A Nutrition Minute: Dora's Deception

You know, some kids can explore without a sugar addiction.

by Sharon Gruber, Nutrition Consultant.

I was reading my four-year-old daughter a few Dora the Explorer books the other day, and there was talk of cookies, cake, and ice cream many times, but not a single mention of a bunch of grapes, a pint of strawberries, or any other fun, tasty fruit. Discovering a strawberry patch or a grape vine at the end of one story instead of an ice cream truck could have also been a great surprise for Dora, but it seems modeling healthy choices isn’t among Nickelodeon’s goals for their young explorer. After four stories, and only a reinforcement of “treats,” as we tend to call them, it was snack time. I put down the books and offered her some fruit, which thankfully she was happy to have, but it sure would have been nice if Dora had just had some fruit, too.

Dora and her love for all things sweet is not unique. Nutrition education is a piece of the education puzzle often overlooked. I am often amazed at how many times a day we reinforce poor nutrition decisions during otherwise positive educational opportunities. Making healthy choices should not be rendered to one class a few times a week, but needs to be integrated into all the teach-able moments children encounter.

For example, I was naively surprised at the offerings at my child’s athletic camp this summer, a place of learning about physical dexterity and strengthening the body. My mouth dropped the first day of camp when I realized that they offered the kids 16-ounce sodas. For four-year-olds? In an educational setting? As if that weren’t challenging enough, the soda was an option for the children every day, five days a week.

But even the “just this once” mentality is difficult to swallow for parents and child care providers who try to make the best decisions they can for their kids’ growing bodies. If at religious school on Tuesday there is a variety of pastries, Wednesday’s gymnastics lesson comes with cookies, Thursday’s after-school care provides more cookies, Friday features a birthday celebration in school, Saturday soccer games mean the standard pizza and ice cream, and then the birthday party on Sunday afternoon definitely calls for cake, “just this once” easily adds up to “treats” every day, sometimes multiple times a day.

Among the many things that our country needs to do to reclaim the health – and future – of our children, is to take every opportunity to educate them about nutrition. This means books, videos, and other media must choose to feature slices of watermelon as a summer treat instead of the obligatory ice cream sundae. It means characters should visit farms and talk about where food comes from. And they should help prepare unprocessed food at home with their older loved ones. A holistic approach like this is a must. Health cannot be relegated to a scheduled classroom discussion.

Further, when sweets are offered, it should not be in an educational setting. If my daughter is playing at another child’s home, and the parent wants to give her a couple of cookies, I’m genuinely fine with it. But that is not the same as teachers, camp counselors, coaches, and the like offering her store-bought sweets made of who-knows-what day after day in the context of whatever activity she’s participating in. The latter are her educators, and kids seek to follow their lead. In all learning settings – not just the classroom -- the standards must be higher. We must start to look at every moment as an opportunity to model the choices that will best serve our kids.

Cardozo and Franklin--Two Good Links

Finally taking the time to clean out my Reader, I found two smart things that bear passing on. The first one comes through The DC Education Blog--a great article by Pat Wingert about Cardozo High that ran on Monday in Newsweek. It's short, but there's a lot of information packed in there. Here's part:

Two weeks after my arrival, a substitute teacher was beaten by three freshman girls during an all-school assembly. They were mad because she'd shushed them. Two weeks before I arrived, a varsity basketball player shot another member of his team, just outside the school. The classroom next to mine was thoroughly trashed—holes punched through the walls, furniture upended—after it was abandoned by a new teacher who felt intimidated by her pupils.

The second comes from Eric Sheptock, who met with the Mayor to talk about the closing of the Franklin Shelter, though it sounds like Mayor Fenty didn't do much talking:

We also mentioned the fact that, by them having nowhere to go, many of the homeless will end up sleeping in the park and then going to jail for it. We reminded him of how neither he nor DC government wanted the jail to serve as a makeshift homeless shelter. Mayor Fenty's response was,"The city has to do what the city has to do". Take that for what you will.

"The city has to do what the city has to do?" I thought we paid the city to do what their job descriptions state they should be doing. In the case of a police officer, I imagine the "duties and responsibilities" say something like:

"Investigate potential violations of DC and Federal law"
"In the case of overwhelming evidence against an individual, read Miranda and bring them in"
"Direct traffic on K Street"
"Protect the public-at-large"

They probably don't include things like:

"Collect homeless individuals and dump them in cells meant for criminals"
"Ignore cyclists being run off the road and ticket them on New Hampshire"
"Drive around with lights on; shift combination of lights used at least twice per shift"

How about not putting your officers in a position where they have to choose between either fighting crime or hauling the homeless into a prison cell?

Update on the Franklin Shelter Closing

There's a great link to some of the latest information about the fight to keep the Franklin Shelter open. As the homeless population continues to mobilize (and the date of the closure gets closer), I'm sure we'll be hearing much more on this. There's a good video and some information on Streats TV.

For those of you are just catching up on this, Mayor Fenty announced in April that the Franklin Shelter, the only low barrier men's shelter downtown, was going to be closed as he plans to open 350 units of permanent supportive housing through the Housing First initiative. It's a surprise to no one that these 350 units are (to put it politely) way behind schedule, and the Shelter is going to be closed on October 1st anyway, leaving up to 300 men per night sleeping on the streets.

