Pedagogue Blog

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Policy & Reform

Accountability versus Gaming the P-12 System

I’ve recently delved into The Death and Life of the Great American School by Diane Ravitch. It has been on my reading list for some time now and I finally decided it was time to really give it the attention it deserves. I consider myself an education reformer, and an advocate for reforming the current public school system, so Ravitch’s works speak to me, even if I’m not always completely in the same school of thought.

In educational discourse, Ravitch is an interesting figure. She served as the assistant secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush, though she has never been a Republican and is an Independent today. She was once a supporter of the No Child Left Behind Act and even the formation of charter schools, but in recent years has spoken out against these initiatives, saying that she is now disillusioned with them. In her eyes, and those of her supporters, the idea of standardized testing as a measure of a school’s worth and competition as a way to improve public education are not valid avenues to reform, and will indeed lead to an education system more flawed than the current one.

Ravitch discusses the many ways that school districts that include public, private and charter schools within their realms game the system to reach standardized testing and other accountability benchmarks. She talks in depth about the transformation of New York City public school district 2, an area that has undergone reform with support from deep pockets, like those belonging to billionaire Michael Bloomberg. In this particular instance, New York City schools are under mayoral control for all intents and purposes – and as such, have accountability standards that read more like a white paper on business efficiency than suggestions for actually teaching human beings.

The problem with these standards, of course, is that with stringent, subjective targets for learning, schools are able to game the system to make it work in their favor. In other words, these schools are looking for ways to meet a specific, narrow goal – think of it like a salesperson closing a deal – and then they are rewarded for that piece of shallow success. The flip side of this is that the schools that do not manage to meet these standards are then punished, in true NCLB style, even if the details of their teaching methods actually have some merit. Teachers and administrators at schools that are deemed “failures” or even just mediocre by the established system then must bow to the pressure in order to stay relevant and away from the target range when it comes to adding “competitive” school choices.

Places like New York City are not the first to bring in sweeping reform ideas intended to aid student success – they are simply re-debuting ideas that have already existed in other parts of the country. It is fair to note that by many accounts, areas with public charter and magnet school choice do not fare any better (and are sometimes worse) than the traditional neighborhood schools in the area. Yet, sometimes these schools DO work – at least on paper. I’ve mused before about how my home state of Mississippi would look if there were to be more choice in the state when it comes to P-12 education. As it stands now, student achievement gets a failing grade consistently in Mississippi and the public schools are not improving under the current system. Based on the success of choice programs in other areas, is it worth a try? Or will those schools be developed in ways that “game the system” and take away the true measure of learning: well-rounded, educated students?

On Friday, I’ll take a look at the idea of superstar teachers tackled in the book and if they really are the cure for all educational reform ailments – or if they even exist.
Have you read The Death and Life of the Great American School? What are your thoughts?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch

Educational Tech: What’s Next?

There is a lot of money tied up in educational technology. In 2012, $600 million was invested by venture firms into ed-tech startups. To put that in perspective, that is 400 percent more than what was invested in the same industry in 2002. It seems that a lot of faith is being placed in the technology that will soon arrive in K-12 and college classrooms and on campuses – but what is actually being created?

Not a whole lot, according to ed-tech industry insiders. Speaking to CNN, a senior financial advisor said that there are not many fresh ideas floating around ed-tech startups. He said:

“Do they have a product that’s actually a solution for someone’s needs, and will the decision makers recognize that it’s a problem? There are lots of gradebooks out there. Don’t tell me you’ve got the first digital gradebook, and also nobody is viewing that as a problem.”

To his point, it seems that most of the ed-tech “advancements” of the past decade have had more to do with utility than the actual learning process. Course management, online communication portals between educators and parents, and even continuing training for teachers have all seen some streamlining as a result of technology. Students can take courses online and that in and of itself is a major stride in individualized learning. Still, the concept of online learning is certainly not considered cutting edge anymore. What strides have been made in the actual process since it was first introduced?

For K-12, major course providers like K12 now offer more scheduled learning experiences where students are expected to be logged in to their courses at a certain time, and possibly even visible on a web cam, in order to get attendance credit. There are also many more course options than when online learning for K-12 students first emerged. K12 boasts 105 courses for high school students alone. But for $600 million – shouldn’t there be more?

