Pedagogue Blog

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Explainer: what is all the fuss about the Common Core?

Ken Libby, University of Colorado

When it comes to US public education, few topics engender such heated debate as a new set of maths and English standards for school children known as the Common Core.

Since the final standards were released in 2010, they have been adopted by 44 states and the District of Columbia. This marks a departure from the long history in the US of leaving most educational standards up to the whims of states and local school districts, resulting in different standards in every state for kindergarten to grade 12.

The Common Core counts supporters and critics in both of the two major US political parties. This makes the conversation about the standards quite messy and interesting – especially given the upcoming congressional elections in November.

Fighting ‘ObamaCore’

Although moderate conservatives generally favour the Common Core, those further to the right, like the Tea Party, portray the new standards as inappropriate meddling by the federal government. Some engage in wild conspiracy theories, and attack the standards as part of a broader anti-public school agenda.

The fight over the US’s recent changes to healthcare policy, Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as “ObamaCare”), provides a way for some conservative activists to jump into the Common Core fray by claiming the new standards are the educational equivalent (“ObamaCore”). It’s a poor comparison, but permits easy entry into the debate for those with little substantive knowledge.

Left-leaning critics cite concerns about the potential for private companies (such as publishing group Pearson) to profit from the Common Core as a reason for rejecting the new standards.

Criticism of the standards is coming in all shapes and sizes.
amerigus/WWYD , CC BY

There are also concerns as to whether the standards for early elementary students are developmentally inappropriate. Others dismiss the new standards as a solution to a problem that does not exist, or a band-aid for much bigger problems, like the high child poverty rate in the US.

Some critics of the Common Core view it as further cementing the use (and misuse) of standardised testing in American schools.

State-driven testing

In addition to the new standards, two consortia of states – Smarter Balanced and the Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers – have been working to develop tests tied to the standards. However, some states, such as Kansas, have opted to develop their own assessments.

These new and ostensibly better assessments created by the two consortia may provide some real advantages compared to previous tests. However, early trials of assessments tied to the Common Core indicate up to 70% of students in New York may not receive a passing mark given the more challenging nature of the standards. While that may well paint a reasonably accurate picture of how many students can truly meet the new standards, it is a politically tenuous position to maintain.

Supporters, on the other hand, claim the standards are more challenging than previous state standards (and they are, at least for most states). They also say that the standards will better prepare students for college-level work, and create a more level playing field for children across the country.

The shift to the Common Core comes as states pursue several other policy changes, including teacher evaluations based in part on student progress on standardised tests. These new evaluations attempt to use statistical models to calculate a measure of teacher quality based on how much a teacher’s students improve their performance on standardised tests, usually controlling for a host of other variables.

What teachers think

Pursuing both the new Common Core standards and teacher evaluations at the same time is worrying, especially if teachers and schools are not adequately prepared to help students reach the goals of the new standards.

While teachers generally support the common core, they also express reservations about implementation. A poll conducted in July 2013 by the largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), indicated that teachers wanted more time to collaborate with colleagues about the new standards, updated resources, and enhanced technology for the classroom.

With each state and school district responsible for implementation, the degree to which teachers feel supported (or not) varies greatly. Heads of both the NEA and the second largest teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers, have expressed concerns about Common Core implementation in recent months.

Personally, I do not consider myself a strong supporter of the common core. Nor am I an opponent. Although some critics make wild charges and engage in conspiracy theories, there are certainly legitimate concerns about the changes.

Implementation seems rushed in far too many places, leaving teachers and students inadequately prepared for the shift. If equity across the country were truly a concern, we would talk about how states do an exceedingly poor job of financing schools equitably, giving fewer resources to districts populated with low-income students and racial minorities. We would also tackle the inequitable distribution of teachers and various out-of-school factors – poverty, residential segregation, inequality and racism.

With more states shifting to the new standards and assessments in the coming year, the Common Core will likely remain an important issue in US public education and political debate. The standards themselves are rarely discussed – in large part because the biggest concerns are about related (and perhaps intertwined) issues like testing, teacher evaluations, and implementation.

The Conversation

Ken Libby, PhD student studying educational foundations, policy and practice, University of Colorado

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity

How children with disabilities came to be accepted in public schools

Jean Crockett, University of Florida

When Alan joined my class in September, I knew he needed help.

So did I.

Alan had lived in an orphanage ever since he was an infant and faced many challenges: he was older than the other kids and did not want to play with them. He didn’t use words – although he could make sounds. He was very different from his classmates and stayed to himself.

But then, every afternoon he was a bundle of energy, imitating the barking of a dog and crawling on the floor around his classmates at circle time. He also had a passion for shredding my teaching materials.

I didn’t know what to do.

That was 1978. I was teaching half-day kindergarten classes in a New York school that year to 33 five-year-olds in the morning and to another 30 youngsters in the afternoon.

I had no assistant, and safety was my first priority. I referred Alan for an evaluation to see if he was eligible for special education services.

Luckily for Alan, three years earlier, President Gerald Ford had signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975 into law. Public schools were given three years to get ready for some big changes.

By the time I referred Alan, Public Law 94-142 (as the act was known then) had taken effect nationwide.

As we mark the 40th anniversary of the law, it is an important moment in which to reflect.

From my perspective as a teacher, school administrator and professor of special education – who has followed this nation’s journey toward equal educational opportunities – I believe this law enabled many young kids with disabilities, like Alan, to lead more productive lives.

What it was like in the 1970s

Back in the seventies, educating kids with special needs in regular schools was a new concept.

Before the law came in, 1.75 million children with disabilities were completely excluded from public schools. And of the three million children with disabilities who went to school, many did not receive an education that was appropriate to their needs. Most often they were taught in special classes or state-supported schools.

Children with mild visual or hearing problems, speech impairments or mild intellectual disabilities could spend at least some time in regular classes. But those who were totally deaf or had moderate intellectual difficulties were not allowed in regular classrooms.
They were sent to separate schools or institutions – even if they did not need to be in those settings.

