It’s no secret that teachers spend a lot of non-instructional time on paperwork. It seems as data tracking with students has improved, the amount of it that teachers are asked to do has risen. Grading assignments and filling out report cards are just a drop in the bucket of keeping up with the data needed for individual students, schools, districts and states. The data is well-intended of course and meant to ensure that students are on track, both academically and otherwise.
It just takes time. A lot of it. Technology has made it easier to track student achievements and development but in most cases, has not streamlined that data in the best way possible. Even digital systems often overlap with each other and require the same data to be entered more than once.
Just this week, MIDAS Education released its EEM (Education Enterprise Management) solution intended to bring all student data together in one spot. EEM is an edtech-wide movement that favors integration of information systems, rather than having a need for separate ones. Customized instruction is the aim of the MIDAS system that gives real-time access to teachers, parents, students and administrators through a user-friendly Web interface. MIDAS is not just a curation tool that gives users a single sign on — it actually replaces all of these systems with a single platform powered by one massive database.
MIDAS encompasses the functionality of up to 13 different software packages in one EEM solution, with a single log-in and an intuitive user interface.
I really like the idea of housing everything in one spot and making it accessible to everyone who needs the information. This not only saves time for the educator and administrators, but ultimately benefits the students. More streamlined policies on data strengthen the help kids can receive throughout their P-20 careers.
Interactive, multimedia environments can turn reading into something that students actually enjoy.
By Ted Levine
Reading is the most fundamental skill an early learner can develop to start on a path towards success, both as a student and as a young citizen. But I hear from educators all the time about how hard it is to engage reluctant readers, especially at the elementary level when development is most crucial. So the question then becomes: What tactics can we use as educators to encourage those reluctant readers to turn the corner, and ultimately to get them excited about reading and learning?
Just like any other skill, reading is something everyone needs to work at. It requires time, effort, and repetition in order to be properly developed. While educators have the important task of working with young learners to develop their reading skills, student also need support and encouragement at home. No tactics or “shortcuts” will help reluctant readers make progress unless there is time carved out in class and at home to focus on their reading. Having said that, there are some key tactics that educators can use to help drive reluctant readers down the path towards reading proficiency—and even enjoyment.
1) Invite young learners to engage in multimedia learning environments. A multimedia learning environment may consist of reading texts, photographs, videos, audio, and even some interactive elements, all mashed up into one single experience. Technology is often overlooked when it comes to reading, but multimedia learning environments can provide an incredible springboard for students who are reluctant to pick up a book.
Young learners are often drawn into the excitement and movement of multimedia elements, particularly video and interactive content. By contrast, huge chunks of text and reading environments that lack any visually engaging components are daunting for reluctant readers.
We recently held a webinar with Dr. Kimberly Greene, an associate professor of education at Brandman University. Dr. Greene had strong opinions about the importance of shorter passages, approachable fonts, and digital reading environments that deliver an inviting experience. Another of her strong opinions is the second tactic I will share:
2) Don’t send reluctant readers into environments that are too “childish.” This point struck a particularly strong chord with the webinar’s attendees, who were mostly upper elementary and middle school educators.
For example, let’s take a 6th-grade student who currently reads at a 3rd-grade level. The print or digital reading environments available at that reading level often have a childish design. Reading something obviously designed for young kids can be a source of embarrassment for the student to read in front of his or her peers, and oftentimes is counterproductive to achieving the desired outcomes for this type of student. Instead, every student in this example 6th-grade class should be able to experience an interactive reading environment like Kids Discover Online, where every student in class has the same rich reading experience, but at slightly different levels.
3) Start small. For a reluctant reader, sitting down to read for a full hour might feel overwhelming. Aim to have them start with just 15 minutes of reading. You can even begin with five or 10 minutes. No marathon runner kicks off their training season with a 26-mile run. The point is to break down the walls of intimidation and frustration, and to gradually build up your learner’s skills.
4) Create “wow” moments. Getting kids to read is one thing; getting them excited about reading is another. I believe that giving students a reading experience filled with iconic photographs, beautiful illustrations, short-form video, and interactive elements that support the text will create the “wow” moments that every educator so desperately seeks to deliver to his or her students. Having these inspiring moments when they “get it” will lead students to approach reading with feelings of excitement instead of apprehension. Rather than seeing reading as a chore, they will look forward to it and engage on a deeper level with the content.
If we can instill that love of reading in our students, we are giving them a huge head start on the road to academic success.
Ted Levine is the president and CEO of Kids Discover, follow him on twitter, @KIDS_Discover
Public school teachers have a lot on their plate when it comes to measuring achievement. Student success is determined through assessments, graded materials and even technological savvy. The general consensus seems to be that in order to give K-12 students a fighting chance in the real world, teachers and administrators must stay on top of any and all technology trends. Is it worth the effort though?
