It was less than 10 years ago that the United States was projecting teacher shortages in the areas of math, science and English as a Second Language (ESL). Speed it up to 2009 and now find teacher shortages in almost all areas of the curriculum.
For example, for the academic year 2008-09 North Dakota defined 20 teacher shortage areas, yes 20: (1) Agriculture education (2) art (3) business and office technology/business education (4) career clusters (5) computer education (6) driver and traffic safety education (7) English as a second language (8) English language arts/English as a second language (9) family and consumer sciences (10) health careers (11) information technology (12) languages/Native American languages (13) marketing education (14) mathematics (15) music (16) science (17) social studies (18) special education programming (19) technology education - industrial arts and (20) trade and industrial education. South Dakota and Vermont as well list 13 teacher shortage areas in varied academic disciplines.
The question is why are states continuing to expand their list of academic shortage areas. The answer is quite simple; fewer students see themselves as career educators. The reality is that those considering teaching as a profession and career face the following issues: 1) high cost of college education, 2) licensure requirements, 3) higher starting salaries in other occupations, 4) classroom management challenges related to least restrictive rules, and 5) a myriad of other issues facing education.
The hard facts are these, teachers are asked to be prepared to handle quite a large number of education and non-education related issues. Teachers attend 4-year universities, walk away with loans, and maintain licensures to be called professionals. The only thing that isn’t professional is the pay.
Still, some research indicates teacher turnover can be attributed to reasons other than money: 1) lack of planning time, 2) heavy workload, 3) problematic student behavior, and 4) lack of influence over school policy. However, in my opinion, teachers salaries are not adequate: 1) to retain people in positions, 2) to attract new people to the profession, 3) to pay back loans and debt from college, 4) for the amount of dedication required of a good teacher, and 5) to supplant the abuse from students, parents and the school boards who continue to underpay.
States must wise up to the fact that teaching is a profession and it deserves equal pay and consideration to other professionals with like education. Sorry to say, Federal and State Loan forgiveness programs are not enough. Without legislatures providing more funding and school boards increasing salaries, we will continue to see a revolving door; even worse, a door that isn’t even being opened at all. What can be done to reduce teacher shortage areas? Is it all about the money?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Physical Education - Where?
Physical Education Programs are on a steadily decline and in many schools nearly non-existent. This is happening at a time when obesity has reached its highest percentage in the history of the United States. Many believe that there is a direct correlation between the obesity in our nation and the continued decline of Physical Education (PE) programs in our school systems; where today only the states of Illinois and Massachusetts require PE for grades K-12.
While many agree that obesity is nearing a crisis in the United States, little is being done to curb or change it. Unfortunately, education related legislation and funding might be part of the problem i.e. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). It is not unexpected that schools would prioritize their program offerings in an attempt to align with NCLB standards. That means more time and money poured into Math and Science in order to meet the standardized testing demands levied by NCLB, to ensure your school isn’t labeled a “failing school.” Understandably, schools, like any institution, have to make these decisions knowing that offering more math and science classes equals less program opportunities in other subject areas, and NCLB directs most schools to meet standards related to core subjects and addresses little in the way of electives i.e. art, music and physical education.
Beyond the funding and course offering decisions, many large schools are fighting space problems related to physical education opportunities. Student enrollments at large schools only allow for perhaps one period of physical education per week (40 minutes), well below the suggested time of 150 to 225 minutes as per the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. In fact, recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures indicate that less than: 1) 4% of elementary students, 2) 8% of middle school students, and 3) 2% of high school students, are getting the required daily physical activity throughout the school year i.e. 30 to 45 minutes per day.
While experts may disagree as to the exact number of physical education minutes needed per day or week for students to remain healthy, you cannot argue the ongoing crisis of obesity in this country. Currently, around 20% of all U.S. Children are defined as obese. In 1970, this number was around 5%. Studies indicate that childhood obesity leads not only to adult obesity, but hypertension, Type-2 diabetes, depression, as well as many other disorders.
