Celebrations of African-American heritage and achievement began in 1926 and the original weeklong observance become a month in 1976. Below are some resources to help you celebrate Black History Month.
NEA Black History Month Lessons & Resources
NEA offers a selection of lesson plans that cover a variety subjects and that you can adapt to fit multiple grade levels.
The African-American Mosaic: A Library of Congress Resource Guide for the Study of Black History and Culture
This site is a resources guide covering the nearly 500 years of black experience in the Western hemisphere. The Mosaic surveys the full range and variety of the Library’s collections, including books, periodicals, prints, photographs, music, film, and recorded sound. The exhibit covers four areas: Colonization, Abolition, Migrations, and the Work Projects Administration (WPA).
National Civil Rights Museum
The National Civil Rights Museum (NCRM) is committed to providing educators with resources and materials to aid them in teaching the struggle for freedom and justice to today’s students. Here you will find links to the NCRM Teacher’s Curriculum Guide, worksheets, primary source analysis guides, scavenger hunts, and much more.
National Underground Railroad Freedom Center
The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center’s website contains detailed information about Underground Railroad history, as well as descriptions and images of inspiring, educational exhibits. From education initiatives, to community enhancement programs, to the increasingly popular blogs, you will find relevant discussion about subjects that really are important today, such as human trafficking. The purpose in presenting this information is to inspire you to action, in the spirit of the 19th Century Abolitionists, to pursue justice and freedom for all people.
Important anniversaries and remembrances fill February:
- February 1, 1865 – Abraham Lincoln’s approval of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery
- February 1, 1960 – Greensboro, North Carolina, Woolworth lunch-counter sit-in
- February 3, 1870 – Ratification of the 15th amendment guaranteeing race would not prevent a man from voting
- February 11, 1990 – Nelson Mandela’s release from prison
- February 14, 1817 – Presumed birthday of Frederick Douglass
- February 21, 1965 – Malcolm X’s assassination
- February 22, 1956 – Montgomery bus boycott arrests
What are you doing to celebrate Black History Month in your classroom? Share with your colleagues in the comments.
Creative Commons images by bloomsberries (first image) and LizMarie (second image).
The State Board of Education met yesterday and has decided to convene a new committee to examine Connecticut’s method of funding education. The committee will look at money for local public schools as well as for magnets and charters.
The board chose not to adopt a “money follows the child” proposed funding model for charter schools that its Legislation and Bylaws committee considered recently. Instead the board recommended increasing the direct, per-pupil state grant for charter schools. This proposal would cost the state an estimated $5 million next fiscal year and will now be reviewed by the legislature.
Elizabeth Benton provides more details in the New Haven Register.
Governor M. Jodi Rell talked much about the economy and job creation in her annual State of the State today, but offered few specifics. Public education, a critical element in putting the state’s economy on a strong footing, got short shrift.
For the second year in a row, the governor proposed eliminating a highly visible, research-based school reform model for improving urban public schools (CommPACT Schools). While not providing even one dollar more in state education aid for municipalities, the governor’s budget adds $5 million more in funding for charter schools and $25 million more for magnet schools.
“We are dumbfounded that the governor has turned her back on the CommPACT Schools initiative,” says CEA President Phil Apruzzese. “Stakeholders from superintendents to parents, schools administrators, and teachers came together to support this effort to close the achievement gap in Connecticut schools. Our effort has received national attention. If Governor Rell gets her way, years of work will be placed in jeopardy.”
In distinguishing between CommPACT Schools and charter schools, Apruzzese went on to say that “the CommPACT Schools initiative seeks to turn around schools that are having difficulty. It works with existing teachers and administrators in a structured process of change. Charter schools, on the other hand, always have to start with a new group of students, a new faculty, and a new administration.”
Adds Apruzzese, “The real challenge we face in closing the achievement gap is to improve results in schools where there are problems. If we don’t attempt to do that, we’re not being serious. The governor’s failure to fund this effort makes no sense.”
The CommPACT Schools initiative – which was launched in 2008 – has attracted corporate and foundation financial support from AT&T, Balfour, the NEA Foundation, and others that will disappear if the governor’s proposed budget cut is adopted or public support is reduced.
Another major disappointment in the governor’s budget is that it maintains the same level of funding for the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant in fiscal year 2010-2011 as in FY 2009-2010. State aid for this education grant was reduced by 14 percent in last year’s budget and backfilled with federal stimulus dollars.
Says Apruzzese, “The governor is continuing the troubling budget sleight of hand that she started last year with the short-term federal stimulus money. She is setting local schools up for a whopping $270 million hole in ECS funding when the federal funds dry up in 2011.”
In addition, holding ECS grants to last year’s level does not even allow local school districts to deal with even moderate inflation without having to raise local revenues or cut expenditures. The governor has continued her pattern of gradually reducing state support for local public education.
“It’s troubling,” says Apruzzese. “The effects are likely to be the continued elimination of teaching positions, reduction in education resources, and the end of programs that serve Connecticut students. Where does it stop?”
