|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| POSITIVE PRESSURE | |
 March 28, 2000  |
|
|
Correspondent Tom Bearden reports on an unusual method used to teach troubled teens.
|
|
TOM BEARDEN: 17-year-old Kenneth is from the Bronx. He's threatening to quit school and move back home with his mother.
TOM BEARDEN: The staff and his peers are trying to convince him to stay. STUDENT: No, no, no. Why won't you listen to that? Why won't you listen to that? Why do you want to hurt yourself? TOM BEARDEN: Kenneth is one of 170 teenagers at the Edwin Gould Academy in Chestnut Ridge, New York, about an hour north of New York City. But Gould isn't what most people would think of when they hear the word "academy.' It's not a posh private school, but rather a publicly funded residential treatment facility for teenagers from New York City's toughest neighborhoods. Only a small fraction of the more than 40,000 kids in foster care or juvenile detention in the city get to be a part of the Gould program. About 25% of the kids at Gould have committed petty non-violent crimes. If they fail here, the alternative is either getting locked up in a juvenile detention center or being sent back to the same streets where they got into trouble. The other 75% have been abused or neglected by parents or relatives, and have been sent here as a refuge. All of them are troubled, and Gould offers a chance to turn their lives around. Tom Webber runs the academy.
TEACHER: Yeah, what's another word for "failure?" TOM BEARDEN: Outside observers think Gould is pretty special, too. Last year the school won the prestigious Harvard School of Government Award for innovation in government. Dr. Webber says the numbers show the school a proven success, with 150 kids graduating from high school in the last five years, and 50% of those kids go on to college or technical training. That's far higher than other programs in New York and elsewhere. Like most residential centers, the kids live together in a group house. This one is called the Alex Haley House, on the second floor of a building that was an orphanage in the 1920'S. The core of the Gould program is something called "positive peer culture." Each evening, students meet to discuss their problems and try to help each other solve them. The technique isn't new. But unlike most residential treatment facilities, the staff only observes the group sessions. The kids are in charge. The idea is to teach the teens to think about others before thinking about themselves. On this night Kenneth-- we omit last names because of the students' ages-- was despondent. He had just gotten his grades, and was failing everything. He was ready to give up. The group was trying to convince him to stay in school and graduate, so that he could achieve his goal of joining the Marines next fall. STUDENT: You... You have no discipline at all. KENNETH: I don't care no more. I just don't care no more, about the program... Nothing to do with the program. STUDENT: Why is the program...
STUDENT: Yes. KENNETH: And I am leaving, and what has the program been giving me to become independent? Nothing. (Several kids talking) and I have tried... I have been working the year and eight months I have been here. STUDENT: That's your attitude right now... Change your attitude. Your attitude is not with us... Your attitude is with yourself, because you don't know how to handle your problems. If you really sit right there... Sit right there and observe yourself... You gonna say real good, you gonna say, yo, my problem is not with my head, it is within myself. STUDENT: It seems like you want things to just come to you... For people to feed you everything, and you just want to sit back and relax, but you got to strive just like everybody else is striving. You ain't the only one that got problems. If you're having so much problems, you need to find another way to deal with those problems, instead of acting childish, all right?
TOM BEARDEN: Positive peer culture is designed to counter the often negative peer pressure on the streets that got some of the kids in trouble in the first place. But it's not the only element staffers think contributes to Gould's success. Another key is the way the school is organized. The students are supervised by a coordinated team of adults that work with the boys to solve their problems in the classroom, at home, and with their fellow students. Each team consists of a teacher, a social worker, and a therapist. In most treatment centers, the educator and the social worker work in different departments, report to different bosses, and don't often communicate about the student. At Gould, they are all in the same organization. The team thinks that makes a big difference. KATHLEEN FORDHAM, Teacher: I think that's very important is the consistency, and that what you're talking about is working with a team. It's because we do all know what the strategies are for each student, and it's carried through so that we're all on the same page, and the students have no opportunity to slip through the cracks, if you will. TOM BEARDEN: In fact on this night, teacher Fordham took Kenny into a one-on-one session to give him additional help. KATHLEEN FORDHAM: And you are not even listening to what they're saying to you. You have to stop a minute. Stop and relax and to regroup and think about what they're saying to you... That you are making a mistake. Nothing will work for you, if you leave under these circumstances. Nothing will go your way. What is... What is the goal? What is your big goal right now? KENNETH: Finish school. KATHLEEN FORDHAM: Okay. You think if you leave in the middle of the semester that you're going to be able to finish up school this year? KENNETH: Hey, listen... I...
