Category Archives: Education

Letting boys be boys in school

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Every year before students have taken their standardized tests, former principal Terri McCann, now a district administrator, has walked into the third grade all-girls’ classroom at West Memphis Bragg Elementary, told students what to expect, and reminded them to sharpen their pencils. It’s always been very calm and encouraging. Then she’s walked to the all-boys’ classroom, closed the door behind her, and shouted, like a football coach, “Are you going to let those girls beat you again?!”

“No!” they’d yell like they were ready to run out of a locker room and run over an Ole Miss Rebel.

Those motivational techniques are just one of many ways third grade boys and girls are taught differently at Bragg Elementary, and it all started when McCann and other school leaders looked at test results and realized that girls were outscoring boys just about everywhere in every grade.

Those problems mirror what’s happening throughout the rest of society. Academically, girls are outperforming boys and have been for a long time and in many countries, according to a 2014 study by the American Psychological Association. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, females made up 57 percent of all college students in the fall of 2015.

Of course, the educators at Bragg Elementary aren’t responsible for the performance of America’s youth. They’re responsible for their kids. So they asked themselves a hard question: At Bragg Elementary, how are we failing boys, and how can we help all students?

They decided to offer parents the choice of a boys’, girls’ or mixed-gender classroom. They trained with specialists who taught them about different learning styles. And then they implemented those ideas.

The differences in the boys’ and girls’ classrooms start with how they are arranged. In the girls’ classroom, desks face each other in neat, small clusters. In the boys’ classroom, desks are arranged shoulder-to-shoulder. Carpet is glued beneath the boys’ desks so they can rub their hands back and forth and release energy while they are listening.

Movement, in fact, is one of the keys to success in the boys’ room. While the girls typically work well at their desks, the boys are allowed to do workbook problems standing and pressing their paper against a wall, or they go outside and toss a ball while doing math problems. Teachers walk back and forth and expressively use their hands to keep students’ attention, and they skip from topic to topic.

Other communication and teaching styles differ. Boys are given simple instructions and then dive into the lessons, while girls, who are better hearers from birth, are given a much more thorough explanation. The boys’ room has a lot more competition, and because boys learn better under stress, they have many timed activities. Girls, on the other hand, compete less and are given more time. In math, boys use fewer math manipulatives, which become distractions and, inevitably, projectiles. The girls tend to learn better using those hands-on, concrete objects.

The results? In 2005 four years before the change, only 55 percent of third grade students were proficient in literacy and 78 percent in math. In 2014, it was 87 percent and 96 percent. The biggest recent gain has been in boys’ literacy – from 53 percent proficient in 2009, the first year of the change, to 87 percent in 2014.

True, test scores generally have increased throughout Arkansas. But McCann and her fellow educators are confident their methods have made a difference and have seen other successes, such as improved discipline. Moreover, students with special needs are mainstreamed into these classrooms rather than housed in special ed. Educators and parents alike have noticed that the students, particularly the boys in the all-boys’ classroom, rally around those classmates and make them feel part of the team.

Interestingly, Bragg Elementary didn’t see the same success with mixed classrooms in the sixth grade, so only the third grade offers gender-based classrooms. Still, the lessons learned have been incorporated in all grades.

To some, the model probably sounds politically incorrect, especially when society is debating the notion of gender these days.

But left and right ought to be able to agree that classrooms should fit the student rather than the other way around. This is how Bragg Elementary is doing it: by taking into account gender learning styles, giving parents a choice and, when appropriate, letting boys be boys.

Related: How two sisters and a cup of coffee changed a school

Why college? To get a useful degree and a job

Dr. Maria Markham is the new Department of Higher Education director.

Dr. Maria Markham is the new Department of Higher Education director.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

What’s the purpose of college? In the past, answers to that question often have been relatively abstract: to get an education; to expand your horizons; to be exposed to new ideas. Or the answers would be completely wrong: because it’s the next thing to do after high school; to party; to play football.

Increasingly, Arkansas policymakers have a new, more concrete answer: to earn a degree or certificate that leads to a job.

Last Friday, the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board approved a funding framework that would change the way colleges and universities are funded – emphasizing completion versus enrollment.

Traditionally, the state has funded institutions based on head count, meaning the more students enrolled, the more tax dollars rolling in. That’s an imperfect incentive because it places too much of an emphasis on getting students in school versus getting them through school. In 2011, the funding formula was tweaked. Now, 10 percent of a school’s state funding is based on various performance-based measures that haven’t really changed anything.

Now what’s being proposed is a totally different, outcomes-based funding formula. The framework is still light on the details, so this explanation will be light. Funding would be based less on enrollment and more on the number of students earning degrees and certificates. It would provide incentives for schools to help students move to a degree faster – the opposite of the current model, where institutions make more money if students switch majors three times and stay in school six years before quitting with nothing. How well students do once they leave college would figure into the mix.

Are there potential unintended consequences? Sure. The state does not want to encourage schools to accept only the best and brightest, so the model will provide extra money for helping underserved and at-risk students complete a degree. The other big concern is that schools will water down their academic requirements so students more easily complete their courses. Dr. Brett Powell, former ADHE director, said the state will have to trust that faculty members won’t let that happen.

