Good morning everyone. Thank you for being here and for your interest in and
support of our public schools.
This year I want to focus on the concept of time. In doing so, I'm going to
try not to take up too much of yours.
Time may be relative, but it's my experience that it's always later than you
think. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Lost time is never found again."
Another great American, Groucho Marx, once said: Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Time is an ephemeral thing. But we think of it, and speak of it, as though it
had substance. We make time. We take our time. We buy time. We borrow time and
sometimes we waste time.
We also invest time.
Over the past several years, this state and this nation have invested a great
deal of time—and a substantial amount of energy and money—in an elaborate
system of standards and accountability for our schools.
The ultimate goal of this system is to give all our students a foundation of
basic skills. We hope that they then will build on that foundation, to
eventually become productive citizens.
California has put in place a stringent set of academic standards. And it now
has a testing system to measure our success in teaching those standards.
We in Santa Clara County take pride in the fact that we have made good
progress over time. We are home to some of the highest-achieving schools in the
entire state. But we continue to face a disturbingly large gap between those
top-echelon schools and many others right here in this same county.
Students who are poor and students who are English learners are lagging too
far behind other schools.
Today, we are balanced on this precarious point in time. The education system
has implemented accountability for all our schools. What it has failed to
implement -- is a way for all those schools to succeed.
Here are some snapshots of trends in Santa Clara County schools today.
This slide (Slide 1) shows results from the National Assessment of Educational
progress, or NAEP. It measures the percentage of 8th grade students across the
country who perform at the level of "proficient" on standardized tests
in math and science. Note that in both subject areas, less than 1/3 of our
nation's students are proficient.
Now let's see how California's students perform on the same test (Slide 2). In both
areas, California students perform worse. Fewer than 25 percent are proficient
in science.
Just two decades ago, California students led the nation, but each year since
then we have seen a decline in our students' performance on the NAEP.
So how do we compare in Santa Clara County? As many of you know, NAEP scores
are not broken down by county – so what you see on the graph now is an
extrapolation of where Santa Clara County students would perform, based on
scaled scores for the California standards tests. When we look at the average
scores for 8th grade students, the results are somewhat better.
(Slide 3)
Again, Santa Clara County students score above their peers throughout the
state. But they do not perform as well as we would hope. Fewer than 1/3 are
proficient in either science or math.
It's also helpful to consider how our schools are performing using the
Academic Performance Index, or API. (Slide 4)
The state has set a goal for every school to hit 800 on the API. It's
actually considering upping that goal to 875. Today, almost 60 percent of SCC
schools fall under the 800 mark, and almost 80 percent are below 875.
Some Santa Clara County schools do better, as you would expect. We have some
of the wealthiest school districts in the state, and in our wealthiest
districts, performance is quite high. These districts actually pull up our
county average, so that the average API for Santa Clara County has consistently
been higher than for the state as a whole.
This next graph breaks down Santa Clara County student performance by ethnic
group. (Slide 5)
We can see that over the last 5 years, each group's performance has improved.
Which is encouraging-- but…we also see that the gap between the groups has not
changed much.
What has changed is the profile of our students.
First, there are more of them. In the last 20 years, enrollment has grown by
16 percent.
This slide (Slide 6) shows our county's growth in K-12 public school enrollment from
just under 220,000 students 20 years ago to over 255,000 students today. The
enrollment growth has been fairly steady, with a slight dip around 2002. That
dip reflects Silicon Valley's economic bust, when many families left the area.
This slide (Slide 7) shows the changes in enrollment by ethnic group over the same 20
years. Even while total enrollment was growing, the total number and percent of
white students declined. On the other hand, the number and percentage of
Hispanic students increased. 2001 was that watershed year when Hispanic youth
became the most populous group in our public schools.
Similarly, the numbers and percent of Asian students have continued to grow.
If current trends continue, and we have no reason the think that they will not,
we will have more Asian students than white students in the public schools by
the year 2009.
Other ethnic groups, including African Americans, Native Americans, and a
host of others, have remained fairly constant, at about 10 percent of student
population.
