Points of Practice October 2014 | Page 6

The Arc of History: Where Are We Now? President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on April, 11, 1965, in Johnson City, Texas, site of the rural school where he received his first lessons. He invited his first teacher to the ceremony. There was promise in the $1.3 billion piece of legislation: $1 billion in aid to public schools, with a formula meant to ensure most of it would reach the neediest students, $100 million for textbooks and library materials, and $100 million for community education centers. For Dr. Pedro Noguera, a professor of education at New York University, construction of that bridge stopped long before completion, a casualty of indifference and a shift toward accountability rather than equity. Left adrift have been millions of low-income students, who find themselves confined to schools with few resources and a shortage of quality instruction. “That brought additional funds into schools serving poor children – but by no means equalized [resources],” Noguera said of ESEA, most recently reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act. “And what happened is over time we’ve lost sight of that vision that President Johnson had, which is that in order to make education a pathway to opportunity and mobility … you had to equalize learning opportunities.” Today’s inequity is evidenced “By this act we bridge the gap in the gaps in teacher and between helplessness and teaching quality that define hope for more than five the educational experiences million educationally deof poor students versus prived children,” Johnson affluent ones, Noguera said. said. 6 Poor students are more likely to be taught by teachers who are inexperienced or uncertified, and by teachers paid less money than their counterparts in more affluent schools. Poor schools are more likely to battle “churn,” a never-ending exodus of good teachers who leave for other districts, often for more money and fewer challenges. Federal policies requiring school districts to distribute high-quality teachers more equitably have been stifled by a willingness to grant districts waivers from NCLB requirements, or by failing to enforce requirements. It’s an approach that the Congressional Black Caucus has questioned. Noguera believes that reform opportunities from the reauthorization of federal legislation have been missed and some things have been made worse. “What we’ve done in No Child Left Behind has not moved the dial nearly far enough,” he said. “What we’ve seen is that, in some states, the waivers have actually institutionalized disparities.” Money is seen as one way to Click the image above to activate the video. Dr. Pedro Noguera. attract good teachers to poor schools and keep them there. Money-based solutions include tactics such as giving teachers financial incentives for teaching at poor schools, or eliminating the salary disparities that make good teachers want to leave low-income schools for affluent ones. Incentives would make teaching in poor schools more attractive, Noguera said. reward them; we should make that work very attractive,” he said. and experienced educators should aid new teachers, he said. Improving the instruction poor students receive could also be accomplished by strengthening teachers already there. Professional development, increased time for planning and reflection, and partnerships with university-based educators and researchers are all policies and strategies for bolstering teachers, especially inexperienced ones, Noguera said. “I want colleges of education to send their faculty into the schools with those...novice teachers to work with them, to help them so that it’s not just the new teacher trying to figure it out,” Noguera said. “If we want to get teachers, highly effective teachers, who Teacher training should are going to commit to require a similar level of rigor working in high-poverty as the training of doctors, communities, we should “How do we engage these students? How do we address their learning needs? Those are big questions that novice teachers should not be expected to answer on their own.” 7