How colleges are funded is important because obtaining an education after high school is both expensive (for taxpayers and students) and necessary. A study by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that of the 11.6 million jobs created since the recession, 11.5 million went to those with at least some education after high school.

Obviously, it’s better to have not just some college but a degree or certificate and a set of skills, and here’s where Arkansas has some challenges and opportunities. The state ranks 48th in its percentage of adults with a college degree, 29.8 percent. But Arkansas ranks fourth highest in the percentage of residents with a career and technical education certificate. And these days, those certificates can be really valuable – as well as relatively cheap and fast to obtain.

The Arkansas Department of Higher Education and higher education officials have crafted a plan, Closing the Gap 2020, which seeks to increase the percentage of Arkansans with a degree or certificate from the current 43 percent to 60 percent by 2025. To meet expected workforce needs, the state needs to increase its percentage of residents with a career and technical education certificate from 9 to 22 percent by 2020; its percentage with an associate’s degree from 7.2 to 12 percent; and its percentage with a bachelor’s degree, but no higher, from 15.1 percent to 18 percent.

The new outcomes-based funding formula has a long way to go before becoming law. The Legislature must approve the bare-bones framework next year. Then Higher Ed must add some meat to those bones under the leadership of its new director, Dr. Maria Markham. Then the Legislature has to approve the final plan in 2018.

Making the task easier is that some of the state’s higher education leaders are on board. The chancellors of the University of Arkansas System and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville have expressed support. So have Arkansas State University President Chuck Welch and Dr. Robin Bowen, president of Arkansas Tech University.

For change to occur, that support will have to hold as the details become known. Somebody’s going to lose something, including institutions that don’t make the transition well. And who will be the winners? Students who complete their programs and are ready to make a living as productive citizens.

If that’s not the main purpose of college, it should be.

Related: Is college worth it?

How two sisters and a cup of coffee changed a school

Tyler Cope, 17, already has her certified nursing assistant license.

Tyler Cope, 17, already has her certified nursing assistant license.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Pea Ridge High School senior Tyler Cope, 17, was a waitress. Now, she’s a certified nursing assistant making $11 an hour. More importantly, she’s well on her way to a good-paying future in nursing. Thirty of her fellow students also have CNA licenses, while others are learning skills in other career fields.

Cope and her fellow students have that opportunity partly because of two sisters and a cup of coffee. The sisters both were carhops at a local Sonic, where Rick Neal, then the high school principal, would stop. One had been a good student and earned a high school diploma. The other had dropped out. Both were working the same job making $8 an hour, which bothered him.

“We’ve gotten (students) to a point of handing them that diploma and saying, ‘Head on out the door. You’re good. You’re good to go,’” Neal said. “But we’ve never really given them a true vision of where they can possibly go.” Continue reading →

Schools: Local control without local voters?

Education Commissioner Johnny Key, left, and Little Rock School District Superintendent Baker Kurrus speak to reporters after Key did not renew Kurrus' contract. Because of the state takeover of the LRSD, Key, who entered office after the takeover, effectively serves as the district's school board.

Education Commissioner Johnny Key, left, and Little Rock School District Superintendent Baker Kurrus speak to reporters after Key did not renew Kurrus’ contract. Because of the state takeover of the LRSD, Key, who entered office after the takeover, effectively serves as the district’s school board.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

There’s a lot of talk in Little Rock about ending the state takeover of the school district and returning it to local control. If that’s to happen, these numbers must be improved: 2.78; .71; 4.51; and .51.

Those are the percentages of registered voters who voted in school elections in Pulaski County from 2014 back to 2011.

To be fair, those numbers encompass the entire county, not just Little Rock, and reflect elections where at most two of the seven positions were contested.

Still, the last time Little Rock held competitive school elections, a city with a population of 200,000 elected one school board member with 485 votes, and another with 379.

With that kind of turnout, a school election can be decided by one active civic club, business organization, union – or just a small group with an axe to grind.

One wonders how significant these public demonstrations about the school district really are. Did these people vote in those elections as the district was nearing a state takeover, or have they been newly energized? And are there enough of them to matter once the district is returned to local control?

It’s probably harder to engage voters in a school election in a big city than it is in a town of 8,000, where candidates know a lot of the voters personally. Many of Little Rock’s voters are completely disconnected from their school district. Most everything west of I-430 is Privateschoolville.

But extremely low voter turnout is a problem in many school districts. A decent minority of voters go to the polls if they are asked to decide a school millage increase, but school board elections attract little attention. A few years ago, I interviewed a Fayetteville School Board member who lamented that he had recently been re-elected by a count of 115-113 in a zone with 8,000 voters.

Why such low turnouts? School elections occur in September, when no one else is on the ballot. Unlike in some states, school board members aren’t paid for their service, so they have no financial incentive to invest seed money in their campaigns or advertise much. They don’t run with party labels and don’t attract big donations, yet.

Each legislative session, a lawmaker runs a bill to try to move school elections to November. Last year a bill passed that made November elections a voluntary option for districts. No doubt lawmakers will try to make it mandatory in 2017, or at least move the elections to the party primaries in the spring.

