At issue in Monday's board meeting was allocation of money for counselors at Portland's elementary schools, the determination for which is based on both school enrollment numbers and Title I eligibility.
In the background (but not directly mentioned) was the recent Tribune revelation that Title I services are by law provided to private school students in the Portland district who meet Title I criteria. That surprised some school board members, notably Bobbie Regan and David Wynde. Wynde called it an "anomaly" of federal policy. And of No Child Left Behind:
"Poor kids in private schools are not left behind, but poor kids in public schools are left behind."
At Monday's meeting, Wynde set his sights on the poor public school kids who don't attend Title I elementary schools and therefore are denied federal money, which, as Wynde pointed out, can be used for counselors. The need for counseling at non-Title I schools, namely Buckman and Glencoe, Wynde said, is just as great as at those which do get Title I money. At least for some kids.
Given that Wynde has (or has had) children enrolled at Buckman, the insinuation that federal money should be diverted from reading and math remediation to counseling at the district's poorest schools so that more money might be freed up for FTE positions --counselors-- at wealthier schools, especially schools of choice like the arts magnet Buckman, seems rather odd. And more than a little suspicious.
But then again, perhaps I read too much into David Wynde's Title I observation.
*****************************
The deeper issue is the role of counselors in the schools. And whether they're worth the money. I have mixed feelings about school counseling, dating back to my middle school teaching experience.
As you know, I'm a huge proponent of team teaching. When I once suggested that our counselors take a role in the classroom --a scheduled role (counselors are certified teachers, after all) as a part of the team, with their own groups of students-- I was promptly rebuffed. I came to the conclusion that counselors don't want to be in the classroom. That's a big reason they become counselors in the first place.
Our counselors spent an inordinate amount of time showing new kids around the school, meeting with students individually to discuss school rules infractions, and running kids (again individually) through a computer-based career awareness program. In other words, they spent precious little time on the actual education of kids which, of course, is what school is all about.
At traditional middle and high schools, counselors are responsible for scheduling kids into classes, keeping track of graduation credits, and familiarizing students with colleges. Those responsibilities are all, if you'll forgive me, a waste of time, especially in reformed and teamed schools. There's no reason teachers, given the proper structure, couldn't do those things.
I paint, needless to say, with a broad brush regarding the role of counseling in schools. Good counselors, especially those trained in resolving social, emotional and psychological problems, most importantly in the elementary grades (K-5 and K-8), can be valuable additions to a school's staff.
In a time of limited resources, educational leaders, including school board members, need to start thinking outside the box about how to provide the resources they agree are necessary to the successful education of our children. That starts with defining "successful education", and ignoring side issues like test scores and their correlate, the "achievement gap".
Recent Comments