State Schools Chief Jack O’Connell Comments on
Governor’s Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2008-09

When is homework just busywork? Weighing stress against learning, some districts are cutting back on academic work outside the classroom.

By Seema Mehta

March 22, 2009

Rachel Bennett, 12, loves playing soccer, spending time with her grandparents and making jewelry with beads. But since she entered a magnet middle school in the fall -- and began receiving two to four hours of homework a night -- those activities have fallen by the wayside.

"She's only a kid for so long," said her father, Alex Bennett, of Silverado Canyon. "There's been tears and frustration and family arguments. Everyone gets burned out and tired."

Bennett is part of a vocal movement of parents and educators who contend that homework overload is robbing children of needed sleep and playtime, chipping into family dinners and vacations and overly stressing young minds. The objections have been raised for years but increasingly, school districts are listening. They are banning busywork, setting time limits on homework and barring it on weekends and over vacations.

"Groups of parents are going to schools and saying, 'Get real. We want our kids to have a life,' " said Cathy Vatterott, an associate education professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, who has studied the issue.

Trustees in Danville, Calif., eliminated homework on weekends and vacations last year. Palo Alto officials banned it over winter break. Officials in Orange, where Rachel Bennett attends school, are reminding teachers about limits on homework and urging them not to assign it on weekends. A private school in Hollywood has done away with book reports.

"As adults, if every book we ever read, we had to write a report on -- would that encourage our reading or discourage it?" asked Eileen Horowitz, head of school at Temple Israel of Hollywood Day School. "We realized we needed to rethink that."

Nancy Ortenberg is happy about the change.

"Homework is much more meaningful now," said Ortenberg, whose daughter Isabelle, 9, was in school before the policy took effect in 2007. Before the change, it was a chore for her daughter, but "now she reads for the pure joy of reading."

Homework was once hugely controversial. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, social commentators and physicians crusaded against it, convinced it was causing children to become wan, weak and nervous.

In a 1900 article titled "A National Crime at the Feet of American Parents" in the Ladies' Home Journal, editor Edward Bok wrote, "When are parents going to open their eyes to this fearful evil? Are they as blind as bats, that they do not see what is being wrought by this crowning folly of night study?"

California was at the vanguard of the anti-homework movement. In 1901, the California Legislature banned it for students under 15 and ordered high schools to limit it for older students to 20 recitations a week. The law was taken off the books in 1917.

Homework has fallen in and out of favor ever since, often viewed as a force for good when the nation feels threatened -- after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, for example, and during competition with Japan in the 1980s.

The homework wars have reignited in recent years, with parents around the nation arguing that children are being given too much.

Much of the debate is driven by the belief that today's students are doing more work at home than their predecessors. But student surveys do not bear that out, said Brian Gill, a senior social scientist with Mathematica Policy Research.

Instead, in today's increasingly competitive race for college admission, student schedules are increasingly packed with clubs, sports and other activities in addition to homework, Gill said. Students -- and parents -- may just have less time, he said.

Not all object, however.

"Obviously we want to think it's busywork, but most of the time it's really helpful," said Allison Hall, 16, a junior at Villa Park High in the Orange district. Allison, who is taking five Advanced Placement classes, has up to three hours of homework a night; she also is on the cross country, track and mock trial teams and does volunteer work.

But others say there is just too much, especially for younger children. Karen Adnams of Villa Park has four children. She said that heavier course loads make sense for older children but that she doesn't understand the amount of work given in lower grades.

"I think teachers have lost touch with what a third-grader or a fifth-grader can really do," she said.

Vatterott, a former principal, said she became interested in the subject a decade ago as a frustrated parent. Her son, who has a learning disability, was upset by assignments he didn't understand and couldn't complete in a reasonable time.

She decided to study the effectiveness of homework. That research showed that more time spent on such work was not necessarily better.

Vatterott questioned the quantity and the quality of assignments. If 10 math problems could demonstrate a child's grasp of a concept, why assign 50, she asked? The solution, she said, was not to do away with homework but to clarify the reasons for assigning it.

Some schools, among them Grant Elementary in Glenrock, Wyo., have gone further. Principal Christine Hendricks had grown concerned that students were spending too much time on busywork and that homework was causing conflicts between parents and children and between teachers and students. So she got rid of it last year except for reading and studying for tests.

"My philosophy, even when I was a teacher, is if you work hard during the day, I don't like to work at night. Kids are kind of the same way," she said.

