In the education community’s frantic pace to stay accountable with each other and the government, I think some other aspects of our society get inadvertently left out of the education process. The business community is one. If you think about it, business organizations SHOULD be very concerned with the quality of education in our schools, starting as young as preschool and stretching through the college process. These students are, after all, our future workers and the drivers of the American economy.
That’s why I’ve really enjoyed a new video series put together by the Committee for Economic Development that emphasizes the importance of educational standards, like Common Core, on America’s future economy. Education and business, the videos argue, are forever intertwined and should rely on each other for success. Spend a few minutes watching this particular video on “Education Through the Lens of Business.”
What is being taught in our schools today matters to the business community and it should. I’ve heard the argument that teaching our kids in a way that prepares them for the competitive global workforce is treating them as “commodities” and not like children. I suppose there would be some merit to that if science hadn’t proven time and time again that kids thrive in learning environments and that the economic status of your life impacts its quality immensely. Setting our kids up to succeed economically on the world stage not only benefits our nation as a whole, but provides those kids with lifelong skills that will elevate their own quality of life through adulthood.
During this five-part series, I’ve been talking about education technologies and concepts that every teacher should know about. Today I’m going to wrap up the series with several additional technologies and concepts.
Student-led planning. When special education students reach high school, they are being called upon more and more to have input into their individual learning plans. This is to prepare these students for more independence in adulthood. It also gives teachers more insight into the methods these students favor when it comes to learning. Instead of dictating what and how special education students should learn, student-led input helps chart the course toward academic and life skills.
Holography. Holography was just science fiction a few years ago, but it’s now becoming a reality in some fields, such as medicine. This imaging technique, which allows one to see a 3-D view of an image, has yet to become a part of everyday classroom activities. Holography introduced in classroom activities would change entirely how some subjects are taught. Biology, physics, astronomy, and chemistry could be taught on an entirely different level (S. H. Kim & Bagaka, 2005).
Time-management tools. These tools are variations on calendar software. They can be used to schedule your appointments, or you may want to take advantage of more complex features. Some tools can be viewed online, affording access for more than one student at a time. A teacher can arrange appointments or make a note of due dates for assignments so that all students in a class can keep track of such details. Most of these tools allow the option to put some information in private mode, too, so the administrator can choose which calendars people can see and which cannot. Most of these tools include a feature allowing teachers to arrange meetings and groups.
Virtual reality. Experiential education has been used as an instructional method for years. Field trips have always served to introduce students to real-world issues, to supplement learning by helping students get a fresh perspective on what they have learned in books. Technology using virtual reality, however, has introduced new levels of experiential education. Virtual 3-D worlds allow students and teachers to visit places otherwise impossible to visit without it. They can go to space, deserts, or foreign countries without physically traveling there.
Natural user interfaces. In its simplest definition, a natural user interface (NUI) uses the body’s movements to achieve certain outcomes. In the consumer market, examples of NUIs include the Nintendo® WiiTM, Xbox KinectTM, and the iPhone virtual assistant, Siri. The potential in the field of K–12 education is still being realized but will certainly lead to developments in the next half-decade. Students who are blind, deaf, or have physical disabilities or autism can better learn through use of this still evolving technology.
We are living in the midst of a tremendous upheaval in the fields of technology and communication. Advances in technology have influenced every aspect of modern life and are having an enormous impact on education. Technology can promote student engagement, immerse students in real-world issues, enhance discussions and workshops, and facilitate formative assessment.
Students today are often digital natives, very familiar with technology. But there’s a significant digital divide between students with access to technology and students, mostly from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who don’t have the same level, range, and consistency of access.
The new technological advances can be helpful, but there are some associated problems. Students may spend too much time using their devices and the Internet includes information that may be harmful as well as helpful. Without clear parameters, teachers may become overly focused on technology to the detriment of information transfer.
Although there are pros and cons to most forms of technology and most technology-related education concepts, there is so much to look forward to in the 2014-2015 calendar year when it comes to K-12 classrooms. The concepts and technologies that I have discussed will allow educators to better prepare students for the rest of their academic careers and for lifelong success.
As a former public school educator, and someone who watches public school policy closely, I believe the K-12 system here in America is on its way up. I see improvements as schools raise accountability standards, offer more social services, and focus more intently on high school graduation and college prep. Our schools are better preparing students academically and for productive lives.
But it is not that simple. The statistics and research I’ve reviewed over the past few years show mixed results when it comes to the educational system. I will discuss three unusual—even contradictory—facts in this article.
Parents with children in the public school system are happy with the education system…but the general public is not.
Nearly half of American adults are pleased with the operation of the K-12 public school system in the nation. A recently released Gallup poll finds that 48 percent of Americans say they are “somewhat” or “completely” satisfied with the public K-12 system in the U.S. The poll has been conducted since 1999 and that highest satisfaction rating in this category was 53 percent in 2004.
Respondents with children who are actually in the public school system currently showed higher levels of satisfaction (57 percent) with the system than adults as a collective group. Parents who answered how satisfied they were with just their oldest child’s education were at almost 75 percent.
The fact that many parents in the poll responded positively to public schools and members of the general public responded negatively was labeled an “optimism gap” by the Gallup poll staff.
