Pedagogue Blog

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation

Educators: Are You Really Technology Literate?

The Internet is firmly here to stay. Computers and the World Wide Web have come a long way since the net first launched in the late sixties. Computers and all their silicon associates have cemented themselves into the modern world. Cell phones, laptops, iPods, iPads, tablets – the list goes on and on. Technology-literacy has become a mandatory part of success in today’s world.

We are living in the Information Era. This has changed many aspects of the education system and its components. Among many other changes, there is a new concept of what a student is. Industrial-age schools saw students as passive individuals who sat and absorbed whatever a teacher taught them. Students growing up during the Information Era are expected to take ownership 
of their learning process. They are taught to be problem solvers and to use the resources available to them as efficiently as possible. Students educated within this new concept of schooling seem to be much more confident in their work. They are building their knowledge themselves and work with information to come to their own conclusions and opinions.

Technology is a very broad term. Essentially, it’s the intersection of several areas of science and engineering and refers to how we improve our lives through technical means. In today’s classroom setting, technology usually refers to sophisticated digital electronic devices. Key terms to be familiar with are hardware and software. Hardware is the physical infrastructure making up a certain item of technology. When referring to a personal computer, this includes things like the hard disk drives, the motherboard, and other components that make up the physical machine. Software is a set of instructions for the hardware—the programs, applications, and operating system.

Of particular importance in the realm of teaching is instructional software. These are programs or applications designed to provide instruction to a computer user, making use of various methods. Instructional software has been around since the late 1970s. Instructional software is usually not designed to replace the role of the teacher, but rather to assist teachers in providing students with more individual opportunities to learn. It can be a powerful aid to teaching when used and promoted correctly.

An important concept to be aware of is open-source software. While companies such as Microsoft or Apple do not allow their users to view the code that makes up their applications, large online communities have been created around software with freely available source code. These companies include Linux, Apache, Mozilla, and many others. The software they develop is free to download and can be modified extensively by the user to create any additions they desire, which can then be redistributed for free. Even without extensive experience in programming or modifying source code, you’ll be able to use these online communities to acquire open-source instructional software solutions at no cost to yourself other than your patience and time.

Another concept to be aware of in technology is cloud computing, which uses the capabilities of the Internet to provide services to technology users that are largely independent of their location or usage device. Gone are the days of having to use a personal computer to access the Internet. We can now use mobile phones and tablet computers to access the Internet while we are on the move. But the graphic-processing capabilities of a desktop-based personal computer are usually far more powerful than that of a handheld device. Programs have to be adaptable enough to be used efficiently on these different technology platforms. Cloud computing, which moves the heavy processing to remote servers, will become of increasing importance as the diversity of user devices continues to evolve and increase.

As a teacher, it’s your job to make sure your students are technology-literate. Limiting students’ exposure to all of today’s digital devices in favor of sticking with more traditional media will only hurt them in the end. Students need to be able to learn and compete effectively in a world where technology is only becoming more and more important to higher education, work, and every day life. Take the time that you need to become familiar with all the buttons and wires of the modern age, and you’ll become a resource as invaluable to your students as Wi-Fi.

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

3 Reasons Why School Districts Should Revitalize Underperforming Schools

As we’re still working with an ever-growing achievement gap, it’s worth considering who should be the key players in reforming our lowest-performing schools. School districts need to take some of the lead in this. Let’s look at why:

  1. School districts have the power to emerge from bureaucracy and make a true difference.

There are many questions and critical issues facing schools as districts evolve from their bureaucratic roots. These questions include the roles that should be kept at the district level, those that should be eliminated, or those that should be passed on to others. Districts also have to look at new functions they may wish to take on and the capabilities needed to assume these functions. At least initially, they will need to determine whether decisions should be made at district level, school level, or elsewhere.

  1. Districts have the power to reach out.

There is also support for districts to take action to discover common interests between schools and the community, through ongoing outreach. Districts need to find ways for people to meet and discuss how to further common interests and work on them cooperatively in order to break down barriers. This type of outreach empowers families and communities, making them useful assets to school systems. Building relationships within the education system and holding open conversations are excellent ways to foster engagement.

  1. Districts are familiar with the unique challenges of their schools.

In the United States, there are low levels of achievement among students from low-income backgrounds and students of color. This is in contrast to the fact that students in educationally supportive states and those from advantaged backgrounds easily rival students from across the world. To put this into context, nine year-olds from White, advantaged backgrounds read as well as thirteen-year-old Black and Hispanic students. In addition, even though funding has increased, it has done so unequally and the achievement gap has grown.

Typically, schools that serve a large number of “minority” students face big issues, which put them at a disadvantage when compared to other schools. They have to deal with lower budgets, larger classes, and often less qualified teachers and school leaders. The effect of this has been to create an “educational debt” that negatively affects the students in these communities. Major efforts are needed to address this issue. Recruiting great teachers is important, but it is not the whole answer. Systemic elements are needed to support the work of talented educators. It is not the people who are at fault: it is the system that needs an overhaul.

As Ted Sizer once put it, “The people are better than the system.” We have come a long way in understanding how to create more effective school leaders and build a national commitment to educational leadership. However, we are not there yet. We need leadership to forge all of the various elements of school reform today into well-functioning systems that make sense for those working hard to achieve results for students.

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

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

3 Stories That Reveal How Important Arts Education Really Is

The arts have always had a secondary place in K-12 learning. If you doubt that statement, think of the first programs to go whenever budget cuts are implemented – music, fine arts and even physical fitness which includes dance. I’ve yet to hear of a school board or administrators discussing the way cutting math programs could help the school’s bottom line. There is a hierarchy of academics in America, and arts education tends to fall pretty low on the totem pole.