If we add it all up, we get a dramatic picture of the change in student
population over the past 20 years. (Slide 8)
Down 1/3 up 2/3
Given these changes in student demographics, it is not at all surprising to
learn that the number of students for whom English is not their native language
has increased dramatically.
This graph (Slide 9) shows that the number of students designated as English learners
has increased from about 26,000 just 20 years ago, to over 66,000 today -- an
increase of over 250 percent. That's 40,000 students who require additional
assistance to learn the language.
Now you know a little more about the changing nature of our students. Why is
this so significant?
Two reasons:
The first is purely a matter of fairness. We care because we need to care.
Whatever you think of the No Child Left Behind Act—and believe me, it has
serious flaws—you have to admire its basic premise: that all children, no
matter their race or background, deserve an equal chance at an education. I
think that's a fundamentally good and sound American principle, and we don't
want to lose sight of it.
The second is more practical. Demographic trends suggest that ethnicities of
some of the lowest-achieving student groups will become increasingly more
populous in the coming years.
As a society, we need this significant segment of citizens to be
well-educated…to be able to make sound decisions… to vote intelligently and
be productive workers.
OK, so I've outlined some of the challenges our schools face. Despite those
challenges, the demands placed on them are higher, and expectations are greater.
You don't have to look far to find pundits sounding the alarm about American
education. The future of our students and our schools is being discussed as a
disappointment, if not a disaster.
Time, they say, is running short. Maybe it's even running out. Some folks
look ahead with fear, even panic. They see threats springing up from China,
India, all over the world. This has led to an increasing clamor for more
rigorous math and science in our classrooms. Especially here in Silicon Valley,
business leaders are rightfully concerned about their future work force. There
is considerable pressure on our local schools to produce graduates who can
perform the challenging tasks of our high-tech industry. In some cases, that
pressure has resulted in focusing so intensely on reading and math —the 2
primary areas of testing—that other subjects have been shunted aside.
A survey released earlier this year by the center on education policy in
Washington, D.C. showed some troubling trends. Since the No Child Left Behind
Act was signed in 2002, the study found, more than 70 percent of the nation's
school districts have reduced instructional time in areas such as history,
music, P.E. and art, to make more time for reading and math.
At the same time, there are voices—and mine is among them—saying we must
not forget that a well-rounded education addresses the whole child. It is my
fervent belief that a public education should give a child some exposure to the
arts; and some opportunity to develop a healthy body along with an educated
mind.
But for too many students, a day at school is a day of drudgery---
One of the most disturbing studies I've seen recently was a cover story of
Time Magazine. The issue was a special report on what Time dubbed a
"dropout nation," noting that "30 percent of America's high
school students will leave school without graduating. For Latinos and
African-Americans, the rate approaches an alarming 50 percent." Many former
students were interviewed and gave startling accounts of why they had left
school. A common theme was that they had not been reached in a way that was
relevant to their lives.
For many students, one thing that makes school relevant is instruction that
is applied, or hands-on. The arts by definition are "hands-on."
Last year, a survey was conducted in our own Silicon Valley, by Cultural
Initiatives. People were asked: "Do you think that arts education classes
should be required for school children, along with English, math, science and
other courses?"
It was not a simple majority that said yes. It was a super-majority. A
stunning majority. It was probably about as close to unanimity as you can get in
a survey.
89 percent said yes. And yet, we're teaching less of it.
Another area that's getting less attention in schools is physical education.
At the same time, there is growing concern about the health and fitness of our
children. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that nearly 25
percent of Santa Clara County children ages 5 to 19 are "overweight."
That's nearly 5 times the percent as when the national norms were first set!
A child who is fit has a much better chance of succeeding academically than
one who is not. We know this to be true in ourselves as adults. When we feel
well, our minds are more alert. It should not surprise us that the same is true
for children. And most of our children are not fit.
Nearly 3 out of 4 Santa Clara County students do not meet state fitness
standards. (Slide 10)
This, too, is a trend mirrored across the nation. The trend we are seeing in
America toward obesity and childhood diabetes recently prompted U.S. Surgeon
General Dr. Richard Carmona to call it, "the terror within."