Well that was then and this is now. Since 2009, teachers have made the shift to include mobile devices like tablets and Smartphones as part of the classroom culture. Computers are still there, but are quickly playing second fiddle to smaller, faster and just-plain-cooler pieces of technology. While the inclusion of cutting-edge technology certainly grabs the attention of students, does it actually make a difference in academic success?
Does technology really provide more opportunities?
The problem with answering these questions is that not enough time has passed since the influx of Internet-based learning has stormed K-12 classrooms. At a technology summit in early 2012, Troy Williams of Macmillan New Ventures told a packed conference room that companies like his do not “have the outcomes yet to say what leads to a true learning moment.” He added that it would still be another three to five years before those numbers can truly be analyzed. Matthew Pittinsky, a co-founder of the popular Blackboard software, agreed with Williams, saying that “these are really early days” when it comes to truly integrated technology intended to improve student success in K-12 and higher education settings.
In its widest definition, though, technology has always been associated with the creation of a level playing field for students. Bernard John Poole of the University of Pittsburgh wrote ten pillars of technology integration in K-12 schools and his final point reads: Recognize that technology is for all, and involves all, in the process of lifelong learning. Poole talks about the way that teachers must receive ongoing training, and parents must be equally involved, in order to promote student achievement through technological advances. While his points sound good on paper, it leads one to wonder if he truly believes that technology is necessity of learning, or if it is only a means to capturing an ever-waning student body attention span.
At the public school level, all students have equal access to classroom computers and mobile devices. Even if these youngsters have no electronic access at home, upon entering a classroom they are able to interact with technology and keep up with their peers. That is all well and good – but does it matter? If all public K-12 classrooms got rid of computers and banned Internet-based learning, would it negatively impact academic success through college years? Would it affect graduation rates? Would American kids fall behind the rest of the world?
I think that truly depends on how you look at it. Does the technology itself provide heightened learning experiences? I’d argue that it does not. Instead, the implementation of the technology is a necessary move to keep students interested in the subject matter. I am not saying that I am against rapid adjustment to cutting-edge technology in learning and practice; I think there is no way to avoid embracing it and still turn out high numbers of world-ready graduates. I just think that there is a danger in relying on the technology to convey learning materials in a vacuum. Look at how much technology has changed since the 2009 report I referenced above. Does this mean that the students growing up in public school atmospheres in 2013 will be better prepared for life than those of 2009? What about the students of 2017, and so on?
What do you think? Does technology improve learning?
As referenced in the recent documentary, Waiting for Superman, the American educational system is not living up to it’s potential. Comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is falling behind academically. Even with the tremendous changes taking place since No Child Left Behind was enacted, serious problems still exist. For example, the cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are our school systems in the state that they are? This is a common problem with any bureaucratic monopoly.
Statistics, and common sense born of observation, tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman documentary put it, “The dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.” Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvements are being made. Of course, everyone wants to improve our system; they just do not seem to know how to do it.
The American public must feel that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. Today, people are concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although theoretically important, can hold a low priority to the more pressing problems of keeping a roof over their heads. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the marketplace. Education can provide those skills. Furthermore, those enhanced skills and improved technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle in the 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler. In fact, it is just the opposite. The skills needed in the world marketplace require a better education and improved, and more advanced abilities. Planning to turn out workers for the factories of today is a crucial element, but those same workers also need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. Workers taught in an educational system that is subpar will not only hurt them and their families; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.
Educational reform will occur once we decide that enough is enough and make the commitment change happen no matter what it takes. When America realizes all children deserve a stellar education regardless of where they are from, whom their parents are, or what their socioeconomic status is, we will be able to reform our educational system. Americans have to stop treating minority students in underperforming urban environments like collateral damage. The disheartening reality is that America has billions of dollars to fight a two-front war, but cannot or will not properly educate its children. If a hostile country attacked America, it would take less than 24 hours for American troops to be mobilized into battle. However, we seem unable to mobilize a sea of educated teachers and administrators to wage war against academic mediocrity, which is a bigger threat to our national security than Iran or North Korea.
Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teachers unions, placing blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. However, the film also shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools, the sadness of the lottery system for what are perceived as the best schools, and the general hopelessness that some have about our educational system. One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This shows that while our students seem to have confidence, they do not have the skills to actually succeed. As a nation we rank behind more than 20 other developed countries when it comes to teaching math and science. Our own deep probing into our educational system has repeatedly revealed serious problems; yet, perhaps we did need such a documentary to bring it back to the forefront of people’s thoughts. Certainly, Waiting for Superman has served as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been.
The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet some simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.” What America needs is to view this film as a call to action, where each of us is called upon to be Superman, or at least to have a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen needs to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system. Each of us needs to understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and stop placing blame. Rather, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our educational system. The future must be planned for now! It certainly will not be an overnight process; however, by taking steps one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years.
How tech tools can help teachers peak into the thinking and learning of even their shyest students.