Mayor Fenty promised to keep the Franklin Shelter open, and though broken promises don't make politicians lose sleep, this one should because shortly after October 1st comes a giant reason to keep homeless individuals off the street--life threatening winter conditions. Promises might not mean much, but condemning a human being to death will hopefully mean something.

For more background information, you can read Kate's initial report posted in July.

Education Cartoon Roundup IV

Is the Middle Dropping Out?

by Emily Bell, Development Assistant.

Middle Schools in the District are few and far between.

Researching classroom sizes in district middle schools presented quite a challenge. Only a total of 11 DC public schools teach grades 6 through 8, 11 junior high schools teach 7th-9th, and various pk-12 and advanced programs for middle school aged kids are scattered throughout the city. I was immediately struck, however, that there are so few area middle schools in the public education path (when compared to the large numbers of both elementary and high schools).

I examined four middle schools for this post, MacFarland in NW ward 4; Kelley Miller in NE ward 7, Ronald Brown in NE ward 7, and Hart in SE ward 8. The only school I found in SW was a junior high school with approximately 606 students (as opposed to average sizes of 306 kids, 338 kids, and 379 kids in NE, NW, and SE respectively). I decided not to include it in this comparison because of its overwhelming number of students and lack of middle school status, they teach 7-9th grades. Here is a quick summary of what I was able to find:

Ward 4/NW:
MacFarland: 74% African American, 26% Hispanic.
class size:
394 total students; 52 teachers; 7.6 kids per teacher
6th grade =7.2 kids per class**
7th grade = 10.11 kids per class
8th grade = 7.56 kids per class

Ward 7/ NE:
Kelley Miller: 100% African American, less than 1% Hispanic.
class size:
563 total students; 36 teachers; 15.6 kids per teacher
6th grade = 16.75 kids per class
7th grade = 16 kids per class
8th grade = 16.06 kids per class

Brown, Ronald: 100% African American.
class size:
227 total students, 19 teachers, 11.9 kids per teacher
6th grade = 10.5 kids per class
7th grade = 11.86 kids per class
8th grade = 12.2 kids per class

Ward 8/ SE:
Hart: 100% African American, less than 1% Hispanic
class sizes:
544 total students, 37 teachers, 14.7 kids per teacher
6th grade = 14.3 kids per class
7th grade = 14.93 kids per class
8th grade = 14.75 kids per class

The stats show that our students are not getting the attention they need from teachers. At Macfarland Middle School, although the average calculated class size is 7/8 students, actual classes can range in size from 5 to 10 to 25 students. Mr. Roger, the only person at the school’s administrative line able to answer my question regarding average class size, also stated that classes of about 3 to 5 occur in special education cases. Without calling all of the other schools, I can assume that the average class sizes listed above varies depending on availability of teachers per grade.

All of the above schools have math and reading scores below the state level. Brown Ronald, Hart, Kelley Miller, and MacFarland all have 20% or fewer students who meet at or above reading proficiency and 17% or fewer students who meet at or above math proficiency. Meaning, at least 80% of students at all four middle schools are not at the math or reading level they need to be. MacFarland has the highest proficiency scores and the smallest average class size. Kelley Miller is .9 miles from Brown, Ronald and has almost double the number of students and lower math and reading scores. Hart has the lowest math and reading scores and the second largest average class size of all four schools.

Funding for these four schools is hard to determine. All of the above schools are Title 1 participants w/ school-wide Title 1 programs. The average amount of money DCPS is supposed to spend per student is $15,746. Whether or not each school is getting their share is unknown and/or difficult to find out.

If the district had more middle schools, I believe there may be a reduction in high school drop-outs. If students are more prepared for high school from challenging and engaging middle school environments, high school will not seem like a huge barrier to the real world. Instead, it will be just another stepping stone to a positive future.

As this is my final blog post, I would like to thank everyone at Bread for the City for helping DC residents find and use the resources they need to build a strong future for themselves and their families. I have learned so much about DC through the struggles of Bread for the City’s clients and the concern from their staff. Hopefully, the day will come when DC won’t need organizations like Bread for the City to fill in the gaps, but until then, keep up the good work!


**to calculate approx. class size for each grade, I divided grade population by total students, multiplied the decimal answer by the FTE (classroom teachers) to find the approx. teachers for that grade, and divided the total students per grade by total teachers for that grade.

A Different View of DC

by Elizabeth Borges, Advocacy Assistant.

So, what did you do this summer?

In the coming weeks, as I transition from internship to school, I am sure that I will hear this question quite frequently. Though it is a perfectly reasonable query, I feel uncertain about my response. Certainly, I am eager to share my Bread for the City experience with others. I have worked here for the past ten weeks as the Advocacy and Community Lawyering Program Assistant (quite a mouthful!) and have accumulated many stories and experiences. But it will be hard to distill my internship into the neat summary that others expect when I have had so many varied and meaningful experiences.

I have learned to differentiate between Hope VII, New Communities, and Section 8 affordable housing developments by speaking to occupants of each one. I have heard the ways that Anacostia has changed over the years by interviewing a long-term resident. I have read about the educational inequalities that plague the DC Public School system. I have observed City Council hearings and examined their role in the DC government. I have helped register over 100 people to vote at BFC’s SE and NW centers. It has been a busy summer, to be sure.

