# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Kasia Cieplak-Mayr von Baldegg, Sam Price-Waldman, and Jaclyn Skurie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Can People Do to Get Better at Learning?

# data[].attributes.body
Why Busing Didn't End

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
America's desegregation era is long gone, but one voluntary school busing program in Boston has persisted for nearly 50 years.

The program is known as METCO - the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity - and buses students of color from the city into more affluent, mostly white suburbs for school.

I know the program because I did it in the '80s - traveling nearly an hour back and forth between home and school every day. I recently returned to Boston to check in on the program and traveled on that same route with Bryan Bailey, a 13-year-old who goes to school in Newton, Mass.

Bryan is one of nearly 3,300 students this year that participate in the state-funded, 18 million dollar program that pays out roughly 5,000 dollars per kid to the suburban towns that take part.

But between high housing prices and restrictive zoning policies, there are suburbs in the program that look a lot like they did back when the program started: majority white.

And when it comes to efforts to desegregate public schools nationwide, the long-running METCO program is more of a quirk in history than the norm. School desegregation faded as a political priority in the '80s and '90s. Today, there are growing numbers of racially and economically isolated schools in the U.S., meaning the ideal of integrated classrooms is still effectively out of reach.

But while integration is still a process, METCO has made a big difference in education. The most recent research of the program shows that nearly 90 percent of METCO's black and Latino students graduate from high school on time, and they score higher on state achievement tests than their peers in Boston Public Schools.

So if a program like METCO has been seen as a success when it comes to educating kids and closing the achievement gap for kids of color, what happened? Why didn't it spread?

I talked with Matthew Delmont, a history professor at Arizona State University who has literally written the book on why busing failed to integrate schools in America.
So why did busing fail?
A couple things happen that make it difficult to sustain busing programs into the '80s and '90s.

One is the tremendous amount of white flight that happens in cities like Boston, so there just simply aren't enough white students to go around to have meaningful school desegregation. This is true in Chicago, in Los Angeles, in New York.

The other thing that happens is busing placed a tremendous burden on black students and on students of color. In most cases, they were the ones that were asked to travel to the suburbs, travel sometimes to hostile neighborhoods. For many parents, that simply isn't worth it after a number of years.
If not busing, what were the other ways that schools tried to desegregate in modern times?
There were a couple of popular plans. One would be magnet schools - trying to funnel resources into schools primarily in communities of color that would attract white students back to those schools. Those have received different amounts of success in different communities, but it's been a program that has some merit and has been popular for good reason.

Another would be to simply redraw zoning lines. I think one of the reasons that busing got so much attention is that it seemed very inconvenient. They're talking about busing kids a half-hour out of the city. In many communities, if you simply redraw the zoning lines you can accomplish school desegregation. It's still tremendously controversial, but it can still produce meaningful school integration in places that have tried it.
For schools that have tried rezoning, taking race into account has led to trouble with the law.
Exactly - there are two issues. One, the Supreme Court has consistently handed down decisions that say that race can't be the primary factor in drawing these school zoning lines. The court does not want to see race be the deciding factor in these school desegregation issues.

The other factor is simply a matter of political will and how much white parents will go for it. Unfortunately, it's the case that across the country, white parents simply don't want to send their kids to schools with large numbers of African-American or Latino students - even if they consider themselves to be liberal in theory, or in the abstract, they are in favor of integration.

When push comes to shove ... they oppose any sort of meaningful school integration.
Can you elaborate? What does that mean and what does that look like?
I think one of the challenges of what the Obama Administration is proposing is the voluntary aspect. I think voluntary is great, but the number of school districts that are willing to take this on? I think the Century Foundation has been doing some research on this. It's something like 1 percent of school districts in the country are attempting these programs. I don't think that's going to scale much beyond 5 percent or 10 percent unless there is real political will put behind it.

I think it's great to offer some cash incentives and encourage people to take this on voluntarily. But the history of the last five decades is that school districts simply won't do this voluntarily and that if we want to see meaningful school desegregation - whether that is in terms of socioeconomic status or race - it has to be encouraged strongly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Busing Didn't End School Segregation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America's desegregation era is long gone, but one voluntary school busing program in Boston has persisted for nearly 50 years. The program is known as METCO - the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity - and buses students of color from the city into more affluent, mostly white suburbs for school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of the LEARN NC Content has been archived using the Wayback Machine. Instructions for how to access that content is below, including links to frequently requested materials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Busing & Beyond: School Desegregation in Boston

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The story of busing and desegregation in Boston begins much earlier than most people imagine. In 1847, a young black girl named Sarah Roberts sued the city of Boston for having to walk past five schools in order to attend an inferior black-only school in the Beacon Hill neighborhood of the city.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about important events in the history of American education from 1607 to now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Timeline of Public Education in the US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the history of public schools in the U.S. with this timeline.