By Dr. Sheryl Abshire
I am in my 41st year in education, and I’ve spent the last 19 years as a CTO, so I have seen the evolution of educational technology. When I started teaching in 1973, the exciting new technology was a cassette recorder. Since then, I’ve seen ed-tech trends come and go. Right now, a noteworthy trend around the country—that I think is a long time coming—is the increased emphasis on using technology to individualize and personalize learning.
It’s a lot of work to do that. One of the things that has been particularly helpful in our school district has been pairing students up and having them work in teams to collaborate, cooperate, innovate, and create. Managing a collaborative classroom is hard work for a teacher who has 25 to 30 students. She’s trying to monitor these groups, she’s trying to pull students out and individualize, she’s trying to get her finger on the pulse of learning so she can direct, redirect, and help students feel confident.
We were fortunate to pilot the very first Flexcat systems. We had input into the development and design of the system, which includes a microphone that a teacher wears on a lanyard and pods that let her listen to and talk to small groups around the room. What we have seen is that this system gives teachers the ability to manage an active and engaged classroom in a way that was heretofore impossible.
Teachers can monitor groups in real time, interject feedback in real time, and focus groups that need to get back on the rails. Students are keenly aware that the teacher is monitoring them, so we’ve seen an increase in focused learning in these groups. Students are much less distracted and more productive, and the work in these collaborative groups is much richer. And it’s reduced the time it takes to get and stay on task. We have found that to be a real game-changer for education in our classrooms.
Shy students shut down in a large group. They don’t have the confidence to talk in front of 30 students, but they’re much more confident in front of four or five. Using this tool, a teacher can draw out that shy student from across the room.
Teachers aren’t comfortable with a new tool or strategy unless they’ve used it. For more then 30 years, there’s been this constant nagging conversation about how technology is something that you have to add on to what you’re doing. That’s a myth. Technology doesn’t add on; it’s a tool. When I was a teacher and they gave me a blackboard, it was a tool. If an activity requires collaboration, and we have a tool that makes that collaboration more effective, you can bet that we’re going to expose our teacher to that tool.
Our technology center introduces teachers to tried and true tools. We use the Flexcat in PD as teachers develop projects, brainstorm, and reflect. This lets them see the tool in action and see how it will work in their own classroom. We do a lot of collaborative work in our PD, and teachers use the system and say, “What is that? I need that.” We then train the teachers to use the system and it becomes embedded in practice. Teachers understand how it works and how it strengthens instruction.
We now have Flexcats in some but not all of our classrooms. Our schools and teachers are working towards a full deployment because they see the benefits. Teachers are writing grants and being very creative when it comes to funding. When they get the tool, they are fired up and ready to go. The work that we do in the technology department is to make sure that when they do get started, every tool is connected to student learning…every single thing.
Collaboration and cooperative learning are not new strategies in the classroom. When I began teaching 41 years ago, we were using these techniques. There has been an ebb and flow in pedagogical approaches, but it comes down to this: Individualized learning is the strongest learning, and in cooperative groups, you get to that quicker. In a group of three, you can see personalized learning happen. And with the Flexcat, I’ve seen and heard children coach each other, teach each other, learn from each other. It’s fascinating to me to have a tool that allows teachers to peek into the thinking and learning of children, because if we can do that, we are on the road to true personalized learning.
___
Dr. Sheryl Abshire is the Chief Technology Officer for the Calcasieu Parish Public Schools in Louisiana. She has worked as a school principal, K-5 teacher, library/media specialist, classroom teacher, assistant professor at Lamar University, and as an adjunct professor at McNeese State University & Louisiana Tech University. She is a past chair of CoSN, the present Chair of the CoSN Policy Committee, and the past President of the Louisiana Association of Computer Using Educators. She also served on the FCC Universal Services Administrative Corporation Board representing our nation’s K-12 schools and libraries.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has written a blistering letterto the Department of Education’s acting Education Secretary John King regarding how the department handles student loan fraud.
In the letter, Warren accuses the department of not having a proper handle on student loan contractors, and specifically cites its relationship with Navient, formerly known as Sallie Mae.
In 2014, the Department of Education and Navient reached a settlement of $100 million due to Navient’s role in violating a federal law that pinches interest rates at 6% for servicemembers.
Warren’s issue isn’t necessarily with the settlement, it’s that the department has failed to oversee its relationship with Navient.
As the company holds millions of student loans, the department’s relationship with Navient hasn’t been impacted even as the company was found to have broken the law.
Moving forward, Warren not only wants the department to reassess its position with Navient, but wants to know why the company hasn’t been penalized further.
To put some fears to rest, the department launched an internal investigation into Navient’s loan practices and found that a small percentage of those who borrowed were not receiving the federally mandated rate.
Warren notes the Department of Education’s Inspector General revealed that the department’s internal investigation into Navient was flawed and erroneous.