Still, despite all the academic knowledge and real-world insight that I have gained over the past ten weeks, I do not feel satisfied with my current level of education. Instead, I am left with the realization that I still have so much more to learn about DC. Perhaps this is because I started knowing so little.

At the beginning of this internship, I knew that my knowledge of DC was limited at best, ignorant at worst. Although I have lived in the city for the past ten years, my experience has been confined to the environs of Upper Northwest: Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Tenleytown, and Friendship Heights. I never had reason to venture out to other parts of the district and so, for the most part, I didn’t, leaving me with a skewed notion of the city.

Luckily, my experiences this summer have given me a new perspective, but (unluckily), I saw a city whose resources are as imbalanced as my vision once was. The decrepit elementary schools I saw on my bus rides in SE paled in comparison to the sunny, bright Oyster Bilingual School, the elementary school I attended in Woodley Park. How can students become excited about education, I wondered, when the environment in which they learn is so depressing? The inequalities in public resources extend to adult education programs (as I noted a few weeks back), which means that DC fails its resident both when they are children and when they are adults.

The inequities and faults are not confined to education. There are a only a few grocery stores east of the Anacostia River (and until last year there were no major grocery stores in Ward 8) compared to the myriad of Safeway, Giant, and Whole Foods stores across the way. But even if there were more grocery stores, not all families would have enough money to spend there. DC’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits are woefully inadequate, only covering about 19% of the federal poverty line for many families, as reported by the DC Women’s Agenda.

Further, efforts to correct these imbalances have fallen flat. Just look at DC’s Summer Youth Employment Program, which failed to pay students on time and came in grossly over-budget. At every turn, it seems, DC is fumbling its opportunity to implement effective social change.

The sad truth, though, is that many people have come to expect these failings. Whenever I mention a particularly egregious case of mismanagement to a friend of mine, he or she will acknowledge the problem but inevitably retort, “This is DC – what do you expect?” But this perspective creates a troubling – and false – dichotomy between the DC and the idea of a successful government, suggesting that the two are irreconcilable with one another. This point of view, in essence, takes the easy way out. How can things change if we resign ourselves to the current, regrettable state of affairs?

My experience this summer has taught me that this perspective is simply wrong. The non-profit organizations that I have worked with (through Fair Budget and COHHO) have specific, concrete plans of action. COHHO supports an increase in the funding for the Local Rent Supplement Program, a local program that provides families with rent support while they are on the interminable housing waiting list. Regarding food, the DC Food Finder, developed by the Healthy Affordable Food for All Coalition (to which BFC belongs), provides an online map of all food resources in DC to help DC families obtain food now. Additionally, a myriad of charter schools are developing their own curricula to prepare students where traditional public schools have failed. These examples, along with many others, show that education, food insecurity, affordable housing, and poverty are all issues that deserve – and possess – a solution. We can no longer afford to write off DC – not for us, and not for so many of the District’s neediest residents.

The wonderful staff and volunteers at Bread for the City already know this, as demonstrated by their tireless and noble efforts. Thankfully, after my summer experiences, so do I.

Education Cartoon Roundup III

Lobbyists, Unions, and Government Bureaucrats

America's favorite groups fight for power.

The blogs are abuzz as teachers across DC officially went back to work yesterday. The contract is still up in the air.

The Washington Teacher wrote an entry yesterday reminding me of a story that Bill Turuque broke earlier this month. Apparently, outside groups like Strong Schools DC were stepping up lobbying efforts, paying DC teachers to advocate Rhee's contract to their friends and peers to the tune of $1,000 a week. When I first read the story, I have to admit that it fell out of my head as unimportant. This is DC. We kind of perfected the art of cash for votes. Big deal if an organization is using our signature lobbying tactic on DC soil. I haven't shaken that initial reaction, but considering how few of the names of those lobbying have been disclosed, it does make me look at the media quotes in favor of the contract a little more critically.

DC Teacher Chic also had an entry about the contract yesterday, and I think it gets to an important point. Teacher Chic, trying to debunk the argument that Rhee's proposal eliminates tenure, writes:

[The proposal] does nothing of the sort. Were [Jerome Brocks] a reader of this blog, or a reader of the contract proposal itself, he would know that teachers can VOLUNTARILY give up tenure for just ONE year, but no one is forced to do so.

I don't think that's true. While current teachers can stay on the red track and maintain tenure, all new hires will not have the option of a red track. So at least someone is forced to involuntarily, in the long run, give up tenure. If the proposal were simply setting up a system of two tracks that teachers could choose from, I don't think there would be a debate. Every person appreciates increased autonomy, especially when it comes to their personal finances. But forcing new hires onto the green track means they can be fired very easily, with less ability for the union to intervene. Whether busting the union is a good or bad for DC's kids is a matter of significant debate, but let's not pretend the proposal is less than what it is.

That's not to say the pro-union side hasn't had it's share of strange witticisms. Mr. Brocks, in the article DC Teacher Chic is responding to, tells Marc Fisher that, "it is degrading and insulting for teachers to have to interview with a principal before accepting a position in that school" if the teacher has the seniority to move. He's not making any friends with that statement. I think most people would say that not giving a principal the authority to interview potential staff is negligence, and that the ability for administrators to pick an effective staff trumps any sort of perceived degradation on the part of the teachers.