Let’s look at three notable events that show the state of arts education in America and what that reveals about our society.

  1. New York City schools lack arts education—and low-income students suffer the most.

A report from the New York City comptroller finds that many public schools offer no arts programs, and that low-income and minority students are hurt the most by it. The report is written based on data from the U.S. Department of Education that finds 20 percent of New York’s public schools have NO arts teachers. This includes one in seven middle and high schools, despite that fact that arts instruction at that level is a state requirement.

The biggest areas hit by the lack of arts teachers? Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx. In those schools, more than 42 percent have no state-certified arts instructors. Between 2006 and 2013, spending on arts equipment and other supplies dropped a whopping 84 percent, perhaps due to pressure to meet higher accountability standards in basic subjects.

At any rate, the lack of arts education in NYC schools is indicative of a larger cultural issue that undercuts arts education for the sake of higher test scores.

  1. The First Lady wants to make arts education a priority.

An estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure, First Lady Michelle Obama said.

The First Lady Michelle Obama joined the stage with middle- and high-schoolers who performed in the first ever White House Talent Show, created to celebrate the importance of the arts in American education. At the opening of the show, the First Lady emphasized the need for arts programs to be a part of all school curriculum, and not something that comes secondary to other academic pursuits like reading, math and science.

“Arts education isn’t something we add on after we’ve achieved other priorities, like raising test scores and getting kids into college,” said the First Lady. “It’s actually critical for achieving those priorities in the first place.”

The Talent Show celebration comes two years after President Obama introduced the Turnaround Arts program in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education. The goal of the program is to see if strong arts programs aid in other strong student academic outcomes. In the original eight schools where the program has been implemented, reading and math scores have improved, and so has behavior. Two of the schools have shown so much progress that they are no longer considered in need of a “turnaround.” In each case, big-name artists or performers like Alfre Woodard and Sarah Jessica Parker have adopted the turnaround schools and provided guidance in the programming.

At the show, the First Lady announced that the program will expand to 35 schools in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

  1. Some districts have adopted arts integration as a creative solution.

Sometimes schools cannot afford to implement arts departments in their schools. Some districts have instead integrated the arts in their existing curricula. Instead of treating the arts like a separate, distant relative to other classroom endeavors, these programs integrate musical instruments, painting, dancing, drawing, singing and more into traditional subjects like science, math and language. When implemented correctly, these programs are enthusiastically received by students who learn comprehensively.

Take a look at the West Michigan Academy of Arts & Academics in Ferrysburg, Michigan. The charter school has found ways to make stale topics like economics interesting through dance, music and visual art learning components. WMAAA may appear to be a “fun” learning environment, but its arts integration actually has legitimate outcomes. The test scores of WMAAA students rival the highest-rated traditional public schools in its district and in neighboring ones too. By allowing students to be active, instead of burying them in text books or regular written assignments alone, learning moves from a place of isolation to one that has other applications beyond the topic at hand.

Public Middle School 223 in the Bronx is another example of a school using arts integration methods effectively. Students in the school – 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. Whether the last point impacted the higher scores is irrelevant. If students want to be in school more because of arts integration, and their test scores improve as a result, that is reason enough to call a program a success.

Even when schools do not have the money to support an official arts integration program, teachers can make arts integration a reality on their own. Teachers do not need to be artistic to successfully use arts integration – they simply need to be innovative enough to merge art concepts with other content. Social media is an amazing platform for teaching ideas, particularly when it comes to the arts, and teachers should take advantage of these available resources from around the world to integrate arts and traditional academics.

As results range from increased engagement in schools to better test scores, one thing is clear from all this: arts education should be made a priority in U.S. schools.

 

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

Examining The Federal Government’s Role in Educational Reform

In the decades of attempted educational reform, the U.S. government has been the biggest player. Following the Nation at Risk report the federal government became more focused on the achievement of all students in the nation’s schools.

In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act passed with the goal of supporting states’ efforts to develop curriculum standards that would outline what students should know and be able to do, as well as state and district efforts to improve student achievement along the standards. The act did not stop at standards-based education. It included goals focused on safe schools, parental involvement, and teacher development, all of which ostensibly influence student achievement. And it also addressed goals for education from early childhood to adulthood. Goals 2000 included the following:

  • All children in America will start school ready to learn.
  • The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.
  • All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging 
subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation’s modern economy.
  • U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
  • Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  • Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
  • The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.
  • Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.

The NCLB of 2001 built on goals outlined in Goals 2000, and in many ways NCLB amplified and extended goals that originally appeared in Goals 2000.

NCLB is the leading federal legislation governing K–12 schooling. Its introduction meant that the federal government took a greater role in education in the United States. A major objective of NCLB was to decrease the achievement gap between students with low scores and those with high scores. Schools and districts not reaching stated annual progress toward the goal of removing the achievement gap would be penalized.

NCLB has divided opinion. It has been positively recognized for requiring a disaggregated format for student performance reports, enabling evaluation of the performance of different groups of students. This has particularly benefited disadvantaged students, whose performance was often overlooked in the past. However, as you’ll see in the following section, NCLB also has many detractors.
Reforming NCLB

Many have called for reform of NCLB itself. Suggested changes include removing the 2013–2014 target years for eliminating the achievement gap among different groups of children, because educators and policy makers alike believe the target year is unrealistic. Critics state that NCLB places too much emphasis on standardized testing and too little on the education of individual students. They also suggest that using standardized tests as the only measure of progress has led to instruction more aligned with students’ performing well on tests rather than learning a broad array of topics. Critics suggest that student growth should be a measure of the difference between students’ performance level at the beginning of the year and their performance level at the end of the year, rather than an arbitrary expectation for annual performance. And critics recommend expanding the measures used to determine student performance, so that standardized tests are not the only measures used.