Freemium models

Following the successful mobile gaming application business model, ed-tech companies are starting to offer free services with paid upcharges. Consider Candy Crush Saga way of doing business. Anyone with a smartphone, tablet or desktop Facebook access can download the game at no cost. As users progress through the addictive, sugar-laden levels, they are prompted to make small purchases (usually between 99 cents and $3) to gain access to higher levels, add more lives or buy level “boosters” to help their luck. But giving away a product for free? What sort of business sense does that make? In the case of Candy Crush, it has proven to be savvy indeed. The game’s owner King brought in $1.9 billion in revenue in 2013 and its initial public offering earlier this year was valued at $7 billion.

Ed-tech companies are taking notice. Online learning giant Coursera (with $85 million in venture financial support) is experimenting with free courses but a small fee for the certification at the end of the course. Udacity (backed by $20 million from investor Andreessen Horowitz) is looking into monetizing courses through sponsorship opportunities and programs that match employers with promising students. In both cases, the ed-tech companies are not asking for money upfront but instead getting students “hooked” on the offerings first. From a strictly knowledge standpoint, students are the beneficiaries because certificate or not, once learning has been attained it can’t be taken back. From a practical standpoint though, without proof of completed coursework, all the free education in the world won’t translate into better job opportunities or college admittance. So time will tell if the freemium approach to ed-tech offerings will prove as lucrative as other industries but it certainly has potential.

What would you like to see the $600 million in ed-tech investments create?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation

More states moving towards virtual classes for K-12 students

According to KPK12.com, more states are implementing measures that require students to take virtual classes.

In 2014, “state virtual schools exist in 26 states as of fall 2014-one more than last year.”

Many states are moving towards mandating virtual education because students will likely be required to take a virtual course or two should they decide to attend college.

For instance, take Florida. KPK12.com notes that as of 2014, “Florida is the first state in the country to legislate that all K-12 students will have full- and part time virtual options, and that funding will follow each student down to the course level.”

Florida’s virtual school had over 400,000 enrollments in 2014, a number that is likely to at least maintain.

Another state in the south that’s primed to join the virtual party is Alabama. Lawmakers recently passed a bill “that requires each of its districts to provide virtual courses for high school students by the 2010-2017 school year.”

An issue that some states face when choosing whether to require virtual courses is the provider. What, if any, providers are available for local school districts to use?

For Alabama, the choice was easy as the state has selected Odysseyware, “an innovative, multimedia-enriched online curriculum.”

Jeff McClure, Director of Alternative Learning at Pike County Schools, took special note of Odyseeyware’s flexibility.

“Odysseyware provides flexibility outside the structure of a school master schedule,” McClure said.

In operation since the early aughts, Odysseyware continues to grow and expand its efforts to “meet the needs of 21st Century Learners…”

For more information on Odysseyware and services the company offers, please visit www.odysseyware.com.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

Relating Resource Allocation to a Performance-Focused Agenda

As the focus on the improvement of learning becomes more central, what educational leaders are expected to do and accomplish through the allocation of resources has changed. Historically, supporters of education were more concerned with the dollar amount allocated per pupil, and they spent much of their political capital advocating for increases from one year to the next.

Educational leaders were responsible for creating balanced budgets with the dollars they had available and accounting for expenditures in a responsible manner– a complex task in large school districts. Little attention was paid to how resources were related to performance or what type of performance was expected. The standards-based reform movement of the past several decades changed the situation fundamentally, by prompting new questions about what the learning standards should be and how educators should be held accountable for improved performance.

In response, educators have become more focused on results, while taking the stance that higher performance cannot be accomplished without adequate resources. Thus, a sea change has occurred, prompting educational leaders to consider how resource allocation is related to building high-performing systems that work for all students. As they take seriously the charge to become more learning-focused, leaders critically examine the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of existing resource allocation policies and practices and make decisions regarding ways in which resources might be reallocated in more productive ways.

This resource reallocation challenge is as important in the present era of standards-driven reform and accountability for results. Given the considerable variation in the needs, capacities, and contexts of schools, it is striking– though not surprising– that for the most part, resource allocation patterns in K–12 education are relatively uniform.