It seems that for an increasing number of our children, their best chance for
wholesome nutrition and exercise is--at school. We are attempting to make the
most of that through an initiative developed here at the COE. Fit For
Learning is a program that provides schools with easy-to-use, effective
resources that help increase physical activity and encourage healthy nutrition
among elementary school students.
We kicked off the program this year in 5th grade classes. For the coming
school year, we are expanding it to reach K-6 students.
We also sponsor programs to further arts education in our county. It was
announced just this month that our COE will participate in an initiative aimed
at developing a statewide arts education plan. The ultimate goal: to provide all
our students with access to the arts.
Just as we at the COE support arts and wellness, we also will continue to
offer training and support for teachers.
The demand for new and well-qualified teachers is growing, and that trend
will only continue and accelerate over time. We have no choice but to meet it
head-on. It won't be easy.
Let's look at these 2 pie charts. (Slide 11)
The chart on the left shows the ideal situation for a sustainable workforce
– about ¼ in their 20's, ¼ in their 30's, and so on...which ensures there
are sufficient numbers of younger teachers to replace those who retire.
The chart on the right shows the situation we actually have here in Santa
Clara County. Only about 18 percent of our teachers are in their 20's. Over 37
percent are 50 and above. Of that group, the vast majority are 55 or over. We
simply do not have enough young teachers to fill the positions that will be
vacant over the next 3-5 years.
As a state and a nation, we must do more to recruit young people into the
field of teaching. And it is inescapable that we in SCC must do a better job of
recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers.
But retaining our good teachers in Santa Clara County isn't easy – it's too
expensive for many teachers to live here. (Slide 12)
Looking at this chart, we see that the average beginning teacher salary in
Santa Clara County is over $41,000. That's more than most beginning teachers
make elsewhere in the country.
The average teacher salary is of course higher. In Santa Clara County, the
average teacher salary is now over $61,000. Again, that's higher than in most
other areas of the country. So you might think it would be easy for us to
attract and retain good teachers.
The fact is, the amount we pay teachers isn't enough to keep them here --
because they simply cannot afford to live here. The U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development says people should spend no more than 29 percent of their
gross salary on a home mortgage. Here's what the average teacher salary would
have to be, for a teacher to be able to afford a median priced home in Santa
Clara County.
Our teachers, of course, don't make anywhere near that amount.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently wrote about a new report
entitled "Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action." The report documents
the critical need to increase the number and quality of our teachers while
significantly raising their salaries. Friedman wrote: "All good schools
have one thing in common – good teachers."
I would add one more essential component of good schools: student time on
task. We need to provide students more time with qualified teachers. Study after
study shows this is a key element to academic success.
So, you can see … there are some solutions to our challenges. Yes, the
solutions require money. They also require time. But those who work at our
struggling schools will tell you there is not enough time in the day to do
everything. There are not enough days in the year to fit it all in.
This is why I want to suggest that we need a fundamental change in how we use
our time. To accomplish all we want to accomplish, we need a longer school day;
and we need a longer school year. We simply need more time.
The average school day is only about 6 hours. Schools are in session only
about 180 days of the year. We operate under constraints of time that were
formulated in a different era—an era when the United States was primarily a
nation of farmers, who often relied on their children for seasonal help in the
fields. (Slide 13)
Studies have shown that students typically regress over the summer by the
equivalent of 1 month. Lower-performing students regress even further. In other
words, teachers in the fall have to spend at least 1 month to review material
from previous year…. Before they can even start on the curriculum of the new
school year.
Other research shows that some groups of students—especially
lower-achieving students—can benefit significantly from more time spent in
school, during the day and during the year.
It is time to nudge the school calendar into the 21st Century. We can begin
by paying our teachers to spend extra time in the school day, and extra days in
the year – starting with students who most need the help.
More time spent in school could also bring opportunities that haven't yet
been measured. Like a student's sense of wonder at hearing, for the 1st first
time, the opening sounds of a Mozart symphony…or in viewing the dramatic
strokes of Van Gogh painting.
For so many of our students, school will be the only realistic opportunity
they have for such exposure. There has been much attention paid to their
test-score-side. I suggest that more time spent in school could enhance their
human side.
