Pedagogue Blog

Bilingual Education: 5 Reasons it should be Required

By Matthew Lynch

This generation of K-12 students is growing up in a society that is increasingly bilingual.  While foreign language requirements have long been a core requirement for high school graduation—second language classes at an earlier age would improve overall fluency for most students.  It’s time to introduce second-language concepts to the youngest of K-12 students, and here are just a few of the reasons why:

1. Bilingual Children have an Academic Advantage.  Studies in language development show that when young children have more exposure to all languages at an early age, it actually gives them a distinct academic advantage throughout life. There is often an argument that students should first master the English language before branching out to others – but why can’t both be taught simultaneously? Bilingual children are able to focus more intently on the topics at hand and avoid distractions from academic pursuits. They are also able to demonstrate higher levels of cognitive flexibility, or the ability to change responses based on environment and circumstances.

2.  Bilingualism Improves Life-Long Learning Skills. For children to truly see the full potential multi-lingualism has on learning, exposure to non-native languages should actually begin long before Kindergarten.  However, even children who learn their first Spanish words at the age of 5 can benefit from dual language curriculum. Learning is learning. The more that children can take advantage of new concepts, the more in tune their brains will be to all learning throughout life. Some studies have also found that the aging of the brain is slower and the employment rate is higher in adults with bilingual capabilities. Why not set kids up for success and strengthen long-term brain health while we are at it?

3. It Helps to Remove International Language Barriers.  There are also the cultural benefits to children learning two languages together. The children who come from English-speaking homes can lend their language expertise to friends from Spanish-speaking homes, and vice versa. Contemporary communication technology has eliminated many global barriers when it comes to socialization and even doing business. It makes sense that language boundaries should also come down and with help from our K-12 education system, that is possible.

4.  It Leads to Collaborative Learning.  Dual language programs show students a broader world-view, whatever the native language of the student, and lead to greater opportunities for collaborative learning. We should not limit what children learn based on outdated principles masked in patriotism.

5. Early Bilingual Education Increases Fluency in Later Years. It generally takes 5–7 years to be proficient in a second language.  Second-generation Hispanic children raised in the United States usually learn to speak English very well by adulthood, even though three-quarters of their parents speak mostly Spanish and are not English proficient.  However only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries—those that began learning later in life, say they speak English very well.  Pew Hispanic Center statistics have shown that 88 percent of the members of the second generation—those children that were introduced to English at an early age, described themselves as strong English speakers.  This phenomenon should apply to children who speak English as their first language as well.  In other words, U.S. students should be introduced to a second language at a young age in order to be fluent by adulthood.  In fact, I believe that all K-12 students should have Spanish and English fluency by graduation.

By implementing bilingual options even younger, K-12 students stand to benefit long-term – both academically and in life. There really should be no reason why these students are not introduced to a second language as early as Kindergarten.

What is your opinion on mandating bilingual education programs in the future?

School Community Collaboration and Peer Observation as Levers to Student Success

A guest post by Mark D. Benigni, Ed.D., Thomas W. Giard III, and David Levenduski

Meriden Public Schools, Connecticut

We are in an unprecedented era of accountability, a new teacher evaluation and development system, the Common Core State Standards, Smarter Balance Assessments and increased scrutiny from big business, the press and public. Our public schools face decreasing financial resources and additional federal and state mandates. Therefore, creating opportunities for our educators to work together in meaningful ways needs to be a priority for every district. School districts must create systems that encourage our educators to observe, reflect, collaborate, and enhance their instruction.

In Meriden, our deliberate and thoughtful steps to promote peer collaboration at the district and school levels has been a five year journey working with our teachers’ union to design and implement true teacher support programs. Together, union and management are breaking down the barriers that have isolated educators from their colleagues and peers. We first developed a comprehensive approach at the district level to begin having teachers spend time in each others’ classes as a strategy towards instructional improvement. The development and implementation of three distinct programs took shape: our Peer Coaching Program, our Learning Walks Program, and our Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team.

