New research from Western Michigan University indicates that school enrollments and student-teacher expectations have risen dramatically as a result of the three-year-old Kalamazoo Promise scholarship guarantee program.
Separate studies on changes in enrollment and teacher expectations point to a positive response to the scholarship program. Announced in November 2005 by anonymous private donors, the Kalamazoo Promise pays up to 100 percent of college tuition and fees for students who graduate from KPS and attend any Michigan public institution of higher education.
WMU’s Dr. Gary Miron and Anne Cullen researched school enrollment at KPS since 2002 and found in the two years following the announcement of the Kalamazoo Promise, the district grew by
1,211 students or 12.1 percent while enrollment at five similar urban districts fell by 8.7 percent.
“KPS is attracting students from all economic and ethnic backgrounds, which is good news for a diverse community like Kalamazoo,” said Miron, WMU professor of educational leadership, research and technology.
A second WMU report analyzed changes in teacher expectations and how they are communicated. Interviews with 41 KPS employees and 42 students conducted this year and a survey of more than 2,700 middle and high school students revealed improvements in teacher expectations for student success. It was conducted by Miron, Dr. Jeffrey Jones and Dr. Allison Kelaher Young.
KPS employees interviewed reported that the Promise has led to a sense of excitement in the district that helped define priorities, increase support for students and accountability. In turn, students said teachers are posing more challenges and pushing college as an option for more students.
“Teachers are using the Promise to communicate an increased sense of relevance–they are connecting lessons and the curriculum with student aspirations,” said Jones, WMU assistant professor of teaching, learning and educational studies. “Teachers are preparing students not just for college but for success through the college years. This is, in a sense, moving the ‘goalposts’ of students’
educational pursuits.”
In other education news, educator Lee Griffin took issue with sentiments expressed by other teachers in last week’s newsletter that it is time to debate whether to continue teacher tenure in Michigan. Join in the discussion with Griffin and others here…
I disagree that teacher tenure has no benefit for children. The debate often overlooks this key point: teaching positions in public schools are controlled by locally-elected school boards. Tenure is what prevents these positions from becoming political appointments.
If tenure were abolished and local school boards had the authority to fire and replace teachers at will, it would not be long before advocates for various political viewpoints began running for board positions to further their own causes rather than for the general good of education, as most board members do now.
In my years of teaching, I never had to worry about whether my views on politics, abortion, censorship, or the environment, for example, reflected those of school board members. Political views were irrelevant, as long I kept them appropriately out of the classroom. Remove tenure, and it would not be long before activists of various stripes began to compete for board positions in order to reshape the schools by firing teachers of opposing views and hiring teachers according to their narrow interests.
Furthermore, in my years of teaching, I never had to worry if the superintendent’s nephew was newly certified in my area of expertise, or whether the principal belonged to my club or church. Tenure protects public employees from unfair dismissal in the same way that the civil service laws protect other government employees, and it helps schools remain apolitical, a benefit to all children.
I have agreed for many years that tenure has shielded a small minority of teachers who should have been dismissed for incompetence or negligence. The solution, however, is not to eliminate tenure, but rather to improve teacher evaluation tools and processes available to administrators and to revise the rules of tenure hearings so that it is less burdensome for school districts to remove teachers for true incompetence or negligence.
Eliminating tenure is likely to have terribly negative, unintended consequences on the political neutrality of local school districts.
One Comment
Tenure shouldnt have to exist if there isnt a threat to unwarranted firings and biased hirings.
Why is it that its not feasible to Require Integrity and Honesty and Transparency in the School Boards and have oversight and appeals processes by a state board?
Why is it that moral values on treating others and decency are not taught, retaught, evaluated and forced upon taking positions of power?
Im at a loss as to why any position of power over others is not stringently overseen and Held to the highest standards of conduct.
Its the same reason for having unions in years past, and to some extent still today.
Why is it we cannot have transparency in business, institutions, and public works that provides clear detail and fair compensation and Christian values in determining benefits and retirements?
The unions are in place to keep draconian profiteers from exploitin workers, decimating their pay and benefits for the increased return of the wealthy elite who always make the most money, pay the most taxes, but get the most benefits, loopholes and tax returns by far. It IS their requirement for the priviledge of living in this country and making so much money to pay for that hard fought freedom so many poor people have died for in wars so they could get rich, but it cannot be moral by getting rich at the expense of the poor being able to live decently in this country.
So why doesnt our government, state or federal, enact more safeguards to reduce corruption and increase decency?
because the people in place went there to make themselves rich mostly, and they make the rules, and they wont change them to limit their ability to enrich themselves using their public offices. And the rich corporate lobbyists manipulate the easily corrupted to do their bidding, which also is diametrically opposed to the lower and middle class incomes.