The results of this poll tell me two things: One, American confidence in the public school system has a ways to go to reassure the general population that it is doing its job; and two, that those who actually interact with the public schools are less influenced by things like news stories when it comes to shaping their personal opinions.
80 percent of students are graduating high school…yet less than half of these students are ready for what’s next.
The U.S. Education Department reports that the high school graduation rate is at an all-time high at 80 percent. Four out of five students are successful in studies completion and graduate within four years. While these statistics sound like a reason for a standing ovation, they are overshadowed by the crisis that is sweeping the United States. While 80 percent of high school seniors receive a diploma, less than half of those are able to proficiently read or complete math problems.
The problem is that students are being passed on to the next grade when they should be held back, and then they are unable to complete grade-level work and keep up with their classmates.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the largest standardized test administered in the United States, reports that fewer than 40 percent of graduating seniors have mastered reading and math and are poorly equipped for college and real world life. These students who are passed to the next grade are at a serious disadvantage and have an increased chance of falling behind and dropping out of college.
We spend trillions of dollars on education…but we have not seen any improvement in public schools since 2009.
The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress has some shocking news: since 2009, there has been no improvement in math and reading performance among our nation’s high school seniors. Despite the trillions of dollars we have hurdled into our schools, our students aren’t better off in those subjects.
How can that be? It seems to me that the problem lies in that we simply teach to the test. We train thousands of students to learn a few of the “core” subjects so they score well on tests – but that doesn’t really make the students better educated. Higher test scores in any subject does not mean these young adults are smarter. Think about the utterly essential part of success: learning how to write well. This is a prime example of a subject that no multiple-choice test can measure.
To really learn, students must have the thirst to drink from the fountain of knowledge. They must feel compelled to understand problems and have the urge to find the solution, even if that means they answer incorrectly. Yes, the core subjects are important for students to learn – but let’s not forget about literature, music and the arts – and the other subjects that help teach students to explore.
What the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress tells us is alarming. How have ten years passed, and these trillions of dollars not rendered any improvement in math and reading performance among high school seniors?
There are some schools out there that are taking a better approach at teaching today’s diverse student population but so much more needs to be done. What public education needs is the ability to implement more practical models of teaching to guide students instead of following master plans devised to ensure students test well.
A couple of weeks ago, a friend and I were discussing President Obama’s performance in the area of education — more specifically P-20 education, which begins in preschool and ends with graduate school. As is usually the case when we debate matters of education politics, the debate became quite contentious and in the end we had to agree to disagree. In response to that debate, I decided to write an opinion piece, assessing Obama’s education record. Toward the end of the article, I will issue a letter grade (A-F) denoting my assessment of the president’s level of performance in education policy.
Let me begin by saying that throughout Obama’s political career, he has continually preached the need for America to invest in education. To put it in his own words, “Countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow.” The core of his plans for education has been to provide all students with the same opportunity to reach high levels of proficiency. In the past, disadvantaged students were not provided the same educational pathways as other students. They were not held to the same high standards as their classmates; their lower achievement outcomes were readily accepted.
The president has continually invested in and supported early childhood education. Why? Because he knows that it lays the foundation for future academic success. In a 2007 speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, Obama said, “For every $1 we invest in these programs, we get $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less crime.” When he became president, he put his money where his mouth was, figuratively speaking.
The American Recovery Act allocated $5 billion for early childhood programs, and $77 billion for reforms to support elementary and secondary education. On top of this, his administration provided $500 million for the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge. It is unprecedented for a president to show such passion and commitment towards early childhood education, while simultaneously articulating such a profound understanding of its importance.
In 2010, President Obama establishedPromise Neighborhood Grants to support plans that implement cradle-to-career services that are intended to improve the educational attainment and healthy development of children. The program endeavors to provide youth in Promise Neighborhoods with effective schools and well-built networks of parental and community support that will prepare them to receive an exceptional education and effectively transition to college and a career. Patterned after Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, Promise Neighborhoods are a “promising” reinvention of an existing educational innovation.
Obama’s education reform magnum opus, Race to the Top, sustains successful teachers and principals in school districts across the nation, and has led to the adoption of common K-12 teaching standards. In this competition, states receive points for fulfilling certain criteria, such as performance-based standards for teachers and principals, showing fidelity to nationwide standards, encouraging charter schools, etc. Critics argue that high-stakes testing is untrustworthy, and I am inclined to agree. If there was a component that required contestants to create alternative assessments or value added systems to replace high stakes testing, “Race to the Top” would be as advertised.
In terms of outreach to the Hispanic community, the president’s actions have been unprecedented. President Obama did an excellent job of ensuring that the Hispanic community was included in attempts to advance educational opportunities for the entire nation. In addition, he restructured the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics to advance educational opportunities at the P-20 level. Also, President Obama is dedicated to giving students who aren’t yet American citizens an opportunity to gain their citizenship.
In terms of college access and loans, President Obama has made higher education more affordable by doubling financial support for Pell Grants, growing the number of recipientsfrom 6 million to 9 million since 2008. How did he do it? Obama accomplished this mostly by cutting out the intermediary from the college-loan program, which in turn freed billions of taxpayer dollars.