The full State Board of Education (SBE) will get a report on Wednesday, February 3, from its Legislation and Bylaws committee regarding a proposal for a “money follows the child” funding model for charter schools that would siphon money from traditional public schools.
It is one of two competing proposals considered in recent months by the SBE to revise how Connecticut’s charter schools are funded. The first proposal— the “money follows the child” funding — would require districts to pay a set “tuition rate” for each child who enrolls in a charter school from their district. The second proposal is to increase the direct, per-pupil state grant for charter schools from $9,300 per pupil to $10,306 per pupil.
SBE’s Legislation and Bylaws Committee held a special workshop in Hartford on January 27 to discuss the “money follows the child” funding proposal for charter schools. The full SBE voted three weeks ago to approve a proposed increase in the state’s per-pupil grant funding for charter schools, but postponed any decision on the “money follows the child” funding model until its Legislation and Bylaws Committee could review and discuss its impact.
The “money follows the child” funding proposal – pushed by a private group that operates several Connecticut charter schools — has ominous consequences for local school budgets. Under this proposal, funding for a student to attend a charter school would be deducted from the sending school district’s state Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant payment.
While the committee on January 27 discussed the ‘money follows the child” funding proposal, at the end of the meeting members decided not to vote on it. Instead, committee members reached a consensus to recommend to the full SBE that the current system the state uses to finance its public schools needs a drastic overhaul to provide equity to all students. When the committee makes its report on February 3, potentially, the “money follows the child” funding proposal could come up for further discussion by the full board.
During their discussions, committee members expressed concerns about the significant amount of money the state would have to commit to charter schools to finance the “money follows the child” funding proposal with the state facing a nearly half billion dollar budget deficit. The gaping hole created in local school budgets by diverting state funds to charter schools also troubled committee members. Half of Stamford’s ECS funds, for example, would be wiped out under such a proposal.
The committee received an analysis of what state charter schools receive in funding under current state law from State Department of Education (SDE) Legal and Government Affairs attorney Jennifer Widness and SDE Chief Financial Officer Brian Mahoney. Their analysis showed that as a group, many charter schools already receive more money per pupil than local schools when comparing state and local funding. Charter schools also can compete with local districts for federal funds and can seek contributions from private organizations and foundations.
Mary Loftus Levine, CEA Director of Policy and Professional Practice, appears on a Connecticut radio show. Photo by Chion Wolf. © WNPR - Connecticut Public Radio
Yesterday was the deadline for states to apply for the first round of Race to the Top (RTTT) education funding from the federal government.
CEA’s Director of Policy and Professional Practice joined Connecticut’s Commissioner of Education and an education reporter on the WNPR show Where We Live. Mary Loftus Levine and Commissioner Mark McQuillan spoke about the RTTT application process and what it means for Connecticut.
Listen to the complete program by clicking below.
Approximately 120 districts have signed on to Connecticut’s Race to the Top (RTTT) Application, which the state must submit to the federal government by this Tuesday.
The U.S. Department of Education will review applications and awards will be made sometime this spring. If Connecticut is not accepted in the first phase of the process it can reapply June 1 to receive funding in phase two. Awards for phase two will be made by September 30, 2010.
State Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan has announced that upwards of 50 school districts have signed on to the Connecticut State Department of Education’s (SDE) proposed education reform plan for funding under the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant.
At a news conference held on the morning of January 11, the official deadline for the local application process, McQuillan told reporters that 50 local school districts already had submitted their applications to his office. He added that he expected to hear from more districts throughout the day as local Boards of Education and local teachers unions officially committed to the state RTTT reform effort.
Up for grabs in the national RTTT competition is more than four billion with potentially $175 million for Connecticut.
Districts that agree to work with the state and participate in the RTTT grant must implement all or significant portions of the state’s reform plan that addresses the following four themes:
- Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to complete in the global economy.
- Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction.
- Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most.
- Turning around the state’s lowest-achieving schools.
The timeframe for the reform plan is four years. Half of the funding (approximately $87.5 million) in the state application would go to school districts that commit to participating in the state plan. The other half of the funding would be devoted mostly to statewide initiatives, including professional development for teachers and administrators, the expansion of the longitudinal data system, vertical scale assessment data, developing models for supporting, supervising and evaluating teachers and principals, secondary school reform, and several other initiatives.
RTTT is a competitive grant program. The federal government has established a point system to decide which states may get money based on how well each state application addresses the four themes outlined above. The largest number of points are awarded to states that best address promoting great teachers and leaders.
The bottom line is that deciding whether to sign on to the grant is a decision that each local school district and local teachers union has to make for itself. Locals have to evaluate how children’s education might improve and what their members might gain.
State Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan says reports that merit pay is mandated by RTTT have been erroneous. In fact, he says many aspects of RTTT will be locally determined.
McQuillan says a small, but critical part of the reform work that will take place if Connecticut gets RTTT funds is improving student achievement in underperforming schools.
