Creating Academically Proficient and Civically Engaged Students — Through the No Child Left Behind Act (Part 3)

Through the Lens of Practitioners and Administrators —
Joining Forces to Close the Achievement and Civic Development Gap

A Forum — March 19, 2004

This brief captures highlights from the third and final forum/roundtable meeting in a series sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation called, Creating Academically Proficient and Civically Engaged Students Through the No Child Left Behind Act. Views captured during the series will be used to frame a White Paper in 2005 that features an action agenda with policy recommendations for policymakers.

The recent No Child Left Behind Act has brought a renewed focus on the education of students in “core” subjects such as math and reading. Although several tenants of the act do support the development of students as citizens [1] , there is worry that civic education will be overlooked in favor of subjects currently requiring assessment. Several recent findings have led credence to such concerns. A recent report by the Council for Basic Education [2] found that, since the implementation of No Child Left Behind, the amount of time teachers spent on social studies and other related subjects (including geography and civics) has decreased at the elementary level, while time spent on reading, math, and science has increased. Additionally, time allocated to foreign languages, art, and music has decreased at both elementary and secondary levels. This was especially true among schools with high minority populations—a trend that could lead to an increase in the current racial achievement gap. How can schools reverse this pattern, and continue to provide students with educations that will allow them to become both well-rounded students and effective citizens?

It is the job of administrators and coordinators at the school and district levels to incorporate state and federal policy into successful programs for their schools. In this third event in a series of three Capitol Hill forums, superintendents and service-learning coordinators were brought together to discuss how, in the context of educational reform, they oversee the civic development of their students through classroom activities and service-learning projects.

Sheldon Berman, superintendent, Hudson Public Schools, MA, reminded the audience that students need to learn to apply their skills to work that will "energize the world." Therefore, Hudson public schools create a "caring, ethical, and engaged" community that combines social development with ethical dialog, and community service within the school. These three tenants are incorporated in all grade levels through social skill development, curriculum requirements, and opportunities for self-governance and service-learning. According to Berman, this approach allows for students to acquire at least a "threshold" level of civic knowledge and to become engaged citizens. Throughout his discussion, Dr. Berman stressed the importance of "asking [students] the hard questions" about ethical dilemmas.

Dr. Berman believes that service-learning can become "institutionalized” by embedding components of civic education into standards and district policy. Additionally, he believes that service-learning works well with educational reforms by providing a meaningful context for learning. He also states that the ultimate "assessment" of a district's effectiveness in civic education should be measured by the community's voter turnout among residences aged 18 to 25.

Mary Rodgers, service-learning facilitator, Abington School District, PA, outlined the development of service-learning in her district. Abington's service-learning program began in 1995 with a grant from Learn and Serve America. The program started small, with two mandatory service days for high-school students and service clubs at all grade levels. Since its beginning, service-learning has become embedded in the "culture" of Abington’s schools at all levels.

Much of Abington's success, according to Rodgers, lies in the variety of projects in which students can participate in order to fulfill service-learning requirements (made mandatory as part of Pennsylvania's "graduation project" requirement in 2000). High school students in search of projects can visit a "service station" in order to receive suggestions of projects that best fit their interests. Opportunities for service also exist in eight school-community partnerships existing with local organizations. Additionally, students receive credit for participating in leadership activities within the school (e.g., serving as a peer mediator). Such a program works, Rodgers acknowledges, because it requires all students to participate in ways that are of interest to them. Particularly, students ranked in the lowest twenty percent of their class find service leaning most beneficial.

The importance of service is further emphasized within Abington's social studies curriculum. Important social movements are covered in class work, as are individual contributions by influential activists. Congressmen and local elected officials often visit the school, and several initiatives exist that encourage both students and their parents to vote.

According to Rodgers, implementation of a mandatory service-learning program has resulted in several measurable changes throughout the district. Suspensions and juvenile crime have decreased noticeably among Abington students, while the number of National Merit Scholar Semifinalists has increased. To other schools looking to begin such a program, Rodgers recommends securing funding (such as the Learn and Serve grant), founding extracurricular service organizations, and allowing time for programs to develop fully.