The funding arrangements for NCLB are also the subject of discontent, with suggestions that much more funding is required to achieve the stated objectives. Under NCLB, states are responsible for the type and level of assessments given to students. Critics have suggested that variations across states in terms of levels of performance proficiencies makes it next to impossible to accurately compare performance across states. The focus on testing only mathematics and reading has also come under scrutiny, with suggestions that knowledge and skills in other subjects should be assessed as well.

NCLB requires states to staff their public schools with “highly qualified teachers.” This provision of NCLB can be viewed as a successful school reform measure, because research has shown that excellent teachers have a positive impact on student achievement. The provision seeks to ensure that students are taught well-prepared and highly qualified staff—teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it.

Although not explicitly required by NCLB, gaining National Board Certification is one way to become a highly qualified teacher. National Board Certification is an advanced teaching credential that is offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. It supplements, but does not supplant, a state teacher license. National Board Certification is achieved on successful completion of an optional assessment initiative intended to identify effective and accomplished teachers who meet high standards based on what teachers should know and be able to do.

National Board Certification is available nationwide for most pre-K–12 teachers and has been a positive school reform measure since its inception. Whatever your thoughts on educational reform, National Board Certification is a powerful tool to have in your toolbox to help you be an effective educator and voice for change.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

The shocking truth about competency based education

**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.**

By Kelly Walsh

The Rise of Regionally Accredited Competency Based Education in HigherEd

I’ve been a fan of the idea of Competency Based Education since I first heard of it. It seemed like such a positive development and a step ahead in the evolution of higher education here in the US and abroad. But I figured it would be quite a while (as in years, possibly quite a few years) before the country’s regional accreditors would become comfortable with assessing and approving CBE programs.

In the U.S., colleges and universities need to be regionally accredited if they wish for students to be eligible for the federal education funds commonly referred to as Title IV aid (in the form of grants and loans). Many students simply can’t afford tuition at even the least costly colleges without some help from federal aid.

So, getting back to CBE and accreditation … I knew that Western Governors University was a pioneer in CBE and that their programs had been regionally accredited, but they were well ahead of the game and seemed to be very much the exception, at least they were when I first learned about them a couple years ago. I also knew that EDUCAUSE was exploring CBE through their Breakthrough Models Incubator program last year, and this further influenced my perception that CBE had a lot of maturing to do before it was ready to take off (or so I believed).

Creating a New Higher Education Ecosystem

In his April, 2015 article, Higher Education 2.0 and the Next Few Hundred Years; or, How to Create a New Higher Education Ecosystem, Paul LeBlanc, President of Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) and EDUCAUSE 2015 New Business Models department author writes:

“Three important developments stand to dramatically change the way we think about degree programs and pathways:

  1. The rapid adoption of competency-based education (CBE) programs, often using industry and employer authority for guiding the creation of the competencies and thus programs
  2. An eventual move to suborganizational accreditation, with Title IV funds available for credits, courses, and microcredentials offered by new providers in new delivery models, part of the accelerating trend toward “unbundling” higher education
  3. Increasing recognition that postsecondary education will no longer be contained to the existing and traditional degree levels but will instead be consumed at various levels of granularity—less than full degree programs and continuing throughout lives and careers”

That statement about the “rapid adoption” of CBE got me curious, especially given the other statements being made here and the awareness that regional accreditation stands between several of these ideas and any sort of widespread proliferation of them. So I started searching the web for regionally accredited competency based education degree programs. I was quite surprised by what I found.

Accredited CBE Programs are Growing at a Faster Rate Than Many Would Have Anticipated. Is it Gradually Going Mainstream?

What has shocked me a bit (in a good way) has been learning that quite a few CBE programs have been accredited already, and that the regional accreditors have defined paths for CBE program accreditation.

First, I came across this regionally-accredited CBE program from the University of Wisconsin, the “UW Flexible Option“. Then I found this article explaining how a some of Washington’s 34 community and technical colleges are rolling out regionally accredited CBE degrees (with the help of advising from WGU). In this article, we learn that in addition to UW, two other “Big Ten” Universities having introduced CBE degree programs – the University of Michigan and Purdue University.

The article, Competency-Based Degree Programs On The Rise, not only confirms my perception, it also reminds us that big online players like Capella University and SNHU’s College for America have accredited CBE programs.

While I was at it, I figured I would confirm that the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (our accreditor at CW)  has a formal process for seeking accreditation for CBE programs, and learned that they do indeed (they announced the establishment of a “Direct Assessment” Approval Process in July of last year). Given this and the approved programs noted above, it seems likely that all of the regional accreditors now have a similar process!

While trolling the Web for this information, I also came across this organization and website – the “Competency Based Education Network” (http://www.cbenetwork.org/about/). “The Competency-Based Education Network is a group of regionally accredited colleges and universities working together to address shared challenges to designing, developing, and scaling competency-based degree programs.” There are dozens of colleges and universities in this group. 

CBE is becoming a meaningful part of the higher education landscape here in the U.S. much faster than I realized. Might President LeBlanc’s other “developments” also come about a lot sooner than many would think? What do you think?

(Okay, I’ll say it … sorry for the corny article title, but I’ve been wanting to use that classic headline ‘hack’ for years now and this was such a good opportunity! It really has been a bit of a shock to learn how quickly accredited CBE is evolving and changing the landscape of higher ed :)).