The uniformity of leaders’ responses to these varying needs may simply signal a safe course: the most easily defended set of decisions in a context of competition for scarce resources. Beneath the surface of this course of action, however, conflicting expectations, tensions, and barriers may be impeding leaders’ ability to think more creatively about how to organize and allocate limited resources and act strategically. These barriers exist at all levels of the educational policy system.

In such a situation, leaders might wish for definitive understanding about the impact of particular investments on student learning, yet the state of knowledge here is incomplete. The highly contextual nature of schools, the variations with which any particular improvement strategy is implemented, the motivational conditions that are present, and the need to adapt strategies to fit specific circumstances all interact with the resources brought to bear on learning improvement goals.

For districts wishing to commence anew with student-weighted allocation systems (whereby funds are allocated on the basis of student types), offering clear-cut guidance on what increments should be assigned to each student type is a crucial first step. However, a definitive response plainly cannot exist in the current state of fiscal allocation policy. The difficulty here is that currently there is no efficient resource allocation system whereby an answer can be reliably extrapolated.

Policymakers are consequently forced into determining fiscal policy without information relating to expenditure on student types. They are forced to do so with no understanding of the workings of allocation policies at different levels (federal, state, and local) either together or in conflict. Policymakers have little clarity on expenditure for different student types at the school level, nor awareness of the types of policies that would be more effective in guaranteeing that dollars reach students in the proposed ways.

School finance today works in opposition to the focused and effective utilization of resources that promote improved education of students. Just as an archaic computer can no longer function properly in a technological environment inundated with the latest software, this nation’s school finance system frozen by a combination of unrelated expenditure policies and administrative plans can no longer serve the needs of an educational system calling for reform.  A new model is required, to do one thing– ensure that every child receives instruction for his or her needs in order to become an involved citizen having total participation in this modern economy.

Current school finance systems fund programs, uphold institutions, and offer resources and staff employment so the school and district administrators can fully execute the multitude of laws and regulations that have become part of public education. However, the methods employed by today’s school finance systems– deploying expenditure levels based on habit and not need, covering up funds’ actual allocations, supporting institutions whether they are viable or not, hypocritically addressing equity, spending resources flippantly, attempting to make adults accountable by compliance and not by results– confuses the links between resources and academic aims that make finance relevant to student performance.

The school finance system evolved in a era in which programs were funded, and students passed or failed without much regard paid to the role of funding in student performance. This pattern was sustainable then, as jobs were available for people with low skills, and the vast majority of workers were not required to be well educated in order to maintain a healthy economy. Unfortunately, that legacy has proven unworkable in today’s highly technological, information-based economy, where low-skilled workers cannot rise above the poverty level and overseas workers are able to compete effectively in the market for skilled jobs, once available solely to Americans.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch, Teachers

7 Ways Technology Is Impacting Modern Education

Technology in the classroom can be so much more and so much better than the stereotypical cell phone going off in the middle of class. With higher-learning institutions offering up programs like a BSN-RN/MBA completely online , technology can be a major tool, both regarding pedagogical resources and regarding connecting with the younger generation. But how does this work?

The top seven important concepts to understand when examining the use of technology for educational or instructional purposes include:

1) Active engagement with the learning material.
Technology is interactive, and students learn by doing, researching, and receiving feedback. This helps students become passionate about what they are learning. For example, they may study geography using interactive software such as Google Maps or Google Earth, instead of looking at a picture.

2) Use of real-world issues.
This model encourages the use of real-world problems in the classroom. By using the Internet, students can research real issues happening at that moment that are related to the classroom curriculum. This helps students understand that the lesson being taught refers to real problems and real people.

3) Simulation and modeling.
Simulation software helps to bring to the classroom real activities that would be impossible to see without technology. By using specific simulation tools, students can see planetary movements, how a tornado develops, or how dinosaurs lived. Modeling software offers similar features. Instead of the static models used in previous decades, these tools allow students to see the dynamic characteristics of models.

4) Discussion and debate boards and forums.
By using the Internet or software tools, students can create online groups, Web pages, and virtual communities that connect them in real time with students and teachers anywhere around the world. They can receive feedback from their teachers and share questions and concerns about their lessons. By listening to and reading about others’ opinions and feedback, students refine their thinking, reaching higher levels of comprehension and deeper understanding. Online communities also present the opportunity for students to interact with others around the world.