For Jon Schmidt, director of Service-Learning, Chicago Public Schools, IL, implementation of service programs in his district began by developing a common definition of “service-learning.” In Chicago Public Schools, service-learning refers to a teaching and learning methodology that connects classroom learning to community issues. Students served their community while building their own social and academic capacities. From this definition, Schmidt was able to design a service-learning program centered on a 40-hour service-learning requirement for every student. It also included a “pilot project” curriculum for interested teachers, an annual service-learning conference, curricular resources, and local funding that amounted to $4 per student. The program was supported by one-full time staff member for the district and one part-time coordinator for each school, and was further bolstered by the interest of many teachers and the district’s CEO.

Although part of the district’s overall education plan, Schmidt advocated budding programs to remain “under the radar” until they become more evolved and can demonstrate measurable results. For statewide implementation of a service-learning program, he recommended encouraging phased-in and flexible implementation of programs that correspond with standards and assessments, providing resources and professional development opportunities, and publicizing well-established success stories.

John Taylor Gatto, author and former Junior High School Educator, New York, NY, served as respondent to the three panelists and presented a “different perspective” on service-learning. While academically-based service-learning works well, he stated, it should be remembered that it is the service component of service-learning that causes students to mature. He relayed the story of how he implemented a service-learning program for 120-130 students per week in New York City from 1976-1991. He called this program the “NYC Lab School.” Both un-funded and staffed only by himself, Gatto’s service-learning program ran somewhat under the radar screen of the district and required students to gain experience through internships with employers (mainly traditional service agencies) across the city for a minimum of 320 hours a year. Each week, students were required to provide one full day of service work and could elect to add an additional two days as long as the service component was invented by the student. With Gatto’s guidance, the service internships were crafted into extensive service-learning projects coupled with rigorous academic and work-related areas of student interest. The learning component, according to Gatto, was of a high academic level and included reading, research, analysis, evaluation, and important preparation, by the student, of an illustrated teaching guide to facilities and personnel regarding the problem serviced.

The successes of the Lab School are numerous, said Gatto. Students enjoyed a rare and authentic opportunity to test academic skills and explore civic engagement. After three months in the NYC Lab School, “the effects on general academic work were strikingly positive, children became young men and women before my eyes: good people, good citizens, real players in the game of their own development, a pleasure to associate with,” said Gatto. One of the pitfalls to 13 and 14-year-olds providing service was that some institutions were reluctant to trust teenagers with a deep level of responsibility. On the positive side, some students were offered pay to continue their work after their internship was over.

“Service-learning deliberately aims for substantial impact on some aspect of community life,” said Gatto. Lab School student’s service-learning projects allowed them the freedom to express youth voice, explore youth entrepreneurial opportunities, and wrestle with local social issues. It is important to remember that as part of the Lab School, teens took what they learned through civic engagement and combined that with applied academic skills to make the service-learning projects come alive and guide others. Some of these stories were captured in newspaper articles and collected by Gatto for his scrapbook which was shared with the Forum audience.