Other districts, including San Ramon Valley Unified in Danville, Calif., have taken a more nuanced approach.

Since San Ramon revised its homework policy last year, the youngest students are given no more than 30 minutes a night; high school students have up to three hours of work. District trustees also decided that aside from reading, no homework should be given to elementary and middle school students on weekends or vacations.

In the Orange Unified School District, trustee John Ortega grew concerned about the workload carried by his middle school daughter. "We would have a swim meet all weekend, and she would be worried about coming home and having to finish homework," he said. "She was stressed about it."

After speaking with other parents, Ortega raised the subject publicly in the fall, prompting a series of discussions in the district. It turned out that although the board had set limits on homework, they were not always followed, said Marsha Brown, assistant superintendent of educational services. She said teachers have now been informed about the policy and principals are working to clarify the purpose of homework.

Brown said children's social growth must be nurtured alongside their academic development. "We don't want just academic children. We want them involved in sports and music and art and family time and downtime," she said. "We want well-rounded citizens. I think we will always be struggling with that balance."

seema.mehta@latimes.com 

 

Return to Top of Page 

Bill Gates And His Silver Bullet


Contributors

Diane Ravitch 11.19.08, 12:01 AM ET

Back in 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had a big idea about how to fix the problems of American education. Break up large high schools and turn them into small schools and "small learning communities" of 400 or fewer students.

The foundation believed that its new small high schools would lift graduation rates and student achievement, especially among minority students, because of the close relationships between students and teachers.

In 2005, Bill Gates told the National Governors Association that "America's high schools are obsolete." The next year, I heard him in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum, where he said that the key to the success of the small schools created by his foundation was that they made everything "relevant," through hands-on activities and familiar topics.

The foundation spent some $2 billion promoting the dissolution of large high schools and the creation of small schools. Big-city superintendents stood in line, ready to jump on the Gates' bandwagon, and today there are small schools in every urban district.

Funded by Gates, some 2,600 new small high schools opened in 45 states and the District of Columbia. New York City alone has more than 200 such schools, with high schools devoted to such themes as leadership, the sports professions, technology, health professions, the media, diversity, peace and social justice.

On Nov. 11, the Gates Foundation convened a meeting of leading figures in American education to admit candidly that the new small high schools had not fulfilled their promise. The foundation acknowledged that "we have not seen dramatic improvements in the number of students who leave high school adequately prepared to enroll in and complete a two- or four-year postsecondary degree or credential."

The bad news about the Gates' initiative began to accumulate in 2005, when a Gates-funded study by the American Institutes for Research showed that students in traditional, comprehensive high schools were learning more mathematics than those in the Gates' small schools. The researchers also found that "relevance" was not correlated with the quality of student learning. Then in 2006, additional research commissioned by the foundation concluded that the Gates-funded small schools had "higher attendance rates but lower test scores" than other high schools within the same school districts in both reading and mathematics.

We must give the Gates Foundation and its founders credit for their honest self-scrutiny. Most proponents of education reform defend their ideas against all critics, regardless of what evaluations show.

At his recent meeting in Seattle, Bill Gates pointed to New York City's Gates-funded small high schools as a success because early reports showed a 70% graduation rate compared to a district-wide average of 50%. But what Gates did not realize was that the small schools in New York City were permitted to restrict the admission of English-language learners and disabled students, meaning that the large schools got a disproportionate share of students with high needs.

Last April, The New York Times revealed that some of New York City's small schools achieved higher graduation rates by practicing "credit recovery," meaning that students could get full credit for a course they had failed or never attended by showing up for an extra class for a few days or by finishing a project out of school.

But even in New York City, Mr. Gates acknowledged, less than 40% of the graduates from the small high schools were ready for their college classes at the City University of New York.

The Gates Foundation's mistake was in believing that there is a silver bullet to solve the problems of inner-city schools, which enroll large numbers of students who are poor, have limited English language proficiency, and are more likely to require special education. Small schools are just right for students who need intense remediation and lots of extra attention, but they do not offer the same menu of advanced courses and electives, extracurricular activities and vocational courses that most students associate with going to high school. And many students have health problems and issues related to their family's poverty that even the smallest of schools can't solve.

Our nation used to have huge numbers of small high schools; they were rural schools, which were unable to offer the same educational opportunities as big-city high schools. The press for small schools, now taken up by almost every big-city district, has diverted our attention from the need to strengthen curriculum and instruction, beginning in elementary schools.