One cannot measure an education by a test score alone.
We all know that Silicon Valley has been a cradle of modern innovation. Sir
Ken Robinson, a strong advocate for the arts in schools, who is now with the J.
Paul Getty Trust, says that creativity is essential to innovation. Robinson says
that creativity should be as important a priority in America's schools as
reading or math.
To illustrate the scope of creativity among young children, he tells the
story of a kindergarten teacher who directs her class to use their imaginations
and draw a picture. As they enthusiastically go about their drawing, she stops
at one desk, where a little girl is quite intent on her picture. And the teacher
asks, "What are you drawing, Emily?"
Without looking up, Emily replies, "I'm drawing God."
"Oh, really--but no one knows what God looks like," the teacher
says.
"Well," Emily responds, "They will as soon as I'm done."
Robinson's point is that young children possess imaginations that are
ambitious and grand. But schools, as they focus ever more on the testing skills,
run the risk of squelching those imaginations. If we expect to maintain our
position as the leader of the world in creativity and innovation…that
imbalance in our classrooms will not serve us well.
A well-taught arts curriculum benefits students in many ways, from creative
thinking… to emotional intelligence…to personal expression.
Now…the obvious question is…how do we do it? How do we pay for it? If
time is money...where would the money come from?
Well, there were encouraging signs from Sacramento last week that schools can
expect more funding in the coming year. That certainly is a hopeful start. But
because of the cost of living in Santa Clara County, we must do more on our own.
And I think we have the wherewithal to do it. (Slide 14)
This slide shows the average per capita income by state. You see, California
does pretty well, certainly above the US average. If SCC were a state, it would
actually fall…there.
Impressive, but not really surprising. Per capita income is higher than in
any state in the country.
You'd think that would provide us with more resources to invest in public
education, right? (Slide 15)
Well, it looks like California is falling behind most states when it comes to
investing in public education. This slide shows the average operational
expenditure per student. California now moves from the highest quartile into the
lowest quartile.
But we've seen that Santa Clara County has more per capita income. Surely we
must be doing a better job.
No, we aren't. Adjusting for inflation, we are actually spending less on our
children's education than any state in the country. No one invests less in its
children.
How do we address this? There are actions available to us.
One way is through foundations, which supplement state funding. And it's not
just the well-off districts that benefit from foundations.
For example: the Franklin-McKinley Elementary School District in San Jose has
a very effective foundation. Through hard work, it has raised millions…to
spend on readiness for pre-schoolers, for dropout prevention, and for teaching
innovation.
More districts would do the same, but for too long, the state has dictated
not only how much local schools can spend, but also where they can spend it.
Local districts need more latitude in spending the money that is rightfully
theirs. No one knows their students better than they do. Let's give our schools
the flexibility to act on that knowledge.
Whether it's foundations, flexibility or more funds, I am optimistic that
issues such as these will be addressed soon. There is a study under way that
will examine how the state governs and finances public education. The goal of
the study, led by Dr. Susanna Loeb at Stanford, is to figure out how much it
should cost to give every student in the state a good education…and to
identify what reforms are needed to make that happen.
My hope is that this will create a consensus: that the present system of
funding California schools is broken…and needs to be changed.
I also hope we all will come to agree that a good education means a
well-rounded education. Yes, schools must produce students who are competent in
reading and math and science…but also students who are healthy and creative.
Their lives will be so much richer for our efforts. We know the evidence is
there. I hope the interest is there.
As advocates of education, it is up to us to emphasize that evidence…and to
create that interest. It's a matter of reminding the community that a
well-rounded student population benefits everyone. Not just the students. Not
just their parents. Not just the business community. Everyone.
I began today by mentioning how often we speak of TIME as if it were a thing
of substance. Let me close one more thought along those lines, from a
great American poet:
"Time…" Carl Sandburg once said, "…is a great
teacher."
As I conclude this morning, I would like to leave you with a request.
Whatever your role—and many of us have several roles-- inside or outside of
education, please think about this:
What can you do to help fill our students' days with value? What can you do
to enrich their years with enlightenment?
How can you give our students … more TIME?
Thank you.
Date last updated: May 19, 2006
|
