligent person would question the importance of continuing to learn throughout the summer. Children should read books and visit museums. If they are lucky enough to afford to do so, their parents should take them to visit new sites across the country and even the world. No one is doubting the importance of continuous learning. However, do schools have the right to assign homework during the summer?

One Wisconsin high school student and his father sued a math teacher for assigning summer work. They claimed that since the school year is only 180 days, as mandated by Wisconsin law, the teacher had no right to impose additional work. The judge threw this case out of court.

Despite this judge's decision, I do not believe that public schools have the right to assign summer work. Their mandate of authority lasts for approximately 180 days. Neither teachers or schools have the right to grab additional power for themselves. Assigning summer work might be compared to a police officer saying that children cannot cross the street themselves. Children can cross streets themselves, however hopefully parents will ensure their children's safety. Police officers do not have the right to develop new laws that go above and beyond the laws passed by state, or the federal, governments.

Certainly schools can suggest homework for students. Schools can urge parents to work with their children on specific topics. Indeed, smart schools should and will do this. Research demonstrates that it often takes children two months to catch up to the educational levels they had attained in the previous grade, when they do not study over the summer. But there is a great difference between suggesting and encouraging and requiring.

Unfortunately, in today's society many parents may not require their children to complete work if it is not required. However, this sad fact does not provide schools with the right to require summer homework. Perhaps it does however, scream out the fact that our local and national leaders must emphasize the importance of continuous learning.

The World is Flat: Do American Schools Realize it?

Tom Friedman's book, The World is Flat, has been on the New York Times' Best Sellers List for 62 weeks. In this brilliant book Friedman explains that the lines of communication and commerce no longer end at the edge of the city, state or nation. They stretch throughout the globe. Friedman explains that major companies are as likely, if not likelier, to develop contracts with Indian companies than it is to develop contracts with the company next door. My favorite anecdote from the book is that when somebody orders in the drive through line at McDonalds they are no longer guaranteed that they are even speaking to somebody inside the restaurant. A system has been set up in which drive through customers speak to a call center in the Western part of the U.S. Numerous McDonalds are using this service for efficiency purposes.

As I write this entry I am sitting at a Panera Bread in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Where are you? As an independent educational consultant I work with people developing curriculum, all over the nation. (I'm new at this: I hope one day soon to be working with people all over the world.) I've never met many of these people face to face and I haven't even spoken to some of them. However, we still work together efficiently because of the Internet and today's communications systems.

I have to wonder if today's schools are preparing students to enter the world of the Twenty-First Century or the United States of the late Twentieth Century. There is an incredible difference between the two time periods. As just one example, lets take foreign language. China is the fastest growing economy in the world. It is also already a Superpower. How many of our students are learning to speak Chinese? How many of our schools offer Chinese? I did an informal study a few weeks and was shocked that out of ten districts surveyed, only one offered Chinese. We live in a world in which fundamentalists, many of whom speak Arab, no longer constrain their religious practices and activism to a part of the world distant from our own. One might think that it would be a good idea to speak the same language as these individuals, so that we can seek to break down cultural barriers. No school that I surveyed offered Arabic. My mother could have studied Spanish and French in school. Schools continue to offer these languages.

As just one more example let's consider technology. My girlfriends sons go to a private school with a tuition of fifteen thousand dollars a year. A few weeks ago her nine year old son developed his own website. He was so proud of it and wanted to show it to his friends. When he came home from school I asked him if he showed any of his friends. He told me that he wasn't allowed to do so. He couldn't go on the computer. The teacher didn't let students use the computer without specific purposes as assigned by her. Can you imagine a teacher telling a student that they couldn't write with a pen unless something was specifically assigned? I don't mean to be picking on my girlfriend's son school. I'm pretty confident that the situation is the same in many schools.

I'm afraid that Tom Friedman's book has not had enough influence. Policymakers and educational leaders have read it. You can't attend a meeting in education without hearing about it. But classrooms and curriculum have not yet changed. We are missing the opportunity to educate a whole generation of children in the ways that they should be educated.