5) Working groups.
Technology-focused education doesn’t involve a class of students learning by themselves, staring at a book. Working groups foster group activities, discussions, and debates, and they encourage the establishment of democratic group dynamics.

6) Coaching.
Teachers play more of a coaching role these days. They aren’t just instructors who deliver a lesson. Rather, they support and guide student activities as coaches do. They provide feedback and coaching to the class so that students receive the appropriate information and academic training. Teachers guide students in developing skills in problem solving, research, and decision-making.

7) Formative assessment.
Teachers ensure that students are learning not only the concepts, but also how to use the technology resources they have. Technology-focused activities mostly require critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. Teachers work as facilitators, providing constant feedback, enabling students to achieve deeper levels of understanding.

Teaching is all about introducing students to a whole world of concepts that they didn’t know about yet. Technology in the classroom is like a foray into modern invention – and you get to be the expedition leader. Rather than viewing digital devices and Internet spaces as a threat to your duties, view them as unexplored areas of growth for both you and the young minds trusting you to show them what’s out there.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

1
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education

Closing the College Gender Gap

If you have been following education hot button issues for any length of time, you’ve likely read about the nationwide push to better encourage girls in areas like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The thought is that by showing young women that these topics are just as appropriate for them as their male peers, more women will find lasting careers in these traditionally male-dominated fields.

I’m all for more women in the STEM workplace but with all this focus in one area, are educators neglecting an even larger gender gap issue?

Nationally, over 57 percent of college attendees are female when public and private school stats are combined. Females have been consistently edging ahead of their male classmates since the late 1970s when the percentages flip-flopped. Aside from all-female schools, there are others that have marked disproportionate numbers. Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena has nearly 96 percent females in attendance, and the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis has over 93 percent. At Indiana University Northwest, located just outside Gary, 67 percent of the student population is female.

There are a few reasons why more young women than men are choosing a college education. The first is that there are more trades that do not require a college degree that appeal to men. The second is that economically speaking, women earn a better living with a college degree than without one in comparison to men. Though there is still a wage gap (in 2012, women earned just 80.9 percent of the salaries of their male counterparts), women see the value their earning potential can gain from achieving a college diploma.

I hear people asking this question all the time: What are K-12 educators doing wrong when it comes to preparing young women for STEM careers? It’s a valid one.

But based on the statistics I’ve listed here, shouldn’t we also be asking this question: What are K-12 educators doing when it comes to preparing young men for a college education?

It all comes down to the weight we assign to the worth of a college education. If a diploma is simply a way to earn more money over a lifetime, then perhaps men are doing the intelligent thing by launching into the workforce early and without student loan debt. That logic is flawed, however, when taking into account the fact that blue-collar jobs are declining in favor of white-collar ones. A young man making a lifelong career decision today simply cannot predict what educational demands will be placed on his field in another 10, 20 or 30 years.

Money aside, there are other pitfalls in a disproportionate number of men going to college. Statistics show that marriages where the couples have differing education levels more often end in divorce than couples with the same educational achievements. And even before divorce is an option, women who set college educational goals may not want to settle for men with less motivation – at least when it comes to academics. If this trend continues, social dynamics may be impacted.

I wonder how much of this trend is based on practicality and how much is based on a lingering social convention that women need to “prove” themselves when it comes to the workforce. Do women simply need a degree to land a job in any field? If so, the opposite is certainly not true for men – at least not yet. Will the young men in our classrooms today have a worse quality of life if they do not attend college – or will it be about the same?

What do you think is at the core of the widening gender gap in education?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education

3 Reasons Standardized Testing for Colleges is a Bad Idea

IiStandardized testing in K-12 education is a perennial hot button issue. Proponents feel that measuring knowledge in these rigid ways helps lift the entire educational system. Critics say the measurements do nothing but encourage “teach to the test” methods and narrow the scope of what instructors are able to teach if they want to have acceptable test results. These arguments are nothing new, but they are now seeing a new audience.

