A recent report by the Center for an Urban Future - a progressive think-tank here in NYC - highlighted some of Obama's policy steps that have benefited New York City. I've identified the top five that help NYC's children:
1. Increased funding for early childhood education;
2. Improved the No Child Left Behind Act;
3. Increased funding for youth summer employment;
4. Expanded access to the Earned Income Tax Credit;
5. Increased funding for community health centers.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Teacher Credentials - What Does it All Mean for Policy Advocates
I was really drawn to this week's NYTimes article concerning teacher credentials. It raised an important question in my mind from an advocacy perspective: Should education advocates push for policies the incentivize (or require) teacher credentialing?
I am not an educator. However, I am an advocate and I am interested in pushing for policies that will have the greatest - both in size and quality - impact on low-income children. So I want to know whether there is a real link between credentials and students' achievements.
Personally, I do see some value in requiring teachers to obtain certain credentials as a mark of their having obtained a certain set of information, and achieved a certain level of expertise in their field. I believe that the children being failed the most by our education system - poor children and children of color - will benefit from teachers who can demonstrate that they have been challenged academically, that they are well-grounded in both the theory and practice of education, and who have developed a capacity for critical inquiry and problem solving.
The current dismal state of public education in this country - the increasing number of disconnected youth who are neither in school not in the workforce in record numbers; entire school districts being taken over due to consistent failure - highlights the need for innovative thinkers and the highest quality educators. One of the mechanisms that our society has agreed upon as a way to gauge the quality of one's education, and of one's ability to think critically and creatively, is the academic credential.
Another point is that the increased professionalization of a field increases both the quality of the pool of people who want in to the field at the front end, and the compensation and support for those professionals in the field on the back in. Both of these also strike me as good things for education in this country.
But what do the number say? It turns out that credentials may not be as irrelevant as some educators argue: An study by the Urban Institute found that teacher credentials affect student achievement in systematic ways and that the magnitudes are large enough to be policy relevant.
So, if there is a positive relationship between credentials and student achievement what policy levers can and should be used to increase teacher credentialing?
I am not an educator. However, I am an advocate and I am interested in pushing for policies that will have the greatest - both in size and quality - impact on low-income children. So I want to know whether there is a real link between credentials and students' achievements.
Personally, I do see some value in requiring teachers to obtain certain credentials as a mark of their having obtained a certain set of information, and achieved a certain level of expertise in their field. I believe that the children being failed the most by our education system - poor children and children of color - will benefit from teachers who can demonstrate that they have been challenged academically, that they are well-grounded in both the theory and practice of education, and who have developed a capacity for critical inquiry and problem solving.
The current dismal state of public education in this country - the increasing number of disconnected youth who are neither in school not in the workforce in record numbers; entire school districts being taken over due to consistent failure - highlights the need for innovative thinkers and the highest quality educators. One of the mechanisms that our society has agreed upon as a way to gauge the quality of one's education, and of one's ability to think critically and creatively, is the academic credential.
Another point is that the increased professionalization of a field increases both the quality of the pool of people who want in to the field at the front end, and the compensation and support for those professionals in the field on the back in. Both of these also strike me as good things for education in this country.
But what do the number say? It turns out that credentials may not be as irrelevant as some educators argue: An study by the Urban Institute found that teacher credentials affect student achievement in systematic ways and that the magnitudes are large enough to be policy relevant.
So, if there is a positive relationship between credentials and student achievement what policy levers can and should be used to increase teacher credentialing?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Obama: What have you done for me LATELY?
I'll say it loud and proud -- I think Obama is doing a great job! I am especially happy with the effort he's making to protect critical resources for children in this country. From children's health care reform making it easier for millions of low-income children to get preventive health care, to the GIVE Act expanding opportunities for youth volunteerism, this administration has begun to take some meaningful steps towards strengthening the foundations of growth for all children.
Now... it turns out, not everyone agrees that it is a good thing for government to play a roll in fortifying the most vulnerable among us. I understand and appreciate different views of the proper roll of government in people's lives. However, I can't help but wonder if there aren't some things that are so fundamental as to be beyond politics - What does our disagreement about the ultimate value of leveling the playing field for all children, and protecting their access to the critical resources they need to thrive say about shared (or not) notions of justice...
I came across an article in the Right Wing News (yes... that is its actual name...) that took aim at the GIVE Act, claiming that references to "volunteerism" in the act were liberal code for "coercive servitude," and that "education" actually meant "statist indoctrination." Another interesting blog exchange concerned just how coercive the Act is, in the broader context of Obama's impact on our freedom more generally.
I suppose it's a good thing that there are groups of people in the world whose values, and whose views about what is best for our children so completely differ from mine, and from those of the organization that I am building. I forces me to be better at articulating my own vision for children living in poverty in this country.
So here goes... There are millions of children in New York City alone who are forced into homeless shelters and food pantries every day because they live in neighborhoods without safe housing or grocery stores, who must navigate crumbling buildings and violent streets just to make it to the school door every morning, and who have no access to preventive health clinics, libraries, or the internet... This is more than just a social science problem - it is a grave injustice that requires both innovative approaches to creating opportunity for children, AND the support of government. The simple recognition of the fact that we are all human, and that as humans we all experience suffering the same way, should propel us beyond distracting discussions of liberal v. right wing, and illuminate a shared goal - making sure that all children have the opportunity to thrive. And it is one of the duties of government to ensure that there is at least a base level of support and opportunity for every child.
Which is why I think that the Obama administration is moving in the right direction.