Towards the end of the letter, Warren writes that the findings of an independent review of the department’s handling of student aid are that companies that are responsible for supervising student loan debt receive protection from the Department of Education when they break the law.
As students and former students grapple with how to pay back student loans and are harassed by the likes of companies like Navient, the information presented in Warren’s letter is damaging and sad.
If the Department of Education is indeed offering protection to companies that break the law, and are failing to properly shelter students from these organizations, it proves why so many students have little faith in college affordability and the government’s role in helping them.
**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 post by Anita Ginsburg
Some kids love school, where others struggle a bit more to find excitement and motivation. With a vast and varied career world, one of the best ways to keep kids interested and excited about school is to talk to them about some of the fun careers waiting for them when they finish.
Animator
For the artistic minded creative student the idea of drawing and creating for a living will likely get them excited. If you have a student that seems to spend more time doodling in the margins of their papers than taking notes, take the time to talk with them about enhancing their skills and becoming an animator. They could be working for their favorite tv show, software company, or publisher.
Event Planner
To the social kid that likes to plan parties, talk with them about considering a career in event planning. Whether they enter the wedding business, high end parties, kids events, or something else, they could make a career of planning parties for the rest of their lives.
Meteorologist
Many kids are fascinated with how the world around them works. Talk to your students about the weather and the many fun science based careers. One of the easiest to get kids excited about is meteorology because it is quick and easy to take them outside for a day and explore how the weather around us works.
Mechanical Engineer
To the kid that likes to tinker with objects and loves to figure out how things work, a career in mechanical engineering may be exactly what they are looking for. Encourage students that may have a knack for engineering based careers to embrace their desire to figure out how things work and practice with things such as models, puzzles and logic games. They should be excited about the many career options available with an engineering management master’s degree.
Toy Designer
Most kids love to play with toys, so the idea of coming up with ideas and designing them as they grow is a dream come true. Encourage students to think about the toys they like to play with and the kinds they wish they had. They may just design the next big thing.
Zoologist
For all the animal lovers, a career in zoology may be just perfect. Zoologists work directly with the animals, as well as in conservation and educational settings. Visit the zoo with your students and let them meet with zoologists to find out more about this exciting career.
Even the most studious of kids will have times that they struggle to stay focused and thrilled about their studies. It can be very challenging to keep kids excited and working hard throughout school, but giving them something to motivate them through the tough times can be exactly what they need.
Congress is rattling its saber at colleges and universities with endowments worth U$1 billion or more. Committees from the House and Senate have sent a joint letter to 56 private colleges and universities, asking for comprehensive information about endowment spending and management policies.
Thomas W. Reed, representative for New York’s 23rd Congressional District, is talking about legislation that would require colleges and universities with endowments of $1 billion or more to spend 25 percent of their endowment earnings on financial aid or forfeit their tax-exempt status.
But what is so significant about the $1 billion mark? Are all endowments with $1 billion so huge that Congress should treat them differently than endowments with less than $1 billion? And are all endowments less than $1 billion so small that Congress should ignore them?
From my perspective as a professor who has studied endowments, the only real significance of $1 billion is that it shocks the public because it sounds like so much money.
What really matters is how much buying power a school needs and how much buying power an endowment has. The bigger a school’s budget, the more endowment is necessary. To figure out which colleges and universities have large endowments, you have to consider a school’s expenses.
How do endowments work?
An endowment is like a savings account that exists to support college or university operations. The assets in an endowment usually come from donations. The funds in an endowment are invested; each year a school spends a portion of these returns and then puts the remainder back into the endowment.
In good financial times, an endowment allows a school to spend more on priorities like financial aid, research budgets or professor salaries. In bad financial times, an endowment acts like a rainy day fund to ensure that schools will not have to dramatically reduce spending in important areas.
Because an endowment’s primary purpose is to support institutional operations, the strength of a $1 billion endowment is relative to the size of an institution’s expenses.
To illustrate, I want to take a closer look at three of the schools that received the congressional request for information because they have endowments of $1 billion or more. In the context of this discussion, there’s nothing particularly special about these three schools except that they demonstrate why expenses are relevant to endowment size.
Each year, the National Association of College and University Business Officers ranks endowments by their absolute value. In 2015, Harvard was at the top of the heap with an eye-popping $36.4 billion endowment. Vanderbilt University was in 23rd place, with $4.1 billion. Grinnell College was considerably farther back, coming in 50th with an endowment of almost $1.8 billion.
Now let’s add a fourth school to the mix: Colgate University. As before, in the context of this discussion there’s nothing special about Colgate except that it helps illustrate why endowments and expenses need to be considered simultaneously.
When measured only by absolute endowment value, Colgate is way behind Harvard, Vanderbilt and Grinnell. Colgate comes in 103rd place, with an $892 million endowment. And Colgate was spared the congressional letter because its endowment did not exceed the $1 billion threshold.