KENNETH: All I need is eight credits. KATHLEEN FORDHAM: Kenny, it is not going to happen. You have no credits right now. You have no credits. KENNETH: And all I need is eight. KATHLEEN FORDHAM: And you can get eight credits in a semester. KENNETH: Yes... I know. KATHLEEN FORDHAM: Kenny, it is not going to happen. What if you don't pass something? KENNETH: I am not going to fail. TOM BEARDEN: The staff says this approach often means working a lot more than nine to five. HEWTON FIDER, Team Leader: Well, you're supposed to work 40 hours a week, but again because of the dynamics, and because of the unique program we have, it sometimes... It never really happens to be 40. MICHELLE ISRAEL, Social Worker: It's a very emotional job. You're dealing with emotions all day long so, it can be stressful. But you have great days, and you have tough days, and then you have great days when you see some great things with them. And it just pays off. TOM BEARDEN: Keith thinks the program has helped make him a better person. Are you better prepared now than when you came here?
TOM BEARDEN: Where did you get that respect from? Who taught it to you? KEITH: You got to give respect to earn respect, so that is what they taught us here. So by me giving people respect, I earn respect. TOM BEARDEN: Nancy Mahon, the director for the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture, follows the juvenile justice in America. She says programs like Gould should be an alternative to incarceration.
TOM BEARDEN: It costs the state between $65,000 and $80,000 to put a child in a regular juvenile detention center or a group home. Gould's program comes with a larger price tag: Almost $90,000 a year per student. TOM WEBBER: All of our resources are combined, so the educational money, which is in the neighborhood of $25,000, $27,000 a year per kid; the foster care money, which is in the neighborhood of $45,000, 48,000; the Medicaid or medical money to provide both health services-- some of our kids come here and with no immunization records. We have to provide all medical service sometimes from the beginning. The state's giving that to all of these programs already any way, so the money's already being spent. We're just using it wisely. We're putting all the program pieces together. TOM BEARDEN: New York's commissioner for children's service whose office gives the academy more than $9 million a year and sends them three-quarters of their students, thinks the money is well spent.
TOM BEARDEN: Dr. Howard Polsky is a professor at the Columbia School of Social Work, who has studied and written about juvenile residential facilities for more than 30 years. He says the Gould program is working better than most and can be applied in many other situations.
TOM BEARDEN: But academy staffers are the first to admit that they don't have a very good idea about what happens to the students who complete their stay at Gould. They've found it difficult to raise money for follow-up studies. Even so, the school has received more than two dozen inquiries from out-of-state agencies considering replicating the program. Back at the Alex Haley House, at the end of that tense group meeting, Kenneth decided to stay that night, attend more meetings, and try to graduate from high school. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Plan targets most-needy children | ||||||||||||||||||||
| MARGARET WARNER: For more on Bush's plan, we're joined by
Margaret LaMontagne, Governor Bush's education adviser, and William Galston,
senior policy adviser for Vice President Gore and a professor at the School
of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland. Welcome, both of you.
Ms. LaMontagne, first of all give us a few more details on this plan. How many students? The handout from the campaign talked about 900,000 students. Is that the scope of the problem? Is that how many students can't read at the grade level in those grades? And would this fully address it?
But one of the things I think about the number is that it speaks to the need for more accountability, more data, but we do believe that approximately 900,000 children would need special assistance to make sure that they're on track to be readers. We've modeled this program after something the governor launched here beginning in '96. The governor called for all children in Texas on grade level reading by the end of third grade. And that was followed by some acknowledgment of reading as a major problem in the country by the Clinton-Gore administration. This is a plan that's developed on a successful model that we've used here in Texas. MARGARET WARNER: And then would every school in the country, would the kids take these tests at every school? How would the schools be picked out and how would the teachers be picked out? MARGARET LaMONTAGNE: This is focused at Title I kids, kids most in need. MARGARET WARNER: You mean kids… Just explain Title I kids briefly.
MARGARET WARNER: And would every school that received Title I funds be required to participate? MARGARET LaMONTAGNE: We would... Actually, the way the plan is structured is that we would set aside this money and states would elect to participate in the program if they wanted to. So there is a high degree of local control and autonomy in the plan. They would assess kindergarten and first graders who would be Title I eligible. That's about 1.6 million children across the country. Obviously more kids need assessment than are likely to need intervention. Some of those kids are succeeding in public schools, and we're glad of that. So there's more assessment than there is intervention naturally. The teacher training component obviously is for teachers that might serve kids who are also non-Title I. But the emphasis for the intervention is those kids most in need of help. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Democrats say nothing new in proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||
 WILLIAM
GALSTON, University of Maryland: There is absolutely no question about
the fact that reading is fundamental. And there is no question about the
fact that too many kids in this country today finish third grade not being
able to read. And it is, I think, a very welcome development that the
American people are getting a real discussion and a real debate about
a real problem. So far, so good. I have two fundamental comments about
the Bush proposal.