Some states even had strict laws excluding children who were considered “crippled,” “feebleminded” or “emotionally disturbed” from public education, based only on their “handicaps.” It was not unusual for them to be institutionalized.

The general belief was that children with a disability could not learn. Parents who could afford to pay sent their kids to private schools that provided special services through nonprofit organizations such as the Easter Seals Association or The Arc that were set up by parents early on to advocate for their kids.

The education of these children became an issue of public concern in their home communities only if there was enough money. At the time, education for children with special needs was seen to be more of a matter of privilege and not a right.

What changed with a new law

Once the EAHCA came in, however, it made the right to education a reality for students with disabilities across the United States.

Before the seventies, few kids with disabilities were educated in schools.
Twin Work & Volunteer, CC BY-NC-ND

It helped kids receive an Individualized Education Program so they could be taught the skills they needed in class or on the playground.

In Alan’s case, his special education teacher assessed his strengths and weaknesses – he needed to learn to recognize letters and numbers and learn to play with others. She also experimented with different teaching approaches and kept data on what he could and couldn’t do so she could target his learning problems. In addition, he received services from the speech-language therapist.

I remember, thanks to these services, Alan made good progress that year.

As this was 1978 and kids with special needs were rarely taught in regular classrooms, Alan never returned to my kindergarten class. He was taught in a separate special education classroom.

How the law evolved

In 1990, Congress updated the title and language of the law. It came to be known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

A great deal of activism on behalf of people with disabilities led to this change. The term “handicapped” implied dependence. Its origins went back to medieval times, when the only source of income for many people with disabilities was begging with a cap in hand.

Putting the word “individuals” before the word “disabilities” in the title was also preferred as an example of “person-first” language. This implied that people were not to be defined by others only by their disability.

Several other changes were made as the law evolved: In 1986, it came to include services for children under six years old. In 1990, it incorporated services for older students to get help planning their transition to college, work and life in their communities. And in 1997, Congress reauthorized the law to increase accountability.

As a result, IDEA 1997 came to incorporate new goals – such as getting kids ready for school, improving academic achievement in reading and other subjects, increasing graduation rates, bringing in highly skilled teachers, making schools safer and building stronger partnerships with parents.

These changes meant that more kids could be taught in the regular classroom – they could access school activities and the same general curriculum as other students without disabilities.

Consequently, for the past 40 years, public schools in the US have been required to make a free, appropriate, public education available to all children with disabilities.

Way forward

I imagine if Alan were in school today, he would be one of 6.4 million students in the US who receive IDEA services from birth to age 21. He would also likely be among the 95% of special education students taught in public schools who spend some part of their school day in regular classes.

Children with and without special needs attend the same class.
IIP Photo Archive, CC BY-NC

I would also like to think that if Alan were born today, he would not be given up for adoption. His parents would learn to care for him with support from early intervention services for infants and toddlers.

He would be included in a local preschool program where he could learn to be with other kids and feel safe. That would help him get ready for his first day of kindergarten.

But he would also be facing some challenges.

In my experience, educating students with disabilities is complex. Too often, effective techniques and materials are not used in schools. And even when students are included in regular classes, they are not taught appropriately.

In 2004, changes were made in the law to overcome low expectations for these students. Today, the good news is that dropout rates for students with disabilities have decreased – 64% of special education students now graduate with a regular high school diploma.

But the sobering news is the reading and math performance of many students is well below proficiency.

The challenge is for teachers and school administrators to make sure students with disabilities in their schools are taught in ways that are proven by research to improve their learning.

Special education students need the extra services provided by IDEA to develop, learn and succeed. Without the extra interventions and personalized support, the performance of many is unlikely to improve. Unfortunately, this isn’t happening in enough schools.

The issue is, special and general education teachers need to work together for these students to make appropriate progress. They need to be sure they respond not only to their students’ academic needs but also to their social and personal needs. To do that, school administrators need to help their teachers build the will and the skills to work together.

I’ve been through this journey for 40 years. And I am celebrating the birth of IDEA today. For when I think about Alan, I recall the impact it made – on him and many others.

The Conversation

Jean Crockett, Professor and Director of the School of Special Education, School Psychology, & Early Childhood Studies, University of Florida

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement, Policy & Reform, Teachers

How schools can help immigrant children to thrive

Jan Germen Janmaat, UCL Institute of Education

In view of the large influx of refugees from Syria and the growing concern about their integration in European societies, the launch of a new report on immigrant children in education systems could not be more timely.

The report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), noted reassuringly that there was no relation between the amount of immigrants in a country’s education system and a decline in education standards. It’s as if the OECD were pre-empting criticism from populist anti-immigrant politicians that the influx of Syrian refugees will be a disruption to western societies, and in particular a drain on schools.

The main focus of the report is actually on the performance gap between children of immigrant background and their non-immigrant peers and what schools can do to close it. Although the achievement gap has closed across the OECD – by a semester between 2003 and 2012 – on average, immigrant students still perform worse than their peers. The OECD gives some quite explicit advice to politicians if they are serious about enhancing the performance of these children: provide additional language instruction, arrange early childhood education, prevent segregation, don’t force them to repeat grades and eliminate the early streaming (also known as tracking) of children into different ability groups.

While the first two recommendations are uncontroversial, the last suggestion is politically sensitive as there are quite a few states who practice and cherish the tracking or streaming of children. In Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, different tracks coincide with different kinds of schools, while in England, ability grouping is organised within schools in what is called setting.

Provocatively the report said: “While ability grouping, grade repetition and tracking are harmful for all students, immigrant students are more likely to be affected by these practices.“ This is likely to raise some eyebrows, particularly among political parties advocating early tracking such as the Christian Democrats in Germany and the Conservatives in the UK.

