It is appalling that “some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007,” according to Agriculture Department.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I can always tell when I am hungry: I get a little irritable, easily distracted, and if I’m in a meeting or presentation, I  incessantly watch the clock counting down the minutes until lunch, and I’m an adult. Fortunately for most of us, this is not a regular occurrence (usually just poor planning) and more importantly, there is relief: we go home and make dinner or grab a mid-morning snack.

But, for nearly 700,000 children that is not the case; for many, their only meals are the ones they get at school if their parents filled out the free and reduced lunch program forms.

In his Presidential Campaign, President-elect Obama made ending domestic hunger a top priority, and the aim is by 2015.  If his administration succeeds in this endeavor, I believe it will have a major influence on academic achievement for children from poverty. How can we expect them to focus on learning when they are starving?

Florida was a pioneer in virtual schooling, with the launch of Florida Virtual School (FVS) in 1997, the nation’s first state-wide Internet-based public high school.

Today, FVS is a quality, free public choice option for students across the state (and even for students outside Florida who are willing to pay for classes), serving more than 63,000 middle and high school students. The program offers a host of electives, AP courses, general education courses, and even physical education courses. Although FVS has a few full-time students, the majority of students enroll in the virtual school to squeeze in classes they aren’t able to take during the regular school day for either course enhancement or course recovery.

Until now, Florida’s Legislature has taken virtual schooling to the next level. According to an Orlando Sentinel article published earlier this month:

A new law that takes effect next fall requires every district in the state to set up an online school for kindergarten through eighth-grade students. They won’t have to get on the bus — or even get out of their PJs — to head to school at the family computer.

Virtual programs are a great idea for students that have special circumstances (health issues, etc) and for students looking to get ahead or catch up. But, they should not supplant education in the regular school setting. Students miss out on salient social interaction with both adults and peers. Learning and communicating is just not the same when done solely through online chats, phone calls, and other virtual tools. Face to face settings, speaking, listening, and working in groups are valuable experiences that prepare children for higher education and the workplace.

While I am a little tepid about the expansion of online only virtual school options, I am pleased the Florida Legislature considered the digital divide that often hinders children from low-income families. No computers or online service required: the state will cover the bill for any full-time students who does not have access to the technology required.

However, virtual schools might not the best option for low-income families or many other families for that matter, particularly those where no one is home during the day to supervise and assist their children. But, then again online learning doesn’t have to take place in the home it could take place almost anywhere that’s plugged in: library, community center, or parent’s workplace (depending on the environment of course).

Like most other reforms and innovations, virtual schools aren’t a solution for all students, but might be a sensible choice for some students.

Jason Kamras says that if America can put a man on the moon, we ought to be able to figure out differentiated pay for teachers. He’s probably right, but I hope he’s not planning to make DCPS teachers play the role of Albert the Monkey.

Book Event: The Trouble With Boys. 11/13/08, Education Sector

Peg Tyre was on hand to discuss her book, The Trouble With Boys, along with Richard Whitmere and Sara Mead. A lively discussion ensued.

Category 1: Food. 5. Delicious cheese, wine and beer. What more does one need?

Category 2: Intern to Important Person Ratio. 4. Would have been a 5 if I hadn’t been there. Oh well.

Category 3: Content. 5. Like watching a news show debate, except smart, nuanced and interactive.

Category 4: Technology. 5. It’s true that there are no flat screens in the ES conference room. That’s because when we need to look at something, we project it ONTO THE WALL. Boo-yah. Plus, an audio recording will be available on the ES website.

Category 5: Bonus Points. 5 points for having genuinely differing but all highly credible views on the panel.

Overall FFEI Score: 96

Florida has 3 voucher programs: The McKay Scholarship Program, which serves children with IEPs, the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provided private school vouchers until the Florida Supreme Court stopped the practice in 2006 and now provides public school choice, and the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship, which gives businesses a tax credit in exchange for contributions to “Scholarship Funding Organizations.” SFOs then provide scholarships of up to $3950 in private school tuition or up to $500 in transportation costs to out-of-district public schools for eligible students (students who meet free/reduced price lunch requirements).

Opportunity Scholarship Program participants are almost all high school students. There could be any number of reasons for that, including feasibility of travelling to a farther school or increased student autonomy. But the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship participants skew in the opposite direction. Almost 30% of CTC Scholarship recipients are in Kindergarten or 1^st grade. Almost 45% are in grades K-3.

Why the disparity? I don’t know, but I’m wondering if it has something to do with the requirement that first time CTC scholarship applicants entering grades 2-12 must have attended Florida public schools during the preceding year. 85% of CTC Scholarship recipients choose religious schools. How many of these early graders were headed to religious private schools with or without the CTC scholarship?

I can see the argument for vouchers when the public schools are failing kids. But these young kids are getting CTC scholarships before they ever set foot in a public school. As for performance, they score lower in both reading and math than students in public schools. It’s true that the comparison groups aren’t perfect, because the group of CTC participants is not randomly selected. But if voucher schools are supposed to provide a higher quality choice for parents, shouldn’t we expect these kids to do at least as well as their public school peers?