The first comment might be called "Welcome aboard, Governor Bush." The year 1996 was mentioned. That happens to be the year that the Clinton-Gore administration fought for and enacted the Reading Excellence Act, launched the "America Reads" program. An army of volunteers has fanned out across the country. So, the idea that this is a dramatic departure from the status quo, I think, will not really survive inspection. Has the problem been licked? No. But we are beginning to see signs of progress as revealed, for example, by improvements in scores, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress between 1994 and 1998. MARGARET WARNER: But do you agree that this-- that the key is to identify these kids very early and then to train the teachers specially and then to give them, if it takes one-on-one tutoring, just give them intensive training until it... Until they get it.
MARGARET WARNER: Okay. So Ms. LaMontagne, what is in the governor's plan that is above and beyond what has already been enacted? MARGARET LaMONTAGNE: First, let me say from a little historical correction point of view, the governor launched the Texas reading initiative in January of '96 and recognized and we have waged war on illiteracy in Texas. Subsequent to that, the Clinton administration did follow up. There has been a major focus by the Congress and the administration on reading and literacy. I think the difference here -- and this, you know, hangs with the rest of the governor's proposal -- is that this is part of a greater reform package. That is, that you have to have measurement and accountability and consequences coupled with local control and then investments targeted to solving a particular problem. So I don't want to leave the impression that this is the stand-alone program because it does fit very much with the rest of the governor's proposal. MARGARET WARNER: But I mean if I have a child in a Title I school somewhere in, I don't know, Maryland, what would that child be getting under your program or the governor's program that he or she wasn't already getting under the program that Congress already enacted?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Efforts to increase school accountability | ||||||||||||||||||||
| WILLIAM GALSTON: Well, since the issue has been broadened
out to general education philosophy, let me say that the philosophy of
the Clinton-Gore administration, which is emphatically the philosophy
of Al Gore, is investment in reform with accountability for results. And
that is why the administration, starting in 1994 with its first reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, linked Title I and other
funds to the national education goals and measurable movement towards
the national education goals for the first time. So, the debate is not
between accountability and no accountability. The question is, accountability
how? Who is accountable? And to whom?
MARGARET WARNER: Would Vice President Gore yank funds from schools that didn't show measurable improvement? WILLIAM GALSTON: Vice President Gore last may gave a speech in a randomly selected state, Iowa, in which he proposed a comprehensive program for failing schools, which among other things said that states are going to be incentives... given incentives to shut down failing schools. That is to say, schools on the elementary level that aren't teaching kids to read and either reopen them under new leadership or reconstitute them as charter schools. So, yes, absolutely. There are big consequences for failure in the Gore approach. MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Ms. LaMontagne, on the accountability issue, how does Governor Bush differ? MARGARET LaMONTAGNE: The problem there is that there is no real accountability system in place under that plan. What we've learned in Texas is that unless you're measuring every kid every year, as the governor has called for, and disaggregating the data. And we've called on states to develop systems that do that, you don't have any information. You don't know who the bad actors are and who the good actors are. You don't know who is doing the job and who isn't. So, you're right. I mean, everyone calls for accountability, but you can't have an accountability system unless you're measuring every kid every year, unless you're reporting the data by student group, unless there are consequences and a walking of the last mile for the kids. And so those are the things that I think are missing from these national calls for accountability that are frankly anemic. MARGARET WARNER: So, under the governor's plan though, if a school was in this program and after two or three years not many of their students were reading a lot better, what would happen?
MARGARET WARNER: All right. And Vice President Gore would not go that far? WILLIAM GALSTON: Well, let me say a couple of things. On the subject of accountability, Vice President Gore has proposed that by the year 2005, every teacher who walks into a classroom must be certified to teach that subject -- no more out-of-subject teaching for teachers and school systems receiving federal funds. Secondly, Vice President Gore has proposed that every teacher before he or she first sets foot in the classroom must pass a test which tests not only pedagogical ability but also knowledge of content. And so we're talking about an accountability revolution so that teachers who are teaching are first and second and third graders are really trained to teach kids how to read, Number One. Number two, if you really are serious about licking America's reading problem in the early grades, you've got to do two things: First of all, you've got to make sure that every kid reaches first grade ready to learn and that means universal pre-K. Secondly, you have to reduce class sizes. MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry. We're going to have to leave it there. We're already over time. But thank you very much and thank you, Miss LaMontagne. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
KENNETH:
I am leaving. I am leaving today. I am being discharged. 