Beginning in 2014, first-time borrowers will only have to pay 10 percent or less of their disposable income towards loan repayments. The law also stipulates that after 20 years, any remaining loans will be forgiven. If they make their payments on time, public servants (teachers, police officers, servicemen, etc.) will have their student loans forgiven after 10 years. Also, the president increased funding for land-grant colleges. The aforementioned measures constituted the largest reform of student aid in 40 years.
Solely on his P-20 record, I will have to give President Obama a B+. The Obama administration’s education agenda began in the midst of one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. Since his inauguration, President Obama and Arne Duncan aggressively tackled education reform in P-20 education. What President Obama and Arne Duncan have been able to accomplish in less than four years is nothing short of amazing.
There is room for improvement, especially when students are still tested using antiquated assessment measures. More importantly than this, NCLB still exists in its original state and has not been amended. However, I decided to stick with my B+, because these issues cannot be laid at the president’s doorstep. Throughout his first term, President Obama has entreated Congress to amend NCLB, and he has been met with opposition and hostility.
Under Obama’s watch, the U. S. education system is experiencing something that it hasn’t experienced in ages — genuine progress. Although we have many more miles to go, we have to remember that Rome was not built in a day. The issues that continuously plague our public education system took decades to get that way and will probably take several more decades to fix. If President Obama is to engender true school reform in America, he has to bear in mind that school reform is a unicorn of sorts — an imaginary, magical creature conjured up by our subconscious desire to make sense of things. The truth of the matter is that school reform, as most people envision it, does not exist.
President Obama knows that you do not need to wait for something to be broken in order to fix it. That’s why our president always looks for opportunities to improve upon current processes, making things incrementally better as time passes. He has brilliantly applied the process of continuous improvement to our educational system; constantly striving to make things better, reevaluating how he does things, looking at the results he achieves, and taking steps to improve things incrementally. He has earned his B+.
I have been blogging about education reform and innovation since 2010, and over that time span I have spotlighted a lot of ed tech companies and organizations. While reflecting on this, I came up with the idea to write a series on ed tech companies that I really love and believe in. Without further ado, let’s begin with part I.
Class Charts
ClassCharts uses data rich information to present teachers with the key data that they need to make informed seating decisions and to tackle behavior issues. When integrated between classrooms, teachers can see how the behavior of their students ranks other places and together educators can create plans to guide students toward higher achievement. Schools that upgrade from the free version to the whole-school option give administrators and other school leaders the opportunity to see which students may need the help of extra learning resources. There are even options for informing parents of behavior issues, negative or positive, to keep them abreast to how their children are performing at school. It gives students the best chance at success, no matter what classroom they are in. Since the software became available in 2013, more than 70,000 teachers have signed up and more than 2.5 million students are in the system.
Most teachers have probably implemented seating charts at one point or another, and perhaps have put some of the ClassCharts concepts into play. It quickly becomes clear to a teacher when two particular students will not be productive near each other or when a certain student would fare better at the front of the classroom. The technology behind ClassCharts goes far beyond the seating basics though, and even calculates factors like students who receive free lunch, or have special education needs. The priorities of an individual school are also taken into consideration when ClassCharts creates a seating chart. All of the variables that a teacher would normally have to weigh are simply input and processed. Simple. And effective.
Fourier Education
A student with a tablet or smartphone in hand has a portal to hundreds of apps that support STEM learning. There are a lot of things that students can do on basic tablets and phones, but there are also products like the einstein Tablet+ from Fourier Educationthat have a specific focus on STEM initiatives. Instead of going out and searching for STEM-centric lessons, the einstein Tablet+ comes preloaded with experiments and modules that cover physics, biology, human physiology, chemistry, and environmental science. This STEM-specific tablet can be connected to classroom projectors and monitors so that all the students can participate at once, or can be used as an individual tablet for customized learning in grades K-12. Teachers can search mobile apps for highly-reviewed ones, some of which are completely free, to use on the screens in their classrooms.
HelpHub
The online tutoring company HelpHub uses an innovative way to match tutors with students, 24/7 and at times that are convenient for both. The unique platform connects students and tutors with each other over interactive messaging, web video and phone features that mean a tutee can find answers and help in the moment. Each interaction is analyzed and information that is helpful to the larger HelpHub community is used to begin online communities that center on particular schools, networks or topics. By utilizing the instant access to technology that already exists, HelpHub connects students and tutors in a moment and ensures that a frustrated student finds needed help quickly.
Peerless-AV
Peerless-AV and a wireless projector system that it believes is the key to overcoming technology obstacles in K-12 classrooms. Its Short Throw Projector AV System applies a modern take on the classroom technology of projection that has been around for a few decades. The projector comes with a built-in wireless receiver and stream sound and HD content (up to 1080 pixels) from up to 131 feet. Teachers can connect up to five audiovisual input devices (all wirelessly) including their computers, tablets, DVD players, MP3 players and even VHS tapes. Instead of having to switch between media devices, and deal with all of the cords that accompany it, teachers have a streamlined way to project their content from many device sources. Teachers are also able to stream their own audio in real-time through a microphone, even with their backs to the class.
A product like this Peerless-AV projector takes the best of available technology and multisensory learning and combines those things with a communal learning process. It allows for teachers to speed up or slow down lessons if needed but keep the attention of the class in the process. It is easy to use and cuts out the clunkiness of multiple audio-visual systems and their wires.