# data[].attributes.body
Philosophies

# data[].attributes.body
school in the 21st century?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consider some of the basic symbols of education in the United States: the textbook, the chalkboard, and the apple. Thanks to technological innovations and cultural forces, we've seen textbooks supplanted by videos and e-books, SMART Boards replace chalkboards, and the apple on the teacher's desk pushed aside by the latest gadgets from, well, Apple.

Just as our classrooms have changed significantly since the 1800s, so have our ideas about the purpose of schools. Our views on education were defined by John Dewey's theory, which states-and I'm simplifying-that the general purpose of school is to transfer knowledge and prepare young people to participate in America's democratic society.

But today's students live in a modern, global society that is interconnected as never before. As a result, Dewey's explanation of the purpose of schools now seems insular and inadequate. So in 2012, what is the purpose of schools?

I propose that the purpose of schools must be preparing children to compete in the global environment. As a nation, we are in direct contact and competition with countries around the globe in a way that was unthinkable just 10 years ago.

High-performing nations such as China, Finland, South Korea, and Singapore have joined the global supply chain. These nations' leaders realize the global economic playing field is changing, and in response, they're positioning their societies for success by emphasizing the development of 21st-century skills. These emerging nations are broadening their curricula, creating communicative, imaginative, tech-savvy, multilingual students who are prepared for jobs that do not yet exist. Likewise, educators are revered in these nations and an intense focus is placed on attracting the best and brightest to teaching.

Yet U.S. education efforts are moving in the opposite direction. Teachers have become scapegoats for the many systemic ills facing our education system. Instead of broadening, the curriculum seems to become more and more limited every year because of shrinking budgets and a single-minded emphasis on math and reading.

While our competition around the globe relentlessly focuses on improving their education systems, we here in the United States are not demonstrating seriousness of purpose about where we are headed. The vitriolic levels of partisanship that characterize our current education debate have sapped much of our will to consider long-term investments that would produce results beyond the current election cycle.

Yet, there is hope. Although our nation's education debate is flawed, parents, educators, business leaders, and policymakers are talking about the issues-and my education leadership organization, ASCD, is a key part of this conversation on improving education.

Here's what we're telling the world: We know that there is one education reform movement that works, and unsurprisingly, it's the same formula that has worked since we had those old textbooks, chalkboards, and red apples in the classroom. Research, policy, practice, and common sense confirm that a whole-child approach to education will develop and prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of today and tomorrow.

A whole-child approach is the belief that each student in each classroom should be healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged. As parents, educators, and community members, we have the knowledge, skill, and ability to meet these challenges and share our strengths. ASCD is leading the movement from envisioning a whole-child approach toward implementing those ideas and making them reality.

I believe the first step toward educating the whole child is to support the whole educator, which is what our work at ASCD strives to do. In our coming monthly columns for GOOD, you'll hear from ASCD experts-including our staff, authors, and members-on how to support whole educators and the whole child. So stay tuned. Together, we can ensure that each child in each classroom is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the Purpose of School in the 21st Century?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consider some of the basic symbols of education in the United States: the textbook, the chalkboard, and the apple. Thanks to technological innovations and cultural forces, we've seen textbooks supplanted by videos and e-books, SMART Boards replace chalkboards, and the apple on the teacher's desk pushed aside by the latest gadgets from, well, Apple.

# data[].attributes.body
purpose of school, post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While I've certainly blogged about and around this topic before, I've run across a couple of interesting posts in the last few weeks that both address this question directly. I'm going to quote liberally from both posts, because I think it's useful to see them both on the same page.

First, David Warlick wrote after watching - and participating - in our videoconferencing with Daniel Pink:

On several occasions, lately, when working with teachers and administrators at independent schools, I've been asked, "What is the purpose of education?" It's not a question that comes out of public school conversations very often. We already know what education is for. The government told us.

Education is about:

Covering all the standards

Improving performance on government tests

Meeting AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress)

Producing a competitive workforce

We don't even ask any more - and even in this season of Change ( http://change.gov/), we're still not asking that question.

Now I generalize when comparing different types of schools, and to be sure, independent schools are also governed by testing, as many of their students attend so that they can get into Harvard, Yale, or Duke (Go Blue Devils). But, again, there is a palpable sense of confidence in the conversations I witness when away from public schools - a willingness to ask tough questions.

I've had a ready answer to the question.

"The purpose of education is to appropriately prepare our children for their future."

There are some implied, but essential questions in that answer:

What will their future hold? What will they need to know?

What are appropriate method, materials, environment, activity?

Who are these children? What is their frame of reference?

Today, I have a new answer. My old one is still good. I'll continue to use it. But if you ask me, "What is the purpose of education?" today, I'll say,

"The purpose of education is to make the world a better place!"