Many education researchers have stressed that early tracking only reinforces achievement gaps, not only between immigrant and non-immigrant children but also between children of different social backgrounds. As early as 1974, the French sociologist Raymond Boudon noted that the more tracks a system has and the earlier these tracks start to branch out, the greater the inequality in educational performance and the more difficult it will be for children of modest backgrounds, including many immigrants, to do well in school. In this sense the OECD can be said to be a late convert to the cause of late selection – or comprehensive education as it is more widely known.

The report also noted that early tracking on the basis of ability amounts to social and ethnic sorting and so only adds to school social and ethnic segregation, which is an observation widely shared in academia.

Segregation and achievement

Segregation is also mentioned by the OECD as another factor contributing to the performance gap. This is based on the idea that large concentrations of immigrant children give rise to peer influences that reduce performance, irrespective of the individual social and ethnic background of children. In other words, when immigrant children are surrounded by peers of the same background in school, they are doubly disadvantaged, both in terms of their own background and in terms of the backgrounds of their classmates.

Language lessons for refugee children in Germany.
Ole Spata/EPA

In mixed settings, by contrast, they should be able to learn from their more privileged peers. Desegregated schools can thus help to compensate for the effect of family disadvantage. Again this theory is not new. In 1966 a famous report by American sociologist James Coleman noted that it makes a great difference who you go to school with. This report greatly reinforced the desegregation campaign that was set in motion by the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education US Supreme Court ruling declaring that de jure segregation was “inherently unequal” and therefore unconstitutional.

What’s best for immigrant children

There is more controversy among researchers, however, about whether segregation enhances achievement gaps. In 2005, American researchers Russell Rumberger and Gregory Palardy noted that when it comes to student achievement, the social composition of schools matters much more than the racial composition. Taking a closer look at social composition they found that several school characteristics, including teacher expectations of children, the amount of homework that students do, and the number of rigorous courses that students take, explain all of the effect of social composition.

This would imply that in theory immigrant children can perform just as well in segregated schools, provided they are exposed to the very same curriculum and teaching input as their peers in mixed schools. The question, however, is whether equalising these resources across schools can be achieved in practice – as they are so inextricably bound up with the social and ethnic mix of schools.

The OECD report deserves praise for letting the data speak and ignoring possible political pressures to revise the policy messages emanating from its findings on what works to close the achievement gap. It does not deal, however, with two relevant questions of quite a different nature: namely whether the policies it recommends can be adopted in the same way in countries with different educational cultures and whether they will produce the same results across the board. This debate – a hot topic among researchers – so far remains unresolved.

The Conversation

Jan Germen Janmaat, Reader in Comparative Social Science, Department of Lifelong and Comparative Education, UCL Institute of Education

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

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

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

Can schools punish students for off-campus, online speech?

Clay Calvert, University of Florida

In January 2014, Reid Sagehorn, a student at Rogers High School in Minnesota, jokingly tweeted “actually yeah” in response to a question about whether he had made out with one of his high school teachers.

The public school, acting on the tweet, suspended him for seven weeks. Sagehorn, a member of the National Honor Society, fought the suspension in a federal court, claiming the actions of school officials violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

Did the school have the right to punish him for his off-campus expression? It turns out – no.

In August 2015, a federal judge rejected the school officials’ motion to have the case dismissed. After all, the court found that Sagehorn made the post while away from campus, during nonschool hours, without using the school’s computers. And last month Sagehorn collected a settlement of more than US$400,000.

Sadly, Reid Sagehorn’s case is not unique. For at least the past 15 years, schools across the nation have engaged in Orwellian overreaches into the homes and bedrooms of students to punish them for their off-campus, online expression regarding classmates, teachers and administrators.

Despite the bevy of cases, the issue of whether schools can punish students for off-campus, online speech remains unresolved.

Cases where school kids were suspended

For instance, in April 2015, a federal court in Oregon considered a case called Burge v Colton School District 53 in which an eighth grader was suspended from his public middle school based upon out-of-school comments he posted on his personal Facebook page.

And in September 2014, a federal court in New York considered a case called Bradford v Norwich City School District in which a public high school student was suspended “based on a text-message conversation he had with another student regarding a third student while outside of school.”

Judge Glenn Suddaby observed in Bradford that “the Supreme Court has yet to speak on the scope of a school’s authority to discipline a student for speech that does not occur on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event.”

Silence from the Supreme Court

Indeed, a key problem here is that the US Supreme Court has never ruled in a case involving the off-campus speech rights of students in the digital era.

Public school students do possess First Amendment speech rights, although those rights are not the same as those of adults in nonschool settings.

A case in point is the Supreme Court’s famous 1969 proclamation in Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District that students do not
“shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

A key problem has been the silence of the Supreme Court on free speech rights of students.
Jeff Kubina, CC BY-SA

In this case, a divided court upheld the right of students to wear to school black armbands emblazoned with peace signs as a form of political protest against the war in Vietnam. The majority reasoned that such speech could be stopped only if school officials had actual facts to believe it would lead to a substantial and material disruption of the educational atmosphere.

But Tinker was an on-campus speech case. And although the Supreme Court has considered three more student speech cases since Tinker, none involved either off-campus or digital expression.

A chance to resolve the issue

Schools today are trying to exert their authority far beyond the schoolhouse gate. Some courts have allowed these efforts and others have rejected them, but now the Supreme Court has a prime opportunity to resolve the matter in a case called Bell v Itawamba County School Board.

In January 2011, a Mississippi high school student, Taylor Bell, was suspended from Itawamba Agricultural High School after he posted, while away from campus during nonschool hours, a homemade rap video to Facebook and YouTube.

In the video, Bell criticizes in no uncertain terms two male teachers for their alleged sexual harassment of minor female students. A version of rap that describes the resulting controversy is available online.

In August 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit narrowly ruled that high school officials in Mississippi did not violate the First Amendment speech rights of Bell when they punished him for posting the video because it allegedly threatened two teachers.

In a ruling against Taylor Bell, the Fifth Circuit majority concluded that the rule from the Tinker case applies to off-campus speech:

when a student intentionally directs at the school community speech reasonably understood by school officials to threaten, harass, and intimidate a teacher, even when such speech originated, and was disseminated, off-campus without the use of school resources.