What if the same principles of K-12 standardized testing were applied to colleges and universities? Americans spend over $460 billion on higher educational pursuits every year, yet there is no official worldwide system in place to determine whether students are learning what they should, compared to other schools. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development unveiled research on whether a global testing system for college students is possible. The group will continue to review its findings and decide if it wants to push for implementation of the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes test, abbreviated as AHELO.

Right now the comparison system for colleges and universities lies in the many rankings that are released each year by sources like U.S. News & World Report and hundreds of bloggers who weigh in on the topic. The AHELO would be a “direct evaluation of student performance at the global level…across diverse cultures, languages and different types of institutions.” It would provide institutions feedback meant to help them “foster improvement in student learning outcomes.” In a nutshell, the test would not actually measure student achievements as much as shine the light on instructors that need some improvement.

To K-12 students, this sounds familiar. To college faculty, the idea is fraught with landmines. Why? Likely, it’s because of the following factors:

  1. How can one test take into account so many variables in higher education across the globe? Would instructors be punished by the institution, or even worse held to some misguided accountability scale by peers, if students did not rank highly enough on an AHELO, or some other test? If college is a time for fostering critical thinking skills, would a standardized test take away some of that freedom?
  2. College instructors and administrators are right to have doubts, and particularly before any testing mandates go into effect. Take the classic college entrance exams – the SAT and the ACT. Though research has found little correlation between results on these tests and actual knowledge or intelligence, they are a standard part of college admissions. It is more difficult to reverse a testing mandate than to fight it off at the outset.
  3. It is easy to see why colleges and universities are leery of standardized testing in colleges, but K-12 instructors should be too. Presently, K-12 instructors guide students through the formative education years, dealing with standardized tests and other demands of contemporary teaching. Success with those students is ultimately determined by two other numbers: graduation rate and college placement. At that point, a K-12 teacher’s job is done, at least in theory. Adding another layer of teacher testing (cleverly disguised as core knowledge testing) at the college level could have an impact on K-12 instructors too.If the AHELO is designed to “foster improvement” in the higher education schools that are tested, who is to say that those ideals of improvement will not then be extended to the K-12 schools that came beforehand? A student who demonstrates below-college-level proficiency in language or math would in theory not be the product of college that failed him or her – that student’s incompetency would be a result of a previous school, or schools. Could a global test for college actually negatively impact the K-12 schools that preceded it?

As with any measurement of teaching and learning, the AHELO and other similar initiatives need close scrutiny before becoming global law. I am not sure of the necessity of such a system and it will take some hard arguing by the other side to convince me otherwise.

Are you in favor of standardized testing in colleges and universities? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Education Leadership

The economic argument for ethnic studies

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest column by Jim Estrada

Our nation is undergoing a cultural evolution as a result of an ethnic population explosion. In a blink of the eye, Hispanics, Latinos, and mestizos have grown to 54 million in 2015 and are projected to reach 132.8 million by 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Much of this growth will come from natural childbirth among U.S. citizens, not immigration as many in the U.S. have been led to believe to believe.

But what else do we not know about our nation’s largest and fastest-growing ethnic neighbors? Simply stated, very little!

We have a substantial information gap in the USA’s educational curricula regarding our nation’s non-European white populations. Exposure to accurate unbiased information about them, their histories, and contributions to our nation can lead to a better understanding of their increasing influence and contributions as the fastest growing consumers, K-12 students, taxpayers, voters, and members of the workforce. This gap represents a glaring need, as they are already the “majority” of the population in many metropolitan areas across the nation.

According to the Selig Center at the University of Georgia, consumer spending among Latinos increased appreciably and grown at a faster rate than that of the overall U.S. population. Since 1990 the nation’s Hispanic buying power grew dynamically. In sheer dollars, their economic clout rose from $212 billion in 1990, to $489 billion in 2000, to $978 billion in 2009, and was estimated to reach over $1.5 trillion by 2015.

To effectively interact with this diverse and fast-growing ethnic group, mainstream society must become better informed of its members’ histories, cultures, and contributions to our nation. Already, U.S. Spanish-language media has recognized the historical void in positive programming images and limited news coverage related to the Latino segment of U.S. society and is addressing that need. In a world of increasingly diverse information sources and content, Spanish-language media is demonstrating that cultural relevance works; and more importantly, that it is profitable—for itself and its advertisers.