Most of us understand that today’s students have increasingly sedentary lifestyles driven by interests in video games, television and computers. We also find more and more students turning to fast food and fatty school cafeteria meals. Couple these things with the continuing decline in physical education programs, and one cannot help but predict an increase in obesity and related illnesses, both at a young age and leading into adulthood. Respective of these facts, should schools focus more resources on Physical Education Programs? Is NCLB responsible for the decline in Physical Education Programs? What needs to change to reduce obesity?
While many agree that obesity is nearing a crisis in the United States, little is being done to curb or change it. Unfortunately, education related legislation and funding might be part of the problem i.e. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). It is not unexpected that schools would prioritize their program offerings in an attempt to align with NCLB standards. That means more time and money poured into Math and Science in order to meet the standardized testing demands levied by NCLB, to ensure your school isn’t labeled a “failing school.” Understandably, schools, like any institution, have to make these decisions knowing that offering more math and science classes equals less program opportunities in other subject areas, and NCLB directs most schools to meet standards related to core subjects and addresses little in the way of electives i.e. art, music and physical education.
Beyond the funding and course offering decisions, many large schools are fighting space problems related to physical education opportunities. Student enrollments at large schools only allow for perhaps one period of physical education per week (40 minutes), well below the suggested time of 150 to 225 minutes as per the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. In fact, recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures indicate that less than: 1) 4% of elementary students, 2) 8% of middle school students, and 3) 2% of high school students, are getting the required daily physical activity throughout the school year i.e. 30 to 45 minutes per day.
While experts may disagree as to the exact number of physical education minutes needed per day or week for students to remain healthy, you cannot argue the ongoing crisis of obesity in this country. Currently, around 20% of all U.S. Children are defined as obese. In 1970, this number was around 5%. Studies indicate that childhood obesity leads not only to adult obesity, but hypertension, Type-2 diabetes, depression, as well as many other disorders.
Most of us understand that today’s students have increasingly sedentary lifestyles driven by interests in video games, television and computers. We also find more and more students turning to fast food and fatty school cafeteria meals. Couple these things with the continuing decline in physical education programs, and one cannot help but predict an increase in obesity and related illnesses, both at a young age and leading into adulthood. Respective of these facts, should schools focus more resources on Physical Education Programs? Is NCLB responsible for the decline in Physical Education Programs? What needs to change to reduce obesity?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Professional Learning Communities
Only recently have I been made aware of the educational reform that is Professional Learning Communities (PLC). The PLC educational model aspires to improve schools by using collective inquiry from teams of educators. PLC have successfully increased student achievement by teachers focusing on learning rather than teaching. Teams of teachers work together to collaborate on educational issues within their school system. These teams focus on three specific areas: 1) student learning, 2) collaboration, and 3) results.
It would seem schools and administrators would be jumping aboard such a model, especially since PLC are showing promising results. This “new” way of helping students learn focuses time on the continuing education of teachers. I believe, teachers who continue to learn, and learn together (versus isolation), are more likely to find value in new educational practices that reach learners. Still, as we educators are well aware, one of the largest obstacles to overcome is “change.” To get PLC off the ground, administrators and teachers must agree that a “change” is necessary to improve student achievement. Administrators must make “time” available for educators to collaborate and begin to review their department or grade level, in order to begin to establish desired student outcomes.
Once teams have agreed upon student outcomes, they should follow the SMART goal setting method. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. The SMART Model for goal setting asks three important questions: 1) What are you going to do, 2) Why is this important to do at this time, and 3) How are you going to do it. Respective of these questions the teams agree to what they want their students to learn, then determine how and when to measure if students have learned it.
As with anything new, getting these teams started, focused and working efficiently can be difficult. From the research I have read, it seems important to use a PLC book review to get the PLC Model and collaborative teams off the ground. Assign, read and discuss the book each week during regularly scheduled PLC meetings. Remember, teams should have in place a protocol to follow prior to team collaborative sessions to ensure all members agree to “how” meetings will be conducted. This will ensure the appropriate sharing of ideas and allow for more collaboration.
The reality of PLC is that the professional development of teachers is taking place from within rather than from the outside; and through collaboration of these educators more students are achieving at a higher level. Who is using PLC and what results can you share?