Expenses matter
Now consider these same schools, this time in light of both absolute endowment value and all expenses – the costs incurred to fulfill the school’s educational mission, to administer the institution and to fundraise. Unsurprisingly, these four schools have wildly different expenses. Harvard and Vanderbilt are large research universities, while Grinnell and Colgate are small liberal arts colleges.
In 2013 (the most recent year for which data is readily available), Harvard had expenses of $4.4 billion; Vanderbilt, $3.8 billion; Grinnell, $97.6 million; and Colgate, $172.2 million. There’s been a lot of discussion about whether colleges and universities are doing enough to control costs. But to measure the strength of an endowment, we can assume that current institutional expenses are representative of future institutional expenses.
An endowment helps fund scholarships and research budgets. kylebaker, CC BY-NC-SA
Grinnell’s endowment is so enormous that it can pay for a whopping 18 years of expenses, until today’s infants are ready to matriculate. Harvard’s endowment is large enough to cover eight years. And Colgate – which does not exceed the $1 billion threshold – can pay for five years.
But Vanderbilt, with its $4.1 billion endowment, cannot cover even two years’ worth of expenses.
Some academics have argued that endowments are excessively large once the endowment can cover more than two years of expenses. Others have suggested that an endowment is much bigger than a school needs when it can pay for more than five years of expenses.
At some point, an endowment may become vastly larger than what a college or university needs to ensure its success. No school really needs an endowment that is large enough to cover a half-decade or more of expenses. But to determine whether an endowment is so large that it warrants different treatment than others, Congress must consider the endowment in relation to institutional costs. It cannot simply use $1 billion as some kind of magical threshold.
Modifying endowment tax policy
Favorable tax policy is one of the reasons that endowments can accumulate $1 billion or that a school can have an endowment large enough to cover 18 years of expenses. The government collects fewer tax dollars than it otherwise would because donations to endowments qualify for the charitable deduction, and endowments do not have to pay taxes on their investment returns.
In my view, schools like Harvard and Grinnell are going to fight tooth and nail to hang on to this preferential tax treatment. But when a college or university has an endowment that is large enough to cover its expenses for years and years into the future, I believe lawmakers should conclude that the forgone tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere. At some point, an endowment has such ample funds that it no longer needs government subsidy. This means goodbye to tax-free investment returns and to the charitable deduction.
Eliminating the charitable deduction may mean that donors would give less, but they would not stop giving altogether. As I’ve described elsewhere, research has shown that the charitable deduction is only one of the reasons that donors give to colleges and universities. Some donors feel a responsibility to “give back” to their alma matter. Others desire the social status and public recognition that giving can provide, or want to influence institutional policy. Some people give simply because it makes them feel good. For many donors, a combination of all these factors motivates them to give.
But even if eliminating the charitable deduction means that some donors would choose to direct their giving elsewhere, chances are that the recipient organization would need the donation more than a school with a very large endowment.
Although schools are unlikely to see it this way, less preferential tax treatment would actually be a sign of success: it means that donors have been so generous and the endowment has been so well-managed that the school now requires less public assistance than others do.
So, legislators should stop fixating on the $1 billion mark and instead evaluate endowments in their larger institutional context.
Before Congress singles out certain endowments for less preferential tax treatment, it needs to distinguish between endowments that sound obscenely large and those that actually are.
A set of reports on Louisiana’s statewide school voucher program recently revealed a number of important features of that program’s operation and overall performance.
The most startling of these reports indicated that students who used school vouchers performed much worse on standardized tests than those who remained in traditional public schools.
This result echoes evidence presented last month from a separate team of scholars, who found negative impacts after one year of voucher use in Louisiana. The latest study not only confirmed that finding, but showed the pattern persisting – albeit less severely – after two years of voucher use as well.
School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools. And these reports provide the first evidence that participating in such a system may harm kids’ academic achievement, at least in math.
As a researcher who studies both vouchers and other forms of school choice such as charter schools (independently operated public schools) I believe the new Louisiana studies are important to longstanding debates over the extent to which such choice enhances academic outcomes.
It may be tempting to use this news as an argument against vouchers, especially because the evidence is drawn from the most sophisticated research tools available to scholars who study these programs. However, it should be stressed that test scores provide only one indicator of program success or failure.
Impact of vouchers
The motivation for school voucher programs dates back to the 1950s, when the economist Milton Friedman began to argue that parents should have opportunities to choose between different providers of education for their children.
School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools. 401(K) 2012, CC BY-SA
The first school voucher program began in 1990 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Over the years since, especially in the last decade, voucher or voucher-like systems have spread to 24 states, all of which differ individually on some key details such as the number of children who will be eligible for participation and the maximum amount of tuition available to these students.
In Louisiana, policymakers introduced vouchers in 2008 in New Orleans as part of a series of reforms following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the city and the city’s school system. In 2012, vouchers became available statewide.