Suing MySpace

Several days ago I wrote a reply to a Blog 2.0 entry entitled "K-12 Students Want More Technology in Math and Science." In the reply I wrote that certainly most students want to use technology in schools since theyuse technology in the rest of their lives and are experts in using it. I reminded the reader that someone said that kids are natives in the land of computer technology while adults are merely visitors to it. I explained that teaching school today without the use of computer technology can be compared to the teaching of school twenty five years ago without the use of pens and pencils.

Many teachers encourage students to use the Internet for communication purposes. Students use podcasts, blogs, and instant messaging. Some teachers have even had students develop collaborative wikis. Not only are these activities interesting and fun. They are absolutely essential to high quality teaching and learning. Our students will live in a world that runs on electronic communication. They must know how to use it, not only for social purposes but for academic and professional purposes.

Despite the importance of electronic communication tools they also have the potential to be incredibly dangerous. As you likely know, a mother and her teenaged daughter are suing MySpace for $30 million because the daughter was raped by somebody she met on MySpace. Numerous women have been raped and even murdered by people they've met online. It's very scary.

Life is scary. People do horrible things to one another. They don't only do horrible things to people they've met online. They also do it to people they meet in person. Just think about things that are done at teenaged parties and fraternity parties. As educators it is our responsibility to help students learn to think about their own safety. People of all ages must recognize that they are responsible for their own safety and that their behavior has consequences.

Certainly Internet communication provides additional safety hazzards. For it's easier for people to judge others when they can see them directly, hear their voices and observe their mannerisms. However, the fact that it's more difficult to ensure safety through Internet communication does not mean that we shouldn't use Internet communication. It means that we need to continuously teach our students to be rigorous about maintaining their own safety.

Internet communication is here to stay. We should make sure that our students know how to use it safely.

Teach For America?

When I was a first year student at Columbia University I began teaching religious school. Many of the lesson plans were scripted for me in a curriculum developed by the Melton Center at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. The curriculum said things like "say this..." "Students will say this..." I'll never forget the time that a student said something insightful but not included as a possible student response on the curriculum. Perhaps because I was following the scripted lesson so carefully, instead of the students, I was lost.

Several years laster, after graduating from college, I accepted my first teaching position at a Jewish day school. I still had never taken an education course. I remember thinking that as long as I taught my middle school students in the same way that my teachers had taught me I'd be ok. Since college was my most recent memory of being a student I figured all I had to do was talk and say interesting things and my students will pick it up. After all that had worked for me throughout my middle school, high school, and college career. Unfortunately, it didn't work. My students were bored and disruptive because they wanted to be involved in the class not just sit as passive recipients.

Finally, after my first year of teaching I started taking education courses. I also began to learn how to teach effectively. I'm not sure how strong of a correlation there was between my taking education courses and learning how to teach, but they at least happened at the same time. Several of the education professors really did encourage me to think about effective teaching. Regardless of why I learned how to be a good teacher, it did not happen over one summer. It took me many years and indeed I am still working on developing my teaching repertoire and thought bank.

So, what does all this have to do with Teach For America?

I'm a pretty smart fellow and it took me many years to grow into a good teacher. How can we possibly expect individuals to become good teachers in the short span of a summer. A summer isn't even enough time to begin to challenge the ways an individual thinks about good teaching, let alone help him/her develop new teaching styles.

At the same time, if there are shortages of effective teachers and individuals out of college are energetic and enthusiastic about making a difference in the classroom shouldn't we offer them this opportunity? Most will certainly be better than nobody.

Let's just remember how difficult it is for young teachers to be effective in the classroom.

High School Credit for Off-Campus Bible Education

According to the South Carolina newspaper, The State, 6500 students leave their high school campuses each year and learn about the Bible and Ten Commandments for credit, each year. A 1952 court ruling stipulated that it was constitutional for students to leave campus and take part in religious education. Should students be allowed to study the Bible and Ten Commandments for public high school credit?

The Bible is the best selling book of all time. It stands as a part of the foundation of Western Civilization. Christians, Jews and Muslims look to the Bible as a sacred text. It has exerted a huge influence in the course of world history. Much of Western literature contains references, both direct and suttle, to the Bible. Not only should high school students be allowed to study the Bible, they should be required to study the Bible. For individuals who do not understand the Bible simply cannot grasp much of Western culture.

However, there is a great difference between studying the Bible as a literary text and studing the Bible as a religious document. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically prohibits the United States Congress, or any state, from making any law that either promotes a specific religion or impedes any religion. American public schools should not offer classes that promote any specific understandings of the Bible.