Peer Coaching Program

Our peer coaching program provides educators with an opportunity to observe other educators in action. The premise of our program is that our best teachers are our best teachers and that educators can help educators improve student learning. The major roles of a peer coach are to collaborate, provide beneficial feedback, share effective teaching strategies, and reflect on teaching and learning. Peer coaches are matched with peers by grade level or content area with someone outside their building. Peer coaches receive training from the National School Reform Faculty and use an established protocol to share honest and open feedback with their peer coach and to guide their reflections regarding what they learn from each other.

The program expectations include peer coaches spending a minimum of one full day in the peer’s classroom. While the minimum is one day in the peer’s classroom, many do more and many have formed lasting professional relationships that continue long after the one year in the formal peer coaching program. Over the last five years, we have sent a clear message to the teachers that this is important work and vital to their own growth as an educator.

Learning Walks Program

Three years ago the district launched a learning walks program in all twelve schools. The learning walks program involves having teams of teachers, with an administrator, observe classroom instruction in their own building using an evidence-based protocol for data collection and debriefing. We collaborated with The Connecticut Center for School Change to develop a model, based on instructional rounds, which could be adapted to the building level and inclusive of teacher teams as opposed to simply teams of administrators. Two teams of four to five teachers visit up to six classrooms for about 15-20 minutes each, using a descriptive evidence data collection strategy. The classroom visitations are centered on a problem of practice or focus area and teachers are there to observe teacher and student actions. Teachers use data collection sheets that ask them to observe within the context of these three questions: What is the teacher saying and doing and to whom? What are the students saying and doing and to whom? What is the content/task? These data-gathering questions are used in a comprehensive debrief process of the classroom observations. Data is shared as common instructional patterns observed, not individual teacher critiques.

Our teachers constantly tell us that the learning walks debrief is an exceptional professional development experience. The debrief is a three-step process. It starts with an individual debrief where the teachers review their classroom evidence in the context of the focus area and select key pieces of evidence from each of the rooms visited. Evidence may only contain what they actually saw occurring in the classroom and cannot include any judgment or assumptions. Teacher names are not used. The second step of the debrief process entails having teachers share their evidence with their team and evidence is organized into patterns by the two respective teams.

The third step in the debrief process is each team reports out to the whole group and evidence is discussed, challenged, and reflected upon by all teachers in attendance. The whole group then answers three questions that will be shared with the faculty at a future meeting. The questions answered by the teachers are: What did your group observe as strengths? What did your group observe as possible areas for growth for our school? What questions/suggestions can you pose that will help our school move instruction related to our focus area to the next level? Are their implications for future professional development? Any teachers observed on a learning walks day become part of the learning walks classroom visitation team next time. This process helps us promote an atmosphere and cycle of continuous improvement in our schools.

Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team

As Meriden rolled out their new teacher evaluation and development process, a commitment was made to provide educators with additional development and growth opportunities. As a result, union and management created the Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team (MTSS) to recognize our exemplary educators and to provide support and growth opportunities for teachers. MTSS team members are tenured Meriden Public School teachers who open their classrooms for peer visitations and avail themselves for discussion and reflection with their peers who visit.
At the elementary level, MTSS teachers are educators who have led their students to substantial student growth for four consecutive years. We have MTSS teachers at all grade levels from kindergarten through grade 5. At the secondary level, our major instructional focus has been on creating student-centered learning environments. Secondary MTSS teachers are teachers who are effectively implementing student-centered learning in their classrooms. These teachers are identified by their principals and are vetted by a group consisting of central office administration, teachers’ union leadership, and administrators’ union leadership. All MTSS teachers are trained by the National School Reform Faculty to assist their colleagues in their continual growth process.

Teachers can self-select to go observe an MTSS teacher or it might occur after a conversation with a coach or supervisor about how best to enhance their classroom instruction. Regardless of how a teacher decides to observe an MTSS teacher, all who take advantage of this program have shared that it has improved their instructional practice.