• Cracking the apathy barrier, a team of students doubled the new registrations of votes on Manhattan’s upper west side. Students organized a campaign to run a two-day blitz to register voters in Manhattan and netted over 1000 registrants. This project was conceived as a test to a charge made by fellow Lab School student, Felix Avellenet, that politicians deliberately leave many people unregistered so that their own power will go unchallenged. The huge number of registrants in two days proved his point, stated Avellenet. He was quoted in a local newspaper saying, “If they turned the school kids of this City loose on unregistered voters we could clean up the problem inside a week.” He added, “We could register voters—and we could turn out the vote, too, on Election Day, help old ladies to the polls, baby sit, things like that. We could do a lot of the jobs that need doing around this town, but that would rock too many boats.”
• Using the court system to right the wrongs and to teach access strategies to the poor. Valedictorian Bernadette Passade was the victim of a phony model agency that took $200 from her with a false promise to promote her image to prospective clients. She decided to take her case to Small Claims Court. “I must be pretty gullible, but I can’t be stupid. I’m in one of the City’s elite high schools and I was the Valedictorian of I.S. 44. Why doesn’t the school system face up to their responsibility to teach that rip-offs like this are commonplace, and how to defend yourself against them?” Miss Passade also appeared before the District 3 School Board arguing for a change in school curriculum to include consumer protection and provide an Ombudsman to advise in consumer complaints. The District agreed to establish such an office.
• B.J. Cummings, a 13 year old student and young business woman whose demonstrations of “street businesses” became a popular feature of the Lab School Business Seminars testified to the New York Board of Education on the pitfalls of an “unrealistic” curriculum. She lectured board members saying, “Learning the basics and nothing else is a prescription for disaster. We [students] need to learn how to understand the world and how to have power over it. In less than a 1000 school days I will be an adult woman. You will turn me loose in a world that is rough, raw, dangerous, and seemingly beyond the power of your generation to control. Fieldwork and independent study into this world is absolutely necessary—and should be done often.” One board member was quoted as saying, “My colleagues and I were impressed by her poise and the effectiveness of her presentation. And the argument that education to meet the demands of real life has been neglected is hard to deny. A recent monograph, “The Dropout Study,” just made public, confirms her perceptions.”
• Students find widespread bias in TV hiring and advise broadcasters that all groups have a right to “see themselves.” Sixty Lab School students watched and analyzed 360 hours of television and charged television broadcasters and advertisers with bias in hiring practices. The students divided into teams to study each major network over a 20 day period and found overwhelming evidence that advertisers systematically exclude blacks, Hispanics, the middle-aged and old, and women not in model physical shape. Students collected data, analyzed it, produced a report and press release and disseminated it in press releases and news stories. In describing the project, one student was quoted in a local New York newspaper as saying, “If a person isn’t able to see herself, her type person, that is, in a public role, she begins to feel something is wrong with her.” Another student was quoted as saying, “I might as well not exist, as far as TV is concerned.” The students agreed that since the airtime was public property, the public should be protected against one group monopolizing it.
• Originating and providing a unique job service for a profit. In 1980, one Lab School student started a teenage employment agency on school time and eventually supplied 158 of his fellow classmates with after school work, weekend work, and summer jobs while earning money for himself. Roy Kelin was quoted in a newspaper article that age discrimination is “an ugly reality” and that “Nobody wants to even talk to kids, let alone give them work.” Roy braved the rejection and found jobs for 158 of his fellow classmates, making $15 for each job secured. Describing 10 summer jobs he secured from a West side research institution, Roy said: “They were willing to take a chance on 14 year olds when I told them how many places the Lab School had already helped this year—of course the jobs I get are for anybody qualified—not just Labbies [Lab School students].

Gatto asked panelists questions relating to their service-learning programs:

1. Why are your hourly service-learning requirements only 40 hours? Why not more? Also, why do students spend so much time talking about their service, rather than using the time and energy to perform additional service?

In response, Mary Rodgers reminded Mr. Gatto that, while students in Abington are only required to perform 50 hours of service in their high school careers, many perform more. Students are also encouraged to set loftier goals in their service through district and national award programs. Additionally, several independent study options are available (including a program entitled “Learning through Community Service”) that allow students to earn credits through community service projects performed during school hours. The presentations, she states, are used to tie the learning back to the curriculum.

Additionally, Jon Schmidt suggested that Mr. Gatto consider the many mixed messages students receive. As students are “constantly reminded that others view them as dangerous,” he says, they may begin to question “why they should give back to a community that never gave anything to them.” Both Schmidt and Rodgers agreed that mandatory service hours give students an entry into their communities. From this point, students can continue to develop ties to their communities through additional volunteer service.

2. By implementing mandatory service-learning programs, are you [the panelists] ever accused by critics of “social engineering”?

“No,” responded Sheldon Berman. Although all students are encouraged to make the world a better place, it is left up to the students to “determine what their vision of ‘a better place’ is.” Consequently, individual service projects are largely determined by students themselves, not by administration.

Questions and Answers from the Forum Audience

How can schools ensure that service-learning does not become an end unto itself, with students more worried about “getting the hours in” than becoming active citizens?

“Students naturally quantify their success,” said Mary Rodgers. She is not surprised that students talk with their friends about their “hours” and again stresses that the 50 hour requirement is meant to expose students to service-learning, and many students in the school go beyond this minimum. Berman provided a second perspective, recommending that civic engagement throughout the curriculum should be emphasized more than hourly requirements in order for students to develop as citizens.