Now... it turns out, not everyone agrees that it is a good thing for government to play a roll in fortifying the most vulnerable among us. I understand and appreciate different views of the proper roll of government in people's lives. However, I can't help but wonder if there aren't some things that are so fundamental as to be beyond politics - What does our disagreement about the ultimate value of leveling the playing field for all children, and protecting their access to the critical resources they need to thrive say about shared (or not) notions of justice...
I came across an article in the Right Wing News (yes... that is its actual name...) that took aim at the GIVE Act, claiming that references to "volunteerism" in the act were liberal code for "coercive servitude," and that "education" actually meant "statist indoctrination." Another interesting blog exchange concerned just how coercive the Act is, in the broader context of Obama's impact on our freedom more generally.
I suppose it's a good thing that there are groups of people in the world whose values, and whose views about what is best for our children so completely differ from mine, and from those of the organization that I am building. I forces me to be better at articulating my own vision for children living in poverty in this country.
So here goes... There are millions of children in New York City alone who are forced into homeless shelters and food pantries every day because they live in neighborhoods without safe housing or grocery stores, who must navigate crumbling buildings and violent streets just to make it to the school door every morning, and who have no access to preventive health clinics, libraries, or the internet... This is more than just a social science problem - it is a grave injustice that requires both innovative approaches to creating opportunity for children, AND the support of government. The simple recognition of the fact that we are all human, and that as humans we all experience suffering the same way, should propel us beyond distracting discussions of liberal v. right wing, and illuminate a shared goal - making sure that all children have the opportunity to thrive. And it is one of the duties of government to ensure that there is at least a base level of support and opportunity for every child.
Which is why I think that the Obama administration is moving in the right direction.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Resilience building at its best!
Most people agree that going to the doctor is a good thing - especially for children. Yet for low-income families, having to choose between paying for health insurance and paying for shoes for a child to wear to school often means that children go without critical preventive health care.
Thanks to the inspired actions of numerous State Legislatures throughout the country, fewer families will have to make such a choice. Despite the recession, leading to tightening federal and state budgets, at least 13 states have invested millions of dollars over the past five months to expand health insurance coverage for 250,000 + low-income children.
In what seems to be a first step towards universal health coverage, President Obama and Congress recently reauthorized the federal State Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) legislation through 2013, providing almost $33 billion in new money to help states cover the costs of enrolling new children. A primary incentive for states to expand coverage is that the federal government will reimburse them at around 70% percent of the cost of CHIP.
This is resilience building at its best. The federal government is finally investing in preventive health care for children again. The SCHIP program, started during President Clinton's time in office, was slowly being whittled away by the Bush administration. For example, Bush enacted policies that barred states from increasing eligibility over certain levels, effectively eliminating the possibility for millions of children living right on the edge of poverty to receive preventive health care.
This renewed federal commitment to health insurance - both financially and politically - will mean the end, for millions of children, of suffering through childhood with problems like untreated and/or undiagnosed physical and mental illnesses.
Thanks to the inspired actions of numerous State Legislatures throughout the country, fewer families will have to make such a choice. Despite the recession, leading to tightening federal and state budgets, at least 13 states have invested millions of dollars over the past five months to expand health insurance coverage for 250,000 + low-income children.
In what seems to be a first step towards universal health coverage, President Obama and Congress recently reauthorized the federal State Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) legislation through 2013, providing almost $33 billion in new money to help states cover the costs of enrolling new children. A primary incentive for states to expand coverage is that the federal government will reimburse them at around 70% percent of the cost of CHIP.
This is resilience building at its best. The federal government is finally investing in preventive health care for children again. The SCHIP program, started during President Clinton's time in office, was slowly being whittled away by the Bush administration. For example, Bush enacted policies that barred states from increasing eligibility over certain levels, effectively eliminating the possibility for millions of children living right on the edge of poverty to receive preventive health care.
This renewed federal commitment to health insurance - both financially and politically - will mean the end, for millions of children, of suffering through childhood with problems like untreated and/or undiagnosed physical and mental illnesses.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Welcome to the RAP Blog!
This blog is designed to be an online community for those of us fighting to make the world better for vulnerable children. It is a space for sharing information, news stories, resources, advocacy tips, and more... anything and everything that will enable us to do our work better.
So let's start with this: What better way to strengthen children to move out of poverty than to help them see that their dreams are achievable? As Judge Sonia Sotomayor makes her way through the Senate Judiciary hearings this week, the children attending her elementary school alma mater are getting a first hand lesson in the power of resilience. Judge Sotomayor's life story - her ability to overcome the challenges and obstacles presented by a childhood of poverty - is a powerful testament to the importance of education and perserverance.
Her experience underscores the irony of what is going on in Albany right now. As the Legislature winds down and prepares to break for summer, it has left the critical issue of Mayor Bloomberg's control of NYC's schools unsettled. While the failure to pass a bill settling the issue leaves the status quo in place until September, it highlights a deeper - and more unsettling question: What is the long term impact on our education system, and our children, when the government allows politics to get in the way of decisionmaking about thigns as critical as the education of our children.
So let's start with this: What better way to strengthen children to move out of poverty than to help them see that their dreams are achievable? As Judge Sonia Sotomayor makes her way through the Senate Judiciary hearings this week, the children attending her elementary school alma mater are getting a first hand lesson in the power of resilience. Judge Sotomayor's life story - her ability to overcome the challenges and obstacles presented by a childhood of poverty - is a powerful testament to the importance of education and perserverance.
Her experience underscores the irony of what is going on in Albany right now. As the Legislature winds down and prepares to break for summer, it has left the critical issue of Mayor Bloomberg's control of NYC's schools unsettled. While the failure to pass a bill settling the issue leaves the status quo in place until September, it highlights a deeper - and more unsettling question: What is the long term impact on our education system, and our children, when the government allows politics to get in the way of decisionmaking about thigns as critical as the education of our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