This post originally appeared on Emerging EdTech, and was republished with permission.

________________________

Kelly Walsh is Chief Information Officer at The College of Westchester, in White Plains, NY, where he also teaches. In 2009, Walsh founded EmergingEdTech.com. As an education and instructional technology advocate, he frequently delivers presentations on a variety of related topics at schools and conferences across the U.S. Walsh is also an author, and online educator, regularly running Flipped Class Workshops online. His eBook, the Flipped Classroom Workshop-in-a-Book is available here. Kelly also writes, records, and performs original music … stop by kwalshmusic.com and have a listen!

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

How many ways can politicians ‘lie’? How a class led to a ‘truth’ report card for the 2016 election

**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 Ellis Jones, College of the Holy Cross via The Conversation

I regularly teach a course called The Sociology of Television & Media in which my students and I critically explore newscasts, entertainment programming and (both commercial and political) advertising. The theme that I use as a touchstone throughout the class is: What happens when, as a society, we begin to mix fantasy and reality together in mass media?

We discuss how a range of troubling outcomes emerge for a public that has difficulty telling truth from fiction. Max Horkheimer, a German-Jewish sociologist, argued that this is part of what led to the rise of Nazism in Germany.

Once we lose our ability to detect lies, we become vulnerable to demagogues.

Six categories of rhetoric

About halfway through the semester, I have students deconstruct political ads, and we discuss practical resources for navigating the web of truths, half-truths and outright lies that proliferate unhindered during each election cycle.

One resource that I offer is Politifact.org’s Truth-o-Meter. Students fact-check politicians’ statements to determine how much, if any, truth is contained therein (they actually won a Pulitzer Prize for their work fact-checking the 2008 election).

The first, and perhaps most important, takeaway from their work is that modern political statements cannot accurately be rated as simply “true” or “false.” So sophisticated has the art of mixing truth and lies become that the scale Politifact currently uses includes six separate categories of political rhetoric: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false and “pants on fire” (for statements that aren’t just false but also completely ludicrous – and yet still stated as truth).

In essence, while there is still but one way to tell the truth, there are now at least five times as many acceptable ways to lie.

For example, John Boehner’s May 3 2015 statement on Meet The Press that “we spend more money on antacids than we do on politics” is rated simply “false.” Fact-checking reveals that in the US, we spent somewhere between US$3 billion and US$7 billion on elections in 2014 (depending on what money streams you include), while we spent less than $2 billion on antacids in the same year.

Boehner’s team was apparently trying to compare global sales of antacids (including all seven billion people on the planet) to USspending on elections (about 320 million of us) – a false comparison.

On April 23 2015, Hillary Clinton provided a good illustration of a statement that rates as a “half truth.” When addressing the Women in the World Summit in New York City, Clinton asserted that the US ranks “65th out of 142 nations” when it comes to equal pay for women. The statistic comes from the World Economic Forum’s 2014 Global Gender Gap Report.

However, the primary measure generated by this report ranks the US 20th in gender equity. The ranking of 65th is taken from a subcategory in the report that relies on a survey of perceptions of executives rather than hard numbers. So, while it is technically true, it may actually be overstating the severity of the gender pay gap comparison.

Whom can we trust?

The second takeaway, though it may not be much of a surprise, is that there are no politicians in this country that exclusively tell the truth. Every single one, to a greater or lesser extent, spins, bends, twists or breaks the truth.

Perhaps this is the price of power in our modern democracy, but we should find it at least a little troubling.

So where does this leave us? Well, knowing that every one of our politicians lies, the most important question, in my mind, becomes: Who is most often telling the truth and who is lying to us repeatedly in order to gain our support?

In other words, whom can and whom can’t we trust?

With this question in mind, I had my students add up the raw numbers for 25 major politicians (based on Politifact’s fact-checking over the past eight years) and write the results up on the board in rank order from most to least honest based on the data. The results were intriguing.

While the prototype point system was not particularly sophisticated (two points for each true statement, one point for each mostly true statement, zero for half-truths, etc.), the numbers revealed that many well-known politicians were abusing the truth far more than they were embracing it.

When I asked the class what they thought of the results, one student raised her hand and replied, “I’m not shocked.” Many of the others immediately nodded their heads in agreement.

I wondered if we’ve become so accustomed to the bending and breaking of the truth that we no longer expect truth from our leaders. Now we’re teaching the next generation not to expect it either.

After seeing these preliminary results, I was hooked.

Generating ‘honesty’ report cards

I quickly returned to my office and began running the numbers on a total of 42 politicians (Republicans and Democrats) with the greatest name recognition and included every current presidential hopeful who has expressed some level of interest in running in the 2016 presidential election, to boot.

As of May 5 2015, only 37 of the 42 politicians included have made 10 or more statements that have been fact checked in Politifact’s database, so I immediately set aside the other five politicians as having too small of a statement sample to consider in the results (the possibility for error being too significant).

I decided to grade our politicians the same way that I would grade my students if their assignment was to tell the truth.

They receive an A+ (100) if they actually tell the whole truth, a B (85) if what they say is mostly true, a C (75) if they tell a half-truth, a D (65) if what they say is mostly false, an F (55) if it is plainly a lie, and no credit (0) if they fail to take the assignment seriously at all (“pants on fire”).