As with many public programs, policymakers turn to researchers to help determine how well school vouchers work. This is true not only in Louisiana, but elsewhere as well.
And part of what makes the Louisiana results so newsworthy – but also why voucher critics should pause before leaning too heavily on the latest reports – is that many of these studies conducted in other locations, such as Charlotte, Milwaukee, Washington, D.C. and New York City, for example, found the opposite pattern. In these studies, students who used vouchers to attend private school tended to have higher test scores as a result.
The answers are not that simple
The question is whether test scores are the only way to judge schools and school performance.
It is true that public schools have to test their students, so using a similar metric is a reasonable, relative comparison between public and private schools. But test scores, while important, do not necessarily provide an absolute appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of voucher programs in a large education system.
First, we know from earlier studies that student attainment levels – high school graduation or enrollment in post-secondary education – may be higher among voucher users even when test score differences between them and their public school counterparts are nonexistent.
Whether this means that private schools are especially good at preparing kids to graduate and attend college or that they simply prioritize such success more than other outcomes is still unclear. But we see similar patterns in charter schools too: a number of studies have shown that charter school students have a higher chance of high school graduation or college enrollment even when their test scores do not differ on average from their traditional public school counterparts.
In the Louisiana context, the researchers also found more nuanced results when they posed a number of other questions.
When researchers examined, for example, whether competition from private schools pressed nearby public schools to improve performance, they found that the test scores of students in these competing schools did indeed increase, albeit modestly.
When they asked whether the declines in voucher users’ tests scores were present in noncognitive student outcomes (such as grit, self-esteem, and political tolerance), they found both public and private school students had similar levels on those indicators.
Each of these questions provides a different way of assessing the overall impact of the voucher program both on students who use them and on students in the surrounding communities as well.
Weighing other factors
More generally, it’s important to remember that voucher programs operate differently in different places.
In Louisiana, for example, one prominent explanation for the negative test scores is that heavy regulation of private providers keeps the best schools in that sector away from offering seats to voucher users. But in Wisconsin, we know that some regulations, such as requiring private schools to publicly report the academic performance of their voucher users, actually increased test scores.
Other state laws determine who’s eligible to use a voucher in the first place. In some states, vouchers exist expressly for kids with special academic needs; in others, low-income families are eligible as well.
Again, this implies that we have to be very careful. It is not as simple as taking evidence from one state and expecting the same results, good or bad, in another.
Little is known about teachers in schools that accept vouchers. EarthFix, CC BY-NC
Apart from differences between states, there are other things to consider about the way voucher programs operate.
We know surprisingly little about teachers in schools that accept vouchers. State oversight of private school teachers is far less – in some places practically nonexistent – than for public school teachers.
Researchers are beginning, for example, to devote considerable effort to understanding who teaches in public charter schools. Answering that question in different voucher programs will help explain differences in students’ outcomes between private and public schools, both within and between different states.
Finally, we need to consider not only which students accept and benefit from a voucher, but also the extent to those who do attend private school – or any nontraditional alternative – are actually able to do so over the long term.
The evidence we have from places like Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. suggests substantial turnover in voucher programs, with minority students and students with the lowest test scores leaving private schools.
All of this is to say that when it comes to educating kids, what we know about school vouchers depends on what we ask. And what we ask should be informed not only by traditional academic outcomes, such as test scores, but also by a new understanding of the many different ways that schools can contribute to student success.
As today’s school leaders seek to acquire the skills and knowledge that are necessary for effectiveness in current educational institutions, they should realize that there are no simple answers or shortcuts to achieving leadership excellence. The most important task is to find the right combination of qualities and characteristics that will consistently provide the leader with the skills and knowledge required to succeed on a regular basis. To that end, there are four dimensions that are essential to creating a positive school culture – optimism, respect, trust and intentionality.
Optimism
Optimism is the belief that people have untapped potential for growth and development. The optimistic leader is an individual who is capable of reframing problematic situations as opportunities and considering the impossible to be merely difficult. School staff are pushed towards success by a leader who is both encouraging and enthusiastic, qualities that are vital for effective leadership. When an administrator is enthusiastic and positive, spirit becomes contagious and spreads. Attitude is contagious! When leadership remains positive at all times and is constantly communicating visions for the school that are uplifting and visionary, they are building a positive school environment.
Optimism does not, however, mean that negative behaviors aren’t dealt with. Administrators should never be afraid to confront negative issues, but rather should face them head on and attempt to turn negative attitudes and behaviors into positive ones. This is the core of optimistic school leadership. One good rule to implement is “Praise in public, constructive criticism in private.” This allows leaders to continue to pursue optimistic leadership while confronting and engaging problems in a constructive and productive way. It is undeniable optimism contributes tremendously to increase members’ desire to work while assuring excellence and success.