Fran Rabinowitz, Superintendent of Schools in Hamden, says that collaboration is key to school reform. She is working closely with the local Board of Education and the local teachers union.
Diane Marinaro, President of the Hamden Education Association, says that teachers are on the frontlines of education and their input is pivotal as school reform is implemented.
Diane Ullman, Superintendent of Schools in Simsbury, is heavily involved with the revision of student standards that would occur in connection with the RTTT effort. She wants state students to outperform their counterparts in some Asian and European countries.
Proposals to overhaul charter school law could negatively impact local schools
In its race to meet a looming deadline to apply for a competitive federal grant, the State Board of Education adopted a series of legislative proposals to overhaul how Connecticut’s charter schools are funded – proposals that are neither realistic nor reasonable and that could ultimately siphon money from communities for traditional public schools.
The proposed revisions were adopted at the board’s meeting yesterday so they could be included in the state’s application for the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant that is due January 19. The proposals, which would require approval by state legislators, include increasing the per-pupil grant for charter schools to a comparable statewide average rate, lifting caps on charter school enrollments, allowing priority school districts to form independently governed local charter schools, and revising state laws that limit funding for charter schools.
More ominous for local school budgets is that state board members has kept alive a proposal to revise the funding model for charter schools to require districts to pay a set tuition rate for each child from the district enrolled in a charter school. This proposal and the increase in the per-pupil grant for charter schools that SBE adopted were the two revised funding models for charter schools that were competing for adoption by SBE.
However, instead of rejecting the “money follows the child” model for funding charter schools, SBE will continue looking at how it could transition to this method of funding at special meeting on January. Enactment of such a proposal – which has been pushed by a private company that runs several of Connecticut’s state charter schools – would drain money from local school budgets.
Currently, the state provides $9,300 per pupil directly to state charter schools, with no local contribution. In an attempt to create “parity” with traditional local schools, SBE is seeking to increase the per pupil grant to $10,306 — an amount equivalent to the average adjusted net current expenditure per pupil.
CEA Government Relations Director Mark Waxenberg says SBE’s proposals seem to assume that traditional public schools are adequately funded – even when there is abundant evidence that this is not true. Additionally, there will be a 14 percent hole in the state’s Education Cost Sharing (ECS) program once federal stimulus funds evaporate in two years.
“That is $541 million over two years – more than half a billion dollars that the state would need to find in its budget for Connecticut’s local public schools,” says Waxenberg, who questions why the state needs a new concept to compare expenditures between traditional schools and charter schools.
“The per-pupil expenditures in an overwhelming majority of charter schools already surpass the $10,306 parity target, so there appears to be no need to make such a change.”
He adds that SBE members are ignoring a critical policy decision made when the charter school law was enacted in 1996. “State lawmakers wanted to ensure that charter schools and public schools were on equal financial footing. That’s why they decided it was in the public’s best interest that the state fund charters at the student ‘foundation level’ established in the ECS grant.”
Waxenberg said the proposal to increase the per-pupil expenditure by $1,000 per student in all the charter schools in the state would cost the state more than $5 million, raising the total state budget allocation for charters to more than $50 million. “With growth, it might approach a $100 million price tag in the future,” he said.
Waxenberg says the proposals to increase per-pupil funding do not take into consideration that under current law, charter schools do not pay for transportation, special education costs, and nursing services. These costs are all borne by the city/town in which the charter is located.
“If the state expects local school districts to take over the fiscal responsibility for charters that are now borne by the state this would have enormous – and negative –consequences. This cost shifting would create huge financial hardships for local school districts. Local districts immediately would lose more than $17 million from their local budgets – school budgets that thousands and thousands of schoolchildren depend on for quality education.”
Waxenberg adds that in subsequent years, the situation would get even worse. “We cannot expect to place the lion’s share of responsibility for charters on the shoulders of local taxpayers.”
CEA also has serious concerns, he says, about the proposal to allow priority school districts to create charter schools with independent governing bodies and contractors, said Waxenberg. “This appears to be nothing more than a way to privatize our public schools, and it concerns us deeply.”
Proposals to rewrite state statute concerning enrollment caps granting charters regardless of available funding appropriations is “dangerous and confusing” because it seeks to remove phrases and wording that are consistent with important education statutes.
“This proposal raises a long list of issues connected with accountability and statutory safeguards. These are the same kind of issues that the state auditors recently raised,” says Waxenberg.
CEA embraced the reform potential of charter schools when it worked with state legislators to create the 1996 law. CEA then helped to establish the first unionized charter school in the state, Integrated Day Charter School in Norwich. CEA recently pioneered another reform approach known as CommPACT schools.
“CEA would never underestimate the value of charter schools as laboratories of innovation. At the same time, we also must be mindful of solutions – systemic reform that can be nurtured in all local school districts – that promote high-quality education for all of the students in our state. CEA strongly supports proposals that enhance excellence in education in all public schools. However, in our view, SBE’s proposals are not realistic or responsible options to improve education.”