Each politician’s Honesty Score is then calculated based on the overall percentage of their statements that are true, false or somewhere in between. The results are as follows (hold on to your socks):

0 A’s, 3 B’s, 22 C’s, 9 D’s, and 3 F’s.

As of May 2015, according to a synthesis of Politifact’s fact-checking of actual statements over the past eight years:

The two most honest 2016 presidential hopefuls are:

Republican: Jeb Bush [B-]

Democrat: Hillary Clinton [B-]

The two least honest 2016 presidential hopefuls:

Republican: Ted Cruz [D-]

Democrat: Lincoln Chafee [C]

The only three politicians to receive failing grades:

Michele Bachmann [F], Herman Cain [F], Donald Trump [F]

Our three most powerful current representatives:

Barack Obama [C+], John Boehner [C-], Mitch McConnell [C]

The most honest politician in the US:

Cory Booker [B-]

You can take a look at the results for yourself:

2016 Presidential Hopefuls

Notable Democrats

Notable Republicans

Keep in mind, this kind of data tells us nothing about the views the candidates hold, or their policies, or even what kind of a leader they may ultimately turn out to be.

It does, however, tell us something important about how often they tell the truth to the public, and that should be something we hold them accountable for. It will be interesting to see how these same political leaders fare six months or a year from now when the races have really started to heat up, particularly those who look like they may be viable presidential candidates.

As teachers, caught up in our own subject matter, we easily forget that our students are hungry to apply what they’re being taught in our classes to something meaningful in their own lives.

It is our obligation to offer each generation a sense of social responsibility, hope for the future and the practical tools that will allow them to build it for themselves.

Something like a yearly Honesty Report Card might serve us well at this point in our democracy’s evolution. At the very least, let’s use this idea as a starting point for some kind of political unity in this country.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, can’t we at least agree that our politicians should start telling us the truth?

Check out all of our posts on Hillary Clinton here.

_____

Ellis Jones is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at College of the Holy Cross.

www.theconversation.com
www.theconversation.com
  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Check out the 5 Steps One School Takes to Transform Dropouts into Graduates

When you think about credit-recovery programs, you likely think of truant or at-risk students. These students, who need a push to catch up after falling behind, are getting lost in the shuffle, leading to lower overall graduation rates in high schools across the country. But with a well-structured academic support system combined with credit-recovery options, district leaders at Lawrence County Community Unit School District experienced a 9% increase in graduation rates.

Now here’s a typical story from Lawrence County CUSD. The only thing between Joe (a senior whose name has been changed) and his hard-earned high school diploma was one English final. Thinking he could breeze by, Joe failed the test, meaning that walking the stage to collect his diploma with the rest of his class was no longer a reality. After a series of meetings with the school’s guidance counselor and the principal, the team created a credit recovery plan. Joe was given three days to complete an entire semester’s work. Two all-night study sessions, three long days in the computer lab, and a passing grade got him a diploma—and the overwhelming feeling of success earned through determination.

Joe was lucky. He had a second chance, something many students don’t ever get. The reputation and perceived expense of credit-recovery and second-chance programs has caused schools across the country to quietly cut these programs, leaving students to find their own options. The truth is, not every student who could benefit from credit recovery or alternative options is an at-risk student. Many are special ed, are working to get ahead of the curve, or graduate on time with the rest of their class.

Lawrence County CUSD started its Second Chance Program about 13 years ago to help the group of nonconforming, at-risk students gain diploma status. Students would leave the traditional classroom setting to receive extra time and help from a specialized teacher. Within eight years, the school’s graduation rates increased dramatically.

But in 2012, funding for Lawrence County’s Second Chance Program was cut, leaving at-risk students to struggle through courses in the traditional classroom setting. Graduation rates quickly dropped to less than 70%. Two years later, the Second Chance Program was revived with a new look, a new name, and a new online component allowing for even more flexibility. Since its resurgence, graduation rates have increased from 70% to 79%. This school year, administrators at Lawrence County CUSD hope to reach their goal of an 85% graduation rate.

Here are the steps Lawrence County CUSD are taking today to dramatically increase their graduation rates after they restarted their Second Chance program.

1. Students get special attention. At Lawrence County CUSD, teacher Barbara Fabyan has her own school within a school classroom at the high school where students needing extra academic support can come during the school day. It’s an environment that removes students from their regular classrooms, so they’re able to concentrate on their schoolwork without distraction. At any given time, she may have a 9th-grade student with an IEP needing special assistance on a project or another student who is at risk of dropping out and without determination may miss the deadline to graduate with the rest of his or her class.

2. Technology is used to make individualized instruction easier. While dozens of students come into her class strictly to recover failed credits, “Odysseyware, the customizable online curriculum program and credit recovery software we use, allows me to restructure entire courses or individual topics and assessments to best fit the student’s needs,” Fabyan said.

Fabyan’s classroom also serves as an alternative for students wishing to work at a faster pace. For example, one of her students had knee surgery and couldn’t participate in gym class. Instead, she worked through an online curriculum provider to earn a year’s worth of history credits in one semester.
Online options give students the freedom to work at their own pace while sticking with Illinois State Standards. Lawrence County offers a blended learning option which, based on the increase in graduation rates, has proven successful for students so far.

3. Fabyan uses a “tough love” approach to teaching in the credit-recovery classroom. “Making mistakes is part of learning,” she said. “When students come in, they know it’s their last chance to complete the work and make it to graduation. Some students have dug themselves a deep hole with truancy and behavioral issues, and they know my classroom is the only place they can go to dig themselves out. It’s a wake-up call.”

4. Students develop an unshakeable belief in themselves. When students enter Fabyan’s classroom, they often have negative thoughts about specific classes, teachers, and school in general—prejudices that hold them back from success. Her mission is to break down the walls of what “school” is and show students success is possible, but it won’t come easy. With the support from her fellow teachers and administration, Fabyan and her students are constantly empowered to beat the odds and push through adversity. It’s the encouragement that keeps the program alive, allows students to reach their goals using whatever means it takes.