What drew me to this answer was Karl Fisch's teleconferencing activity last week (see A 2.0 Sort'a Day: Part 2). As I thought more about the experience, it occurred to me that this was an almost singularly unique activity - beyond the fact that students were interacting with an internationally renowned writer, exchanging thoughtful insights, and the really cool use of technology.

What struck me in hindsight was that these students were earning respect. They were respected by each other, by their teachers, by the instructional support professionals, and by the internationally renowned figure, Dan Pink. Their engagement in that activity will continue to be respected by people, young and old, who will read the archive of those multidimensional conversations.

Those students were full partners in their learning, and they were entrusted to go beyond just what was expected. They were encouraged to freely extend and develop their own thoughts, skills, and knowledge, building on their own frame of reference, pushing and pulling through conversation, and being responsible for their part of the endeavor.

Then yesterday Seth Godin wrote:

So, a starter list. The purpose of school is to:

1. Become an informed citizen

2. Be able to read for pleasure

3. Be trained in the rudimentary skills necessary for employment

4. Do well on standardized tests

5. Homogenize society, at least a bit

6. Pasteurize out the dangerous ideas

7. Give kids something to do while parents work

8. Teach future citizens how to conform

9. Teach future consumers how to desire

10. Build a social fabric

11. Create leaders who help us compete on a world stage

12. Generate future scientists who will advance medicine and technology

13. Learn for the sake of learning

14. Help people become interesting and productive

15. Defang the proletariat

16. Establish a floor below which a typical person is unlikely to fall

17. Find and celebrate prodigies, geniuses and the gifted

18. Make sure kids learn to exercise, eat right and avoid common health problems

19. Teach future citizens to obey authority

20. Teach future employees to do the same

21. Increase appreciation for art and culture

22. Teach creativity and problem solving

23. Minimize public spelling mistakes

24. Increase emotional intelligence

25. Decrease crime by teaching civics and ethics

26. Increase understanding of a life well lived

27. Make sure the sports teams have enough players

Both David and Seth, coming from different backgrounds, have some fairly negative views of what some folks think school is for, as well as some more positive views of what school should be. If you've read my blog for any length of time you most likely know the general trend my thoughts take on this, so I'll spare you my own ranting and raving (for now, anyway). But I thought these were worth posting on the same page as a good starting point for discussion, as Seth suggests:

If you have the email address of the school board or principals, perhaps you'll forward this list to them (and I hope you are in communication with them regardless, since it's a big chunk of your future and your taxes!). Should make an interesting starting point for a discussion.

Please leave a comment or do as Seth suggests and contact a school board member, superintendent, school administrator, teacher, student, parent, state legislator ( Colorado), community member, congressperson ( Senate, House, or possibly this link for both), or President Obama and ask them for their thoughts, without the spin.

What's the purpose of school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While I've certainly blogged about and around this topic before, I've run across a couple of interesting posts in the last few weeks that both address this question directly. I'm going to quote liberally from both posts, because I think it's useful to see them both on the same page.

# data[].attributes.body
of school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tonight, I'm announcing a new challenge to redesign America's high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We'll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math - the skills today's employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.
- Obama's State of the Union Address

What is the purpose of school?

Many, like Obama, look at schools as a place where children go to gain skills to enter the workforce-which is of course true to a certain extent. Please do not get me wrong, I definitely agree that if a student aspires to be a doctor, teacher, lawyer, accountant, or simply just enter the workforce, schools should absolutely be providing basic skills allowing them to do so.

Our nation has put great emphasis into science and mathematics, offering more money to teachers who want to teach in the Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) field in high-need schools. Again, all which I believe are important, but why is there no incentive for educators who want to teach our future generations how to actively and effectively participate as citizens? Why has it become increasingly rare for schools to have civic education classes? And, even as much as I do not support standardized testing, why is Civics Education Testing only required in 9 states for high school graduation?

Some concrete answers from Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE):

The shift away from civic education over the past decade can be partially attributed to federal policies like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. According to CIRCLE, recent research suggests states have shifted educational resources away from social studies toward subjects that appear on statewide assessments.

"Social studies courses such as history, civics, and economics provide students with the necessary civic skills and knowledge to be effective 21st century citizens," the report concludes. "However, since the passage of No Child Left Behind, many states have shifted focus away from social studies and have dramatically reduced the number of social studies assessments."

As many know, I have various problems and critiques on our current idea of "school," such as the lack of emphasis on arts, overemphasis on testing, attacks on teacher, lack of opportunities to teach creative and critical thinking-just to name a few-but more and more am I recognizing another damaging void in our schools: teaching our students their importance and role in their community, and making sure they graduate from their K-12 education knowing all the possible tools they can use to change it.

Civic education lessons and skills aren't on mandated standardized tests. Therefore, these skills won't get their school more funding. In other words, unless the school and their "leaders" as a whole genuinely believe in civic education's importance, it would be rare for such lessons to ever be taught.