How can service-learning programs make accommodations for accountability measurements?

Dr. Berman acknowledged the difficulties inherent in incorporating service-learning into accountability-based education. Assessment in its current form, he believes, leads to a rigidly-structured curriculum with tight guidelines for what needs to be learned and when. He stated that schools would be better served overall if these assessment tools were used as diagnostic assessments of a school’s performance rather than an accountability measurement. “Still,” Gatto pressed, “scores on tests are poor predictors of actual achievement.” Opportunities for which to demonstrate leadership and youth development are more indicative or a more realistic test of a student’s future success in the world. “Assessment of the true impact of student service might better be provided by those who received the service,” suggested Gatto.

How can schools keep service-learning “student-centered,” rather than having projects overly determined by district or school policy?

Two panelists stressed the importance of choice in their service-learning programs. According to Rodgers, students in Abington are given their choice of a variety of service projects if they do not develop their own. By the year’s end, Schmidt reports, “eighty percent of service-learning projects in Chicago will have been generated by students and parents.” Berman presented his two-level model for student-centered service-learning. On one level, students are asked to help design “grade-level” service projects. On a broader scale, students are taught throughout the Hudson district curriculum that they have the ability to make a difference in the world.

Final Statements

• To what degree are you able to involve your students in civic activities? For example, are they able to participate in partisan politics?
• What do colleagues think of your successes with service-learning programs? Are they supportive?
• At what levels of lawmaking (local, state, national) should support for service-learning programs exist?
• What role do collaboration and open inquiry about political and ethical topics in the classroom play in civic development?
• Does information exist on the continued civic engagement of students after they graduate from high school?
• How engaged are adults in these community’s democratic processes? How are they able to collaborate with students on service projects?
• How many of the changes seen in your school districts have been driven by community members and organizations?

Two themes came up in respondents’ final statements. First, several panelists expressed their concern that political participation was being discouraged by not allowing involvement in partisan politics to count as service in many national programs. Second, they stressed the importance of letting students know that they do have the ability to contribute something positive to their communities.

---

Round-Table Discussions

Panelists from the morning forums joined in a roundtable discussion with other invited participants to discuss common ground in connecting youth and civic development to academic achievement. One statement and two questions framed the roundtable discussion.

1. Schools and districts cannot start with a fully embedded service program without a great deal of preparation and training, parental and administrative support, community connections, and the financial commitment of the district and possibly the state

Discussion of this first roundtable question began with statements from each of the panelists:

Sheldon Berman pointed out that this question actually addresses two distinct issues. In response to the first issue, he states that “one cannot start with a fully embedded service program at all.” Instead, support for such a program needs to be developed throughout both the school district and the community. Methods for achieving such support are addressed by the second half of this question. To this end, he suggested that teachers receive professional development related to service-learning, that schools and districts secure grant funding and hire a lead service-learning coordinator, and that state and federal policies recognize the benefits of service to students.

Mary Rodgers finds that many other schools and districts are reluctant to start service-learning projects of their own because they “can’t do what [Abington] is doing.” To this statement, she reminded participants that any program has to have time to evolve. Abington’s program, for example, started with two or three extracurricular service clubs, and became more evolved after the development of Pennsylvania’s graduation project requirement (five years after the district first secured a Learn and Serve grant).

Jon Schmidt shared many views similar to those that Ms. Rodgers presented. Like Abington, Chicago did not start out with a fully embedded service-learning program. He suggested that schools “rethink” what service-learning is about, and specify where their focus on service lies. If 20-to-25 percent of a school is involved in a service project in the first years of a program, he states, that is a good start. Lastly, he states that the most important first-step for a budding service program is to secure funding to help the project develop.

John Gatto focused his response on how to begin to get students involved in projects, rather than how to develop a district or school-wide program. He suggested starting with those students who are the most poor or distracted. Discover what interests these students, have them learn the background of their interest, and get them involved in a community project related to their interest. He believes that prototypical “designs” for service-learning projects should not be developed through administrations at any level.

Discussion in the larger group elaborated upon several of the issues brought up by the panelists. Suggestions for new programs include developing a broad definition of “service-learning”, securing funding, and developing support and responsibility in communities, families, and among taxpayers who do not have children. The importance of after-school initiatives in the development of service-learning programs was also discussed. Additionally, a discussant encouraged schools with developing programs not to become “self-satisfied” by the success of small service projects.