One of the judges in the case, James Dennis, writing in dissent, ripped into the majority for broadly proclaiming “that a public school board is constitutionally empowered to punish a student whistleblower for his purely off-campus Internet speech publicizing a matter of public concern.”

Judge Dennis stressed that the rule from Tinker, which requires school officials to reasonably predict a substantial and material disruption will be caused by speech before it can be stopped, does not apply to off-campus speech cases.

Why the Supreme Court should hear the Taylor Bell case

Some minors inevitably will post and upload – while away from campus and using their own digital communication devices – allegedly disparaging, offensive or threatening messages and images about fellow students, teachers and school officials on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat.

The key question, then, is whether and to what extent public schools, consistent with the First Amendment, may discipline students for their off-campus speech.

In November 2015, Bell filed a petition with the US Supreme Court asking it to hear his case.

As Bell’s attorneys argue, the court should take the case because whether or not Tinker applies to off-campus speech cases has “vexed school officials and courts across the country.”

In December, the organization I direct, the Marion B Brechner First Amendment Project, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to take the case.

Briefs from the attorneys for the school are due January 20, and the court will decide whether to hear Bell later this spring.

The bottom line is this: public school students deserve the right to know, pre-posting and pre-texting, what their First Amendment rights are when they are away from campus.

They must, in other words, be given fair notice. The court should hear Bell to let them know precisely what their rights are. It is an issue not likely to go away soon.

The Conversation

Clay Calvert, Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication, University of Florida

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

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

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

Fulfilling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream: the role for higher education

Roland V. Anglin, Rutgers University Newark ; David D. Troutt, Rutgers University Newark ; Elise Boddie, Rutgers University Newark ; Nancy Cantor, Rutgers University Newark , and Peter Englot, Rutgers University Newark

Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote “Why We Can’t Wait” to dispel the notion that African Americans should be content to proceed on an incremental course toward full equality under the law and in the wider society. King observed,

Three hundred years of humiliation, abuse, and deprivation cannot be expected to find voice in a whisper.

Yet waiting and whispering, rather than raising their voices for genuine inclusion, is what many seem to expect of the children and grandchildren of King’s generation even today.

At stake is the perceived legitimacy of American institutions, not just educational but those that we educate for: the police, the courts, government, the media, cultural institutions, banks and so on. These institutions are under scrutiny over their failure to evoke trust and to show that they are visibly open to the public – especially those groups, who too often and for too long have been left out.

Arguably, we are not the “land of opportunity” for most first-generation, poor, black, brown, Native American, or immigrant children. Gaps in educational achievement persist, and at every level: from kindergarten through to the years after high school.

The label applied to so many immigrant youth, Dreamers, might well be adopted more broadly, capturing as it does both the aspiration and perhaps the unreality of educational opportunity for so many.

And the students are right to worry.

The question is: what role can our universities play so the dividing lines can be crossed?

‘Baked-in’ privilege

Consider some statistics from Essex County, New Jersey, where our city, Newark, a college town with over 50,000 students, is located:

  • 47.54 percent of black third graders attend schools that perform at the bottom 10 percent of schools in the state compared to 0.04 percent of white third graders.
  • About 4,000 high school students in the Newark Public Schools are “missing” during the school day, not in their seats; often labeled as “disconnected youth,” it would be better to consider them as youth connected to a pathway to prison.
  • Another 3,000 are off-course from graduating.
  • Only 36 percent of Newark residents have finished high school and only 17 percent hold any kind of post-secondary degree.

This story is not unique to Newark.

Economists such as Raj Chetty and his colleagues note that nationally “the consequences of the ‘birth lottery’ – the parents to whom a child is born – are larger today than in the past.”

We – the universities – are the ones sitting in the midst of these realities, facing the choice between being walled citadels that separate the privileged from the uninvited other or being welcoming hubs connecting young individuals with opportunity.

Universities’ responsibility

The uncomfortable truth is, that we, in some very real sense, have contributed to this winnowing of opportunity.

Chancellor Nancy Cantor speaking at the “Rally in Solidarity” organized by Rutgers Newark students in support of students at University of Missouri in November 2015.
Rutgers University Newark, Author provided

For too long, the traditional measures of student potential have relied on standardized – and therefore narrowly framed – merit selection processes, such as SAT and ACT scores.

These tests have been grossly inadequate, measuring only a narrow band of potential, while missing wide swaths of our talent pool whose excellence is not readily detected through the use of such “blunt” instruments.

They neglect whole communities whose students don’t have access to the test preparation industry, prompting legal theorist Lani Guinier to implore us to redefine the merit in meritocracy.

Intergenerational privilege is rooted in place – in the home values and tax base, the schools and transportation networks available to people because of where they are fortunate to live. Decades of white flight, suburbanization, the abandonment of urban centers and regressive housing policies have contributed to a pervasive disconnection across racial, ethnic and class lines.

This segregation has reinforced the corrosive effects of historical prejudice and biases that already divide society and make Americans, in effect, strangers to each other.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the social landscapes of university communities are just as divided.

Crossing boundaries

Diversity is growing explosively and redefining American society before our eyes.

Yet lines of class, gender, ethnicity and race continue to redraw themselves in dorm life, lunch tables and indeed the classroom.

Indeed, it is hard to erase them.

How do you cultivate connection to another person’s future and commitment to their success when you don’t live together in the same neighborhood, reside near each other in the same city or at least share some similar daily experiences such as rush hour on a crowded subway?

As higher educational institutions, we should be the place where dividing lines can be crossed. And that includes crossing the boundaries of our communities.

Our work in the city of Newark is just one illustration of crossing these boundaries.

Newark’s story

In this postindustrial city of 280,000 people, 29 percent of residents have incomes below the poverty line.

Newark’s social and economic challenges are common among cities that have lost their tax base and whose residents have fled to the suburbs since the 1960s. The resulting economic and racial segregation has produced structural inequalities in health, education and other public services.