Whether a school is small or large, the essential questions in education cannot be ignored: What should students learn? How should they be taught? Are classes too large, especially for struggling students? Are teachers well-prepared in the subjects they teach? Do teachers have the resources they need? Do students arrive in school ready to learn? Until we answer these questions, the size of schools is not a relevant issue.

The good news is that the Gates Foundation, with its vast resources, has pledged to devote its attention to what happens in the classroom. The first thing it will learn is that there are no quick fixes. If it targets its dollars wisely, exercises a measure of humility, and continues to evaluate its efforts rigorously, it can make a positive difference.

Diane Ravitch is a member of the Koret Task Force at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Return to Top of Page

---

Title I Turnaround Programs Due for Big Cash Boost

By David J. Hoff In the seven years since enactment of No Child Left Behind Act, the number of academically troubled schools identified for turnarounds has grown steadily.

The federal money for the work of turning around them hadn’t—until now.

The change came last month when President Barack Obama signed the economic-stimulus measure into law. The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will give states a previously unexpected $3.4 billion to spend on improving the schools that are farthest from reaching the NCLB law’s goal that all children be proficient in reading and math by the end of the 2013-14 school year.

“With these kind of revenues, you can do some things that had been on the table but weren’t attainable,” said Peter McWalters, Rhode Island’s commissioner of education. He listed options such as summer professional development for teachers, leadership training for principals, and academic and leadership coaches for struggling schools.

Help on the Way

Federal money for school improvement projects will rise dramatically this and next fiscal year.

SOURCE: Education Week

Note: Totals include money appropriated specifically for school improvement and money reserved for that purpose under the NCLB law’s Title I. Other state leaders are mulling similar ways to use the $3.4 billion in stimulus money for school improvement over the next two years.

Such comprehensive approaches are important, one researcher said, because schools identified for help under the program need comprehensive and sustained interventions for them to succeed.

“It’s a really complex problem, and no single thing ... is guaranteed success,” said Caitlin Scott, who has studied states’ school improvement efforts for the Center on Education Policy, a Washington-based research and advocacy group that is tracking implementation of the NCLB law. “There’s not just one thing you can purchase.”

Big Pay Day

As with several other K-12 programs, the so-called school improvement section of the NCLB law will receive a sudden infusion of money that many in the education field could not have expected before the nation’s economy fell into crisis, prompting the stimulus package.

The new measure appropriates $6.5 billion in fiscal 2009 and again in fiscal 2010 for the NCLB law’s Title I program, which serves schools with high numbers or percentages of disadvantaged students. In each fiscal year, $1.5 billion is reserved for the so-called school improvement program under Title I.

 

And of the $5 billion remaining each year, the No Child Left Behind law requires states to reserve 4 percent for improving schools that have persistently failed to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP, under the 2002 law and to provide other technical assistance to districts.

 

In all, that will give states $1.7 billion in fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 for school improvement.

What’s more, states will receive another $1.1 billion for school improvement efforts under the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill that President Obama signed last week. ("Winners vs. Losers In 2009's Budget," this issue.)

With a total of $2.8 billion allocated in fiscal 2009, and probably at least that much again in fiscal 2010, states’ school improvement efforts will receive a dramatic influx of cash over spending levels from two years ago.

Using that money to fix struggling schools will be a key part of the Obama administration’s efforts, federal officials say, to reduce the dropout rate and increase the number of students earning college degrees.

“Stemming the tide of dropouts will require turning around our low-performing schools,” President Obama said in a March 10 speech at a meeting of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

And in guidance released March 7 on how to spend the stimulus money available for education, the U.S. Department of Education underscored the emphasis on school improvement efforts by saying it would not grant states’ requests to spend the improvement money on other priorities in the Title I program.

Working With Districts

Under the NCLB law, states must allocate 95 percent of such improvement money to districts. So far, states have taken several approaches to spending it, according to Ms. Scott of the Center on Education Policy, who has studied such efforts in five states.

Most states send a team of experts to review a school who recommend and monitor changes. In that process, the team or other consultants provide professional development for teachers and principals. Some states hire academic coaches for teachers or mentors for principals, with the aim of helping them improve their instructional strategies and leadership.

Arkansas, for example, is using America’s Choice, a school improvement model developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy, based in Washington.

But critics say such approaches have been inadequate so far.

“By and large, most cities feel that [states’ help] isn’t meeting their needs, is weak, is not focused, and is not terribly effective,” said Michael Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington group that represents about 60 of the nation’s largest urban districts.