Of course I recognize the phenomenal educators who integrate such lessons into their curriculum. I hope to become an educator who can do the same. But, just as equally, there are educators out there who are not doing this. And, evidently, our nation is not being held accountable or responsible for mandating schools provide such lessons.

Now, how does this all tie into social inequality?

One of the main reasons why I find this appalling is because of the greater impact this has on students in less privileged areas.

Our students with lower socioeconomic statuses are more likely to be forced into attending a poorly funded school. Even further, they are burdened with more pressure to pass state tests, or their school loses even more funding or gets shut down-implementing civic education becomes less and less of a priority, especially for teachers who could additionally have their jobs on the line. While students in more affluent communities have the budget to afford electives such as civic education, and teachers are under less scrutiny, there is more opportunity for such students to gain a better understanding of how they can become civically engaged. As a 2008 study done by C orporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) found:

...the CNCS study (2008) found that schools that are located in lower-income areas were significantly less likely to offer service learning than more affluent schools at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. According to CNCS's survey of school principals, the challenges in implementing service-learning are related to other priorities that schools have to deal with (e.g., academic requirements, standardized test scores), lack of funding and other resources, lack of professional development opportunities to learn about service-learning, and a lack of awareness about policies encouraging service-learning in schools. The schools with lower funding and resources are more likely to face these challenges than more affluent schools.

In essence, our most oppressed populations are given less of the opportunity to attain the skills to challenge their oppressors. Our youth who deserve better, and forced to endure the pit of inequalities, are being deprived of the chance to understand the power they all withhold to demand justice. Rather, our nation's education "leaders" would rather they simply attain workforce skills to boost the economy, nothing more.

But even outside the differences between socioeconomic statuses, starving our youth as a whole of civic education contributes to the perpetuation of their perceived " apathy." Many older generations believe our youth don't care-I'm sure they do, they may just not have the same knowledge and tools to convey it. Additionally, while our schools want to mandate volunteer work as graduation requirements, there tends to be a steel wall preventing students from understanding its connection to government and politics. They get excited helping out in the community such as soup kitchens, but from my experience, they rarely get asked-why does one of the wealthiest countries in the world even need a soup kitchen? How does our nation allow for such a great deal of our population to live below the poverty line? And the even greater question, did you know there is even greater impact you can make outside of simply volunteering?

Last week I had an incredible opportunity to join a dinner with E.J. Dionne. Me and other civic education focused guests raised a lot of question, but one sticks out particularly. Someone asked, "Rather than volunteering, why not also make it a requirement for students to look at issues in their communities and\or schools, then organize action(s)\campaign(s) to change them?"

Imagine if students across the country all left their K-12 education having the experience of bringing concrete change(s) to their community. Even if they didn't succeed, skills such as knowing how to initially approach issues, and recognizing the importance of working with others would be irreplaceable. Such skills would be applicable for the rest of their lives.

Undoubtedly, the belief of school's purpose varies widely across the board. Yet, rarely do I find advocates for saving civic education.

I think it's time to change that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tonight, I'm announcing a new challenge to redesign America's high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We'll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math - the skills today's employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Seth Godin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seems like a simple question, but given how much time and money we spend on it, it has a wide range of answers, many unexplored, some contradictory. I have a few thoughts about education, how we use it to market ourselves and compete, and I realized that without a common place to start, it's hard to figure out what to do.

So, a starter list. The purpose of school is to:

1. Become an informed citizen

2. Be able to read for pleasure

3. Be trained in the rudimentary skills necessary for employment

4. Do well on standardized tests

5. Homogenize society, at least a bit

6. Pasteurize out the dangerous ideas

7. Give kids something to do while parents work

8. Teach future citizens how to conform

9. Teach future consumers how to desire

10. Build a social fabric

11. Create leaders who help us compete on a world stage

12. Generate future scientists who will advance medicine and technology

13. Learn for the sake of learning

14. Help people become interesting and productive

15. Defang the proletariat

16. Establish a floor below which a typical person is unlikely to fall

17. Find and celebrate prodigies, geniuses and the gifted

18. Make sure kids learn to exercise, eat right and avoid common health problems

19. Teach future citizens to obey authority

20. Teach future employees to do the same

21. Increase appreciation for art and culture

22. Teach creativity and problem solving

23. Minimize public spelling mistakes

24. Increase emotional intelligence

25. Decrease crime by teaching civics and ethics

26. Increase understanding of a life well lived

27. Make sure the sports teams have enough players

If you have the email address of the school board or principals, perhaps you'll forward this list to them (and I hope you are in communication with them regardless, since it's a big chunk of your future and your taxes!). Should make an interesting starting point for a discussion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seems like a simple question, but given how much time and money we spend on it, it has a wide range of answers, many unexplored, some contradictory. I have a few thoughts about education, how we use it to market...