Students of all religions should be permitted to take any high school course. Every religion has its own particular understandings of the Bible. If a particular class encouraged students to undertand the Bible from any specific perspective, the class would simultaneously discourage students from accepting other perspectives. Certainly, this should not be permitted. The South Carolina newspaper states that students are taking religious education courses. It is utterly inappropriate for students to do this. Today's Court should rule any laws that permit this unconstitutional.

As a teacher I know that students can glean incredible ideas from studying great works of literature, like the Bible. I also know that students can be made to feel uncomfortable if their own political or religious views are dismissed as inappropriate. American educators must seek to welcome all students into our classes and help these students develop the skills to celebrate their own heritages and ideas. The Bible should be taught as a literary text but not as a religious text.

Spellings Travels Abroad

Today numerous newspapers are running a story from the AP entitled, "Spellings Goes Overseas to Tout Education." Since taking office in 2005 Spellings has taken seven trips at a cost of $36,981 to the tax payers. The Department of Education claims that Spellings travels because she has a need to understand both the countries that we are competing against and the countries that we aid. I'm not so sure that I agree that international travel is the way that the United States Secretary of Education should be spending her time.

What are Secretary Spellings's responsibilities? Under No Child Left Behind, the primary purpose of the U.S. Department of Education is to oversee the ways in which states serve as educational watchdogs, setting educational standards and managing standardized tests. Why is it important for the Secretary of Education to understand other nations and the global context, at the expense of taxpayers?

Certainly the highest quality educational programs take global perspectives in the Twenty First Century. It is essential for students to understand cultures, and political and economic structures beyond our own. However, the department has no authority to develop curriculum. Curriculum is developed at state and local levels. Secretary Spellings does not need to travel the world to develop an understanding of international affairs so that she can infuse it into curricula. She doesn't develop curriculum.

The U.S. Depatment of Education issues grants to states and local grantees under a variety of different programs, such as foreign language, science and math, and history. Certainly the staffers who oversee these grants should understand the global context, since the best educational programs teach students about the entire world. Grantors should ensure that the programs they fund have global perspectives and have the ability to help program managers infuse their projects with this content. However, I hardly think that Secretary Spellings spends much time selecting grantees and overseeing grants.

The AP cites the cost of Spellings travel at $36, 981. However, the cost is actually higher since the AP doesn't consider the opportunity cost. When Spelling travels overseas she is not in the United States. She cannot pursue her domestic duties. Secretary Spellings should be spending her time touting the importance of educational standards. She should be spending her time leading the department as it figures out how to assist educators around the nation in both setting and fulfilling educational standards. When she is out of the country she can not do these things.

Secretary Spellings, please stay in the United States and do your job, instead of travelling the world at my expense.

Single Sex Schools

The Michigan Legislature is currently considering legislation that would permit public schools to offer single sex education. Indeed there is growing momentum nationwide to permit single sex education. Single sex schools have the potential to create wonderful learning communities for all. However, certain organizations, such as the ACLU, have opposed such moves arguing that they are permit segregation and are thereby unconstitutional.

Students who attend single sex schools are often better able to focus on educational attainment without the pressure brought on by peers from the opposite sex. They don't have to worry about how they are being perceived. Research demonstrates that it is often easier for girls to assume ledership positions when boys are not present. Indeed as the graduate of a high school that segregated sex for certain classes and not for others I can specifically remember less social pressure stemming from segregated classes. It was easier to just relax and "be me."

I'm not really sure that I understand the problem with segregation of sexes. Certainly, I recognize the racism of segregation that occurred in American schools prior to the Civil Rights Movement and unfortunately continues in some places today. I am certainly strongly opposed to such segregation. However, there is a significant difference between segregation of race and segregation of gender. When schools were segregated by race, community leaders often intentionally sent African-Americans to schools that had fewer resources. Science labs did not measure up, gymnasiums were not as luxurious, and certainly teachers had fewer skills and socio-economic resources that they could bestow on their students. Often the sole purpose of "Black Schools" was to continue to subjogate students.