Today, Newark, a proud, resilient city, is coming back from years of disinvestment. As an engaged “anchor institution”, we are partnering with the community on many fronts.

The future home of Express Newark – the historic Hahne Building
Rutgers University Newark, Author provided

We are investing in spaces for local artists and the community to collaborate, as we develop nearly 50,000 square feet in the iconic former Hahne & Company department story as an arts “collaboratory” – dubbed “Express Newark.”

We are working with small and midsized entrepreneurs and firms and taking an active role in helping Newark’s police address crime hotspots through data collection and analysis.

Organizations – public and private – have banded together in the Newark City of Learning Collaborative (NCLC) to raise the post-secondary attainment rate of residents of Newark to 25 percent by 2025.

For the higher education partners in NCLC like us, this means working with Newark Public Schools to help their students continue their education past high school, beginning in community colleges, the institutions where the vast majority of first generation students will have their first taste of higher education.

At Rutgers University – Newark, for example, we are providing tuition support to low-income residents of Newark and to any New Jersey community college transfer with an associate degree as of fall 2016.

We are recruiting these students based on assessments of leadership, grit and entrepreneurial skills – not just grades – into a residential Honors Living Learning Community (HLLC). In addition to gleaning information about applicants from the standard application form, the HLLC team engages with applicants in person and in groups to see how they collaborate with one another to solve problems. Their on-the-ground knowledge of urban life has much to contribute, as we see it, to the HLLC’s curriculum focus of “local citizenship in a global world.”

The first cohort of HLLC students
Rutgers University Newark, Author provided

Ashlee is one of the inaugural class. Born and raised in Newark, she speaks openly of “being a product of my environment…exposed to so much just by walking outside of
my house…[including] murder at the age of 12.” Her options, she says, were two: “conform to what’s going on in society or try to make a difference.” She is now a criminal justice major keenly interested in issues of social equality and inequality.

Academic ‘farm teams’

Rutgers-Newark is not alone in looking to build on the assets of this fresh talent pool for America.

There is an increasing number of so-called collective impact initiatives across the higher education landscape, including STRIVE, a nonprofit started in Cincinnati, and three large city-wide initiatives in Syracuse, Buffalo and Guilford County, North Carolina mounted by Say Yes to Education.

Collective impact projects like these can be taxing and messy, but by bringing so many different partners together – from education institutions to businesses and faith-based centers – to focus on enabling the talented next generation to thrive from school to college and beyond, we put a stake in the ground together for social justice. It’s admittedly still one step at a time, but one step in many places.

When higher education bands together to support and recruit talent from these regional hubs, it gives a new meaning to the notion of “farm teams.”. After all, if major league baseball can do it, why can’t higher education?

The impatient students protesting a sense of exclusion today have undeniable facts to support their argument. Our institutions, we believe, can help them overcome the barriers they, and others, face in their search for economic opportunity and a sense that they are valued.

How could anyone continue to “wait and whisper” while witnessing the enormous and cumulative effect of disparity unfold for another generation, with so many children never even getting to first base and some starting out on third?

The Conversation

Roland V. Anglin, Director, The Joseph C. Cornwall Center for Metropolitan Studies, Rutgers University Newark ; David D. Troutt, Professor of Law and Justice John J Francis Scholar, Rutgers University Newark ; Elise Boddie, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University Newark ; Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Rutgers University Newark , and Peter Englot, Senior Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs, Rutgers University Newark

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

4 considerations before applying to schools abroad

**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 Brooke Chaplan

Attending school overseas is an exciting idea for any prospective student. But when push comes to shove, there are numerous practical decisions you have to think about before applying abroad. From the travel, cost, and even just the application itself, going overseas can mean a lot of time and work put in from you. Considering every detail is important to getting the best deal and finding the perfect program for you. Of these numerous considerations, the four most important are listed below.

Consider the Cost
Analyze the marketability of the degree you’re thinking about, the chosen school’s prestige, the availability of student loans for foreign students, and the exchange rate between the local currency and the currency used in the country where the school is located. If you fail to factor in the financial burdens associated with going to school abroad, you may be financially crippled for life. Keep in mind that many foreign locales have excellent programs for a fraction of what a degree would cost elsewhere, you just have to be sure. If your degree program isn’t going to guarantee you a job or internship back home, the cost of going to school may not be worth the reward. Look at students who have succeeded in the past and talk to faculty who can help you find out where you can use the degree to your advantage.

 

Consider the Housing
Specifically, does the university provide housing for foreign students, what is the cost of living on campus vs. off campus, is it safe to live off campus, and what type of public transit is available to ride to the school? If you find an economical apartment in a nice neighborhood but with no access to public transportation, then living there may be impractical. If they do provide student housing is it included in tuition costs? Are there any ways you can save money or get financial aid here as a foreign student. Look at all your options and find out what you can live with.

Consider the Travel
A U.S. citizen will need a passport to leave the U.S. and vaccinations for local diseases may be needed before you can safely enter a foreign locale. Certain students may need a student visa in order to enter a foreign country as well. For example, if you wanted to attend medical school in an exotic location like the Caribbean, a visa would be required for those staying in the country more than 90 days. Schools like St. Martinus University often offer a lot of student financial aid for travel and visas as well. If you are going to a more exotic country you might need to think about language barriers. If you will have a lot of fellow foreign students to help you around and if you are familiar with the culture it may not be such a shock.

Consider the Local Government
Utilize websites such as the CIA World Fact Book to evaluate the governmental stability of the country in which the school is located and research how locals are reputed to treat students of your own nationality. It would not be ideal to attend a school in an area where you don’t feel safe or welcomed. Look at reviews of the school from alumni and past foreign students. They can help you navigate your way in how life is after graduation and during the school semesters.

Wherever your educational goals take you, the most important thing to remember is to work hard and enjoy the country you’ve chosen to visit. Immersion into a foreign culture exponentially broadens your horizons and will provide you with a completely different perspective on life.