I am going to keep at it. Today, I saw Klein is profiled in the New York Times under a series entitled “The New Team.” Klein also bumped up to third place in Fordham’s daily chart of Top contenders for the Secretary of Education. Mike’s thoughts about it:

Which I can’t quite understand. Don’t you have to assume that AFT president Randi Weingarten will have a veto over any Obama nominees for the ed sec job? And wouldn’t she use it when it comes to Klein? (Especially in light of this petition which urges Obama to go in another direction.)

Whether Klein is really a top contender or not, I think Mike overestimates the unions’ pull with Obama. He has used his willingness to go against union wishes as examples of times he has broken with traditional democratic doctrine, most prominently advertising this disposition in the third presidential debate. Of course, being new and optimistic, I could be naïve about the unions’ ability to corrupt the change candidate.

I thought this tidbit was interesting from Klein’s profile:

Is linked to Obama by: Friends and associates, including Caroline Kennedy, a college roommate and close friend of Mr. Klein’s wife, Nicole K. Seligman.

Kennedy also appears on Fordham’s chart (9th). NYTimes also profiles Janet Napolitano, but not for Education Secretary, despite the fact that she is also high on Fordham’s chart (7^th).

Mike wants the Obama girls to attend Georgetown Day School because it participates in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Though the Obamas could make a powerful statement by choosing a public school, I think GDS is great (and not just because I graduated from the high school).

But annual tuition for GDS (grades 1-5) is $27,945. DC Opportunity Scholarships provide up to $7,500 per student. Even if you upped the scholarship program to the $15,847 that DCPS spends per pupil, you’d be just over halfway to GDS tuition. So as far as the DC Opportunity Scholarship program giving disadvantaged kids a chance to go to GDS, it only serves as one piece of a financial aid puzzle (one that GDS, to its credit, works hard to complete). I’m not a big voucher supporter, but if Mike wants to make the vouchers worth $30,000 and also up the per-pupil spending in the public schools to that level, I might get on board.

Richard Cohen at the Washington Post likes Klein too.

More interestingly though, he infers that after the State, Defense and Treasury posts, the Secretary of Education is going to be the most important pick this year and advocates for elevating the post into the inner cabinet.

Next to Gore at State, nothing would show how much the Obama administration will break from the past than by elevating the secretary of education to the inner Cabinet. My choice: Joel Klein, New York City’s schools chancellor.

Update: Eric and I repeat each other. Oh well, Great minds blog alike. With Eric though you get the bonus photo of a younger than reality looking Klein. How kind.

A few thoughts prompted by today’s Eduwonk post about gay marriage and school choice:

First, I have to quibble with Andy about the idea that gay marriage advocates are “seeking a right.” The whole point of Proposition 8 and similar bans in other states is to prevent the courts from enforcing a right that they decide already exists. In fact, the language of Prop 8 specifically says that it “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

This weekend, I attended a pick-pickin in beautiful Montebello, VA. Between hiking and 200 pounds of delicious pork, I got into the gay marriage argument with the deer hunters at the next campsite over (I can’t resist talking politics when I get to go to “real” Virginia. Plus, I bartered pumpkin pie for venison). Anyway, they rejected the “no harm to others” argument in favor of gay marriage that Andy referenced because of potential harm to children brought up in gay households. While I wholeheartedly reject the notion that gay marriage would harm children, I can see their logic. Ideas of rights and liberty regarding marriage and public school are complicated by the special status and restricted liberty of children - since they’re not full citizens with normal rights and they’re not the property of their parents, there’s all kinds of weird gray area and places where it might be appropriate for the state to intervene for the child in ways that might restrict the liberty of the parents. So I don’t think of school choice in terms of how to make the rights of the parent more accessible, I think of it in terms of the state’s responsibility to the child, especially when the state is making an investment of public funds. The easy fix is accountability and a watchful eye on religion, which can get me to non-religious, accountable charter schools but not private school vouchers (except in limited “lifeboat” scenarios). I’m not sure I understand how you can think about any public school issue strictly in terms of the rights of the parent vs. the public interest without considering the special relationship the state has with the child.

With the waiting game almost over, its time to start playing the guessing game, the one where we try to predict potential picks for Secretary of Education, which I have a feeling is about as effective as the BCS. Mike already got started a few weeks ago. Since this kind of speculative behavior seems to be the life-blood of the current media culture of constant blogging and a 24-hour news cycle, I have a feeling everyone and their mother will soon be joining the party. Politico, decided to get in early. Here are their predictions:

Potential Obama Secretary of Education:

David Boren, president of the University of Oklahoma and former U.S. senator and former Sooner State governor; Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean (R), who was chairman of the 9/11 Commission; Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)

For McCain, Politico only listed one name (probably as to not waste time thinking about this too hard):

Former Arizona superintendent of education Lisa Graham Keegan

Has anyone told Linda Darling-Hammond, John Schnur or anyone else in Obama’s Education League that they are being skipped over in the media for a hodgepodge of former governors and congressmen? And not the hodgepodge that has been floating around education circles- Hunt, Romer, Napolitano- at that.

P.S. I also saw a comment board throwing out Joel Klein as an option- my personal favorite suggestion so far.