TOM
WEBBER, Edwin Gould Academy: Edwin Gould Academy believes that kids
can really become something great. And it sounds corny, and it sounds
like words that we have in our mission statement, but we really believe
it, and we try and get the kids to believe that not only can they be
great, but they can be something special. 
KENNETH:
If I have a problem then I will deal with it myself, and if I can't,
hey, hey, I have to deal with it. The program says we have to work to
become independent. 
LUIS:
You hear us at the moment, but you are going to keep on using... Keep
on saying... Keep on going, doing the same mistakes. Take the help we're
giving you and keep on using it, every time you are about to get into
a problem, you remember the help we've been giving you. Then you are
not going to get in that problem and that's what you got to do. 
KATHLEEN
FORDHAM: Listen to me. Listen to me. I have 15 years in the system...
15 years in education... I am telling you that that is not going to
happen. You will not finish school on time if you leave here now. Even
if you go to summer school, it's not going to happen. You will not graduate
from high school this year. 
KEITH:
Oh yeah, a lot. I was a little hardheaded, you know what I mean? Didn't
listen to nobody, didn't give respect, had no respect. I got a lot of
respect now for other people. And trying to be successful, they are
going to try to help me. 
NANCY
MAHON, Center for Crime, Communities & Culture: The Department of
Juvenile Justice recently did a report in which they estimated that
when a juvenile goes... basically falls out of high school system and
goes into the juvenile justice system, we will pay, as a society, between
$1.7 million and $2.5 million over the course of that juveniles life.
Unfortunately, if we don't invest in kids at this juncture, and we put
them in juvenile justice system instead of in facilities and programs
and schools like Edwin Gould, we are going to be paying, as I said,
for that child for many, many years to come in adult prisons. 
NICHOLAS
SCOPPETTA, Commissioner, Children's Services: You are really saving
these children's lives. It is about $80,000 a year per bed. It is a
very expensive program, but if you don't do this, and the kids go homeless
-- end up in the adult criminal system, you will spend a lot more then.
And as they say, "pay now or pay later." But that doesn't
even begin to measure the human cost, if you don't intervene. 
DR.
HOWARD POLSKY, Columbia University School of Social Work: What they
have learned there can be duplicated, not only in other residential
institutions, but I think it also can be duplicated in public schools
in the prime and criminalgenic neighborhoods that are falling apart.
The concept of team primacy, where they emphasize staff participation
in the decision- making of the institution, to involve them as part
of the community, are all programs and mechanisms that could be useful
to other institutions, and also to public schools.
MARGARET
LaMONTAGNE, Bush Education Adviser: Well, that's a good estimate and
a good start. I mean, I think one of the things about trying to derive
a number about how many kids are really in need of special help to be
readers -- because we know that if kids are not on track to be readers
by the end of third grade, the likelihood is very high that they won't
ever be and that they'll not be able to succeed in school or in life.
And so it's a game that's fought and won early. 
MARGARET
LaMONTAGNE: Those are kids who are in high poverty schools and who at
risk of failure, shall we say. Those who are neediest of intervention
and help very likely. What we know from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, or the NAEP, test is that 58% of those kids score below basic
by the time they get to the end of fourth grade. So working back from
that, we think it's somewhere in the 900,000 to one million kid range
of kindergarten and first graders that are going to need the special
help. 
WILLIAM
GALSTON: Absolutely. That's why the administration, the Clinton-Gore
administration, fought for and has enacted a professional development
fund. That is why the administration has proposed an early assessment
and an early intervention program. So, there is no dispute about any
of these, but the idea that this represents some sort of policy breakthrough,
I think will not survive inspection. 
MARGARET
LaMONTAGNE: The program that Congress already enacted does not specifically
call form... while states may choose to diagnose individual kids or
not, this is... we believe this is the recipe -- and we have enacted
this in our own state -- that will cause kids to gain literacy. It's
coupled with three things. It's having teachers who have the very best
knowledge and information possible. It's identifying kids who need help
and who don't need help and it's getting the kids the help. So there
are some critical components to this that are not specifically called
for in current federal plans.
MARGARET
LaMONTAGNE: We would allow portability and up to $1500 per child to
be matched by the state and to flow to the parents so that they could
make a difference choice. I think what the governor laid out yesterday
that expands on his previous proposal is that we're willing to put some
skin in the game to make sure that we have as few kids as possible portable
but at some point in time we have to say, if kids are not getting opportunities
in public schools, then they need options. 