It would seem schools and administrators would be jumping aboard such a model, especially since PLC are showing promising results. This “new” way of helping students learn focuses time on the continuing education of teachers. I believe, teachers who continue to learn, and learn together (versus isolation), are more likely to find value in new educational practices that reach learners. Still, as we educators are well aware, one of the largest obstacles to overcome is “change.” To get PLC off the ground, administrators and teachers must agree that a “change” is necessary to improve student achievement. Administrators must make “time” available for educators to collaborate and begin to review their department or grade level, in order to begin to establish desired student outcomes.
Once teams have agreed upon student outcomes, they should follow the SMART goal setting method. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. The SMART Model for goal setting asks three important questions: 1) What are you going to do, 2) Why is this important to do at this time, and 3) How are you going to do it. Respective of these questions the teams agree to what they want their students to learn, then determine how and when to measure if students have learned it.
As with anything new, getting these teams started, focused and working efficiently can be difficult. From the research I have read, it seems important to use a PLC book review to get the PLC Model and collaborative teams off the ground. Assign, read and discuss the book each week during regularly scheduled PLC meetings. Remember, teams should have in place a protocol to follow prior to team collaborative sessions to ensure all members agree to “how” meetings will be conducted. This will ensure the appropriate sharing of ideas and allow for more collaboration.
The reality of PLC is that the professional development of teachers is taking place from within rather than from the outside; and through collaboration of these educators more students are achieving at a higher level. Who is using PLC and what results can you share?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Year-Round-Education?
The academic school year for many schools was finished in May and/or early June. However, some year-round-schools continue forward with classes, believing strongly that Year-Round-Education (YRE) is a much more effective educational scheduling strategy than the traditional school year. At Shreve Island Elementary School, in Shreveport, Louisiana, state exams, at least for elementary students, are proof that students are retaining more due to shorter, more frequent breaks from the academic setting. In this school, students get a six-week break after every nine weeks. During these breaks, struggling students are offered “camp” opportunities where they come in for an additional week of teacher instruction.
Year-Round-Schools (YRS) has been a topic of discussion for many years, but many argue that legitimate research as to the positive and/or negative effects of YRE has been sparse. It really wouldn’t take long to find a study that disputes that above findings. Science Daily printed an article based on an Ohio State University Study that claims YRS do not boost learning. The sociologist who provided said findings indicated that YRSs claim to fame was that students don’t lose academic ground with a long summer vacation, which is commonplace for schools that follow a traditional school schedule. However, the findings in this study really didn’t prove this the case. The fact is, that the loss in academic performance from a long summer break was equivalent to the combined loss from the YRSs three to four breaks. The primary benefit, as research backs, is that YRE helps very populated, often overcrowded schools, vary student schedules to make better use of the facility and allow for students to be in school while others are on break.
In other research, the University of Minnesota’s, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, conducted a review of literature in light of Minnesota Legislative changes to allow YRE in 1995. This research provided some general information on YRE models and differing schedules i.e. 60-20 or 45-15. The 60-20 schedule means 60 days in session followed by a 20-day break. And, at that time, the most popular YRE model, 45-15, 45 days in session followed by a 15-day break. The cumulative research effort and review of literature concluded that most of the prior YRE research did not meet their standards, resulting in a limited sample of evidence. However, the study could conclude that YRE was beneficial for upper elementary students and it likely contributed to improved teacher attitudes. The research also found that it again aided districts with larger enrollments, which struggled with lack of facilities.
YRE is fairly common these days, however I don’t have any personal experience with it. The information I have read would more or less support what I would assume to be the most beneficial results of YRE. What do you think? What advantages or disadvantages do you think YRE provides? Would it ever be considered in rural school districts where farmers want their kids at home helping with seeding, haying and harvest?
Year-Round-Schools (YRS) has been a topic of discussion for many years, but many argue that legitimate research as to the positive and/or negative effects of YRE has been sparse. It really wouldn’t take long to find a study that disputes that above findings. Science Daily printed an article based on an Ohio State University Study that claims YRS do not boost learning. The sociologist who provided said findings indicated that YRSs claim to fame was that students don’t lose academic ground with a long summer vacation, which is commonplace for schools that follow a traditional school schedule. However, the findings in this study really didn’t prove this the case. The fact is, that the loss in academic performance from a long summer break was equivalent to the combined loss from the YRSs three to four breaks. The primary benefit, as research backs, is that YRE helps very populated, often overcrowded schools, vary student schedules to make better use of the facility and allow for students to be in school while others are on break.
In other research, the University of Minnesota’s, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, conducted a review of literature in light of Minnesota Legislative changes to allow YRE in 1995. This research provided some general information on YRE models and differing schedules i.e. 60-20 or 45-15. The 60-20 schedule means 60 days in session followed by a 20-day break. And, at that time, the most popular YRE model, 45-15, 45 days in session followed by a 15-day break. The cumulative research effort and review of literature concluded that most of the prior YRE research did not meet their standards, resulting in a limited sample of evidence. However, the study could conclude that YRE was beneficial for upper elementary students and it likely contributed to improved teacher attitudes. The research also found that it again aided districts with larger enrollments, which struggled with lack of facilities.
YRE is fairly common these days, however I don’t have any personal experience with it. The information I have read would more or less support what I would assume to be the most beneficial results of YRE. What do you think? What advantages or disadvantages do you think YRE provides? Would it ever be considered in rural school districts where farmers want their kids at home helping with seeding, haying and harvest?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Why are Teacher Shortages Becoming More and More Prevalent?
Teaching quality is the number one concern of public schools. Schools and school boards realize that the most effective way to improve student achievement is having an experienced quality educator in the classroom. With this in mind, why are public schools struggling to attract and retain quality teachers?
Some research indicates that teacher quality is directly related to teacher compensation. Unfortunately for those of us in education, it has been reported that for a long period of time, teacher’s compensation in general has lost pace with others who have similar education and work experience. As reported in 2006, by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), teacher earnings as compared to other comparable professionals lags behind nearly 15%.
What does this mean? I believe it really points to the fact that college-educated professionals in other work areas tend to benefit with greater earnings as compared to teachers. In essence, we have bypassed teachers when it has come to improved wages and earning power. This pattern held true during EPIs study period of 1996-2006.
In addition, where teacher salaries have increased, they have done so much below the rate of inflation. According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the National Education Association (NEA) indicated that the average one-year teacher salary increase in 2005 was 2.1%, while inflation was at 3.1%. In fact, WEAC also reported that teacher salaries from the mid 90s to 2005 only increased by .2% when adjusted for inflation.
Indeed, I find myself close to this situation, as I am presently the lead negotiator for my education association. My current agrument is that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security recipients was determined to be 5.8% in October 2008, an adjustment to keep pace with inflation. Our local school board’s current offer is 3.0% for 2009-10 and 2.66% for 2010-11. This two-year contract offer will fall far short of keeping up with inflation, and that means more of the same when it comes to our ever-growing concerns of trying to pay the bills and set some money aside.
Unfortunately, whether we are talking about reduced earning power compared to other professions or the fact that most teacher raises do not keep up with inflation, it all equals the continuation of what already has been identified as a trend – the struggle to attract and recruit quality teachers to our profession.
Some research indicates that teacher quality is directly related to teacher compensation. Unfortunately for those of us in education, it has been reported that for a long period of time, teacher’s compensation in general has lost pace with others who have similar education and work experience. As reported in 2006, by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), teacher earnings as compared to other comparable professionals lags behind nearly 15%.
What does this mean? I believe it really points to the fact that college-educated professionals in other work areas tend to benefit with greater earnings as compared to teachers. In essence, we have bypassed teachers when it has come to improved wages and earning power. This pattern held true during EPIs study period of 1996-2006.
In addition, where teacher salaries have increased, they have done so much below the rate of inflation. According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the National Education Association (NEA) indicated that the average one-year teacher salary increase in 2005 was 2.1%, while inflation was at 3.1%. In fact, WEAC also reported that teacher salaries from the mid 90s to 2005 only increased by .2% when adjusted for inflation.
Indeed, I find myself close to this situation, as I am presently the lead negotiator for my education association. My current agrument is that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security recipients was determined to be 5.8% in October 2008, an adjustment to keep pace with inflation. Our local school board’s current offer is 3.0% for 2009-10 and 2.66% for 2010-11. This two-year contract offer will fall far short of keeping up with inflation, and that means more of the same when it comes to our ever-growing concerns of trying to pay the bills and set some money aside.
Unfortunately, whether we are talking about reduced earning power compared to other professions or the fact that most teacher raises do not keep up with inflation, it all equals the continuation of what already has been identified as a trend – the struggle to attract and recruit quality teachers to our profession.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Teacher Residencies and Charter Schools - What Does It All Mean?
Amid many criticisms of our current education system comes a somewhat new manner of preparing teachers for the urban classroom. This effort could be viewed as school reform and in many ways it is, it is called “teacher residency programs.”
Yes, believe it or not, in some areas of the United States teachers are completing residencies, somewhat akin to a doctor. These rigorous programs are attempting to prepare teachers to go into low performing schools and stay three to five years, while hopefully making strong inroads to positive change in the urban schools they will serve.
At present retaining teachers in urban public schools is next to impossible. Nearly 50% of urban teachers leave their positions within the first three years. Why they leave could be up for discussion, but most can be attributed to lack of school leadership and lack of preparation to deal with the many difficult situations they approach on a daily basis.
Teacher residency programs, like the one used by the Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL), have been working since 2001 trying to improve failing public schools; in this case schools in Chicago. The not-for-profit AUSL program has a good reputation and very strong backing, considering that the new Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, a former leader of the Chicago Public Schools, once fired a large number of school leaders and teachers, then turned the schools over to the AUSL.
Since then, AUSLs “charter schools” have been performing much better and there are hopes that this program can spread as Secretary Duncan now has $5 billion dollars he can commit to the nations 5,000 lowest performing schools. These dollars are almost solely dedicated to reform efforts like charter schools, much like the ones in Chicago, where developers can start new public schools and/or convert existing schools, schools that support teacher residency programs.
While these reforms are receiving a great deal of support from President Obama, they are creating animosity with the National Education Association (NEA), the nations largest teacher union. The NEA contends closing schools and eliminating teachers as has happened is unfair. NEA also feels that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) offered up charter schools as a method of educational reform to start new and more effective schools, but doing so should become a choice of last resort.
With that said, charter school programs are becoming somewhat popular and, while there are public concerns with the current system of admissions i.e. lotteries, these schools are filling up with students.
How do teachers feel about “charter schools” and “teacher residency programs?” Do these educational reforms offer solutions to urban schools alone or can other school systems benefit as well?
Yes, believe it or not, in some areas of the United States teachers are completing residencies, somewhat akin to a doctor. These rigorous programs are attempting to prepare teachers to go into low performing schools and stay three to five years, while hopefully making strong inroads to positive change in the urban schools they will serve.
At present retaining teachers in urban public schools is next to impossible. Nearly 50% of urban teachers leave their positions within the first three years. Why they leave could be up for discussion, but most can be attributed to lack of school leadership and lack of preparation to deal with the many difficult situations they approach on a daily basis.
Teacher residency programs, like the one used by the Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL), have been working since 2001 trying to improve failing public schools; in this case schools in Chicago. The not-for-profit AUSL program has a good reputation and very strong backing, considering that the new Secretary of Education, Arnie Duncan, a former leader of the Chicago Public Schools, once fired a large number of school leaders and teachers, then turned the schools over to the AUSL.
Since then, AUSLs “charter schools” have been performing much better and there are hopes that this program can spread as Secretary Duncan now has $5 billion dollars he can commit to the nations 5,000 lowest performing schools. These dollars are almost solely dedicated to reform efforts like charter schools, much like the ones in Chicago, where developers can start new public schools and/or convert existing schools, schools that support teacher residency programs.
While these reforms are receiving a great deal of support from President Obama, they are creating animosity with the National Education Association (NEA), the nations largest teacher union. The NEA contends closing schools and eliminating teachers as has happened is unfair. NEA also feels that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) offered up charter schools as a method of educational reform to start new and more effective schools, but doing so should become a choice of last resort.
With that said, charter school programs are becoming somewhat popular and, while there are public concerns with the current system of admissions i.e. lotteries, these schools are filling up with students.