School board members don’t want to run on those crowded ballots. They’re afraid they’ll get lost in the shuffle, leaving school policies dependent on the decisions of voters guessing among a list of unfamiliar names. They’re afraid their positions will become politicized. They don’t want to run as Republicans or Democrats, or make the kind of campaign promises other elected officials make.

I must disclose that I publish a magazine, Report Card, in partnership with the Arkansas School Boards Association. It’s entirely supported by ads that I sell. ASBA doesn’t pay me for it, although I am paid a fee for one small project I do every year.

That relationship has probably helped bias me against moving school elections to November – that and the fact that the ballot is already too crowded then. Why am I voting on the county coroner? At the same time, the turnout issue should become a higher priority for everyone.

If Donald Trump has shown us anything, it’s that you don’t have to have a big organization or even spend that much money to win an election. He’s won the Republican Party’s nomination through his skillful use of the media and Twitter, all of which is free. That doesn’t mean school board members should campaign like Trump, but surely local media outlets could more aggressively cover the candidates, while candidates could make better use of Facebook.

Citizens must play their part, too. September comes every year, and it should not be a surprise that school elections occur then. School districts are many communities’ largest employer and, more importantly, the entity that educates and takes care of children all day. It matters who makes policy there.

A democracy doesn’t require massive voter turnout, but surely it must do better than 1 percent. After all, can you have local control without local voters?

Related: Why did Key replace Kurrus?

Why did Key replace Kurrus?

Johnny Key, left, and Baker Kurrus speak to reporters Tuesday.

Johnny Key, left, and Baker Kurrus speak to reporters Tuesday.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Reporters have biases, and I’ll admit to mine: Two of the government officials I like the most are Johnny Key, the state’s education commissioner, and Baker Kurrus, the soon-to-be-former Little Rock School District superintendent.

The two have been linked together for the past year. Key is a former state senator, not an educator, which a lot of unhappy people noted when Gov. Asa Hutchinson picked him for the state’s leading public schools post. Because the State Board of Education had taken over the Little Rock School District, Key became its de facto school board when he became commissioner, and he appointed Kurrus as superintendent.

Kurrus is also not an educator – which, again, a lot of unhappy people noted when Key appointed him – though he had served for a while on the Little Rock School Board. He’s an attorney and a businessman, as well as a competent, passionate, driven individual. He went to work organizing things, talking to people, and showing that he cared. He brought hope, and people warmed up to him.

Earlier this month, Key decided not to renew Kurrus’ one-year contract, which clearly disappointed and surprised Kurrus. His replacement is Mike Poore, who currently is superintendent of the Bentonville School District and led a large, urban district out of academic trouble when he was working in Colorado.

In an interview in his office Tuesday, Key said the Kurrus hiring was always supposed to be temporary, though “temporary” was never defined. He said that while the state took over the district because of academics, there were fiscal and foundational problems that needed to be addressed first, and Kurrus was uniquely able to do that because of his organizational skills.

Key’s decision surprised and angered a lot of people and put the governor in a tough spot with some of the Little Rock legislators.

I also was surprised. I watched Key as a well-liked legislator carefully, even unnecessarily, build a coalition to pass a school choice plan.

How could such an accomplished bridge builder act so arbitrarily? In a press conference with Kurrus last Tuesday and during the interview the following Tuesday, Key explained that Kurrus had accomplished his mission of righting the ship, but now it’s time to focus on the academic distress that caused the state takeover in the first place. Poore has experience that Kurrus lacks. In between on Friday afternoon, Key issued a statement admitting he had erred in how he went about making the change.

In our interview, Key explained this is the time of year when superintendents are replaced. Little Rock has five years to get out of academic distress, and one of those years is gone. He didn’t want to wait another year and believes Poore is better suited to move Little Rock out of, and well past, academic distress.

“The broader issue was, Baker’s got us where we need to be right now. Who can come in and take us to that next level?” he said.

Some people aren’t buying it. They’re saying this is about the two men disagreeing about charter schools, which, in some cases, involve a private entity operating a school funded with taxpayer dollars. In Little Rock, two of these in particular are popular: eStem and the LISA Academy. Kurrus has publicly worried those schools will take students from the Little Rock School District, further disadvantaging it. Key tends to believe competition makes schools better, as do certain school reform types such as the Walton Family Foundation.

Some are saying that Kurrus publicly questioned charter schools, but Key and his big business overlords like charter schools, so Kurrus was shown the door. Everything has to be a conspiracy these days.

Key told me in his office that the two did disagree about charter schools, but it was not a “determining factor” and that the charter disagreement was a “minimal” consideration. When I pressed him on what “minimal” meant, he held his thumb and pointer finger an inch apart and repeated that it wasn’t the issue. The issue was that Poore had the skill set he wanted.

Remember, I’m biased towards Key and Kurrus. It’s possible that Key was spinning me, of course. But if he were, I would think he would have said “none” instead of “minimal.”

Key said it was time for an academic type to fix a school district in academic distress. That part is easy to understand, even if suddenly replacing a man who was succeeding isn’t.