In coming posts, we will look at more ed tech companies that I really love.
Note: The following guest piece comes to us courtesy of Harman Singh, CEO of WizIQ. He founded the company in 2006, which has evolved to be the first and only online global education marketplace to offer live instructor-led learning. His career as a visionary e-learning innovator spans more than 13 years. Singh has successfully leveraged technology to replicate the classroom experience online making it more accessible, for both students and teachers. Singh has directed the company’s growth, while developing and creating WizIQ’svision and business strategy.
As technology advances, we have more access to information. One technology, Massive Open Online Courses (better known as MOOCs) is beginning to change the way we look at education. These online courses are free and filled with information on just about anything you want to learn – from project management skills to learning a new language. And because MOOCs are free, access is open to anyone with a computer.
Just as learners have open access to MOOCs, instructors from schools and universities to a variety of education providers, and practically anyone with a skill to share can host a MOOC. The emergence of MOOCs has the potential to inevitably change the way we receive our education.
Just how prevalent are MOOCs? There are hundreds of MOOCs globally, some from even established universities such as Harvard and Stanford. MOOCs fill a void for learners who lack the time – and/or dollars – to physically attend a course featuring high-quality content. Needless to say, MOOCs are regarded as a game-changer in online education.
But are they really changing the game in learning?
Why MOOCs Aren’t Working Right Now
In the future, MOOCs have the potential to completely transform education. However, as of right now, don’t expect to see universities shutting down as a result, as some experts have begun projecting. Despite the recent rapid rise in MOOCs, this format continues to be an evolving model, and one that isn’t quite established yet.
Despite the seemingly unlimited access to free information through MOOCs, a 2012-2013 study conducted by MIT and Harvard revealed an overwhelming 95 percent of students dropped their online courses before completion, a rate substantially higher than traditional education’s dropout rates. While some students have expressed satisfaction taking MOOCs, others give various reasons for dropping them. Among the most common reason cited behind this dropout rate: there is no live teacher engagement.
Currently, just 10 percent of MOOC registrants complete their courses. Why – if all the materials are free and available with the click of a mouse? MOOCs are structured using a series of pre-recorded video-based, self-paced classes offered to students for free. There are no live instructors to help facilitate the classes, lectures or content. There is also no straight-and-narrow path from beginning-to-end and the format does not encourage the exchange of different thoughts and ideas among learners. The lack of live instructor involvement also means no follow-up with the student, or any assurance along the way that the student’s learning trajectory is heading in the right direction. At the course’s conclusion, only the learner can determine if he or she was successful.
The modern MOOC – without live and interactive teacher engagement – is essentially an Internet version of a book. That said, there is tremendous potential for the MOOC to evolve in a major way. To reduce dropout rates, the MOOC must be structured around live teacher engagement.
Some online learning platforms are now taking notice of this need for student-teacher engagement. At WizIQ, for example, our platform is an open marketplace where anyone can offer a MOOC, but we are integrating actual teacher engagement into the MOOC, filling a need within the online education sector.
Still Plenty of Room – and Time – For Growth
With the potential evolution for more online courses to include live instructor interaction, MOOCs can have a significant impact in higher education. Economics alone provides a huge advantage for MOOCs. According to a Deloitte study: “Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Not Disrupted Yet, But The Future Looks Bright,” in 2003, the total amount of student debt in the U.S. had reached more than $200 billion. Just nine years later, that debt ballooned to $1 trillion. In that same study, since 2000, the tuition cost in colleges has increased by 72 percent, whereas earnings for people ages 25-30 have decreased by 15 percent. Looking at this information, it’s obvious that economics are on the side of MOOCs.
Some colleges have partnered with companies to develop programs and pipelines that meet the student’s current and future needs. This type of partnership could also help students enter the workforce fresh out of graduation. If, somehow, MOOCs are able to establish similar partnerships with companies and provide better opportunities for students to find work, there is a real incentive for people not to go to college and just register for MOOCs. This shift will not occur anytime soon, however, because the social pressure to go to college and get a degree still exists. Such pressure results in the ongoing issue of student debt in our country. When this pressure no longer exists, and when economics play a larger role in determining how students receive their education, it is at that point when MOOCs could potentially replace higher education as we know it.
In addition to its potential in higher education, MOOCs that feature instructor engagement will also benefit those taking courses to enrich their lives. Classes like learning an instrument, a foreign language or how to cook would be enhanced by the presence of a live instructor, who can exchange feedback with the student on whether or not the assignments are being done properly. Programming courses onWizIQ, for example, allow students access to remote, virtual labs with live lab instructors to run programs practicing real world scenarios. This method is far more efficient than learning from a video-based course, or trying to understand course lessons on YouTube.
Where Will MOOCs Be Just Two Years From Now?
Within the next two years, MOOCs will quickly evolve from lacking teacher engagement to having a lot of teacher engagement. Right now, it’s essentially a model where computers are teaching students. This model is simply not sustainable in the long run without live student-teacher engagement. Teachers are the key that unlocks learning in these courses. They help students resolve issues and problems.
Will the biggest change in online education moving forward be putting live teachers at the center of the MOOC (not just on video)? We will know the answer very soon.
