School Days Start and End Too Early - The Atlantic

School Days Start and End Too Early - The Atlantic

The Curse of America’s Illogical School-Day Schedule

It starts too early for teens’ sleep patterns, and ends too early for working parents. Does the country have to be stuck with it?

The world does not revolve around you, teens are often told. Indeed it doesn’t, as they are reminded every school-day morning when disabling their alarms. The average start time for public high schools, 7:59, requires teens to get up earlier than is ideal for their biological clocks, meaning many teens disrupt their natural sleep patterns every school day.

The world, apparently, does not revolve around parents either. Their lives also tend to be mismatched with school-day schedules, which usually end a good two hours before the typical American workday does. As Kara Voght recently wrote in The Atlantic, that leaves a daily gap of unsupervised time for many children, forcing their parents to find affordable care for their kid or to adjust their own working schedule.

Why does the school day end two hours before the workday?

It’s not entirely clear who the school day does revolve around. The schedules that dictate most of American K-12 life descend from times when fewer households had two working parents. The result is a school day that frazzles just about everybody. But a few changes could mitigate that frazzling significantly. “I don’t know about making everyone perfectly happy,” says Catherine Brown, the vice president of education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. “But I think that we could get much closer to optimizing for students, parents, teachers.” The school day, Brown says, could be improved in two main ways: It could start later, and it could go longer.

MORE STORIES

• 

  Why Does the School Day End Two Hours Before the Workday?

  KARA VOGHT

• 

  Why Are Parents Afraid of Later School Start Times?

  ISABEL FATTAL

• 

  How School Start Times Affect High-School Athletics

  ALEX PUTTERMAN

• 

  The Coddling of the American Mind ‘Is Speeding Up’

  JULIE BECK

A later start, in both middle and high school, would help with the later sleep cycles that are typical in teenage years. Most teens don’t naturally fall asleep until about 11 p.m., and are supposed to get about nine hours of sleep per night. But when class starts before 8:30—as the most recent federal data indicates it does at 87 percent of American public high schools—waking up in time for school cuts into needed sleep. Postponing the start of the school day, researchers have found, does lead middle and high schoolers to get more rest—they don't just stay up later. And then, once better-rested, studies show that teens do better in school, get in fewer car crashes, and are less prone to depression.

Half past eight—the target for many start-school-later advocates—is actually still earlier than would be totally ideal. Kyla Wahlstrom, a lecturer at the University of Minnesota who conducted the first study examining the effects of later start times on high schoolers back in the late 1990s, told me that, taking only teens’ sleep needs into account, the best start time would be around 9:00 or 9:30; that would give them the optimal amount of time to sleep and get ready. “8:30,” she says, “is a compromise that allows more sleep, but does not impinge on the after-school activities.”

In the 20-plus years since Wahlstrom conducted that first study, hundreds of schools have moved back their start times, according to the advocacy group Start School Later, which does its best to count in absence of an official Continue reading: School Days Start and End Too Early - The Atlantic

U.S. GAO - Private School Choice: Requirements for Students and Donors Participating in State Tax Credit Scholarship Programs

U.S. GAO - Private School Choice: Requirements for Students and Donors Participating in State Tax Credit Scholarship Programs

PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE:

Requirements for Students and Donors Participating in State Tax Credit Scholarship Programs

• HIGHLIGHTS

VIEW REPORT (PDF, 40 PAGES)

1. Share This:
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  

Additional Materials:

• Highlights Page:
  •  (PDF, 1 page)
• Full Report:
  •  (PDF, 40 pages)

Contact:

Jacqueline M. Nowicki
(617) 788-0580
nowickij@gao.gov

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

What GAO Found

In 2018, there were 22 tax credit scholarship (TCS) programs authorized across 18 states, which provide state tax credits for individual and business donations that fund scholarships for students to attend elementary and secondary private schools (see figure).

Tax Credit Scholarship Programs by State, Authorized as of January 2018

Note: Each state has one program, except for Pennsylvania and Arizona, which have two and four programs, respectively. Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the map because neither has a program. Florida authorized a second program which was set to go into effect on July 1, 2018 and that program is outside the scope of GAO's review.

To determine the eligibility of students for these scholarships, most TCS programs use household income and have various approaches to determine scholarship award amounts. Income limits vary widely among programs, ranging from approximately $32,000 to $136,500 per year for students from a four-person household in school year 2017-2018. Programs have different requirements for how students can use their scholarships and different methods for calculating scholarship amounts. More than half of the programs (13 of 22) allow students to use their scholarship money for costs like transportation and books in addition to tuition, whereas the remaining programs (9 of 22) require scholarships funds to be used for tuition only. Average scholarship awards in school year 2016-2017 ranged from $500 to $5,468 per student among the 16 programs that published or provided GAO with such information.