5. Students actually get to explore their interests in school. According to the Center for Public Education, 47% of high school dropouts cite “uninteresting classes” as the major reason for leaving, and 35% say “failing in school” was a major factor in dropping out. With the virtual labs, videos, audio, and games that they get from an online curriculum, students are pleasantly surprised, then challenged and engaged.

“My students realize the traditional courses they were taking may have been easier compared to Odysseyware,” said Fabyan. “Students that used to be failing are excelling with more difficult content. They realize they really have to work hard to pass. It’s more challenging, but in a way they are more engaged in the content and actually learning.”
She notes many students saying, “I really feel like I’m learning something,” and, “If I had this online option for more of my courses I would know more, and wouldn’t have fallen behind in the first place.”

That sort of realization makes students sprint to the end and get their diplomas. By the time at-risk students have their certificate in hand, they’ve learned a lot more than the Common Core. They’ve mastered the art of overcoming challenges and are part of changing the reputation of students using credit recovery. And now, because of the great success of the Second Chance Program, classroom teachers all over Lawrence County CUSD are using Odysseyware to better align their lessons with CCSS and engage students in a typical classroom setting.
If you are an educator in a school struggling with graduation rates, what are some steps you are taking to improve them? Feel free to leave a comment.

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

Understanding the 4 Main Schools of Philosophy: Principle of Idealism

Understanding philosophy is important for educators not only so that they possess an individual philosophy but gain more awareness to the philosophies of their students and administrators. In this series on the four main schools of philosophies idealism, realism, postmodernism, and pragmatism will be reviewed to assist with understanding the elements of philosophy. This article focuses on idealism.

Philosophy has a number of well-defined schools of thought. Philosophical schools of thought have had a profound influence on approaches to teaching and learning, as well as on the progression of human society. The role of teachers also evolves according to the dominant accepted philosophy of the time.

The underlying principle of idealism is that reality is largely an extension of mental processes, which are the true reality. Idealism proposes that ideas are universal and eternal, unlike physical objects, which are subject to the alteration of the forces of nature. Idealism can be categorized into three main sections: classical, modern, and religious.

Classical idealism refers to the set of theories put forward by Socrates and Plato (427–347 BC) in their search for an Absolute Truth. Socrates and Plato questioned the fundamentals of reality, knowledge, and human nature. From these teachings emerged the Socratic method—the process of gaining knowledge by carefully questioning and then criticizing the answers. Socrates believed that all humanity possessed and was capable of such knowledge. Plato believed his ideas, referred to as forms, were all connected and arranged in a hierarchy, with the greatest of all forms being the Forms of Good. He believed that only the most knowledgeable would reach ultimate truth.

Religious idealism theorizes that there are two separate worlds: the worlds of God and humanity.

St. Augustine (AD 354–430) was a religious idealist who speculated that God created knowledge and that we must uncover this unchanging truth. Throughout the history of the United States, the religious idealism of Christianity has been the most influential on education, although idealism from other religions is a strong part of education worldwide.

Modern idealism is hypothesized by both René Descartes (1596–1650) and George Berkley
(1685–1753). Modern idealists also believed in two worlds: a material world and a world of the mind.

Modern idealists questioned existence, God, and perception, most famously in Descartes’ declaration:
“I think, therefore I am.” Modern idealist educators consider their students to be rational, thinking beings who are capable of seeking and understanding the truth.

They generally believe in going beyond the mere development of the mind and seek to bring about an overall character development in their students. These idealist educators act as moral and mental role models for their students and encourage them to achieve ideas of the highest quality possible by learning from the wisdom of great thinkers of the past. The approach to teaching is generally governed by the concept of viewing the world as the sum of many parts, with the core skill required being to generate and analyze ideas to gain an understanding of the whole. Idealist educators highly value self-directed activity, engaging their students in activities and reading materials that encourage reflection on their own nature, as well as promoting a comprehensive understanding of the world at large.

Reform schools provide a good example of an idealist education. Reform schools typically seek to train students that need further instruction in character development, creating or strengthening morals and values in each of the students, all while teaching the basic core curriculum that is taught in a typical school.

Based on the three segments of idealism what is your philosophy and does it align with your school’s education system? It is necessary to know the philosophy behind your school because as a teacher you are viewed as one who is upholding these values and beliefs. Continue reading the other sections of this series to understand the schools of thought pertaining to philosophy.

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

Year-Round Schooling: Why it’s Time to Change

When public schools first started popping up in the U.S., they were considered secondary to other hands-on pursuits. Learning to read, write and perform basic arithmetic in classrooms was not equal to or greater than the actual work of building the nation and keeping up family farms.

Even when a basic public school education became a relative priority, the school calendar revolved around agriculture – a necessity of the American way of life. Three months off in the summer months was not mandated because students needed “down time” or free creative play or time to decompress from the pressures of their studies. Those months off were full of even more work, and little free time, and plenty of hard work for the sake of the family and the nation.

Though family farms as a whole have become an antiquated piece of American history, the idea of summers off from school is still alive and well. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research finds that the average American student receives 13 weeks off of school each calendar year – with 10 or 11 of those coming consecutively during June, July and August (approximately) – while barely any other countries have more than seven weeks off in a school calendar. Around 10 percent of U.S. schools have transitioned to a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks inserted throughout the year but the majority of schools in the U.S. still follow a summers-off schedule.