Questions many non-Spanish speaking professionals and managers need to answer are: “Do you possess the necessary skills to deal with the growing influence of this ethnic population on your “bottom line”? Is the traditional white-Eurocentric “one size fits all” approach to marketing and advertising still profitable?” If the answer is no, then the next question must be: “Are the nation’s educational systems, companies, government, and non-profit organizations prepared to invest in preparing experts who can provide them with culturally competent professionals?”

There are many thoughts on how to create cultural competency. The logical place to start is in our nation’s school systems, which are charged with expanding the knowledge base that affect the goals and objectives of our society and the marketplace. The most successful private companies and public service delivery sectors must increase their number of culturally competent, career-specific, degreed individuals when creating a diverse employee team that more accurately reflects the demographic changes occurring in our population.

Due to these rapidly changing demographics, employers must increasingly rely on employees who demonstrate knowledge of their respective organization’s diverse consumers and possess the cultural proficiencies to manage new brands or services, communications, and outreach initiatives that address the organization’s integrated operational and marketing efforts. Having culturally competent “aces” in all the right places insures increased market share, profits, and sustainability in an increasingly diverse and competitive marketplace.

Ethnic studies are important to the fast-growing non-white segments of our country’s population for a variety of psychological and social reasons; but from an strictly economic point they may of equal importance to non-minority individuals who must become culturally aware of those who are already affecting their professions and careers—as well as related revenue streams.

Our nation’s educational institutions must address this critical need for preparing tomorrow’s multi-culturally trained workforce, for especially in the marketplace (and workplace) “adapt or perish” remains nature’s inexorable imperative.

__________________________

Jim Estrada is a nationally recognized expert in ethnic marketing, communications, and public relations. The author of the award-winning book, “The ABCs and Ñ of America’s Cultural Evolution,” has provided his counsel to the most respected corporations and nonprofit organizations in the USA. A former TV newsman and corporate executive, he attended San Diego State University, Boston College, and Harvard Business School.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity

4 ways to get long-term English learners back on track

A guest post by Douglas Chrystall 

Districts around the country are struggling to teach English language learners (ELLs). An especially challenging subset of ELLs are long-term English learners (LTELs). According to ASCD, “a Long-Term English Learner is a student who has been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than six years, is no longer progressing towards English proficiency, and is struggling academically.” These students are often orally bilingual but don’t have the ability to read or write English for academic purposes. In school they try to fly under the radar, faking understanding whenever they can. This makes them the least engaged students in class—and because they perform below grade level in reading and writing, they struggle in all subjects.

In turn, their lack of academic English hurts their overall performance at school. LTELs are most at risk of dropping out. Students who drop out of school early are most likely to get into trouble with the law and find themselves in juvenile detention when they are younger than 18—and in prison when adults. Unless we help these students learn academic English, they are stuck in a vicious cycle that becomes more and more difficult to escape.

As an example of how limiting it is to not speak English in America, a 2005 census report found that 60% of people who don’t speak, understand, and write English at a fourth-grade level will not find full-time employment. And those who do find full-time work will earn, on average, half as much as their English-speaking counterparts.

As any doctor will tell you, prevention is better than cure. A dollar spent on a student today is $20 saved in ten years’ time. While learning English won’t solve all of the challenges facing today’s LTELs, it will certainly help them on their way. Here are a handful ways that educators can help these students improve their chances of learning English, staying in school, and eventually finding good jobs.

Start early. Students who gain a grasp of academic English in elementary school have a much better chance at succeeding in the classroom. Those who start later in life are much more likely to become classified as LTELs.

 Keep LTELs (and other ELL students) in mainstream classes. Rather than isolating these students—who, as I mentioned before, already have a tendency to be quiet and withdrawn—keep them in classes with their wider peer group in two ways.

First, teachers should make a point of engaging these students in class so they get as much experience as possible speaking academic English. Second, schools should provide them supports they can use outside of class time to accelerate their English learning. Lessons that use video and sound can help “jumpstart” a student who might be stuck at a certain level.