The effect of TCS donations on donors' tax liability depends on program characteristics and donors' financial circumstances. Specifically, half of the 22 programs allow eligible donors to claim 100 percent of their donations as state tax credits, meaning that for each dollar donated, state taxes owed are reduced by a dollar, up to any maximum set by the state. The remaining 11 programs allow donors to claim from 50 to 85 percent of their donations as state tax credits. Programs often specify a maximum tax credit that may be claimed each year by a donor, by all donors combined, or both. Individual donors may also reduce their federal tax liabilities through the federal deduction for charitable contributions, depending on their financial circumstances and applicable tax provisions.

Why GAO Did This Study

TCS programs offer state tax credits to individuals or businesses that donate to scholarship funds for students to attend private elementary and secondary schools. Through these credits, donors may reduce the amount they owe in state taxes by the full or a partial amount of their donation, depending on each program's rules. Designing a TCS program requires that many decisions be made, such as which students will be eligible to receive scholarships and the effect donations will have on donors' state taxes. GAO was asked to review key characteristics of TCS programs.

This report examines (1) state TCS programs' policies regarding student eligibility and scholarship awards, and (2) how donating to a TCS program could affect the amount of state and federal taxes owed by donors.

For both objectives, GAO reviewed publicly-available documents about student eligibility and tax provisions for all 22 programs authorized as of January 2018 and verified the accuracy of the information with state program officials. GAO did not conduct an independent legal review of state laws and regulations. GAO also interviewed federal officials and reviewed relevant federal guidance and policy documents.

For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.

• View Report (PDF)

U.S. GAO - Private School Choice: Requirements for Students and Donors Participating in State Tax Credit Scholarship Programs

Big Education Ape: U.S. GAO - School Vouchers: Private School Choice Programs Are Growing - http://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2016/09/us-gao-school-choice-private-school.html

A Layman’s Guide to the Destroy Public Education Movement

A Layman’s Guide to the Destroy Public Education Movement

A Layman’s Guide to the Destroy Public Education Movement

By Thomas Ultican / Tultican

The destroy public education (DPE) movement is the fruit of a relatively small group of billionaires. The movement is financed by several large non-profit organizations. Nearly all of the money spent is free of taxation. Without this spending, there would be no wide-spread public school privatization.

It is generally recognized that the big three foundations driving DPE activities are The Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation (Assets in 2016 = $41 billion), The Walton Family Foundation (Assets in 2016 = $3.8 billion), and The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation(Assets in 2016 = $1.8 billion).

Last week, the Network for Public Education published “Hijacked by Billionaires: How the Super-Rich Buy Elections to Undermine Public Schools.” This interactive report lists the top ten billionaires spending to drive their DPE agenda with links to case studies for their spending.

A Short Explanation of the Label DPE

The modern education reform apostate, Diane Ravitch, was Assistant Secretary of Education under Lamar Alexander from1991-93. She was an academic who held many research positions including the Brown Chair in Education Studies at the Brookings Institution and served in multiple capacities in different federal education administrations. Like all of her closest allies, she believed in the power of accountability, incentives, and markets for reforming schools.

In 2010, Diane shocked her friends by publishing, The Death and Life of the Great American School System; How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.  In chapter 1 she wrote,

“Where once I had been hopeful, even enthusiastic about the potential benefits of testing, accountability, choice, and markets, I now found myself experiencing profound doubts about these same ideas. I was trying to sort through the evidence about what was working and what was not. I was trying to understand why I was increasingly skeptical about these reforms, reforms that I had supported enthusiastically.”

“The short answer is that my views changed as I saw how these ideas were working out in reality. The long answer is what will follow in the rest of this book.” (Ravitch 2)

In the book, Ravitch wrote, “I call it the corporate reform movement not because everyone who supports it is interested in profit but because its ideas derive from business concepts about competition and targets, rewards and punishments, and ‘return on investment.’  (Ravitch 251)

As Ravitch’s “corporate education reform” became more organized and ruthless, the Scheurich team’s Destroy Public Education model became a better descriptor.

Ravitch labled modern education reform “corporate education reform” and the label stuck.