The longer the negotiations go on, the more pressure there is going to be to distill arguments into tiny, palatable catch phrases. I hope the issues don't get lost between the lines, though no group should be more qualified to critically dissect a document than a swarm of teachers.

Washington Teachers' Union Battles Against a Salary Increase

They've got quite a case to make to the teachers.

The Washington Teachers' Union is fighting an interesting battle this month against Chancellor Rhee. Under a contract drafted by the Chancellor, public school teachers could opt to start receiving merit increases, and not just any run-of-the-mill merit increase—we’re talking real money. As much as a 20% increase in salary over a five-year period, which would bring “mid-level” teachers to an annual income of as much as 100,000 American dollars. I don’t know if my standards are the same as everyone else’s, but to me a number like that sounds very large.

But this is a real nail-biter on both sides. Chancellor Rhee says she wants to “revolutionize education as we know it,” and maintains the way we award teachers is the start of that process. In all honesty, her premise is correct—paying public school teachers a meaningful salary will make the market more competitive, eventually leading to people taking elementary and secondary education more seriously. If teachers are responsible for the future of our children (which they are), they deserve a salary and station that recognizes that undertaking. Our kids, in addition, would benefit from having the best and brightest competing for the honor of teaching them.

As with anything, however, there is a catch. In the case of this contract, the catch is enough to make the Washington Teachers' Union push to reject the salary increases. In order to be eligible for increased income, teachers will no longer have any seniority rights or tenure. On top of that, their jobs will rely entirely on the test scores of the school. If the test scores are not improving, teachers will be fired. The result being that, though teachers are making more money, they will have zero job security and will not know until the school year has ended if they are going to be pitched out before the next year. Given the Post article that came out today stating that results from last year weren’t acted upon until the first couple of weeks of August, that means teachers would be getting fired three weeks before the next school year started. Both students and teachers lose in that scenario.

This deal is even more interesting because it is an explicit effort to pit young teachers against experienced teachers. Young people, knowing they have many years before retirement, can teach in DC for five years, make good money, and then move on to some other school district that will offer tenure benefits and other amenities. Older teachers, who have been suffering bad pay for decades, will lose the only benefit they were assured—that the longer they stayed, the more intangible rewards (like seniority rights) they would receive. Even if these older folks opted into a “red” track instead of the “green” one, they would be one bad year away from losing their livelihood.

Of course, the Washington Teachers' Union has it’s own reason to oppose the contract. The deal is a pretty open union-buster. Teachers who sign a contract agree that they can be terminated without recourse, so any help the union can give is rejected from the outset. These sort of direct negotiations make for weak leveraging power on the part of the union, which (they would argue) hurts all teachers in the long-term.

Chancellor Rhee’s gambit is a risky one. She’s banking on young teachers being lured in by the promise of increased pay without a care for their future security. She’s also banking that these younger self-interested folks will be large enough in number to override the wishes of the older teachers in the union halls, forcing the contract through. I don’t know if either risk will end up paying off, especially since DC doesn’t have the money to actually pay for the salary increases it is promising, but with vocal support on both sides, the debate itself is shaping up to something worthy of the monumental impact the outcome will have.

Fair Budget Ward 2 Candidate Forum – An Analysis

by Elizabeth Borges, Advocacy Assistant.

On Wednesday, August 13, I attended the Fair Budget Coalition’s Ward 2 Candidate Forum. The candidates in attendance were Jack Evans, the incumbent, and Cary Silverman, both of whom are vying for the Democratic nomination in the September 9 primary. Given DC’s overwhelmingly Democratic population, it is fair to assume that the winner of the Democratic primary will also prevail in the general election on November 4. Therefore, the primary has heightened importance and has generated much discussion and debate from different groups.

Fair Budget is a partnership of non-profit organizations in DC (including Bread for the City) that represent the interests of homeless and low-income residents. Thus, the forum focused on issues relevant to this population, including affordable housing, education, employment, and poverty. In discussing these issues, both candidates presented strong, capable – and surprisingly similar – ideas.

Marina Streznewski from the DC Jobs Council moderated the event and started the forum with a question about the Franklin Shelter. Although the shelter, located in downtown DC, is set to close on October 1st, the city has not issued an alternate plan to house its residents. Fair Budget is concerned that these displaced individuals will end up on the streets. Thankfully, both Mr. Silverman and Mr. Evans seem to share these anxieties. When asked for their position on Franklin’s closing, both indicated that they oppose the October 1st closing date and stressed that the city must come up with an alternative for residents before the shelter is closed. Mr. Evans said that he has expressed his concerns to Mayor Fenty on numerous occasions and Mr. Silverman reported that he had attended a community forum devoted to this issue. When answering this question, Mr. Silverman joked that this was one issue that the two actually agreed on, and Mr. Evans laughed and nodded his head.

But the similarities between the two candidates actually lasted for many more questions, as both affirmed their support for a yearly adjustment of TANF benefits due to inflation, an increase in adult education programs, and continued support of senior housing options. They even had the same concerns when discussing a rise in the minimum wage, indicating that more research is necessary to gage the potential effects of such a change on small businesses.