Many educators view standardized testing as a necessary evil of the improvement process. More cynical educators view it as a completely useless process that is never a true indicator of what students actually know. Proponents of K-12 assessments say that without them, there is no adequate way to enforce educator accountability.
Love it or hate it, K-12 standardized testing is not going away. It is just changing.
The No Child Left Behind Act uses standardized testing results to determine progress and outline areas for improvement in K-12 schools. This standards-based approach to education reform has often been attacked for its disconnection with what kids should really know and what they are simply required to regurgitate for the sake of a test.
The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education released a report in March that outlined steps needed to make K-12 assessments vehicles “providing timely and valuable information” to both students and educators. Among the recommendations made by the 30-member commission was a permanent council to evaluate standardized testing be created. The report also calls for a 10-year research study intended to strengthen “the capacity of the U.S. assessment enterprise.” The Gordon Commission Report admits that the assessments of the future are not yet in existence but that their creation needs to begin now.
Commission chairman Dr. Edmund W. Gordon said:
“Technologies have empowered individuals in multiple ways — enabling them to express themselves, gather information easily, make informed choices, and organize themselves into networks for a variety of purposes. New assessments — both external and internal to classroom use — must fit into this landscape of the future.”
Based on the report, and what we know as educators, what do future standardized tests need to include to be successful in an increasingly digital classroom?
More assessment of HOW to obtain knowledge. Dr. Gordon touched on this point when he mentioned access to information and networking. There is more information available than can ever possibly be processed, so the way that this and future generations of students make informed decisions matters more than ever. Assessments of the future will need to ask more questions about the how of knowledge and not just focus on the what.
Higher levels of digital access. All facets of education are being impacted by the rapid evolution of technology and assessments are not immune. Not only should educators be able to tap into digital resources for assessment preparation, but students should be able to take assessments using the technology that makes them most comfortable. Filling in bubbles with number two pencils needs to become an assessment relic, replaced by convenient, streamlined technology options.
More critical thinking options. This goes hand-in-hand with how to obtain knowledge, but takes it a step further. Everyone can agree that applied knowledge is crucial to the learning process so standardized tests need to do better when measuring it. Every child needs to be able to articulate what he or she knows, not just repeat it.
Assessments in K-12 learning are sure to change in the next five years, and beyond, in order to adapt to changing classrooms. There will never be a perfect formula for assessment, but educators should never tire trying to make standardized testing as applicable and helpful as possible.
What changes would you like to see in K-12 assessments?
There isn’t anything in recent educational history that has caused more of a stir than the implementation of national Common Core standards in most states. It seems that everyone from politicians to parents has an opinion on these learning benchmarks and their corresponding testing systems. Even comedian Louis C.K. recently vocally opposed Common Core during an interview with David Letterman. Everyone is throwing his or her two cents into the Common Core discussion and it has all led to a firestorm of questions surrounding the future of K-12 education in the U.S. and whether one streamlined goal program can really be effective with all students.
As a disclaimer, I actually support a lot of the components of Common Core and believe that heightened, more focused teaching toward subjects like math and science are necessary for this generation of K-12 students to survive and thrive in the future world workplace. Despite my personal feelings on the heart of Common Core standards, however, the initiatives are misdirected in more ways than one and will be rendered ineffective in the end. This week I’d like to take a look at why Common Core standards will ultimately be thrown out, starting with the politics of the program first.
Common Core is linked to Obama.
Even though President Obama did not draft or implement Common Core standards, he is inextricably linked to them. This is due in part to the fact that his Race to the Top program connects federal funding with states that have Common Core standards in place and who excel in the testing of the material. The President has certainly put his weight behind the ideals of Common Core standards and has always been vocal about his belief that streamlined learning benchmarks and continued teacher accountability is necessary for the future of the nation’s economy and knowledge base. He did not, however, come up with the idea for Common Core standards nor approve them upon completion. The bi-partisan National Governors Association did that. Still, people who already dislike President Obama seem to think that passionately disliking Common Core is just another way to show their disapproval of his administration. While this specific group is certainly not large enough to topple the standards alone, it is influential, particularly when it comes to politicians that are looking for an easy way to please constituents. Which brings me to my next point…
Politicians are using Common Core as a platform.
Republican governor of Indiana Mike Pence was once a supporter of Common Core initiatives, and so was Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Yet both are now some of the most prominent politicians to speak out against Common Core standards – and in the case of Pence, he has since withdrawn Indiana from the program (and then replaced the standards with eerily similar “state developed” ones). It seems that Common Core is becoming a platform for politicians looking for their next news byte or front-page photo op. It’s not limited to politicians in office, either.
In April, Republican Rob Astorino of New York, a gubernatorial hopeful, made a public announcement that his own children would not be taking state assessments based on Common Core benchmarks. The spotlight-stealing is not limited to Republicans, of course. Just this month Virginian democrat Adam Ebbin who hopes to replace long-time Senator Jim Moran said he does not support Common Core standards (which Virginia has so far opted out of using). Politicians from both sides of the aisle are seeing the fiery side of their constituents and looking for a way to push that passion in their own directions.
In the other two parts of this series I will look at the role parents and logistics will play in bringing down Common Core for good, and how both will influence future educational policy.
Do you think that Common Core has rightfully, or unfairly, become a hot button political issue?