 Use students’ knowledge of their native languages to strengthen their English. Bilingual students can help teach their native language to others. For example, a teacher could explain a concept in English and then ask a bilingual student to teach the same concept to the class in his or her native language. Not only does the bilingual student get the experience of translating, but the other students get to hear from a native speaker.

The language-teaching platform Lingo Jingo also uses this “bilingual” approach to help LTELs practice their English. They can learn new topics in their native language and then learn the same content in English. This method improves students’ understanding of new concepts as well as the academic language they’ll need to continue through high school and beyond.

 Track performance and act on the information collected. For students who are at risk of “falling through the cracks,” a little bit of data can go a long way. For example, knowing which learning activities students have accessed; how much time they spent on an activity; how many times they repeated each activity; and what key words, phrases, or concepts students have mastered can help teachers see exactly where students are succeeding and where they might need more help.

___________

Douglas Chrystall is the co-founder of Lingo Jingo, an award-winning language-teaching platform designed for language educators. Under his leadership, the company recently received a Small Business Innovation Research grant from the Institute of Education Sciences and the U.S. Department of Education. Douglas has worked in the software industry for more than 20 years, and is the author of several technology patents in use today. He is extremely passionate about how IT can improve educational outcomes, and works closely with local schools on the best use of technology.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert

All Day Preschool Better Prepares Children for Kindergarten

A recent study has found that children who attend all-day preschool are much better prepared for Kindergarten than children who go to half-day programs.

Researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs studied 1,000 3-and 4-year-olds enrolled in 11 Chicago schools. Students who attended preschool seven hours a day were compared to those who attended three hour programs, then tested at the commencement of preschool to see if they were socially and academically prepared to begin kindergarten.

The study found 59 percent of the students enrolled in the half-day program to be ready compared to 81 percent of the all-day preschool attendees.

In the fall of 2012, 78 percent of white students were prepared to enter kindergarten compared to 74 percent of black children and 62 percent of Native American and Hispanic students.

Early childhood education advocates say the results how Minnesota should invest in more preschool programs, and believe this move could help minimize the achievement gap between white students and minority students.

The study’s lead author Arthur Reynolds feels that the state should consider funding all-day preschool programs so all students are ready to learn when they enter school.

Last year, $40 million in funding for pre-K scholarships was approved for low- income families. Thanks to those dollars 5,800 students were able to attend preschool, but as many as 15,000 more students still need access to pre-K scholarships.

The importance of early childhood education cannot be stressed enough. This study goes to prove how important classroom hours are to best prepare students for kindergarten and the school years to follow. I am glad to see Minnesota contributed $40 million to pre-K last year, and hope the state can find ways to add even more dollars to help additional low-income families send their children to preschool.

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, Testing

Are your looks landing you better grades?

We’ve all heard of studies claiming that attractive people enjoy advantages, such as earning more money and are generally perceived as being smarter. Two economists, Rey Hernandez-Julian and Christina Peters, set out to determine exactly why this is. They hypothesized that perhaps other factors come into play such as confidence, various personality traits or greater effort given, not solely appearance that influences these benefits. They set out to Metropolitan State University of Denver to test their theory, with some interesting results.

Overall, attractive students did receive better grades than their less attractive peers. However, when taking online courses, more attractive students didn’t receive better grades. The more attractive the student, the larger the difference in grades between traditional and online classes. In other words, in virtual classes where students couldn’t be seen, the difference in grades between the more and less attractive students narrowed.

Peters, an associate professor at MSU Denver told the Washington Post, “we really thought it was just that more attractive people have other personality traits, other skills. But it does appear to be some type of actual discrimination on the part of the professors. That surprised us.” The study also determined that better looking professors were ranked higher by their students as well.

Though more attractive students did receive higher grades in traditional in-person classes, the difference was small. For example, the deviation would be from an A- to a B+ for the less attractive student. Still the fact that the bias exists at all is concerning.

The question now becomes if professors do possess these biases, how can they be fixed? It is likely not being done intentionally so it will take a commitment to consciously not grading in a biased fashion to avoid. Is it even possible to enforce something like that?

What do you think? Do attractive students fare better in class?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in HBCU's, Higher Education

A dean’s plea: let students discover knowledge without pressure to impress

Joann McKenna, Bentley University

Is today’s competitive environment making high school students pursue a polished resume and not their passion?