_______________________________

Brooke Chaplan is a freelance writer and blogger. She lives and works out of her home in Los Lunas, New Mexico. She loves the outdoors and spends most her time hiking, biking and gardening. For more information contact Brooke via Twitter @BrookeChaplan.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

The Ultimate Demise of Common Core – Part II: The Parents

It’s been said that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but in the case of Common Core implementation, I’d say the word “parent” could easily be inserted. Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, message boards – you do not have to look very far to find a post, thread or entire account dedicated to a common hatred for Common Core. Facebook pages titled “Common Sense against Common Core” and “Against Common Core” have fans who are passionate about dismantling the initiatives that are ruining the educational journey of their kids and dumbing them down for testing. A viral meme reads “Wow! This Common Core homework makes so much sense… said no parent, ever.” Parents appear to be both confused and angered by Common Core benchmarks that, at least in theory, are designed to improve national learning standards.

On Monday, I wrote about the ways in which I believe politics will contribute to the downfall of Common Core initiatives. Today I want to look at the ways parents will eventually succeed in the same way.

It’s just too darn hard.

The heightened concepts of learning and retaining Common Core materials means that some students will get left behind. The aggressiveness of the learning campaigns, however, make it difficult for teachers to spend extra time on subjects or circle back to them once most of the class has retained them. In a perfect world, this is where the parents would step in and fill the gap, or at least hire a tutor to do it. Ever since No Child Left Behind legislation, however, the assumption is that public schools are responsible for the total learning process of all their students. Parents who find that Common Core is leaving their own children behind find it easier to point the finger at the standards instead of initiating a way to make them work for their kids.

The “I don’t understand it” mentality.

Particularly when it comes to math, some of the new-fangled methods that Common Core implements are foreign to parents. Moms and dads who remember excelling in elementary school math are suddenly befuddled by the homework questions their second-graders must figure out. Parents, even the very young ones, did not use many of the tactics now in place in K-12 classrooms and certainly were not required to learn as many complicated subjects at such a young age. This lack of comprehension translates to lack of confidence – and causes parents to become defensive about the materials their children are expected to learn.

Stop teaching my kid to the test.

Parents are a finicky bunch when it comes to education. They want the best career opportunities for their kids but resent the idea of teaching too specifically for the simple sake of scoring higher on an assessment test. The items on state assessment tests, more than ever, are designed to test the knowledge set deemed appropriate for the future economy (in part, at least). Though parents want the best job opportunities for their kids, they don’t want knowledge to be so narrowly dispersed. The truth is that no teacher has enough time to teach everything to his or her students. Some of that learning must happen at home and in other real-world applications.

Standards are a calculated guess as to what learning materials should be prioritized among U.S. students – not an end-all-be-all list. Parents see items that they deem “important” missing from Common Core standards and believe it signals a complete dysfunction of the benchmarks. The growing movement to protest or even eliminate standardized tests is being driven mostly by parents. Though it’s unlikely that they will ever truly succeed on this front, their outspoken concerns about Common Core will eventually aid in dismantling the standards – particularly if their political representatives are listening.

In the last part of this series I’ll write about the ways the logistics of Common Core standards will lead to their downfall.

Do you think parents are right in their Common Core complaints, or off-base?

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

Grading Obama on Higher Education: Part I

By Matthew Lynch

Several weeks ago, I discussed President Obama’s education record in my introduction to education class. In particular, we talked about P-20 education, which begins in preschool and ends with graduate school. Predictably, the debate became quite contentious. Most of us had to agree to disagree on the most central points of educational politics. Partly in response to this debate, though, I decided to write an assessment of Obama’s education record in several areas of P-20 education issuing a letter grade (A-F) to make my position on his record abundantly clear.

To start things off, let’s take a look at the president’s major postsecondary education initiatives.

Expansion of Community Colleges. In July, 2012, President Obama proposed the American Graduation Initiative, intended to put more money and planning into community colleges, helping to promote more affordable options and high levels of training for all prospective college students. As part of this initiative, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act will pour $2 billion over the course of four years into an expansion of career training at community colleges, focusing on the high-demand health care field.

According to the White House website, the goals of the Obama community college program include:

• Teaching basic skills through remedial and adult education.
• Further developing online courses for more student flexibility and accelerated programs.
• Creating educational partnerships to give students more course options.
• Building partnerships with businesses that would allow worksite education that has current labor market emphasis.

Enforcement of the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act will an estimated 2.1 million young people in the U.S. with access to an education and amnesty from deportation. While Obama’s administration has stressed the ethical points of this act, rightfully so, it offers may economic benefits for America as well.

The Center for American Progress estimates that the DREAM Act will create 1.4 million new jobs by the year 2030 and that it will infuse some $329 billion into the U.S. economy.

Pell Grant Increases. The President has also pledged to double the amount of funding available in the form of Pell Grants over the next three years. Unlike student loans, Pell Grants do not need to be repaid. For the 2011–2012 school year, the maximum award amount was $5,550.
While a Pell Grant cannot cover all of the college costs, it goes a long way towards covering in-state tuition or community college courses. All students can apply for the program, too, and students receive aid awards based on financial need andcost of attendance.

By 2017, the maximum amount awarded to students is expected to rise to $5,975. By 2021, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 820,000 more Pell Grant awards will also be available. The money will come, in part, from restructuring to the distribution of federal student loans. By implementing a direct student loan program, instead of a bank-subsidized one, $68 billion will also be saved by the year 2020.

Higher College Tax Credits. The Obama-Biden administration plans to triple the current tax credits available to students and parents of students paying college expenses, too. The American Opportunity Tax Credit gives a $2,500 tax credit maximum per student and students can claim it for four years.

According to the IRS, up to 40 percent of the credit is refundable, up to $1,000, to people that file even if no taxes are owed. In addition to courses and fees, the new tax credit also covers related costs like books, supplies and required class materials.