“Given that the title of this program includes the statement Through the No Child Left Behind Act,” one discussant observed, “how can districts work with current legislation to develop service-learning programs?” While some members of the discussion worried that civic education initiatives would be overlooked by No Child Left Behind, given the current structure and focuses of the assessment program, others focused on the importance of embedding service programs throughout the curriculum. In particular, service-learning programs can directly be tied to two goals of the legislation: using effective teaching strategies and developing good citizens. This is less of an issue for secondary school initiatives, one discussant reminded the forum, as the majority of No Child Left Behind legislation and funding is directed towards elementary education.

Berman concluded the discussion by reminding participants of the risks that are involved with starting a service-learning program. Although No Child Left Behind does have many positive intentions relating to citizenship education, schools may be under so much pressure to meet standards in reading and math that they become satisfied with the “status quo” in other areas.

2. Is state-level policy support and/or funding for service-learning methodology or programs really needed? Can’t this just be handled at the local level and through grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service’s service-learning program, called Learn and Serve America, which are funneled through the state departments of education? What more can the state do to assist?

When answering this question, discussants seemed to be balancing what would be the ideal involvement of the state in service-learning with the reality of what would happen if the state were to become involved. Ideally, a state would endorse service-learning programs, but leave the details of implementation up to individual districts. However, there are also worries that what would start as a blanket endorsement of service-learning programs would be subject to “modification” by subsequent administrations within the state. In order to keep the state from having too much control over service programs in individual schools, several broad recommendations were made.

First, support for service-learning initiatives needs to be attained both from the gubernatorial administration and from the state legislators. There are several ways to “educate” the politicians in this matter; for example, by showing decreases in dropout rates or suspensions that are “results” of effective service-learning programs. Those in power need to realize how service-learning can be a vehicle toward high achievement and other positive student outcomes. If current legislators do not recognize its value, then new ones need to be elected who will.

Second, state legislators should improve existing legislation in order to incorporate more elements of service-learning into them. Standards for social studies education could be revised, or resources for professional development could be used in order to educate teachers. Existing policy could be “streamlined” in order to develop the most effective strategies for learning. The goal should be to keep states from becoming so focused by No Child Left Behind mandates that they forget about civic and citizenship education.

Third, our definition of the “state” needs to extend beyond government. Employers and state university systems are examples of two non-government, state-wide organizations that could lend support to service-learning initiatives.

3. How (or should) schools show data on growth in the area of citizenship or civic engagement? Should assessments be used?

While most discussants felt that “data on growth” should be collected, there were differing opinions of what sort of growth should be measured. Some felt that the quality of the developed during a service project defined success, while others felt that evidence of “personal growth” was the more important measurement. Still others felt that students should be assessed for their perception that they could make a difference, or for their use of time in service-learning. As in his panel presentation, Berman gave his opinion that the 18-to-25 year old voter turnout should measure success of service-learning at the community level. Others also wondered if measures of school or community climate were more important measurements of success than individual student involvement. Overall, participants favored a “balanced assessment” that would observe many different aspects of a student’s civic development.

Several points were also brought up relating possible assessment strategies to No Child Left Behind guidelines. First, scientifically-based research on the effectiveness of service-learning would lend support to it at the federal level, and could also be used to help develop assessment strategies. Second, proponents of No Child Left Behind should develop a broader vision when developing assessment that includes character education. Finally, it should be determined whether financial support for such projects would exist at the federal or local levels, and what the consequences would be for low-income schools if certain patterns of funding existed.

Before such federal support can be gained, assessments of service-learning should be “high but realistic,” keeping in mind that service-learning is, in many ways, a teaching “experiment.” Failure does exist and will occasionally happen, and standards need to be flexible enough to take that into account.

---

[1] Possible support for citizenship/civic education exists in: Title I (Support for schools in need of improvement), Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools), Title V (Character education), and Title VII (promote cultural and intergenerational connections between students and elders).

[2] Von Zastrow, Claus, & Helen Janc (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of Liberal Arts in America’s Public Schools. Washington, D. C.: Council for Basic Education.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org