As I wrote on Wednesday, I’ve spent some time lately combing through the pages of Diane Ravitch’s book The Death and Life of the Great American School. As a public school reformer myself, I appreciate her informed, unique look at the state of the P-12 system in the U.S. Considered a liberal early in her career, she was initially a supporter of reform issues considered “conservative” today like the No Child Left Behind Act and the establishment of public charter schools. She has since returned to her roots, at least enough to call herself an Independent, and attacked some of the most popular theories for reform.
I talked about the way that schools of all types (traditional public, private and charters) game the system when it comes to accountability standards in my last post – a myth that on the surface may look like learning is truly being achieved based on predetermined standards and practices like teaching to the test. Today I want to look at another myth of the contemporary P-12 system that Ravitch also dispels in her book: the myth of the Superstar Teacher.
You are probably familiar with the concept, particularly since it is perpetuated in popular culture through movies like the classic Edward James Olmos film “Stand and Deliver” and 2012’s “Won’t Back Down.” The idea is that with the right teacher – a committed, bright, in-tune, talented teacher – P-12 problems like the achievement gap and high dropout rates will cease to exist. If only every student had a standout teacher like the ones portrayed in these shows, the very P-12 system as we know it would be transformed for the better.
I do believe in the power of teachers, both positive and negative, on their students. I train educators for a living and have written books about following “the calling” to become a teacher. I do think that teachers make a difference – but like Ravitch, I cannot put all of my faith in these “superstar teachers” to reform the education system the way that is truly needed.
For one thing, the schools that desperately need some sort of superstar saviors are often unable to attract them. In a study on urban schools and poverty released by the National Center for Education Statistics, urban administrators said that they had difficulty attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. This observation, coupled with the fact that schools with higher percentages of students living in poverty had less resources available for teaching, is a recipe for disaster when it comes to counting on these “superstars” to close the achievement gap, lift standardized test scores and increase graduation rates. These urban schools are the very places that need all of those factors to happen to improve student achievement and the long-term overall quality of life in those communities. So if the answer falls solely on strong teachers, these places are in a lot of trouble.
I also think it is unfair to count on, or to blame, teachers solely for the performance of their students. Yes, they play a role in shaping the young minds in their classrooms and yes, they should be held accountable for that. It seems to me that the root of issues in classrooms that tend to cause the most problems for students (like poverty and ill-equipped or uninvolved parents) should be the target of any true reform. Teachers come and go, moving from school to school or on to different careers. Strong programs that address equality in education and focus on social issues at the root of learning challenges are what will truly make an impact on what students learn and retain, and whether those students succeed.
What are your thoughts on the roles of teachers? Are there enough “superstars” to transform the system?
Here are some facts you may find alarming: according to data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the performance of American students as compared to their international equivalents is mediocre at best. PISA is an international study that evaluates education systems worldwide every three years. This involves testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in more than 70 participating countries/economies.
Scores from the 2009 PISA assessment reveal the U.S. performs about average in reading and science and below average in math. Some of the top performers on the PISA evaluation were Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Finland, Shanghai in China, Singapore and Canada. Out of 34 participating countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. These statistics are staggering.
From overcrowded schools to lack of parental involvement, there are many obvious problems within the education system that immediately come to mind when thinking of how to improve education in America. But some issues fly under the radar. Here are just three of those factors that, when addressed, could make the US more competitive on a global scale:
The amount of time students spend in school
Let’s look at where American schools rank right now when it comes to days in school versus time off. Thirty states require schools to have a 180-day calendar, two ask for more than 181 school days and the rest ask for between 171 and 179 days on the official school calendar each year. Minnesota is the only state in the nation that has no minimum requirement for number of days students are in the classroom (though the state averages 175 school days). This means that in states with the lowest day requirements, students are out of school for more days than they are in it (as many as 194 days per year), a number that contrasts greatly with other developed nations.
Korea has the highest required number of school days, at 225, followed by Japan at 223 and China at 221. Canadian requirements are close to the U.S., at 188 days, and England is at 190 days. When all developed nations are considered, the international average for days in school is 193 – a full two weeks+ higher than most of the U.S.
But are all these days considered equal?
How long are the school days in places like Korea, China and England? It varies, but it is not uncommon for Korean high school students to spend 16 hours each school day in classrooms. That is more than twice the amount of time that American students spend at school, and perhaps a bit too extreme. Yet Korean students consistently rank at the top of developed nations when it comes to subjects like math and science, vastly outpacing U.S. students. By contrast, in England school-aged children spend 6.5 to 7 hours at school – the equivalent of American students (but, remember, they spend more days in the classroom).
President Obama is in favor of more time in the classroom.
In 2009, he stated that the amount of time students currently spend in school places us at a competitive disadvantage. “Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.”
Predictably those comments have received some pushback in the years since, both from parents who believe their children are already under too much pressure at school and need every single day off they are allotted, and from teachers unions who want to know how educators will be properly accommodated for the extra time spent in classroom instruction. The idea of adding more time to student school calendars is an unpopular one – but I’m not sure that is reason enough to rule it out.
The lack of respect we have for the teaching profession.
According to the Pew Research Center, Americans have a declining interest in education. Not surprisingly, the economy, job creation and terrorism are the public’s top three priorities, and there’s no question each would have grave consequences if not addressed. These topics should certainly be focal points of interest. However, some of these priorities are related to or even dependent on the quality of education in this country.