Last year, researchers from the University of Indiana Purdue University Indianapolis (UIPUI) led by professor Jim Scheurich, who coordinates the urban studies program there, perceived a pattern in the destruction of the public schools. That pattern became the “destroy public education” model. As Ravitch’s “corporate education reform” became more organized and ruthless, the Scheurich team’s DPE model became a better descriptor.Continue reading: A Layman’s Guide to the Destroy Public Education Movement

US Schools Hiring Private Companies To Spy On Students' Social Media | PopularResistance.Org

US Schools Hiring Private Companies To Spy On Students' Social Media | PopularResistance.Org

US SCHOOLS HIRING PRIVATE COMPANIES TO SPY ON STUDENTS’ SOCIAL MEDIA

The following article is part of a series of articles dedicated to exposing the militarization of schools and universities. To read more about the issues facing young people and to join the IYSSE, visit iysse.com.

More than 100 school districts and public universities have hired social media monitoring companies over the past five years to spy on students’ social media accounts under the pretext of “school safety” and preventing school shootings, according to a report in the New York Times.

The private companies exploit social tragedy, recruiting more institutions after every mass shooting despite little evidence that the spying programs have any effect on violence.

The customers of these companies include school districts experiencing school shootings, such as the Newton Public Schools in Connecticut, as well as some of the largest school districts in the nation, including in Los Angeles and Chicago. Large universities like Michigan State and Florida State have also contracted services from the companies.

The latest surge of contracts has come in the aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, in which 17 people were killed, on February 14, 2018.

Monitoring students’ social media accounts is a violation of privacy and another layer in the intimate partnership between the US government and tech companies for mass surveillance and censorship of the internet.

Most of the companies offering spying services hold or have previously held contracts with police departments. In 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) exposed one of the companies, Media Sonar, for recommending police officers follow hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, and #ImUnarmed during the Ferguson protests. In late 2015, Media Sonar also worked with the Ferguson-Florissant School District, which asked for alerts on the terms “protest” and “walkout.”

The monitoring companies maintain a high level of secrecy on every aspect of their work. Many have direct ties to the military and intelligence agencies.

One of the early companies to offer spying services, GEOCOP, is perhaps the most ominous. The company’s owner, Bob Dowling, worked for the Naval Criminal Intelligence Service as a civilian special agent for 13 years. He was then assigned to work with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the US military’s technology development branch, and later the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. GEOCOP was hired initially to monitor various schools in New York, including CUNY. It is unclear how active the company remains today.

Another example is Social Sentinel, run by Gary Margolis, who served as chief of police at the University of Vermont for 11 years. His company’s web site declares, “Don’t miss out on the chance to listen.”

GEO Listening, one of the few companies without a CEO directly connected to the state, is just as secretive about its operations. It lists its address in California, but no operations are conducted at the physical address and the credited Continue reading: US Schools Hiring Private Companies To Spy On Students' Social Media | PopularResistance.Org

Parent Coalition for Student Privacy - 

https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/

“Personalized Learning”: The Difference between a Policy and a Strategy | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

“Personalized Learning”: The Difference between a Policy and a Strategy | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

“Personalized Learning”: The Difference between a Policy and a Strategy

“Personalized learning”–and whatever it means–has been the mantra for policymakers. technology entrepreneurs, and engaged practitioners for the past few years. Mention the phrase and those whose bent is to alter schooling nod in assent as to its apparent value in teaching and learning.  Mentions of it cascade through media and research reports as if it is the epitome of the finest policy to install in classrooms.

But it is not a policy, “personalized learning” is a strategy.

What’s the difference?

Read what Yale University historian Beverly Gage writes about the crucial distinction between the two concepts:

A strategy, in politics, can be confused with a policy or a vision, but they’re not quite the same thing. Policies address the “what”; they’re prescriptions for the way things might operate in an ideal world. Strategy is about the “how.” How do you move toward a desired end, despite limited means and huge obstacles? We tend to associate strategy with high-level decision makers — generals, presidents, corporate titans — but the basic challenge of, in [Saul] Alinsky’swords, “doing what you can with what you have” applies just as much when working from the bottom up.

While the two are connected, making the distinction between policy and strategy is essential to not only political leaders but military ones as well. Strategies are instruments to achieve policy goals so, for example, in the 17 year-old war in Afghanistan, ambiguous and changing U.S. goals—get rid of Taliban, make Afghanistan democratic, establish an effective Afghan military and police force–influenced greatly what strategies U.S. presidents–three since 2001–have used such as sending special forces, army, and marines into the country—frontal assaults on Taliban strongholds, counter-insurgency, etc. (see here and here).

Without recognizing this distinction between policy and strategy military and political leaders behave as blind-folded leaders  taking one action while devising another plan to implement to achieve ever-changing goals.

Photo illustration by Derek Brahney. Source image of painting: Bridgeman Images.

But the key distinction that Gage draws between policy and strategy does not only apply to politics or the military, it just as well covers continual reform Continue reading: “Personalized Learning”: The Difference between a Policy and a Strategy | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice