View other clips from OKPolicy’s “Watch This’ video series:

What is an IDA?

Elderly parole

Long term unemployment, 1967-2011

Packed Oklahoma prisons, rising costs

share this post

Photo by flickr user pamhule used under a Creative Commons license.

[UPDATE: A previous version of the debt-to-degree chart misidentified Northwestern Oklahoma State University as a community college when it is a four-year university. The corrected chart reflects that NWOSU has the lowest debt to degree ratio among Oklahoma's public universities.]

We’ve previously discussed the overwhelming evidence that college is a good investment both for students and the state as a whole. The need for at least some college education to get a good job is greater than ever. That’s reflected in Oklahoma by record-breaking college enrollment.

Lawmakers are also taking a growing interest in Oklahoma’s higher education system, with much of their criticism focused on tuition increases. A bill has already been introduced to return the power to approve tuition increases to the legislature, reversing a 2003 change that gave the State Regents full control.

Rising tuition is a legitimate concern. However, advertised tuition rates are not the best way to evaluate colleges and universities for a number of reasons. Due to scholarships and financial aid, fewer than half of all public university students and fewer than 18 percent of private college students pay the full “sticker price” for their education.

What may be a better metric for how well students are being served by a school are the federal loan default rates. The federal government made or guaranteed more than 80 percent of all outstanding student loans this year. If a large proportion of students are unable to pay back their loans, that is a strong indicator that they are not able to find well-paying jobs after leaving school, with or without a degree.

Oklahoma’s overall default rate was sixth highest in the nation at 10.77 percent, compared to a national average of 8.8 percent. However, as the below chart shows, default rates varied widely between schools.

This shows the percentage of students at Oklahoma colleges and universities who defaulted on federal student loans between FY ‘07 and FY ’09. Schools are divided into three groups: public community colleges, public universities, and private universities.

The data comes from the U.S. Department of Education. You can download specific numbers for Oklahoma schools as a spreadsheet here.

Students at public universities generally had higher default rates than those at private universities, but the best performing public universities were also the largest. Students at OU and OSU had loan default rates of just 3.4 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. These two schools did better than all of other public and private colleges except for Southern Nazarene University, which posted a rate of 3.1 percent, and Oklahoma City University, with a default rate of 3.3 percent.

The best performing community college was Tulsa Community College, which posted a default rate of 11.0 percent, while the worst was Eastern Oklahoma State College, with a rate of 18.7 percent. The worst-performing private college was the the Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology, with a default rate of 14.2 percent. Among public 4-year schools, Langston University performed especially poorly, with 17.7 percent of students defaulting on loans.

Community colleges in general fared worse than most public and private 4-year universities. However, we should keep in mind that community college students as a group are less economically secure than those attending 4-year schools, and even after graduating, they face a tougher job market in most fields than do applicants with bachelor’s degrees. Community colleges must also accept all applicants, while universities are able to selectively admit the students most likely to succeed.

Another way to look at the situation is the debt to degree ratio. Using data from Education Sector, this chart shows the the total amount of money borrowed by undergraduates at Oklahoma post-secondary schools divided by the total number of degrees awarded. [Click the chart to see a full-sized version.]

When we combine these measures, OU comes out looking like the best deal with both a very low student default rate and a relatively low debt to degree ratio. Carl Albert State College has a significantly lower debt to degree ratio than any other, yet has one of the worst loan default rates at 16.0 percent. Relative to other community colleges, TCC performs well on both measures.

In what may be a sign of serious trouble for particular schools, some fare badly on both measures. Langston University is the most obvious poorly-performing outlier in the public higher education system. Among private schools, Bacone College, the Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology, and St. Gregory’s University share the dubious distinction of having both high default rates and a high debt to degree ratio.

Across different types of colleges, the debt to degree ratio is in some respects a mirror image of the student loan default rate. While community college students are most likely to default, these schools leave students with the least amount of debt per degree awarded. Conversely, most private university students have significantly higher debts but are less likely to default. If nothing else, this should tell us that keeping tuition low is no silver bullet for helping students to succeed.

share this post

Betty Casey has taught high school English, middle school gifted and talented, and Freshman Comp., English Lit. and Humanities at the University of Oklahoma and Tulsa Community College. She is currently managing editor of TulsaKids Magazine, a monthly parenting publication.

In the past few months I’ve had the pleasure of watching three screenings about public education: “Waiting for Superman”, “The Race to Nowhere” and, most recently, “American Teacher.” Of the three, “American Teacher” contributed the most realistic and valuable information to the dialogue about what’s wrong and what’s right in American education.

The documentary follows five public school teachers. While “Waiting for Superman” blames teachers (and teachers’ unions) for everything from low standardized test scores to young people going to prison, “American Teacher” actually lets the teachers tell their story — and it’s a story of heartbreak and courage in the face of low pay, poor working conditions, and lack of respect.

Are there bad teachers? Sure. But does anyone seriously believe that our schools are suddenly filled with bad teachers? My children who went through Tulsa Public Schools were all well prepared for college. Like the dedicated teachers in the film, my children’s teachers were available early in the morning and late into the night. One of their high school math teachers would stay and tutor kids as long as they needed him, sometimes until 9 or 10 pm.

In a single classroom, a teacher has students with a variety of abilities, some non-English speaking students, students who are hungry or in pain, students whose parents may or may not get them to class every day, and, especially in high poverty areas, students who move from school to school several times a year. How is teacher effectiveness measured in this situation?

“American Teacher” points out that Finland has the best schools in the world, as measured by Program for International Assessment (PISA) tests. Thirty-five years ago, Finland’s schools were mediocre. They came up with a plan with input from teachers, the teachers’ union (yes, most of Finland’s teachers belong to a union), business leaders, and policymakers to improve the schools. After the plan was in place, they had the patience to let it work.

Some of these changes could work in the United States. One of the big differences between Finland and the U.S. is that Finland has very little poverty. Finland has socialized medicine, free preschool (formal schooling starts at age 7), and free college. School lunches are free to residents. Children in Finland go to school healthy, fed and ready to learn because of the high quality preschools they have attended.

For this to happen in the U.S., we would have to expand our early learning models, such as Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Educare Centers that we have in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. We would have to make a meaningful effort to make sure that all children had good health care and food. Children living in poverty would need wrap-around services – mental and physical health, nutrition, extra tutoring, care beyond the school day, early learning centers and transportation – in order to match Finland’s high educational outcomes.

Would this be expensive? Absolutely. Would it pay off in having more productive, better-trained workers and better citizens in the United States? Absolutely. Without good schools, the economy suffers on many levels.

Another difference is that Finnish industry leaders have not only promoted the importance of mathematics, science and technology, but also advocated for more attention to creativity, problem-solving, teamwork and cross-curricular projects in schools. A senior Nokia manager who served as chair of a task force on the national science curriculum stated:

If I hire a youngster who doesn’t know all the mathematics or physics that is needed to work here, I have colleagues here who can easily teach those things. But if I get somebody who doesn’t know how to work with other people, how to think differently or how to create original ideas and somebody who is afraid of making a mistake, there is nothing we can do here.

In implementing its reforms, Finland went the opposite way of the U.S., which is currently focusing more on the narrow knowledge required to take standardized tests.

Another difference between the United States and Finland is that people in Finland have high respect for teachers and the teaching profession. Teachers are given much more autonomy in how to achieve educational objectives with their students. Class sizes are small – 19 to 21 students – and there is lower teacher turnover. In the U.S., nearly half of teachers quit the profession before five years.

Can we change public education in America? I believe we can, and I believe that most of us can even agree on how to do it if we take lessons from the strongest performers worldwide. It would take hard work, money, and real leadership. We need to involve parents, educators, policymakers, unions, and administrators to create a strategic plan which addresses the real issues of poverty, school readiness, teacher salaries and training, teachers’ working conditions, and respect for teachers as professionals. This would be a difficult, but not impossible, first step. And I say “step” because if we only look at one issue, we fail.

The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

share this post

James W. Utterback, Ph.D. is President of Seminole State College and Chair of the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority Board. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of OETA or any other group or business.

In his acceptance of the Republican Presidential nomination in 1880, James A. Garfield stated that, “Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.”  The Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (OETA) plays a vital role in enhancing the public education mission of our state.

As Chairman of the Board for OETA, it has been exciting to witness over 24,000 Oklahoma families step forward to donate in excess of $2 million annually to support Oklahoma’s only statewide public television network.  An additional $1.5 million is donated annually by Oklahoma foundations and corporations. In spite of such overwhelming grassroots support, a small group of Oklahoma Legislators are calling for the elimination of funding for OETA.  As an educator and a concerned citizen who cares deeply about the future of our state, I believe this action would be reckless and irresponsible.

The Oklahoma Educational Television Authority is a valuable resource that provides tremendous educational benefits to the children of Oklahoma and cultural and informational experiences for all ages.  Not only have many of our children learned their ABCs with help from Sesame Street’s Big Bird, but they also have learned values and ethics from public television children’s programming.  Similarly, students in classrooms all across our state are inspired and motivated every day about science and nature by watching NOVA.  OETA also provides Oklahomans the opportunity to experience world-renowned musical and theatrical performances through “front row” seats at Great Performances, Live from the Met and Masterpiece Theatre.  Additionally, the citizens of Oklahoma benefit from OETA providing the only statewide news network – delivering unparalleled coverage of political, cultural, and entertainment events and activities.  OETA is the only media outlet to have the capability to transmit the culture of Oklahoma all across this state.  It is also the only means of communication that can simultaneously reach virtually every Oklahoman with statewide emergency information.

Recently, OETA has extended its reach into Oklahoma communities adding diverse outreach initiatives to complement programming.  Highlights include Centennial productions, World War II and Native American story collections, and literacy initiatives.

Our public television authority is one of only 14 states that have statewide licenses to operate.  It receives less state funding per capita than all but one of these 14 networks.  Currently, only 39 percent of its funding comes from the state.  This year, citizens of Oklahoma are served with public television for less than $1.02 per capita in state funds.  By comparison, citizens of Nebraska pay $5.73 per capita for public television access.

The value of OETA in meeting Oklahoma’s educational mission cannot be overstated and is in many ways immeasurable.  As Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote about the now famous decision of Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, “Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local government.”

What a travesty it would be to deprive the 1.8 million weekly viewers of our Oklahoma network access to the many benefits of public television simply to save roughly 0.06 percent of the state budget.  It is imperative that we all speak out to help save funding for OETA.  As the Reverend Martin Luther King once said, “The time is always right to do what is right.”

The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

share this post

Photo by flickr user pamhule used under a Creative Commons license.

Last month, Governor Fallin released her plan  to increase by two-thirds the number of students graduating from Oklahoma’s public colleges and universities. At the same time, some Oklahoma lawmakers and other critics are questioning the state’s spending on higher education, arguing that colleges and universities should face the same budget cutbacks as other areas of government and the legislature should limit tuition increases.

Tuition and fees in Oklahoma remain comparatively inexpensive, but we have not avoided the nationwide trend of rising costs at both public and private universities. We certainly should take this trend seriously and work to ensure college is affordable and accessible to students from diverse backgrounds.

Yet even though the cost is rising, the value of a college education remains very high. Oklahoma should maintain strong investments in higher education for several reasons:

1) College is a solid investment both for students and the state as a whole.

The Hamilton Project calculated that “on average, the benefits of a four-year college degree are equivalent to an investment that returns 15.2% per year.” College outperforms virtually any other investment, from the stock market to government bonds to gold. While the upfront costs of college attendance are considerable and may represent a barrier for many potential students, those who are able to attend college realize substantial gains in lifetime earnings.

Higher education is also a good investment for the state of Oklahoma. Regional Economic Models, Inc. studied the impact of higher education on the state’s economy. The study, performed for the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, estimated that for every dollar the state spends on higher education, $5.15 is injected into the state’s economy. This increased economic activity primarily comes from college and university employee spending and institutional spending on goods and services. Over time, college graduates will earn more than non-graduates, which also boosts economic activity.

Critics of Oklahoma’s higher education system cite the movement of graduates out of the state as evidence of an oversupply of college educated workers. In reality, 78 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients who graduated in 2007 were employed in Oklahoma a year later, and 86 percent of associate degree recipients were employed in the state.

2) Some college is better than no college, even without a degree.

A common target for those critical of higher education is the number of students who begin a college degree program but never finish. According to Complete College America, in Oklahoma less than 10 percent of associate degree-seeking students graduate within two years, and less than 25 percent graduate in four years. Students seeking bachelor’s degrees fare better: 19 percent graduate in four years, and 50 percent graduate within six years.

Low graduation rates are certainly a legitimate concern, especially at regional and community colleges, but there is evidence that students benefit from attending college, whether or not they graduate. The Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University found that, on average, an individual with some college but no degree can expect to earn $200,000 more over a lifetime than someone with only a high school diploma. Even those with jobs that do not require degrees, like plumbers or cashiers, earn more with some college education.

That’s because college is not just about the piece of paper earned at the end. Students also learn to meet deadlines, work collaboratively on projects, broaden their social circles, and make connections that can help them find jobs in the future. They learn new ways of thinking that can help them recognize opportunities in almost any career, even if their classes aren’t focused on specific job skills.

3) The demand for workers with some training beyond high school is expected to rise.

An educated workforce is a public good, attracting businesses to the state and fueling innovation. Employers recognize the value of educated workers, which is why people with more education tend to be paid more. Even if some graduates leave Oklahoma, many more are retained who would have sought higher education elsewhere were it not available in state.

Data presented by the Lumina Foundation about employment levels of graduates versus non-graduates.

Despite some misguided assertions, Oklahoma is not experiencing a glut of overeducated workers. According to the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, “[t]he overall demand for postsecondary education and training will continue to grow. This is true not only of high-tech industries, but even in wholesale and retail trade or personal services, where more than 50 percent of the workforce requires some postsecondary education beyond high school.”

Complete College America projects that by 2020, 59 percent of Oklahoma jobs will require a career certificate or a college degree. Currently, only 30 percent of Oklahoma adults have an associate degree or higher.

The rising cost of higher education remains troubling, and in a future post we will provide some recommendations on how to keep tuition and other costs under control. But in our efforts to control costs, we should not lose sight of the great value higher education creates for all of us.

share this post

The last generation has seen the rise of education reform. This movement brought a profound sense of urgency to improving our schools, arguing that it is essential for the United States’ survival in the global marketplace. Consequently, reformers argue that data-driven accountablity, as well as an unflinching focus on classroom instruction, are more than a tough-love program for schools. They are the key to prosperity in the 21st century.

Counter-arguments by teachers and social scientists that “schools alone” can not overcome the deficits that many children bring to the classroom were seen as “excuses.” Attitudes hardened, and it became an article of faith that increasing student performance must be based on measurable improvements in teaching and learning within the four walls of the classroom.

The motives of this new generation of school reformers are righteous, but they have it backwards. America can no longer afford to separate education, health, and social services into separate silos. Since NCLB, our schools have focused on the narrow portions of children’s brains that are used for standardized test-taking. Tens of billions of dollars have been gambled on data-driven “reform,” and they have produced minimal gains in student performance.

But those costs could threaten our economic future. For instance, a recent discussion of obesity rates during NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show provided a glimpse at the “opportunity costs” of our ill-fated experiment with test-driven accountability. Similarly, it is hard to read the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s “F as in Fat” report without wishing the effort devoted during the last two decades to raise test scores had been directed towards teaching healthy lifestyles.

More than a third of our children are overweight, and less than a third engage in vigorous daily activity. But the trends are even more frightening. Fifteen years ago, no state had an obesity rate in excess of 19.4 percent. Now, the state with the least obesity has a rate of 19.8 percent. America’s obesity rate is projected to reach 50 percent by 2030.

Obesity kills more than 110,000 Americans every year. Our annual bill for obesity-related health costs is $150 billion per year. We will be paying $450 billion in additional Medicare costs in the next decade due to obesity. But only 10 percent of elementary school children have daily physical education.

The trends in Oklahoma are even worse. In 2010, 31 percent of adult Oklahomans were obese, and 67 percent were obese and overweight. Only 31 percent of Oklahomans engaged in exercise off the job. Our diabetes rate was rate 11 percent, and 41 percent of Oklahoman adults had hypertension. Oklahoma was #1 in the lowest percentage of adults who consume fruits and vegetables daily, and second from the bottom in the percentage of mothers who breast feed exclusively.

The most frightening thing about the trends is that Oklahoma has declined at such fast rates in so many crucial areas. Fifteen years ago, we were 40th in the rate of adult obesity, but now we are #7, meaning that we have gotten fatter faster than any other state in the nation. In 1995, Oklahoma was #49 in diabetes rates but now we are #6, meaning that we have had the nation’s second highest rate of increase. Fifteen years ago, Oklahoma was #30 in hypertension, but now we are #6, meaning we have had the fourth highest increase in the nation.

Unfortunately, prospects for Oklahoma’s students are no brighter. The Annie E. Casey Foundation “Kids Count” data book compiles a list of ten key indicators of healthy children. In 2000, Oklahoma ranked 40th in the nation in terms of those indicators. By 2008, we had dropped to 44th. Our state was in the middle of the pack in regard to a few of risk factors, and the economic challenges faced by our adults were not nearly as formidable as those in other states with similar challenges. But Oklahoma was 45th in Infant Mortality, 45th in Child Mortality, 47th in Child Deaths, 40th in Teen Deaths, and 43rd in Child Poverty.

I could go on. Some parts of the nation, it might be argued, are rich enough to leave no child untested and still have time and money for children’s health. In Oklahoma, however, we have no such luxury. We must hold the accountability hawks accountable. We need a tough-minded cost benefit analysis of teaching to a narrow part of the brain, neglecting the whole child, and then calling upon the separate parts of our fragmented and tattered social safety net to clean up afterwards.

Then we must reconsider the energy, time, and money devoted to aligning data systems, tests, and punitive evaluation systems. Those resources must be directed to the alignment of our human capital. To do that, we must unite all of our community resources into a team effort, without regard to whether providers call themselves educators, health care professionals, or social workers.

The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

share this post

The decision to eliminate funding for these programs must be viewed within the state Department of Education’s budget context. This year the Legislature cut appropriations to the Department of Education by $108 million, or 4.5 percent, compared to FY ’11. Within the total Common Education budget, the Legislature allocates a set amount for “the support of public school activities”, which encompasses the costs of the flexible benefit allowance for teachers and support staff, the teachers retirement credit, and all the educational programs that are funded outside the state aid formula. The FY ’12 allocation of $401.2 million is $18.7 million less than that of FY ’11 and $57.4 million, or 12.5 percent, less than FY ’10.  For the second straight year, the Legislature chose not to provide line-item allocations within the Activities Budget, leaving it in the hands of Superintendent Janet Barresi and the Board of Education to manage the shortfall.

To help bring the Activities Budget into balance, Superintendent Barresi made the controversial decision to fund employees’ flexible benefits allowance only through the end of the upcoming fiscal year (June 30th), rather than through the end of the upcoming contract year (August 30th), as has traditionally been done. Even with this move, which freed up $33.7 million, the Department could not maintain funding for all its existing programs and activities. As a result, it trimmed funding for some activities and eliminated funding entirely for several others, including annual stipends for National Board Certified Teachers, at-risk school programs and evaluation, and adult education (see this breakdown of funding decisions for FY ’10 – FY ’12).

Among the programs worst hit in the FY ’12 budget are those that provide training and resources to teachers and schools. The Department zeroed out six programs that had been funded in FY ’11 for a total amount of $7.7 million. Among these are  three programs that provide intensive instruction and support to school staff and leadership of schools based on nationally-tested and proven models:

• Literacy First, also known as the Professional Development Institute (PDI), is a comprehensive three-year program aimed at improving reading achievement by training teachers in the Literacy First reading instruction process and developing schoolwide leadership teams. Participating schools go through a multi-stage process that begins with teachers participating in eight days of reading professional development and culminates in Phase IV schools having access to an on-site reading consultant. Evaluations of the program have shown Literacy First Grant schools outperform the state average on reading API scores by a considerable margin. For the principal of a Tulsa elementary school that went from being the district’s worst performing school to the 2010-11 National Title I Distinguished School, Literacy First “was the core of improvement for us”.  The program, administered by the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation, received $3.0 million in state funding in FY ’11.
• Great Expectations is a professional development program that provides teachers and administrators the skills and knowledge needed to improve academic achievement, school climate, attendance, and parent involvement. The program begins with a week-long summer training institute for some 3,000 teachers focused on the program’s eight core tenets and 17 classroom practices, with follow-up training over the year. At later stages, selected schools receive three-year scholarships that bring master teachers to the school to serve as mentors over the course of a week. Evaluation of the program has found that students in Great Expectations classrooms perform better across a wide range of academic, behavioral, and attitudinal benchmarks. GE, which is run by a non-profit organization, received $1.1 million in state funding in FY ’11.
• A+ Schools is a statewide network of 68 schools that provides intensive and ongoing training guided by a mission of  “nurturing creativity in every learner.” Each summer the staff of ten or so selected schools participate in a week-long training in the eight core principles of the A+ model; key staff from each school then participate in mini-institutes during the year and the schools receive on-site professional development visits during the year. The program’s five-year research report found “higher student achievement, better attendance of students and teachers, decreased discipline problems, stronger parent and community involvement, and a more creative and joyful school climate.” The program, operated out of the University of Central Oklahoma, received annual state funding of $663,000.

Common to all three programs is a commitment to getting a school’s teachers and administrators working together to improve teacher skills, student achievement, and school effectiveness. The programs are all research-based with proven results. They all provide intensive front-end training with opportunities for ongoing assistance and mentorship. In short, they are precisely the kinds of programs we should be supporting if we are serious about improving our education system.

The future of the staff development programs is uncertain. Leaders of Great Expectations and A+ Schools who I spoke with  indicated they would scale back their programs this year while seeking greater financial support from philanthropies and private donors and working to get the Legislature to restore funding next year. For Literacy First, the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation (OCTP) indicated that no new Phase IV schools would be added this year; the Commission will request that funding be restored in FY ’13 and and be appropriated directly to OCTP.

In the professional development budget, the Department was able to restore $6.3 million for Reading Sufficiency, the summer reading academies for third grade students determined not to be reading at grade level.  With a new state law ending social promotion for third graders not at grade level in reading, this program assumes special urgency. Ironically, or sadly, one of the qualifications to teach in a summer reading academy is completion of Literacy First training – the program that has now been defunded.

share this post

Students at Kendall Whittier Elementary School

The University of Tulsa recently announced that it is changing the name of its education department to the School of Urban Education. The change reflects an increased focus on the issues confronted in low-income, urban districts. OK Policy spoke with Dr. Thomas Benediktson, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at TU and interim director of the School of Urban Education, about reasons for the change and what it means for Oklahoma.

Here is the transcript of our conversation, slightly edited for length:

First can you speak a little about what is urban education and how it differs from traditional curriculum?

In an urban setting, you’re dealing with a primarily poor population of students who often don’t have a strong family structure at home. In Tulsa we have a very high rate of female incarceration, so many of the students don’t have mothers at home. From week to week, teachers may have different students in their classes because the students move from uncle to foster parent to biological parent to somewhere else. There’s just not a stable environment for the students to learn.

They quite often have not had the advantages of more affluent populations in terms of parents who read to them. They’re economically challenged. When you get to middle school, quite often the middle school student goes home and is the parent in the house for the younger siblings. It’s a tremendously different environment than more affluent students grow up with.

What we have found is that the situation in Tulsa is about the same as the situation in a large urban population like Detroit, New York City, or Chicago. My sense is we’ve been kind of in denial. We think of ourselves as a nice Midwestern city with a fairly well off population, but in fact there’s a substantial poor population.

Some would say that Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) is even more challenged because they’re spread out. It’s a very large area of population. You have the one block at a time project in Harlem. We can’t do that here. We would never get finished if we were rebuilding the community one block at a time. So the response for the elementary schools has been a community schools model, where the school becomes a community center. They attempt to bring social services to families through the schools. They provide free lunches, often breakfast, lunch, and dinners to the students and try to give them some stability in their lives.

We get students who are interested in that kind of work, but when they get there, they find they haven’t been well prepared for the situation. On the other hand, we get students who don’t expect to work in that environment, but those are the only available jobs. They get there and they’re frustrated, so they move on, often leaving the profession or trying to migrate to a more affluent school. What we want to do is prepare students not only intellectually but also psychologically for that environment, where they’re wanting to do that kind of work and they’re actually prepared for what they’re going to find.

Was there a specific event or finding that inspired TU to make this change?

I can talk about a specific event for me. Diane Beals, who’s a professor in the education school, came to me. She said, “Tom, we’re really screwing up.” I said, “What are we doing wrong?” And she said, “We’ve got them doing their practice teaching at wealthy suburban schools because we want them to have a good experience. We want them to go into this profession with enthusiasm. Then when they actually get a job, and the job is at a poorer school, they’re not ready for it. They’re frustrated, and they leave.”

So we’ve made a commitment to really prepare our students. We do all of our observations at our neighborhood schools. Wilson just closed down, but we do our observations at Kendall-Whittier and the other schools which are near the campus, because we’re in a challenged environment ourselves here. We require our students to do at least one and if possible both of their practice teaching experiences at an urban school, Title I if possible. Most of the schools in TPS are Title I schools, but Booker T. would be fine. It would give them an urban experience, even though it’s not a Title I school.

We’re also negotiating with TPS. They have contracts with OSU-Tulsa and NSU-Broken Arrow to work with their students and help train them. We’re negotiating with TPS for the same sort of opportunity.

Is there anything else that you’re doing to change the department?

We are hiring a new director. We’re looking specifically for a director with experience in this area. We received an extremely generous donation from the Lobeck-Taylor Foundation that we’re using to hire a director. At that point, my impression right now is that we have multicultural and sociological issues raised here and there in our curriculum, but we want to make it totally infused with those sorts of issues. So we’re beginning with a new director, and we’re planning a curricular overhaul.

Do you think this is a significant issue beyond Tulsa in the state? Is it growing among districts?

Yes, many schools are talking about it. Many schools are adopting these sorts of programs. I think there’s a new recognition that that’s where the battle for the future really has to be fought.

There are universities with doctoral programs in urban education, and we may get to that eventually. For right now we’re really putting our concentration into the undergraduate teacher preparation program.

We have hired some new young people with interest and expertise in this area, entry-level tenure track people. We interviewed one candidate who was completing a degree in urban education at UCLA. I said, “Where’s the nearest Title I school to UCLA?” And he said “Oh, we have to drive for 90 minutes to get to a Title I school.” Well I can stand on the roof of my building and see three of them. So we’re in a special environment here. We can take advantage of this without leaving our community.

Are there any policy changes at the state or district level that we could be making to be more responsive to these issues?

The Oklahoma Commission on Teacher Preparation invited us to go to Oklahoma City about a year ago and make a presentation to them on what we’re doing. They’re very supportive. They know that this is the direction many Oklahoma teacher prep programs are going to have to go. They’re certainly not fighting this at all.

What has been the response at TU?

This idea did come from the education faculty, and they are 100 percent behind it. They agree that this is the direction that we really need to go.

I proposed at a meeting that we change the name of the department to urban education. We had maybe five minutes of discussion. The only concern was that we’re really not there yet. That is our direction, but we’re not quite where we want to be. But we decided that we might as well make it clear that this is where we’re going.

So the faculty is very supportive. Central Administration at TU is very supportive. This fits in with our True Blue Neighbors programs, where we do a lot of volunteer work in the Kendall-Whittier neighborhood. The food bank for the Kendall-Whittier neighborhood is in the Methodist church right across the street here. So we really interact with our community quite a bit, and this fits in well with what we’re trying to do.

share this post

What made you interested in integrating fitness and nutrition education into your curriculum?

I just finished a Masters degree at OSU in Health and Human Performance, with an emphasis on Applied Exercise Science, so I’ve been exposed to the research on the childhood obesity epidemic.  Also, my school, Lee Elementary, received grants as a Healthy Lifestyles School and our principal encouraged us to come up with ways to introduce the kids to health education.  I had already observed the impact of unhealthy habits in my classroom – many of my kids were sluggish and unmotivated throughout the day.

How do you teach your kids about healthy lifestyles?

Mostly I try and lead by example.  Whenever we do physical activities I’m out there running with them or playing soccer or basketball.  I eat lunch with my class every few weeks and talk with them about what makes up a nutritious meal.  We talk about food and fitness whenever the opportunity arises during the day and the kids know they get extra credit for bringing in current events articles about health and fitness.

Have you gotten extra funding from your school or spent your own money on fitness promotion?

Well, my school has spent money on special equipment and things but everything I do in my class is free.  You don’t need a lot of money to teach kids how to be healthy, you just need to think outside the box.  I use my imagination or get ideas from websites.  With just a little bit of creativity teachers can make a big impact on their kids fitness with simple and fun activities.

Are you ever concerned that you are taking time away from academic subjects?

No, not at all.  The activities I do with my students are usually integrated with academic lessons, like doing jumping jacks to multiplication tables.  Or using stability balls in place of chairs at the students’ desks. [Click here to watch a KJRH News segment of Ms. Eller explaining the cognitive benefits of stability balls versus chairs in a classroom.]

How does your class react when you engage them like this?

They love it.  They get a kick out of having me out there running around with them. They are amped about exercise and it’s great to see them noticing how their bodies change in a positive way.  Their attitude improves when they are more active and they have more energy and are more interested during class.

Why do you think it’s important to teach young children about fitness and nutrition?

Kids are little sponges.  They’re at an age where the habits they form can last for a lifetime.  When you offer kids more healthful options, and inform their choices, you are also teaching them about individual responsibility and problem solving.  I feel like I’m empowering them to make better choices to improve their lives long after they have moved on from my classroom.

Do you think there is a connection between unhealthy habits kids might be learning at this age and the growing obesity epidemic?

Definitely.  What they learn at this age can have a multiplier effect throughout their lives.  If they are only exposed to bad habits, then that will stick with them.  What I try to do is instill in them a basic understanding of health and fitness and empower them to choose healthier habits, whether they are at school or at home.  Making a dent in childhood obesity is as simple as that.  If adults set a positive example and inspire kids to choose a better quality of life, the kids will take it from there.

share this post

Kathy McKean is the director of the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center, which provides evaluation and professional development to Oklahoma schools.

When people think of alternative education, they may imagine “punishment schools” or the Sweathogs on Welcome Back, Kotter.  In many states, they’d be right.  But in most of Oklahoma, alternative programs are true alternatives – schools of opportunity for some of our highest-risk students.  A national study of alternative education conducted in 2010 concluded, “Only two states – Oklahoma and Minnesota – have set the policy conditions necessary to encourage the development and sustainability of innovative alternative education models.”

In the late 1980s, a handful of pilot projects were funded and the most cost-effective proved to be an academy model that grew out of the alternative school research of the 1970s. Pilot projects were initiated in 1989. By 1993, because the program had established a strong record of success, the Oklahoma Legislature expanded the initiative statewide.  Every high school in the state was required to operate an academy or to join an academy cooperative. Alternative education now receives $17 million in annual funding and serves more than 10,000 students every year.

Over the last decade, Oklahoma has invested in developing real alternative programs for its students at greatest risk of failing to complete high school. These are engaging, authentic, nurturing environments that provide the kinds of supports researchers (and dropouts!) believe to be necessary: caring teachers, smaller classes, more individualized instruction, the chance to work at one’s own pace, and at least one strong relationship with an adult at school.  Programs include stand-alone alternative schools, afternoon and evening programs, and alternative classrooms within traditional high schools.

Alternative Education grew because it got results. Every year, each individual program is evaluated to determine its implementation of the 17 criteria that are set out in law and to assess its student outcomes. The individual evaluations are used for program improvement. The outcome data from all 250+ sites are combined to determine overall program effectiveness. You can read the Executive Summary of the most recent report here; the full report is also available on the OTAC website.

Here’s how the evaluation plan for these programs is set up:

• Statewide Alternative Programs collect data on five variables highly related to dropping out of school (grade point averages, courses failed per semester, days absent per semester, days suspended per semester)
• Two types of analyses are conducted: pre-post, involving only students enrolled in alternative education programs, and treatment/comparison group analyses.

The 2009-10 findings are summarized in the chart below.  Data on the five variables most related to dropping out were collected from alternative education students and students on waiting lists.  The findings have been consistent for more than eleven years: Once students were enrolled in an alternative education program, they were absent less often, made higher grades, failed fewer classes, earned a greater number of credits, were referred less often for disciplinary problems, and improved their scores on tests of basic skills.

Since 1998, when the program was expanded to the entire state, the Oklahoma dropout rate has been cut in half – from 5.5 percent to 2.3 percent.

When we survey students about their experiences in alternative education, we hear about academic success, but many students tell us something more important – it helps them turn their lives around.  What makes it work?  Students tell us, over and over again:

“The teachers changed my life.  They have given me love and support that changed my whole outlook on life and how I see others.”

“Before I came here I had failed and thought I couldn’t do it…the teachers have made me feel like I can do anything I set my mind to.”

“It let me see that you can change the outcome of your life if you just work at it.”

“It’s made me realize that I need to do the things I don’t want to do.”

Punitive programs don’t get these kinds of results.  Suspending kids out of school doesn’t get these kinds of results.  Programs of choice get them, and Oklahoma has been getting them for more than a decade.

The opinions stated above are not necessarily those of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

share this post