But why? There is no perilous economic reason that keeping children in school during the summer would be detrimental, and there is no medical reason that three consecutive months during the center of the calendar year are necessary for the healthy development of children. The reason the school year remains in a summers-off state is simple: it is easier than changing it. That mentality begins with teachers in the classroom and escalates to educational policymakers. Changing the ways things have always been, even if there is some pretty solid evidence that it would improve things, is too cumbersome – so why bother?

Why Teachers Don’t Want Year-Round Schooling

One of the first issues educators raise when the idea of year-round schooling arises is getting rid of summers off. Theoretically if nothing about the school calendar changed except the timing of the days off, teachers and administrators would still have the same amount of time off but it would be spread out over 12 months more evenly. Most educators will admit that they enjoy having at least three consecutive months each year to themselves, without the demands of being around children for seven hours every day and spending their evenings deep in grading or lesson planning. Many teachers take advantage of the time off to seek out other avenues of employment, to supplement their annual incomes. It’s doubtful that these teachers would be able to find the same level of employment during one or two week breaks scattered throughout the year, and it’s hard to say if those shorter spurts would allow enough time to for the mental decompression teachers need to perform their important jobs to the best of their abilities.

I believe that the benefit to teachers of year-round schooling would far outweigh these inconveniences, though. The pressure to have high-performing students is the bane of every teacher’s existence and research shows that too much time off from the school routine can actually undo the hard work teachers put in to their students. In fact, many teachers report that the first two to three months of each school year are spent teaching remedial skills from the previous grade – wasting even more of the time that should go into original learning.

What do you say teachers? Are your misgivings about year-round school based on personal reasons, or out of concern for your students?

photo credit: Old Shoe Woman via photopin cc

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

Three Signs Your Class Is Suffering from the Digital Divide

While technology is a major force across the world, its impact is not felt equally. While it’s wonderful when obtaining new technology for experiment and implementation isn’t a problem for schools and everyone in them, that condition is anything but the norm. Classrooms, teachers, and students across the nation – and across the world – suffer from being on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The digital divide is the disconnection between those with access to technology and those without. This disconnection includes the following aspects:

1. European American students have much more access to computers than African American students: 81% of European American students use computers at home, but only 44% of African American and 49% of Latino students do.

2. Wealthy schools have more and better technology resources than schools that serve poor students.

3. There is a difference in computer literacy in favor of boys over girls.

In the classroom, computers are used differently by middle-class children who have been in touch with computers than by children who have spent more time in rural areas or are from a low-income family. Middle-class children have better knowledge and a deeper understanding of how a computer works, and so they can take advantage of the technology and concentrate on building new knowledge rather than the basics of learning how to use a computer.

Schools have made great efforts toward reducing the digital divide by increasing the number of computers in schools. Currently, 88% of public high school students have access to computers at their school. In the public school setting, the percentage of European American, African American, and Latino students with access to computers is almost equal.

Race and class may influence how students use computers in schools. Studies have shown that European American students use computers primarily for simulations and applications, and less for drill-and-practice use. Simulations and applications are computer-focused research. Drill-and-practice are more basic activities, focusing on practicing a certain mechanical skill. In contrast, African American students reported using computers for simulation and applications only 14% of the time and reported spending 52% of the time on drill-and-practice. This difference is also apparent in institutions that serve poor students, because the time they dedicate to simulation and application use is only 13% of the total, while in wealthier schools this percentage rises to 30%.

Another aspect of the digital divide is in terms of gender. Several studies on the various differences between girls and boys and their response to or interaction with technology show that both boys and girls use technology, but for very different reasons. The girls studied spent more time using social networking tools, favoring activities and software tools that emphasize creativity, collaboration, and cooperation. The boys, on the other hand, spent more time with software and tools that emphasized competition and allowed them to develop abilities that
would differentiate them from their peers. These studies demonstrated no differences in how quickly children of either gender adapt to technology,
but there may be gender differences in how well the technology is
used by students in the classroom setting for various tasks.

What is the composition of your classroom like? Do students and their families have the economic resources necessary to extend technology from the classroom to the home? Are there limitations on what your school can obtain? What does the pre-existing technology literacy look like among your students?

While modern technology is great, blind application of it can be detrimental in more ways than one. Think about where your classroom falls around the digital divide, and plan out how you’ll bridge the gap accordingly.

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

Strategies for Seamlessly Integrating Technology into Your Classroom

Words like “technology,” “digital devices,” and “modern media” sound flashy and attractive. Of course teachers want to have those buzzwords in the classroom! But when it comes from moving to virtual reality to concrete curriculum, what does introducing technology in the classroom actually look like? What do all those buzzwords really mean?

Technology-focused education is based on a constructivist approach to learning. As described earlier, the teacher in a technologically advanced classroom is seen as a facilitator rather than a pure instructor. A teacher’s function is to help students use the technological resources appropriately to find the information rather than presenting it to them. Students need to learn how to find the information they need and take ownership of their own learning. Working in small groups is also a crucial factor in acquiring these skills. Small-group instruction versus massive class instruction provides opportunity to develop a group dynamic, to make group decisions, and to share knowledge. Classes working under these principles promote cooperative rather than competitive group dynamics.

The degree of ease with which you’ll incorporate technology into your teaching methods will depend on how much technology you’ve been exposed to during the course of your life. You may have grown up in a home where a computer was used every day, or attended a school where learning was predominantly based on technology. Teachers who are less familiar with technology and have used traditional methods of teaching can also incorporate technology into their classes without having to change their entire teaching system. Teachers in schools commonly communicate via e-mail and text messages, incorporate the Internet into lessons, and encourage the use of productivity tools such as Microsoft Excel and Word.