As reported by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that if the U.S. could boost its average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years, it could lead to a gain of $41 trillion for the U.S. economyover the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. Therein lies the solution to every major problem facing the American people — including the economy, job creation and terrorism awareness.
Based on research provided by Dr. Steven Paine, a nationally renowned American educator, the OECD has offered a number of simple and practical lessons to the United States. According to Paine, money is not the answer to boosting our country’s international educational status, nor will it bring about a greater classroom experience. In studying the world’s highest achievers — Finland, Singapore and Ontario, Canada — Paine suggests our lack of respect for teachers is the nation’s number one enemy of education.
Paine stated in his report to the OECD, “In Finland, it is a tremendous honor to be a teacher, and teachers are afforded a status comparable to what doctors, lawyers and other highly regarded professionals enjoy in the U.S.” The report also suggested the teaching profession in Singapore “is competitive and highly selective, [a country] that works hard to build its own sense of professional conduct and meet high standards for skills development.” The study of Ontario revealed similar findings.
Paine continued, “OECD countries that have been most successful in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so by offering teachers real career prospects and more responsibility as professionals — encouraging them to become leaders of educational reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just deliverers of the curriculum.”
A lack of regard for arts education
According to First Lady Michelle Obama, an estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure. In schools such as the New York City public schools, a significant percentage of schools have no arts teachers.
The arts may not be considered as important as math and science, but it is still very important for student engagement and learning. A school in the lowest income district in all of New York participated in a four-year arts integration program that took students from basically no arts learning to multi-faceted lesson plans with arts inclusion. The results? An 8 percent improvement in Language Arts scores, 9 percent improvement in math scores and less absenteeism.
Can you think of any other little-known factors that might have an impact on the U.S. educational system?
As presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to insist upon banning Muslims from entering the U.S. and espousing a need for a wall along the Mexican border, heating up anti-immigration and racist rhetoric, it’s essential we consider this: one in four students under the age of eight in the U.S. has an immigrant parent.
Classrooms are getting more diverse as the percentage of minority students increases. In the fall of 2014 there were more minority students in the the public education system. According to a report from the Pew Research Center, 50.3 percent of students in 2014 were minority, whereas 49.7 percent of all students were white. By 2022, 45.3 percent are projected to be white, and 54.7 percent are projected to be minority.
How can classrooms become more culturally responsive in their teaching practices in classrooms and foster respectful behavior?
As a music educator and music teacher educator focused on culturally responsive teaching, I believe a music classroom is an ideal place to begin. Music is an experience found across all cultures, and music classrooms are a logical place where difference and respect can be recognized, practiced and celebrated.
Music programs lack diversity
Music education programs in the high school setting typically bring to mind the images and sounds of bands, orchestras and choirs. In the elementary context, general music classes are viewed as places where children sing, dance, and play the recorder and other classroom instruments.
Each of these experiences is rooted in either a Western view of music that is focused on placement of Western classical music as the highest form of musical experience, or on methods of teaching that grew out of European music education practices.
In my research, I found that the reliance on a method of general music instruction within a classroom where the majority of the students were the children of Mexican immigrants resulted in a the creation of an inherent bias against the students’ culture and a sense of isolation for the students. This bias was the result of the the teacher’s views, which created an environment that did not support the integration of cultural, linguistic and popular music experiences.
This finding was supported by music education professor Regina Carlow, who found that when the cultural identity of students in a high school choir setting was not respected or even acknowledged, students developed a sense of isolation.
This isolation can result in an unfair learning environment.
Teachers lack diversity
So why don’t classrooms engage students in musical practices that are rooted in their cultural and musical backgrounds? The answer can be found in the traditions of American music education.
In 2011, music education researchers Carlos Abril and Kenneth Elpusfound that 65.7 percent of music ensemble students were white and middle class; only 15.2 percent were black and 10.2 percent were Hispanic. These data demonstrate that white students are overrepresented in high school music ensembles. Students for whom English was not their native language accounted for only 9.6 percent of ensemble members.
The majority of teachers are white and middle-class. Andy Bullock, CC BY
Adding to this reality is the fact that the process of becoming a music teacher is rooted in the Western classical tradition. Though the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) does not stipulate a classical performance audition, it is required in a majority of cases.
Based on my experience as a music education professor, aspiring music teachers must pass a Western classical performance audition with an orchestral instrument, classical voice or classical guitar in order to even begin down the path of becoming a music educator, even though no school explicitly states that.
Given this, music education programs not only primarily reflect Western European classical music, but they also create a self-perpetuating cycle.
Start with understanding music
In fact, music curriculum can be an ideal place to start culturally responsive teaching. Music crosses cultures and is an experience that can be considered universal.
Education researcher Geneva Gay describes culturally responsive teaching as a practice that supports learning through and about other cultures.
This includes cultural values, traditions, communication, learning styles, contributions and how people relate. It is not just taking a week or month to study the folk music of Mexico. It is about building a curriculum that enables students to experience, discuss, and perform music that is culturally and socially relevant.
This happens when teachers draw on musical styles and genres that are varied. For example, learning to sing the folk song “Frog Went a Courtin’” based on its American variant, then comparing and contrasting it to the Flat Duo Jets’ rock version of the song.