Additionally, the two candidates approached the issue of affordable housing from similar, if not identical, positions. Mr. Evans acknowledged that affordable housing poses a challenge given today’s shrinking economy, but maintained that the government has the resources to address the issue. He declared that the government should do so by increasing its support of the Local Rent Supplement Program and the Housing Support Trust Fund. Mr. Silverman, for his part, indicated his support for the latter program, as well as Section 8 housing and inclusionary zoning. In addition, he wants the government to reevaluate the Home Again program, which converts vacant properties into affordable housing units. Over the past four years, the program has only transformed 32 houses into affordable housing, and Mr. Silverman believes it has the capacity to do much more. Mr. Silverman also believes there should be more public education about renters’ rights.

Despite their similarities, the two candidates differed strikingly when discussing the District’s budget. The issue arose when one angry Ward 2 resident, troubled by the District’s growing debt, asked Mr. Evans how he could justify spending several hundred million dollars on a proposed soccer stadium when so many District residents live in poverty. Mr. Evans responded that he did not accept the premise of the question, arguing that money alone is not the answer to the District’s problems. (Indeed, Mr. Evans declared that the District has a budget of $10 billion, a staggering sum for its population of 570,000.) Rather, Mr. Evans said, the solution lies with proper management of funds. According to Mr. Evans, the DC government has enough money to finance the soccer stadium and fund social services, but it must use this money effectively in order to provide for all of its residents. Further, Mr. Evans indicated that the District’s debt, although large, is not a cause for concern.

In contrast, Mr. Silverman asserted that, indeed, the District’s mounting debt is an issue, arguing that the DC government can no longer afford to fund frivolous projects (such as a soccer stadium) at the expense of lagging social services. This appears to be the fundamental difference between the candidates regarding financial matters: Mr. Evans believes that large public works projects can coexist with better social services programs as long as they are managed correctly, while Mr. Silverman believes that, under the current administration, the former has often been at the expense of the latter. Given the candidates’ similar stances on most other issues, their differing views on the District’s financial priorities may well be the decisive issue in the upcoming election.

Education Has Stopped Leading to Profits

For the banks, I mean.

Yearly tuition increases at universities are so routine that even the news of the increase is bland. A lot of students, however, will find this year more difficult than most. Trouble with the student loan market was originally reported last spring, but Wachovia recently added its name to the roster of banks that will not be considering student loans this year—along with other big names like GoldmanSachs and Bank of America.

The problem is that the Auction Rate Securities market (ARS) crashed in February, leaving banks without the money to secure the loans. I don’t understand all of the different factors that led to the collapse of this particular branch of Wall Street, but I do know it has something to do with questionable lending practices dating back to 2006, at least 4 of the biggest lenders in the country, and the fallout from the sub-prime mortgage crisis. I also know that the ARS bonds are what make student loans profitable for banks, since they can sell the loan to someone else at a profit.

Or could until last February when everyone stopped showing up to the auctions and the banks were left with 20% interest that they had to pay on all of their ARS holdings. While there are still a lot of details that still have to be worked out, there are going to be a number of students who were promised school loans this year that will not receive them. This is made even worse because many of the banks that still are supplying student loans will no longer do so based on home equity, one of the biggest pieces of collateral most parents use.

Education Cartoon Roundup II

How Are We Teaching Our Kids?

This child was taught to consume food using flash cards.*

I promised myself, when I knew we were transitioning from Affordable Housing to Education, that I wouldn't get bogged down in the theory, and would keep it to the facts. Unlike most other areas where the theory can only be understood in the context of the Ivory Tower it came from, education theory seems to be pretty intuitive. Every concerned parent has rehashed the arguments at least once, and it's one of the few places where personal positions (or those of a school) have enduring effects, so people often feel very invested in their opinion.

Then Brendan started writing for the SchoolFinder Blog, and wrote today about one of the more interesting debates in education theory: Old Math vs. New Math. His writings threw my compulsion to avoid theory out the window, and it gave me a renewed conviction that you would find it as engaging as I do. I don't even have to sell it. You're already excited, aren't you?

Old Math is the idea that math should be taught the way most of us were taught--starting with addition and subtraction, then moving on to multiplication, division, long division, finding a good calculator, and forgetting all of the things we learned. The idea is that, like climbing a ladder, if students are taught the basics that can be memorized, they will be able to climb rungs over time until they begin to understand something of the broader mathematical concepts that govern the way numbers work. Given my near-failing grade in Calculus (twice!), I would say I am not a good example of this method in action.

The other side of the debate is New Math, or the idea that, like pulling a Band-Aid off a hairy spot, if students are taught the overarching concepts of how numbers relate to each other, it may hurt at first, but they will ultimately be better prepared, and will be smarter to boot. Think of how you were taught to count using coins. Once a person knows that numbers relate to real things, they come to the conclusion on their own that 1+1=2, will come to know multiplication on their own, and will have an intuitive knowledge of how math works instead of the ability to memorize things. There's some merit to this argument, especially when remembering that the best mathematicians we've ever known, like Einstein, did relatively poorly in memorization-based classes even though they clearly understood the principles. I'll also briefly note that many of the most complex mathematical formulas were discovered by people who were never formally trained in math.