Respect
Respect is the recognition that every person is an individual of worth. The value of respect in the area of leadership is basic to organizational effectiveness. It denotes the simple belief that people have worth and value and should therefore be treated as such. When respect is a central pillar to school culture, it represents school leadership recognizing the fact that all individuals are valuable and therefore must be respected. This creates not only an inviting and inclusive school culture, but also fosters diversity and offers every individual within the school setting the opportunity to flourish. so as to create an inviting and inclusive workplace where diversity is seen as the norm and every individual has an opportunity to flourish. Respect is commonly identified as a critical element of overall leadership effectiveness. When a school principal shows respect for his or her staff, a positive atmosphere is created that brings about excellence and satisfaction within the school. Respect is absolutely pivotal to the successful acquisition of effective leadership.
Trust
Trust is the possession of confidence in the abilities, integrity, and responsibilities of ourselves and others. Trust is a crucial component of effective leadership. Trust nurtures all of the other dimensions of effective leadership. Trust is an important value, and it contributes directly to the success of an organization. On the other hand, lack of trust is a barrier to cohesive teamwork and efforts. Trust is at the heart of any functioning cohesive team. In its absence, teamwork is all but impossible. Therefore, building trust is quite a critical element that any successful leader should have.
Intention
Intention is a decision to purposely act in a certain way so as to achieve and carry out a set goal. It is having knowledge of what we intend to bring about as well as how we intend it to happen, thus giving clarity and direction to our work. Intentionality is the ability of individuals to intertwine their inner consciousness and perceptions with their actions. It is simply having an end in sight. The ability to be purposeful and focused is a very significant aspect of building a positive school culture. Leaders of effective schools are more distinctly purposeful in their vision and mission than are the leaders of less effective schools. Thus the leaders of effective schools are more likely to believe strongly in the aspect of intentionality than the less effective school leaders. Everything that an administrator does must be with clear intent. If you don’t know where you’re going you’re never going to get there. As a leader it is critical that everything is done with purpose. As with the other characteristics, intentionality is a key element that school leaders should adhere to in their desire to bring about effectiveness, long-lasting change, and excellence in their schools through a positive school culture.
These four dimensions of a positive school aim to include all interested stakeholders in the journey towards student success. The messages of optimism, respect, trust and intentionality are sometimes transmitted by interpersonal action, but are mostly disseminated through the institution’s policies, programs, practices, and physical environments.
Activism when it comes to public K-12 education is flourishing. Laws regarding K-12 education are no longer simply handed down and enforced without pushback – student, parents, teachers and outside activists have a larger voice than ever when it comes to the decisions impacting the future of their public schools.
After some thought, I came up with the six most impactful things (in no particular order) that education activists have done in the past few years when it comes to K-12 education:
1. Student-driven change. When it comes to the paths of their educations, K-12 public school students are standing up for their rights more than ever before and empowering positive changes in their learning experiences. In April, over 100 Chicago Public Schools students made news when they skipped their standardized testing to protest the tests instead. Speaking to the press, one CPS student said that the protest was designed to draw attention to the fact that “standardized testing should not decide the future of our schools and students.”
Student-led zombie flash mobs took place in front of the Philadelphia School District headquarters to oppose the closing of public schools in the city. Hordes of students in other cities like Denver, Providence and Philadelphia followed suit and spoke out against the advance of high-stakes testing and school closing. They rallied together and marched relentlessly to prove their strong dislike against standardized testing – and the belief the effects are not a true measure of success in the real world. While there may have been some parental encouragement behind the scenes, these students appeared to act alone in their pursuit of a better public school learning experience.
2. Parents as reformers. In California, the parent-led “trigger movement” made waves as parents demanded more from failing public schools. Dessert Springs Elementary School in Adelanto is an example of a school that was transformed from a consistently failing school (students had reading scores in the bottom 10 percent of the state) to a public charter that better served its student body – all because parents took a stand and demanded the change.
The Lone Star State had some big news this year when a coalition led by parents was successful in petitioning the state to reduce by two-thirds the number of tests required to graduate high school. In 2011, the state required at least 15 high-stakes tests on students prior to earning their diploma. Two years of hard work later, the Texas legislature passed an education bill reducing the number of tests to five.
3. Activists stepping up. During 2013, civil rights advocates found an audience with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. In January, these public-school supporters gathered in DC to discuss their grievances to the Department of Education. The Journey for Justice came as Chicago was on the cusp of closing around 50 schools, and New York and Philadelphia had voted to close more than 20 each.
These activists had every right to speak up – research shows that the closing of public schools in urban areas has the biggest negative effect on Latino and Black students. Mass school closures often shake up communicates and disrupt children’s learning, among other effects on displaced students. Perhaps the biggest public school activism success story for 2013 was the teacher union-led Scrap the Map in Seattle. After months of protesting Washington’s mandatory MAP standardized testing at Garfield High School, a decision was made to make the test optional for students throughout the state. In 2013, public school activists came out en masse and took to their local, state and federal legislators to protest detrimental closings and other public school legislation.