The cultural values and contributions of diverse musicians and genres provide the perfect avenue to explore and learn about the “other” in a classroom environment. Additionally, the chance to sing, play and listen to the music of other cultures creates an understanding that transcends personal experience, and creates a more global perspective.
Reimagine and reconfigure
This is not to say that we should forgo the current practices. Band, orchestra, and choir programs provide wonderful educational experiences for students throughout the country.
And these programs should continue.
However, there are other music programs that focus on guitar as a popular and folk instrument. Such as this one:
And there are programs that run rock bands within the school day. Then, there are programs where students learn to write songs, sample and compose. In addition, there are music education blogs that celebrate the many “other” ways that students learn about music, outside of band, orchestra and choir.
These programs can help us reimagine and reconfigure.
Building walls and excluding groups do not engender respect and democratic growth in our classrooms or in our political arenas. Rather, they foster fear and prevent equality and opportunity. Music classrooms can and should become the places where diversity is embraced and integrated.
For many of us, access to the Internet through a variety of means is a given. I can access the Internet through two laptops, a tablet, a smartphone and even both of my game systems, from the comfort of my living room.
However, this access is unequally distributed. Although nine out of 10 low-income families have Internet access at home, most are underconnected: that is, they have “mobile-only” access – they are able to connect to the Internet only through a smart device, such as a tablet or a smartphone.
This leads to limited access: A third of families with mobile-only access quickly hit the data limits on their mobile phone plans and about a quarter have their phone service cut off for lack of payment.
So, what impact does this type of access have on youth learning?
What changes with a computer connection
My research has explored underserved youth’s use of technology to discover and participate in content related to their interests. Having access only through their mobile devices means that low-income families and youth do not have the same access to the Internet as those with other Internet connections.
One-fifth of families who access the Internet only through their mobile devices say too many family members have to share one device. This means that the amount of time each individual has to access the Internet is limited.
This can be a barrier to learning for young people. It can limit their access to resources to complete their homework, as well as create barriers for other learning. Thirty-five percent of youth who have mobile-only access look online for information about things they are interested in. But this goes up to 52 percent when young people have access to an Internet-connected computer.
When young people have access to an Internet-supported computer, it facilitates their learning. leah, CC BY-NC-ND
When young people have their own access to the Internet, they have an opportunity to engage in connected learning – learning that is based on interest, is supported by peers and has the potential to offer better opportunities for the future.
A 2014 paper on the use of digital media as a learning tool highlights how learning around interests can be supported through online resources.
The paper tells the story of Amy, a participant in an online knitting community, Hogwarts at Ravelry, which combines both interest in knitting and the Harry Potter series. Amy finds inspiration in the vast knitting pattern library of the group and receiving support from others in the community. She begins to develop, design and write patterns of her own. And, as a teenager, she begins selling her patterns online.
Amy’s access to a stable Internet connection and her own dedication allowed her to dive deep into the activities of the community. Over time, it allowed her to become more active and engaged in knitting.
Another example of what youth can accomplish online comes from my 2014 research on a professional wrestling fan community, a set of forums where professional wrestling fans get together virtually to discuss the many facets of professional wrestling.
Maria, a professional wrestling fan, seeks out an online community because she lacks local support for her interest. Through her participation, she realizes her deep enjoyment of writing. She carries this back into her English class and the school newspaper. This eventually leads her to take creative writing as a second degree in college.
Maria spent hours on her computer carefully crafting her narratives while participating on the forum. With a mobile-only access, she would not have had the amount of time online, or the amount of bandwidth, required for this work. This is supported by the fact that only 31 percent of childrenwith mobile-only access go online daily as compared to 51 percent of those with other Internet access.
How low-income youth get left behind
Mobile-only access to the Internet can create serious barriers for youth who want to access content and educational supports.
As part of my research, I have been conducting workshops in libraries located in low-income communities, using an online coding program that is not yet available on mobile devices. In one of the workshops, students needed to work on projects outside of the sessions.
Because of the limited technology access at home, the librarian held additional open hours so the youth participating in the workshop could work on their projects outside of the workshop hours. A few youth had access to their own computers, but the majority had only mobile access.
Young people who have computer access create may better projects. Jeff Werner, CC BY-NC-SA
The youth with computer access at home created more complex projects. This was partly because they had more time to develop, modify and problem-solve their projects. But it was also because the coding program was available to only those with computer access. These youth also seemed to develop a deeper interest in coding potentially due to this greater level of exposure.
Need for better understanding
What becomes evident from the data from “Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in low income families” and from the examples from research is that having access to the Internet only through a phone can have an impact on young people’s access to learning opportunities.
Designers, educators and researchers need to be aware and continually create more equity through mindful decision-making.
Amanda Ochsner, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern California who studies how underrepresented groups of young people engage with games and digital media, argues that when designers and developers take the time to understand young people’s digital lives, they are ultimately able to make better tools. As she said to me:
In offices where the most recent models of laptops, tablets, and iPhones are abundant, it’s far too easy for those of us who develop educational tools and technologies to misjudge the technological realities of the young people the education tools and technologies are designing for.
Just how young people access online, in other words, matters – a lot.