This debate is also interesting because it highlights something I complain about to a fault--that students are poorly trained under No Child Left Behind. Although over the next couple weeks we'll have experts from both sides on here talking more about the specifics of No Child Left Behind, the one thing that I complain about constantly is that the law forces teachers to "teach to the test," and ignores the context of what they're teaching (actually SchoolFinder has a good discussion on this, too). Since money is allotted based only on test scores, teaching kids to memorize is more valuable than teaching an understanding of the underlying concepts. For a simple example, think of the difference between teaching a child to read small books, and teaching a child to recognize words on flashcards. A child will be able to memorize a few words or equations on cards long before they actually know how to read or do math, and will be able to pass a comprehension test without technically comprehending. Considering that 17% of DC's population graduated high school functionally illiterate, I'd say that's exactly what happened.

So we can see there's a difference between reading a book and memorizing a flashcard, though subtle: one of those kids is literate, and one memorizes things well. What I object to is not necessarily that kids are taught good memorization skills, because that's a good thing to know. I'm more concerned that memorization really only works well in small classrooms, and those are not as readily available in low-income communities, rendering students both unable to memorize and unable to understand broader concepts.

On top of that, No Child Left Behind takes the decision to teach a different method out of the teacher's hands though they are often highly trained in education theory. It also goes directly against the way schools run their "Gifted" programs, which are concept-based instead of memorization-based. If we teach our smartest kids using a completely different method than we teach the "dumber" kids, aren't we implicitly saying that concept-based education methods have better results? If that is the argument, shouldn't all kids have access to the best instruction, not just flashcards?

*photo courtesy of HocusPocusFocus.

Adult Illiteracy in DC

The Consequence of Poor Public Schools.

by Elizabeth Borges, Advocacy Assistant.

If you want evidence that DC schools are failing, look no further than the city’s sky-high adult illiteracy rates. According to the Washington Post, the District released a State of Adult Literacy Report in 2007 that found that about 36% of the city’s adult residents are functionally illiterate (which means that they cannot do simple tasks such as fill out a job application or read a newspaper). This number is especially striking when compared to the national adult illiteracy rate, which is 21% (and still way too high by any consideration).

In addition to examining adult illiteracy citywide, the report studied the rate of adult illiteracy in individual wards. Not surprisingly, Wards 7 and 8, which have the highest incidences of poverty, also have the highest illiteracy rates. The report found that Wards 7 and 8 have illiteracy rates of 50.4% and 48.9%, respectively, while the more affluent Ward 3 has a rate of only 8.2%. These statistics are further proof of the powerful link between poverty and poor education.

Indeed, with regards to finances, it’s no secret that illiterate adults make far less than their literate counterparts. But in addition to harming the individual, adult illiteracy also hurts the fiscal health of society as a whole. In fact, the report found that adult illiteracy cost the District $107 million in taxes each year between 2000 and 2005 because of a lack of qualified job applicants. (This number is so high due to the fact that 47% of jobs in DC require a college or other advanced degree, compared to only 26% nationally.) In this case, society loses not only money, but also the potential contributions of these individuals to both the academic and professional worlds.

Even more troubling, the resources to combat this problem are dispersed unequally throughout the city. Despite their dire adult illiteracy rates, Wards 7 and 8 do not receive the most resources. Instead, the majority of federal and local adult literacy programs are operated in Wards 1 and 4. To be fair, these wards have high illiteracy rates of their own (about 42 percent). But Wards 7 and 8 also need these programs, and they need them badly. Clearly, the governmental programs are not sufficient to address the needs of city residents.

Thankfully, there are some non-profits in DC working to decrease the number of illiterate adults. DC Learns, a coalition of literacy organizations, takes a two-pronged approach to the problem. The coalition runs programs that support adult education and teach basic reading skills to children, and also investigates DC policy concerning adult education. Unfortunately, in a recent report, DC Learns found that the government will decrease the FY 2009 budget for the Office of the Superintendent, which provides most of the funding for DC’s adult education programs. It is unclear whether other governmental funds will make up for this decrease.

Of course, the real goal should be to make adult literacy programs unnecessary – all children should graduate high school with the ability to read and write at a proficient level. But until this goal is realized, the government should allocate adequate funding to adult education programs to compensate for the poor education that these adults received years ago. Hopefully the city will find some way to more fully fund its OSSE programs.

Inequities in Public Education – A Look Back in Time

by Elizabeth Borges, Advocacy Assistant.

The troubling state of public education in Washington, D.C. is a pressing concern, though certainly not a new one. District schools have long suffered from mismanagement, misuse of funds, and lack of strong direction, resulting in appalling learning conditions for students. Sociologist Jonathan Kozol documents these sub-standard conditions in his 1991 book Savage Inequalities, which examines the plight of urban school students across the United States. In addition to visiting schools in DC, Kozol travels to public schools in East St. Louis, Chicago, and New York, among others. As he recounts his devastating experiences in each city, Kozol chips away at the widely held belief that the US provides equal educational opportunity for all children – and despondently wonders whether the US will ever achieve this goal.

In Washington, Kozol visits a downtrodden school in Anacostia. Physically, the school is sordid and unsafe – rats flood the basement cafeteria after a rainfall. The surrounding environment is not much better: the principal releases students early from school one day because he heard that there would be a shooting nearby. The students respond to these harsh realities with an attitude of hopelessness. One teacher notes that her students don’t smile and she suggests that such melancholy influences their education: “Why should they learn when their lives are so hard and so unhappy?” (182).