How do teachers feel about “charter schools” and “teacher residency programs?” Do these educational reforms offer solutions to urban schools alone or can other school systems benefit as well?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
For years summer school programs have been viewed as stopgap opportunities to narrow the achievement gap among those students who have additional needs. In rural states like North Dakota, select students are afforded an opportunity to enroll in summer programs that can help the students maintain and retain knowledge gained during the regular school year, thus ensuring they do not fall short of expectations at the beginning of the following school year. Students can feel fortunate that these opportunities are continuing in the summer of 2009.
Still, in other parts of the country, notably some large city school districts, the budgets are lean and summer school is landing on the chop block. Take Los Angeles, one of our nations larger cities and school districts; they are canceling all summer programs except those classes necessary for graduation. The Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent reports that the district will save $34 Million Dollars by canceling summer school, which attracts nearly an average of 225,000 students per summer. In this environment, many students who already experience an achievement gap will likely see it widen; especially those students coming from low-income neighborhoods where summer school may help improve Math, Science and English scores, all areas targeted for improvement by our nations President.
If viewed in this way, California’s budget crisis is leading to educational decisions that directly conflict with Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education. This plan pays particular attention to low-income families and school districts where achievement is less than acceptable. The President and Vice-President wish to see more and more dollars directed to low income districts to ensure our educational system serves the student, parent and community in meaningful ways.
Unfortunately California and other states experiencing budget deficits will likely put many more school systems and administrators in the difficult position to make tough decisions that lead to hardships for those communities. By hardships, we are not only talking about achievement gaps, but also the single mom who is working and now needs to find day care in the summer. How about the teacher, who is supplementing his/her income by filling a position as a summer instructor. And lastly, the community, that will experience increased criminal behavior and mischievous activity as a result of young people roaming the streets.
You see, many of us in North Dakota can feel fortunate that our state is not experiencing major budget problems that are impacting education in a negative way. In fact, we have been blessed to see record amounts of money flow into our school systems as a result of House Bill No. 1400. Yet, while we find ourselves relatively unaffected by budget issues this year, we must keep in mind that our educational system relies more heavily on the state now than ever. We can feel fortunate that in North Dakota summer programs go on while in other parts of the country they cease. It goes without saying that those states and school districts are waiting impatiently for more dollars so summer school can be reopened at some time in the near future.
Still, in other parts of the country, notably some large city school districts, the budgets are lean and summer school is landing on the chop block. Take Los Angeles, one of our nations larger cities and school districts; they are canceling all summer programs except those classes necessary for graduation. The Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent reports that the district will save $34 Million Dollars by canceling summer school, which attracts nearly an average of 225,000 students per summer. In this environment, many students who already experience an achievement gap will likely see it widen; especially those students coming from low-income neighborhoods where summer school may help improve Math, Science and English scores, all areas targeted for improvement by our nations President.
If viewed in this way, California’s budget crisis is leading to educational decisions that directly conflict with Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education. This plan pays particular attention to low-income families and school districts where achievement is less than acceptable. The President and Vice-President wish to see more and more dollars directed to low income districts to ensure our educational system serves the student, parent and community in meaningful ways.
Unfortunately California and other states experiencing budget deficits will likely put many more school systems and administrators in the difficult position to make tough decisions that lead to hardships for those communities. By hardships, we are not only talking about achievement gaps, but also the single mom who is working and now needs to find day care in the summer. How about the teacher, who is supplementing his/her income by filling a position as a summer instructor. And lastly, the community, that will experience increased criminal behavior and mischievous activity as a result of young people roaming the streets.
You see, many of us in North Dakota can feel fortunate that our state is not experiencing major budget problems that are impacting education in a negative way. In fact, we have been blessed to see record amounts of money flow into our school systems as a result of House Bill No. 1400. Yet, while we find ourselves relatively unaffected by budget issues this year, we must keep in mind that our educational system relies more heavily on the state now than ever. We can feel fortunate that in North Dakota summer programs go on while in other parts of the country they cease. It goes without saying that those states and school districts are waiting impatiently for more dollars so summer school can be reopened at some time in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