As a university vice president and an admissions dean, we’ve just finished contacting students whom we did admit, did not admit and would have liked to admit, but simply couldn’t.

Regardless of outcome, each group had in its midst students who have been caught up in the growing phenomenon of credentialism, a practice of relying on formal qualifications, that too often undermines what should be four wonderful years of self-discovery in high school.

More than a numbers game

Whether it’s taking an Advance Placement course that really doesn’t interest them, holding office in an organization because it will “look good,” on their resume or playing a sport that they really don’t enjoy, students are too often trying to impress, instead of trying to discover, enjoy and grow.

Every student seeking admission to college wants to present a “strong case.”

But what’s becoming increasingly clear to admission officers like me and to guidance counselors who advise high school students, is that “credentialism” is being practiced more and more by students, high schools and institutions of higher learning.

To some degree we have ourselves to blame.

College rankings rely heavily on metrics and lets face it, people love being on the “A” list. In some cases, the metrics are about the school; in others, about the students who apply and are admitted.

We begin, despite our best intentions, to question not whether a student is a good match for our institution but how admitting the student will affect our “profile.”

Too often I worry that colleges feel obligated to play the “numbers” game and admit students solely on the basis of board scores, grade scores, number of AP courses, number of extracurricular activities, number of recommendations and so on.

Students are not pursuing their passion

As a result, many students – urged on by their parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and, yes, colleges and universities – conduct their lives as though the only purpose is to build a resume to get into the “best” school they can.

So what’s wrong with that?

For colleges and universities,that means we assess students on professed interest and performance that don’t always reflect what the student is really all about and capable of doing. And that’s not good for the student or the institution.

It subverts our desire not just to recruit and admit a class but to create a class, one whose members will thrive synergistically, often energized more by their differences than by their similarities.

Students end up chasing the right courses to get into the right colleges.
Student image via www.shutterstock.com

For students, it turns their high school careers into a grab bag of experiences, many of which were pursued to impress others rather than for self-discovery and the pursuit of interests and excellence for their own sake.

Don’t get me wrong.

Many students are truly driven by the best motivations to understand their interests, abilities, and aspirations.

But too many are told they need to go to the right schools, study the right courses, participate in the right activities, have the right friends, volunteer for the right programs, plan for the right careers…and on and on.

What often results is an early and unwelcome appreciation for Thoreau’s observation that, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”

Too many students fail to understand that they are quintessentially “a work in progress,” always in the process of becoming, never finished. (Most adults aren’t much different.)

And in our rush to help them prepare for the rest of their lives, we prevent them from taking full advantage of what’s going on right now in their lives.

Students deserve better, from everybody who is pressuring them to display success to impress rather than for its inherent self-worth.

Colleges need to restore love for learning

Can colleges and universities help?

We can proclaim that we seek more than numbers, more than honors, more than achievement for its promotional value. And we can demonstrate our commitment by accepting students whose accomplishments are rooted in exploration, passion, self-discovery and even plain old fun.

We tell students that college is a launching pad for successful careers and lives. And that’s what it should be.

Both high schools and colleges may do students a grave disservice if we suggest that resume-building trumps exploration in pursuit of self-awareness and fulfillment.

So what should we be telling our young people as they undertake their journey to what we pray will be successful lives and careers?

Here are some things that I suggest to help guide that journey:

  • Establish what really matters to you so you’ll have a compass.
  • Invest in yourself. You have gifts that need to be developed.
  • Do the best with what you have. It’s OK if you aren’t good at some things.
  • Take risks. But be smart about it.
  • Own it – it’s your life. Take responsibility for it.
  • Build integrity; above all else, this is what matters.
  • Find mentors who inspire you.

This isn’t meant to be a “feel good” list.

And it isn’t just a list meant for the students. We must remain committed to a holistic evaluation.

As educators, we need to restore equity, perspective and a reverence for excellence for its own sake.

We need to connect our kids with the wisdom – from family, friends and trusted institutions – that previously helped each generation blossom, for their individual and collective benefit.

If we can’t come together to change the system, then shame on us.

The Conversation

Joann McKenna, Vice President for Enrollment Management, Bentley University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Latest Posts