In addition to these observations, the section on DC focuses, as many of Kozol’s chapters do, on the intersections between race, class, and educational inequity. Kozol is struck by the stark distinction between the blooming cherry blossoms by the National Mall and the decrepit schools in Anacostia. In recognizing this contrast, Kozol is simply one of many who have wondered about the seemingly disparate worlds of Washington – one that exists for the rich, mostly white population, and one for the poor, predominantly black residents.

Indeed, perhaps Kozol’s most striking finding is not the wretched state of urban schools, but rather the gross inequity between schools in similar areas. While the conditions of the city schools are appalling, they are even more shameful when juxtaposed against the relatively pleasant atmospheres of the suburban school districts. Kozol notes that the sunny, privileged Fairfax and Montgomery County school districts exist only miles away from the failing urban schools of DC. How, Kozol asks his readers, could such inequity exist in America?

Kozol’s research reveals that this inequity is partly due to imbalanced funding – he shows that, at least in 1991, urban schools receive far less money from the government than do suburban schools. To be sure, increased funding is essential to ensuring equal opportunity. In this case, Kozol argues that unequal funding (albeit the other way around) may actually be necessary to create equal opportunity. He suggests that urban schools must be funded more than suburban schools, at least for a while, to make up for the years of inequities. In other words, poorer schools must receive more money so that their kids can catch up to students in richer schools and thus have equal opportunity.

Still, money alone is not enough to rectify educational inequities. Indeed, in 2007 Washington, D.C. spent $12,279 per student per year, the third highest amount out of the 100 largest school districts in the nation, according to the Washington Post. Clearly, equal educational opportunity will not result from a shift or increase in funds, however necessary this money may be. Kozol believes that money alone cannot solve the educational crisis in America because the problem is rooted in deeply held attitudes of racism and superiority. Simply put, children in urban schools get less because the upper classes think they deserve less. Thus, in order to truly improve the educational landscape, the middle and upper classes must change their beliefs. They must devote their time, energy, and resources to providing an education for urban students that is on par with that of their own children. In essence, they must refuse to participate any longer in a race in which they have been given a monumental head start. Only with such change of heart can there be a real change of opportunity.

Education Cartoon Roundup

Please Help If Possible

Hi Everyone,

I just got this email from Margie Sollinger, one of our staff attorneys. Please help if you can:


I have a client who has a cockroach infestation so severe that her appliances and joints of her wood furniture are infested. Her kids cover their plates and cups when eating meals because the cockroaches fall into their food from the ceiling. Take my word for it, it's really bad. In the next week or two we are hopefully moving her into another unit with her 6 children and her partner (total of 8 people in the household). In order to avoid bringing cockroaches (and their eggs) into the new unit, we're likely going to abandon all of her non-clothing and dishware items. Thus, she is in need of almost everything, but my goal is to find her the following within the next couple of weeks:

1. 5 beds (right now she is using all twin sizes)
2. Dining table with six or more chairs
3. Living room seating (right now she is using a sofa and love-seat)
4. 4 or more dressers

Ideally we'll get her a lot of other things, but this is our starting point.


Obviously this is a big undertaking, so anyone who knows of resources, or knows of people who have stuff to donate, let Margie know.

Thanks!

UPDATE: To the many, many people who responded so swiftly and generously--thank you. Margie is going to check out the dimensions of the proposed new apartment to find out how much space we have to work with. I've been told that it will be a one bedroom apartment, which means space will be more limited than we thought. We have received a number of emails, and will make sure every person is contacted directly about their donation, hopefully later today. Thank you again--

Kids Enter the Free Market

Can vouchers save our schools?

When it comes to education, my experience has been slightly different from most people I know. I attended a private elementary school before switching, in middle and high school, to the public school system. My twin sister attended public elementary school, switched to an inner city magnet school for middle school, and then went to a private high school. Because our parents allowed us to choose where we went to school, we had a vastly different educational experience despite being the same age.

When politicians and public leaders talk about school vouchers, I can’t help but reflect on the variety of atmospheres and approaches that did so much to inform who I am today. I was able to do okay in school in part because I had the luxury to choose a school I liked, and vouchers allow that. At the same time, I’m not wild about the precedent of giving government money to private schools, or the economic concept.

Proponents of school vouchers make a couple good arguments, not the least of which happens to come out of DC. I don’t think anyone can deny that the public schools here are in a pretty bad way, to the tune of a 22% dropout rate (based on what I consider a conservative estimate by the census bureau), and a one in three adult illiteracy rate. The children whose education will be most inadequate will be those in the poorest neighborhoods where there are fewer schools, teachers, and community support systems. In Wards 7 & 8 these numbers bear out with one in two adults who are functionally illiterate. If the public school system can’t help these kids, it is the role of responsible legislators to create a new, more adequate and humane system.

I have yet to decide if vouchers are that solution. The Heritage Foundation, a proponent of school vouchers, points to the DC School Choice Incentive Act that was signed into law in 2004 as a good example of how vouchers can help. Last year 1,900 kids were awarded scholarships of $7,500 toward the private or religious school of their choice, all from families with an annual income under 185% of the poverty line. Not only does this put children in a better learning environment, it also makes public schools better by fostering competition.