This method of teaching also changes the way educators assess knowledge. The fact that students play an active part in knowledge acquisition implies a better understanding of the content provided. Formative assessment in this model of teaching becomes more important than ever, and teacher feedback is a crucial part of the process in order for students to achieve the content learning goals of the lesson.

If you’re interested in learning more about the ways that you can capitalize on today’s modern inventions to bolster your teaching, take some time to look through our other articles on specific resources available out there in realm of hardware and software.

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

5 States That Have Had Issues with Common Core

Developed by state governors, Common Core Standards are about creating a baseline of knowledge and skills that translates across all states in the nation. One way that equity of education can be assured is through federally-encouraged programs like Common Core Standards.

Despite its noble and auspicious goal, Common Core has drawn criticism throughout the country for various reasons, angering parents, educators, and politicians nationwide. Here are just a few of the many states that have struggled with the Common Core standards:

  1. Indiana

Indiana was the first state to walk away from Common Core requirements.

In a statement, Gov. Pence said that he believed the students in the state were best served through standards developed at a state or local level. Common Core was developed by the National Governors Association and Indiana adopted the standards in 2010 under then-governor Tony Bennett, also a Republican.

This move drove a few teachers to come out publicly against the change.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, math teacher Joel Gramelspacher called Gov. Pence’s move “slapdash” and said that the quick turnaround for new standards would cause anxiety in teachers and would not serve students well. As teachers spent the past few years redrafting lesson plans and adapting their own mindsets to the new standards, and dropping Common Core meant that they had to change course, and quickly.

  1. Louisiana

Louisiana’s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, who helped develop the PARCC tests, has spoken out publicly against the tests and Common Core standards in general.

“We support higher standards and rigor in the classroom, but every day, concern among parents is growing over Common Core,” Jindal stated.

Jindal’s attempts to drop Common Core requirements in Louisiana have not gone smoothly. He has battled with the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), which wanted to keep the standards. In response, Jindal reduced the spending threshold on a variety of school supply necessities, including computers. The BESE voted to hire outside lawyers to sort out the mess that is Common Core versus state-created standards and assessments.

Those are not the only battles Jindal has fought against Common Core proponents. He has also been sued. A black education group, the Black Alliance for Education (BAEO), funded parents and teachers in a lawsuit against Jindal. The BAEO supported the standards and believed all children deserved access to high-quality education.

Another group sued Jindal, citing that he lacked the authority to withdraw his state from the Common Core national academic standards.

Stephen H. Kupperman, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs said, “We think the governor has overstepped his bounds and doesn’t have any right to do this. We don’t want to hold the children of the state hostage to somebody’s ambitions.”

  1. Oklahoma

Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill to repeal the Common Core education standards in 2014, ridding Oklahoma schools of the new math and English guidelines that were set to go into effect the coming school year.

The bill was passed in the House and Senate the final day of the 2014 session and required the state to return to previous standards that were used prior to 2010 and encourages new ones to be developed by 2016.

The Common Core standards were adopted in 2010 in Oklahoma and also adopted by over 40 states, but the concern was that the standards represent a federal takeover of education. Gov. Fallin worked hard to mollify these concerns back in December — even signing an executive order that states Oklahoma will be responsible for deciding how to implement the standards – but opposition continued to grow.

The business community actually supports more rigorous standards with the intent to better prepare students for life after high school in college or the workforce.

The Oklahoma Academic Standards, which are aligned with Common Core standards in math and English, were to be reflected in tests administered to students’ during the next school year.  State education officials say that over 60 percent of the school districts in the state have already aligned the curriculum with the new standards.

  1. California

Some parent groups in California have urged schools to keep the old key elements of math in place instead of adhering to the new Common Core method of teaching the subject.

Parents rebelled out of fear that their children would not get to take calculus, a subject they believe is key in competition for college admission.

Math educators who back the new Common Core standards insist they provide a needed grounding in math concepts compared with the approach of old math that has led to U.S. students’ poor performance in global math tests and the countrywide phobia of the subject. Common Core organizes math topics into related groups, similar to math teachers in high-performing countries. It focuses on problem-solving skill, not memorization.

Those who back the new standards warn against dividing students into different tracks in middle school.

But many high-performing districts retain the fast pace of old math instruction while adopting the new standards. Saratoga, Cupertino, Pleasanton, and Palo Alto schools pride themselves on high test scores, but maintain some accelerated math tracks in middle school. Those paths put students on track to take calculus in high school.

  1. Tennessee

Two Republican senators filed legislation to repeal common core in Tennessee and create a new panel to recommend different standards for public schools.

The new standards, which have phased into Tennessee classrooms for the past four years, must be in place when K-12 public students enter schools in the 2016-17 school year.

The move to repeal Common Core is designed to guarantee Tennessee students continue to learn and improve by applying the highest standards and wielding state control over education.

The bill cancels the current memorandum of understanding with the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers or Common Core standards for English, Language Arts and Math. Both groups were involved in the push for Common Core standards.

In 2014, Common Core critics demanded a delay in the state’s testing based on the new standards after conservative grounds charged Common Core was the work of President Obama and amounted to a federal effort to take over education.

The standards were developed and underway long before Obama became president, but the administration embraced the standards intended to put states on the same page with respect to what students should know in English and math.

Inequality of resources and opportunities for American K-12 children runs rampant and affects every member of society. When children are not given basic access to the same education as their peers, the country cannot progress the way it should.  This was what Common Core was meant to address. But are these standards really the best way to create a better standard of education in the U.S.?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Latest Posts