4. Pushing for increased funding. In 2013, activists were vocal about the need for stronger programs in science, technology, engineering and math. Thankfully, President Obama listened. His 2014 budget includes $3.1 billion in investments in federal STEM programs – an increase of nearly 7 percent over the budget of just two years ago. Of that total, $80 million is intended to recruit 100,000 well-qualified educators and another $35 million is earmarked for the launch of a pilot STEM Master Teacher Corps. The rest of the money will go to supporting undergraduate STEM education programs and investment in breakthrough research on the way STEM subjects are best taught to modern learners. At the urging of advisors and activists, the president realized that demand for STEM-related jobs is there and the money allocated to STEM learning initiatives will better prepare today’s students for the worldwide workforce.
5. Supporting Race to the Top. Over the last 2 years, education activists have continued to support the president’s incentive-based Race to the Top program. Race to the Top was launched in 2012, and it rewards states that are willing to reform their education models to best adapt to modern student learning needs. The Race to the Top initiative has raised standards for learning to reflect a push toward college and career readiness. Each year, the program gives even more in federal funding to states that prepare plans for reforming their student offerings and 2013 was a big year for it.
To date, the program has allocated more than $4 billion among 19 states that have shared well-developed plans to improve learning standards, teacher effectiveness and struggling schools. The states that have been granted the funds represent 42 percent of all low-income students in the nation – making the initiative an effective way to close the achievement gap and equalize funding in areas where schools may struggle based on their geographical location.
6. Lobbying for college affordability. College affordability activists urged the president to make earning a college education more affordable for all Americans and convinced him that this will impact future K-12 classrooms. In August 2013, the President announced plans to assign a ratings system to colleges by the 2015 school year that takes items like tuition, graduation rate, debt and earnings ratios of graduates and percentage of low-income students who attend into consideration. The grand plan? To base the amount of federal financial aid colleges receive on the rankings system by 2018.
The overall principle is not to call out colleges but rather to make them more accountable to students, and to ensure that every American with college degree aspirations has the actual means to make it happen. Long term, this will impact the quality of teachers in the classrooms, particularly in urban settings where research has shown that the most effective teachers are generally those who come from the same background. More lower-income college students earning degrees will have a positive impact on the entire education system and the college scorecard initiative is a step in that direction.
What would you add to my list? Don’t forget to leave a comment.
In theory, parents and educators would do anything to keep students safe, whether those students are pre-Kindergartners or wrapping up a college career. Nothing is too outlandish or over-the-top when it comes to protecting our kids and young adults. Metal detectors, security cameras, more police presence in school hallways, gated campuses – they all work toward the end goal of sheltering students and their educators and protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens.
Emotions aside though – how much does school security really increase actual safety? And do school security efforts actually hinder the learning experience? It sounds good to taut the virtues of tighter policies on school campuses but is it all just empty rhetoric?
Recently the University of Kentucky came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union for plans to install 2,000 security cameras on campus. Representatives at UK say the move is a response to the increasing randomness of school violence at all levels of the learning process and a way to better ensure student safety. The ACLU says it is a blatant violation of privacy.
I say it is money wasted because all the security cameras in the world would not have prevented the largest school tragedies of recent history, from Sandy Hook Elementary to the Virginia Tech massacre. Security cameras and other monitoring devices give us a false feeling of security and an actionable course when there are no answers to pointless questions.
While extreme, UK’s camera monitoring plans are in sync with what is happening in K-12 schools across the nation. In the 2009 – 2010 school year, 84 percent of high schools had security cameras for safety monitoring. Over half of all middle and elementary schools had them too, with 73 and 51 percent respectively. Despite this, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the percentage of high schools with controlled access to school buildings during normal hours is lower than that of middle and elementary students. Though not expressly stated in these findings, it would seem that in the case of high schools, cameras are more of a way to catch rule-breakers after the fact than a way to prevent violence and other criminal activities.
Students are not the only ones who are the subjects of safeguards like surveillance cameras. Teachers, administrators and other staff are also vital when it comes to putting school safety into place – and in the case of teachers, they are on the front lines of what is going on with students. Limited access to K-12 campuses is meant to protect outsiders from harming the many people who are supposed to be there. But what about student-versus-student violence, or student-versus-teacher physical altercations? In 2011, 12 percent of high schoolers reported being in a physical fight at school that year. Nearly 6 percent reported carrying a weapon, like a gun or knife, onto school property in the month preceding the survey. By the time a security camera picks up on the fact that a student has a knife or gun, is there really any timely way to prevent the inevitable.
Given the fact that state spending per student is lower than at the start of the recession, how much should schools shell out in the way of security costs? Perhaps the best investment we can make to safeguard our students and educators is in personal vigilance. Perhaps less reliance on so-called safety measures would lead to higher alertness.
What role should school security play on K-12 campuses, and should it be a financial priority?