But isn’t there an element of danger in the idea of the voucher system? The kids who receive the scholarships, of course, represent the brightest. If vouchers were to be adopted en masse, all students would still have to qualify for the private school of their choice, and most would be rejected. My concern is that the private schools would continue to recruit the best and brightest while discarding the kids they don’t want to the public schools that will be just as broken as they were before. I can already imagine the scenario where politicians rail against public schools for having lower test scores than their private counterparts without acknowledging that they were responsible for creating that system in the first place. Call me cynical, but I don’t think vouchers will actually allow public schools in low-income areas to “compete” any more than they are capable of right now, and there will still be a huge number of kids left there when the private schools are done with their pickings.

If the goal is to raise the standard at low-income schools, a better idea would be to reduce class sizes, have a better system for diagnosing and dealing with behavior disorders and other special needs, and spend the money for specialized programs like music, theatre, art, and sports that are proven to make students feel more engaged. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen any time in the near future.

Despite my concerns, there is something to be said for the success stories of students who have found their way into a private school they would not have been able to afford otherwise. The Washington Scholarship Fund, which distributes all vouchers for DC, boasts that of the people they award scholarships to, 90% go on to college. That’s a huge number.

I guess that’s really my problem. There are two different issues. There are the kids that are being left behind right now because of poor resources, and they have no control over their education even though it will have a giant impact on their lives. That’s unacceptable. There’s also the school system as a whole, which I think would be (yes, it’s possible) even worse if there were large-scale voucher programs. That’s also unacceptable.

There were good and bad things about the schools (and types of schools) my sister and I attended. My private school did have smaller classes, but less extracurricular activities, no sex education, and (to put it frankly) segregation by class, race, and a number of other criteria in the selection process. Public school had bigger classes, but more extracurricular programs, more diversity, and better special education programs for kids with specific needs. I agree that kids shouldn’t be limited by what their parents can or cannot afford, but I don’t think I like either of the two options on the table.

Our Access To Resources Contributors

Matt Siemer was once the Volunteer Coordinator at Bread for the City, and is the creator of this blog.

Greg Bloom handles Bread for the City's communications and certain strategic elements of our office. His goal is to organize something new everyday, and past victories include our supply closet, his desk files, our printer paper, our computer network folders, and his own notes. He is currently advocating for greater shelving in our kitchen.

George Jones is the Executive Director of Bread for the City. He's been here 13 years and has been the motivating force behind the expansion of literally every service Bread for the City offers. His current main project is our capital campaign to double the size of our Northwest Center (specifically the Medical Clinic we have upstairs).

Erin Garnaas-Holmes is the current Volunteer Coordinator at Bread for the City, and, in reflection of the work he does, writes not only about volunteering but about all sorts of other things going at Bread for the City and in the District.

Emily Bell is a Marketing and Communications Assistant at Bread for the City. While most of the work she does is in marketing, she also occasionally makes education policy updates. She sits about 7 feet from my desk, and researches stuff very quickly.

Elizabeth Borges is Bread for the City's Advocacy Assistant. On top of spearheading BFC's voter registration drive and working with a number of coalitions, Elizabeth is also very familiar with the education system since, well, she's in school.

Sharon Gruber is Bread for the City's Nutrition Consultant. Between combing our food pantry for unhealthy food, and meeting with clients one-on-one to talk about good nutrition, Sharon finds the time to write a popular series of "Nutrition Minute" postings on this blog. She was originally supposed to only write during our Food & Nutrition segment, but due to the popularity of her entries, she agreed to keep writing despite the current focus.

This list will be updated as submissions come in! If you know something about Education & Access to Resources, and want to become a contributor, send me an email!

MLK Avenue, Then and Now

by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.

As my recent interviews have taught me, Anacostia has changed a great deal over the years. To help visualize these changes, I searched for historic photographs on the Library of Congress website. I found a couple of photos of Martin Luther King Jr. Ave (then called Nichols Ave.) that date back as far as 1918. Two other interns and I took a trek down MLK to see for ourselves how things have changed.

The photo below left is of the Anacostia Bank, located at the then-2021 Nichols Ave, SE. The picture shows the bank decorated for a parade in 1918. (Courtesy Library of Congress, LOT 12357-10). I was thankful to see that the bank building is still standing today (pictured second below). However, the building is no longer a bank, but contains a funeral home and is leasing out retail space.





Pictured below left is the Griffith Consumers Company at 2020 Nichols Ave., SE. (Courtesy Library of Congress, LC-H824- 1553-001). Although the exact date is unknown, it was taken some time between 1920 and 1950. This building was not as fortunate as the Anacostia Bank. Today, it is a parking lot for PNC Bank.








I also found this picture of a Combination (5-10-25 cent) Store and Ice Cream Parlor, decorated for the Fourth of July in 1919. (Courtesy Library of Congress, LOT 12357-10). The buildings were located somewhere on the 2200 block of Nichols Ave., SE. It was really difficult to figure out which buildings they correspond with today. The photo below right is my closest guess—does anyone have any other suggestions?





Documenting the buildings of Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave, SE, has given me a fresh appreciation for the history of this area. Anacostia is home to some beautiful (or formerly beautiful) buildings. As MLK continues to undergo development, my hope is that the historic buildings will be spared the fate of the Griffith Consumers Company and others like it.