I dont' think that very many respected community leaders or educators in the United States today want to subjogate either girls or boys. Indeed since the public as a whole does not want to do this, we could continue to monitor the quality of schools to insure that this does not occur. If all of the sudden either gender schools began to demonstrate lower standardized test scores, instead of higher scores, it would be a clear indication that something was not working well. If single sex schools have a purpose, rather than lowering scores they should promote higher scores and greater achievement. Furthermore, unlike race-segregated schools, students do not have to attend gender-segregated schools. I'm certain that most schools will continue to welcome both genders.

I welcome the potential of single sex schools to give both boys and girls increased educational opportunities.

June 14: No Child Left Behind Fails to Meet Expectations

Today Reuters reported that a Harvard University Civil Rights Project Study found that No Child Left Behind is failing to meet its goals. According to the report, only 24-34% of students will meet the reading proficiency target and only 29-64% will meet the math target. To anybody that understands education, this comes as no surprise. It's a lot like a doctor prescribing that a sick patient take his temperature every hour. No sick person has ever gotten healthier by simply taking their temperature. NCLB does not contain the mechanism to insure that every child can learn how to read or be mathematically literate. Simply mandating tests and standards does not provide the mechanism for meeting performance targets. It's a lot easier to legislate assessment than insure improvement.

I'll never forget during my first year of doctoral studies, sitting in a class and explaining that if people could get to the moon we should be able to improve our school systems. Another student replied that it might have been easier to get to the moon than improve schools. At the time this commet seemed ludicrous. However, as I thought about it more I realized that in reality it made a great deal of sense. There are specific things that any nation can do to get to the moon. If you build a rocket ship that can fly the correct speed at the correct angle you can get to the moon. Local context does not matter. When it comes to improving schools local contexts are incredibly influential. Individual people are even more important.

Local school practitioners need to ask themselves how serious they are about improving schools, which in part means developing and implementing the highest quality curriculum. Educators need to determine if they are ready to insure that every child can and will learn. Just because they give a standardized test once a year does not mean that they are ready to do what it takes to insure improvement on these measurements. Too many educators simply do not believe that they have the ability to make a difference. Too many believe that their students do not have the capacity to adequately succeed. Unfortunately, a simple blog entry cannot change anybody's mind. But I wish that I had the ability to take every teacher who didn't believe in himself or in his students and show him one of the thousands of classrooms in which high quality learning is occurring even in the middle of urban city decay. As an educator I have found that if I believe something can occur, it typically will occur.

School improvement and the development of high quality curriculum is far from easy. Indeed, it is possibly as hard as brain surgery. But just because something is difficult and will take time to implement successfully does not mean that we should stay away from it. Doug Reeves recently wrote that school improvement might take five years. But if we don't start now, where are we going to be in five years? More importantly, where are our students going to be in five years?

No Child Left Behind has ambitious goals for the children of our nation. However, the legislation alone will not enable these goals to be met. As educators we must do what it takes to insure that every child can and will learn.

June 13-Charter Schools

On June 13th the New York Times ran an article entitled, "U.S. Gives Charter Schools a Big Push in New Orleans" explaining that Secretary Spellings announced that the federal government was contributing $24 million to the development of New Orleans charter schools. As an educational entrepeneur I'm thrilled to see this level of support for charter schools.

It's clear that the United States of America is not educating its children at the level it needs to. In numerous books, Jonathan Koziol documents the dismal conditions present in urban schools. Not only do these schools not have enough textbooks they do not have enough toilet paper. These dismal conditions are made even worse by the fact that large urban school systems have layers of bureaucracy in their central offices.

I'm not arguing that charter schools are the only way to improve America's schools. Instead, I'm emphasizing that our children deserve an opportunity to receive the highest quality education possible. Appropriate resources should be spent to insure that the brightest minds in America can develop excellent school systems. Perhaps the New Orleans experiment will demonstrate that charter schools have potential in urban settings. Perhaps this experiment will demonstrate the opposite. If this occurs we must go back to the drawing boards.

The New York Times article explains that a study conducted by the Council of Great City Schools has found that charter schools do not teach differently than traditional public schools. This might be the case. However, I hardly trust a Council of Great City Schools study on the quality of charter schools. If charter schools are indeed effective, the ineffective school systems in the great cities of our nation will have the most to fear.

Only time and dilligent attention will reveal the effectiveness of charter schools.