Big Task

At the end of the 2007-08 school year, about 3,600 public schools—or 4 percent the total—had failed to make adequate yearly progress for five or more years. That number had doubled by 2008-09. ("Schools Struggling to Meet Key Goal on Accountability," Jan. 7, 2009.)

And states may end up considering drastic steps in schools failing to show signs of improvement.

Those steps could include closing poor-performing schools and converting them to charter schools, or using school interventions that have proved successful elsewhere, said Alex Medler, the vice president of research and analysis for the Colorado Children’s Campaign, a Denver-based advocacy group that helps run school improvement programs.

Without such aggressive moves, improvement efforts could result in little change or progress, said Rae Belisle, a member of the California board of education.

“We keep doing the same old thing out there,” said Ms. Belisle, who is the chief executive officer of EdVoice, a Sacramento-based nonprofit organization that links donors with parent groups working to improve California schools.

“They piddle this money away,” she said of her state’s efforts under the NCLB law and state programs.

SOURCE: Education Week

 

Return to Top of Page

 

Civic Index for Quality Public Education.

I.   Education Leadership of Local Elected Officials 1. Elected officials take on difficult issues, regardless of political consequence 2. Elected officials demonstrate a sustained commitment to education and make education a top priority 3. Elected officials advocate for adequate funding 4. Elected officials effectively communicate with constituents on education issues 5. Elected officials promote a clear agenda that advances student achievement II. Commitment to the Values of Tolerance and Inclusiveness 1. School leadership reflects the diversity of the community 2. Schools provide the same educational opportunities to students of all backgrounds 3. Diverse groups have a say in community decision-making 4. Schools provide quality services for special needs students (English language learners, special education students, etc.) 5. The student population in local public schools reflects the diversity of the community III. Active Parents 1. Parents participate in school-related parent organizations 2. Parents stay informed about key education issues 3. Parents participate in school governance and decision making 4. Parents participate actively in their child's education, such as volunteering in the school, getting their child to school on time, or doing homework with their child 5. Parents participate on school councils or decision making panels 6. Schools encourage active parent participation/contributions IV. Strong Civic Organizations (Parent, Philanthropic, Civic/Religious Organizations) 1. Local organizations create opportunities to gather citizen input on education issues and to inform community members about where candidates for elected office stand on these issues 2. Local organizations provide help for those most in need and pay special attention to low-performing schools 3. Local organizations share resources with schools, including expertise, funding, volunteers, and coordination of health and social services 4. Local organizations define and advocate for public school accountability 5. The public is actively involved in community organizations that partner with the schools V. Utilization of School Performance Data to Improve School Quality 1. Information about school performance is widely communicated and readily available in a form and language that the community can understand 2. Schools make parents and the community full partners in developing and supporting strategies for student academic progress 3. Information about school performance is explained to the community through a variety of channels, including the school district, local government, nonprofit organizations, and the media 4. Teachers and school staff are properly trained in how to use data to engage parents and the community to improve student achievement VI. Youth Involvement 1. Community and schools provide students with the education and skills to effectively participate in the political and civic process 2. Schools encourage students to participate in school and local district governance through such activities as student council, student advisory boards, and/or student members of the school board 3. Youth regularly engage in community service and volunteer activities 4. Youth are perceived as assets and contributors to the community VII. Partnerships with Higher Education 1. Higher education institutions partner with school districts to resolve school improvement challenges, including bolstering the quality of teaching and learning, and supporting schools that need special assistance 2. Institutions provide shared use of college facilities, college faculty, and courses 3. College/university students provide support to local schools through volunteering, service-learning, and internships VIII. Knowledge of and Voting for School Board 1. Individuals monitor school board decisions and policies 2. Individuals vote regularly in school board elections 3. Individuals belong to an organization that regularly addresses the school board or discusses school board policies at its meetings IX. Active Business Community 1. Local business leaders work closely with other community and civic leaders to identify school needs and address critical school issues 2. Local businesses offer paid time and other incentives for their employees to be regularly involved in school activities 3. Local business leaders provide resources and expertise to school boards and district administrations around school improvement X. Media Coverage 1. The local media objectively covers key education issues in-depth, and consistently throughout the year 2. The local media reports on the education positions of candidates for school board, mayor, state legislator, and other key offices 3. The local media provides in-depth reporting about how elected officials vote and the extent to which they keep their promises

 

Civic Index for Quality Public Education.

Return to Top of Page

---