Income-Based Loan Repayment. President Obama has often said that he believes that paying for college should not overwhelm graduates. As a reflection of this, he has pledged to expand income-based repayment options to keep the bills from college from becoming unmanageable. Around two-thirds of college students have debt of over $23,000 upon graduation. This can be especially difficult for students that want to enter public service jobs and those who face unexpected financial hardships like unemployment or serious illness.

Beginning in 2014, students can limit payments to 10 percent of income – a reduction from 15 percent in the previous law – which means a reduction of $110 per month for unmarried borrowers that owe $20,000 and make $30,000 per year. An estimated 1 million borrowers will be positively impacted by this change in repayment options. In addition, borrowers that make monthly payments will be allowed debt forgiveness after 20 years. Public service workers like nurses, teachers, and military employees will receive debt forgiveness after just 10 years.

This concludes Part I of “Grading Obama on Higher Education.” In Part II, I will continue to assesses President Obama’s performance in the area of higher education..

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Why You Need Both Data and Common Sense for School Reform

By Matthew Lynch

The first step to positive K-12 reform within a school and a district is to find a starting point. Often, data sets are used to determine this – but really, so much more should go into it.

Districts that demonstrate continuous positive results often base their decisions on data alone, as opposed to relying on observations and data together. Schools should regularly evaluate the pros and cons of instructional programs and realize that standardized tests should constitute only a piece of the assessment puzzle rather than the entirety. Continuously monitoring the progress the school’s student body makes will allow the task force to amend the reform plan as needed.

Balancing Reform

Successful schools also take measures to institute checks and balances, to ensure the decision-making process is distributed among a variety of reform participants. Superintendents are charged with the duty of ensuring that the implementation and sustaining of improvement efforts are done in a positive manner and meet the needs of the students. The team leader’s job is to ensure teachers have all of the tools needed to foster the academic performance of students.

Accountability, Too

Districts all over the country recognize accountability as the key to the school’s improvement process. Everyone is expected to perform at optimal levels, or must face the consequences. To ensure that staff and faculty members are able to perform at optimal levels, the school district must provide them with high-quality professional development.

Modify, Modify, Modify

In order to complete the process of school reform, restructuring efforts must be monitored and evaluated. The process of evaluation can be completed in-house, or the leader can hire outside consultants to perform the task. If the task force is willing to evaluate the success of the school’s reform, they must first develop a plan for evaluation.

The team’s evaluation plan should have been developed before the reform was implemented. Performance goals that were created at the beginning of the restructuring process should be used to guide the evaluation process.  The team will need to decide who will collect, analyze, and interpret the data. In order to avoid biased results, it may be in the best interest of the school to hire an outside consultant who may provide a more objective assessment of the reform efforts. The team will also use the results to determine whether or not the reform efforts were effective.

The results may indicate that the reform was not a success. In this case, the best solution is to build upon the small successes and learn from mistakes. Another reform could then be implemented or the unsuccessful reform amended to better suit the needs of the school. School restructuring is a long-term process. Reform occurs on a continuous cycle that must be sustained in order for improvements to be maintained and furthered. Keep in mind that not every restructuring effort bears fruit. Even the best schools have to continue to work in the restructuring process.

Successfully implementing and sustaining school reform is possible. It may not be easy, but with a tremendous effort, the utilization of all resources, and the expertise of professionals, school reform can be successful. The level of success the school is able to achieve will be based on the school’s predicament. Whatever the obstacles, the leaders’ decisions need to be resolute to foster academic achievement. While data is certainly a starting point, there is a lot more that goes into the bigger picture of smart school reform – and districts should recognize that and work towards solutions that not only make sense on paper, but also in real life.

 

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

Getting the Most Out of Student Teaching Mentorship

Whether an official part of a student teaching internship or a more informal relationship garnered in your work place, mentorship is a great opportunity to learn from someone with experience in the field and to receive advice without worrying about how it will affect your marks or measured performance.

You can get the most out of a relationship with your mentoring teacher when you take responsibility and are proactive in the process. You’ll take responsibility when you do the following:

  • Take the initiative when it comes to having your needs met as a protégé. Soon after being assigned a collaborating/mentoring teacher, find an opportunity to talk about what you’d both like to get out of the mentoring experience. Agree on roles and a schedule for meetings.
  • Take responsibility for your personal well-being. To establish a healthy, safe, and nurturing relationship with your collaborating/mentoring teacher as well as with your students, it helps greatly if you yourself are well centered. As a teacher, it’s helpful to spend time with family and colleagues to talk about mutual ideas and problems

A mentor’s goals for the mentees usually include guiding the intern in:

– developing theoretical knowledge

– practical skills

– adopting positive and professional dispositions

– evaluating the intern’s teaching practice

The collaborating/mentoring teacher is responsible for providing guidance and feedback as necessary, and communicating with your college advisor about your progress and participation. You should try to develop a good working relationship with your collaborating/mentoring teacher. As well as having an influence over your academic performance, he or she is also a valuable source of learning and guidance and can be considered as one of the resources during your teaching education. Your degree of involvement in the classroom activities will be based largely on your relationship with your mentoring teacher.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Why children who sleep more get better grades

Dagmara Dimitriou, UCL Institute of Education

Sleep plays a fundamental role in the way we learn. Emerging evidence makes a compelling case for the importance of sleep for language learning, memory, executive function, problem solving and behaviour during childhood.

A new study that my colleagues and I have worked on illustrated how an optimal quantity of sleep leads to more effective learning in terms of knowledge acquisition and memory consolidation. Poor quality of sleep – caused by lots of waking up during the night – has also been reported to be a strong predictor of lower academic performance, reduced capacity for attention, poor executive function and challenging behaviours during the day.

Many adolescents are sleep-deprived as they gain less sleep than the average recommended level – around nine hours for this group. But due to school commitments, teenagers are required to wake up early at a set time even if they have not achieved the optimal number of hours sleep.

Along with these early start times, teenagers also experience pubertal phase delay – meaning pubertal teenagers will sleep even less due to biological factors. Combined with late night activities, this can have a significant negative effect on the quality of sleep and therefore their behaviour during the day.

Insufficient and poor quality of sleep appear to be pervasive during adolescence. These can have various consequences such as an excessive daytime sleepiness, poor diet and in turn impairments in cognitive control, risk-taking behaviour, diminished control of attention and behaviour, as well as poor emotional control.

More sleep versus better sleep

In a recent study involving 48 students between 16 and 19-years-old recruited through an independent sixth form college in central London, my colleagues and I at the Lifespan Learning and Sleep Laboratory at UCL examined the link between sleep, academic performance and environmental factors.

Our results showed that the majority of the teenagers achieved just over seven hours of sleep, with an average bedtime at 11.37pm. Our study showed that a longer amount of sleep and earlier bedtimes – measures of sleep quantity – were most strongly correlated with better academic results obtained by the students on a number of tests taken at school. In contrast, measures that were indicative of sleep quality were mostly linked with students’ performances on verbal reasoning tests and on grade point averages on tests at school.

So it appears from our results that “longer sleep” is more closely related to academic performance, while “good night sleep” is more closely related to overall cognitive processing.

Why teens are getting less and less sleep

Our study also confirms findings from previous research showing that teenagers are getting at least two to three hours less sleep than is needed for their optimal brain development and a healthy lifestyle.

There are several modern lifestyle factors that have shown to impact on sleep. We found that consumption of energy drinks and coffee, and social media use half an hour before habitual bedtime were strongly associated with poorer sleep.

Too much late night snapchat.
CandyBox Images/www.shutterstock.com

Our study has also shown that the negative impact of poor sleep on academic functioning is not always matched by a realisation of this fact by students themselves, therefore they may have little motivation to alter bad sleep habits. Unlike for adults, adolescence is a crucial time because of continual changes in the brain – so sleep is particularly important for a teenager’s health.

Conditions that can impact sleep

There is an added complexity to the sleep patterns of children with developmental disorders, despite the fact that they are more likely to suffer from sleep problems. So far, we have examined sleep, and cognitive and behavioural functioning in children with Down Syndrome, Williams Syndrome and ADHD. All our studies show that sleep has a very important impact on cognitive and daytime functioning of children with these conditions.

When we examined levels of sleep biomarkers – melatonin and cortisol – in children with Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder, it revealed that they had elevated levels of cortisol and dampened levels of melatonin. High cortisol and low melatonin levels before bedtime were strongly linked with delayed sleep onset – taking around 50 minutes in comparison to the typical 20 minutes to fall asleep.

Since cortisol is often described as a stress hormone, high levels of this hormone before bedtime may potentially cause sleep problems including difficulty in relaxing and falling asleep. This is an important result to consider before a child is prescribed a melatonin supplement – which might not be necessary to help solve their actual sleep problem.

The effects of the sleep disturbances extend beyond the individual. Parents of children with developmental disorders often experience heightened levels of stress and sleep problems because they are kept awake by their children.

All this shows how crucial it is for teenagers to get the right amount of sleep – otherwise it could have long-term impacts on their health and on their grades.

The Conversation

Dagmara Dimitriou, Director, Lifespan Learning & Sleep Lab, Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

6 Saddening Facts about Childhood Obesity and Unhealthy Body Image

The rate of obesity among children is skyrocketing—and this is something to worry about. After all, as you might expect, obese children are at a higher risk for diseases such as diabetes, arthritis and heart disease.

But there are some other things that you might not know about childhood obesity and its implications.

1. For example, did you know that…by the age of four, one out of every five children is obese? Yes, a full twenty percent of children are obese by the time they are four years old.

2. Obese children also tend to have low self-esteem, poor grades, and are less likely to attend college (particularly girls).

3. Children from low-income families and those of Hispanic, African American and Native American heritage are at a higher risk of falling prey to obesity.

4. Poor diet and lack of exercise are the two main culprits. Simply put, sedentary behaviors are on the rise. The average American youth watches 1,500 hours of television per year and they go to school an average of 900 hours per year – the math right there should tell you something about where our kids are learning the most, and how it is being absorbed.

During the 1500 hours of television watching, experts tell us that children are mostly eating high calorie snacks. Additionally, American society is riddled with fast food, refined foods and processed foods that calorie laden. Is it any surprise that so many children in this country struggle with their weight?

5. Television and other activities at home are not the only factors to blame, though. Our K-12 schools are also playing a role in the rise in obesity and unhealthy lifestyles among kids. To start with, many schools lack physical education programs, with a mere 4 percent of elementary schools, 8 percent of middle schools, and 2 percent of high schools offering daily physical education.

6. Perhaps the oddest point when it comes to the rising rate of obesity is this: American culture teaches children that thin is better, and that you simply cannot be too thin. Rising rates of anorexia and bulimia among young women and men are the result of poor messages about body image that children frequently hear. These eating disorders generally begin between the ages of 11 and 13, particularly for girls. In fact, nearly half of all girls from grade 1 to grade 3 want to be thinner. The top wish for girls ages 11 to 17 is to lose weight.

Obviously, messages American children receive from the media and society in general need to change. Young girls learn that to be attractive and to be a success, you must be thin. Boys receive similar messages and learn that thin and muscular is the preferred body type. As a result, boys as young as 10 years old are bulking up at the gym and many young men are taking steroids to build muscle, at great detriment to their overall health.

So on one hand, children learn that they need to remain thin to be attractive and successful. But on the other hand, they do not have the resources to establish healthy eating habits on any level – and schools are really no help.

For schools to really get behind a healthy approach to body image, diet and exercise, an atmosphere that promotes acceptance of self and the importance of overall health should be established. Classroom and learning materials should portray different body types and images. Ensuring students know a thin body isn’t necessarily a healthy body and that healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes is also important. It is not enough to simply tell them though; students need to be equipped with healthy lifestyle tools to make the right choices when they are on their own.

What do you think we as Americans do to better address both the obesity and unhealthy body image issues that run rampant among K-12 students? Please leave a comment in the comment section below—I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Latest Posts