The School-Based Launch

Initial conversations: There are two words that can have a negative impact on educators, and leave any good idea or intention on the cutting room floor: initiative and mandate. In the dynamic world of education, initiatives and mandates are thrown at educators with the speed and fury of a tsunami. Wave after wave of expectations crash in from legislators, state departments, districts and administrators. If these initiatives and mandates are not carefully presented with connections to improvement in practice, they are doomed from the onset.

So the school principal presented the idea in a way that connected the practice to what was being implemented across the district, and explained how staff can improve and learn from each other. Prior to beginning to have teachers observing one another, every opportunity, from faculty meetings to data team meetings to individual conferences, were used to emphasize and highlight the importance of collaboration and sharing of best practices. Beyond data teams, the principal worked in conjunction with the staff to develop an intervention and enrichment system which increased opportunities to collaborate to plan instruction, and allowed teachers to share students and begin to blur the lines regarding who “owned” the students. Their own data was utilized to build confidence and exhibit the instructional strengths that were being cultivated within the school. Staff came to realize that they did not need to always look outside the school for professional development opportunities; the professional expertise was among them. These conversations built the foundation for the next stage; creating the system.

Creating the system: With the foundation laid to enable staff to increase collaboration, peer observations as a supportive tool for strengthening instructional practices was a natural extension of our efforts. The next step was to share the idea of utilizing an observation to connect a teacher who shows a strength in an area to a teacher who exhibits a weakness in that particular area; all based on student achievement data and on the premise of supporting, not evaluating. These conversations were accomplished through the district’s process of goal setting meetings, which occur at the beginning of the year when student-achievement goals are set for the school year. These meetings became the catalyst to connect teachers for observations with an instructional focus in mind.

With building leadership’s support, time was re-engineered to create opportunities within the schedule for the teachers to conduct their observations. A reflection sheet, which the observer used to document the experience and reflect on what they observed and how the observation would impact or influence their future instruction, was developed. Then came the light bulb moment at a state-run professional development workshop regarding adaptations to the data team process during which a new mandate was presented for developing a SMART goal for the teachers. While other districts and schools expressed concern, the staff conferred and decided that instead of adding another mandate or initiative to teachers’ already full plates, the peer observations would be used as the new mandated adult SMART goal.

It was at this point that peer observations became “officially mandated”. This was viewed in a positive light by the staff because it involved the utilization of a practice which had already begun instead of adding yet another initiative or mandate. The system for peer observations was now created and in motion, and the teachers were supportive because they were involved and part of the decision to mandate the practice.

Releasing Responsibility: The overall goal was to begin a practice that would ultimately become a natural part of our professional routine. Through the creation of a schedule in the office where teachers could sign-up for times to observe others, we quickly began releasing responsibility to the teachers. Securing sub coverage at the beginning of the year assured a successful release of responsibility to the teachers. Another change that provided momentum was the adoption of a new district evaluation plan. Like the teacher SMART goal that was originally linked to the peer observations, the new evaluation plan contained a professional practice goal for teachers. This goal required the teacher to collect and present artifacts and evidence which connected to the identified practice the teacher selected. The peer observations and accompanying reflection sheet served as valuable artifacts for this professional practice goal.

Culture of Collaboration: A wonderful transformation began to unfold as the staff progressed; teachers were not only scheduling times for the peer observations, but teachers were also conducting observations on their own during preparation periods. The teachers were now viewing the peer observations as important for improving their instruction, and were using their own time to conduct them. The school was also beginning to see improvements in student achievement, which provided tangible evidence of improvements in practices. The staff was also becoming much more comfortable with the practice of observing each other to improve their own teaching practices. It was not “taboo” for teachers to admit they had areas for growth, and more importantly they realized there were available resources in their own building to assist. In essence, the school was fast-becoming a learning community. As the school was progressing with its own internal observation system, staff saw the connections to the district’s initiatives of MTSS and learning walks, and the value in their own internal peer observation system. The connections between the district initiatives and the school-based observation initiative provided a level of comfort with opening classroom doors that did not exist previously.

Moving Forward: As the journey of sharing best practices through professional collegiality and peer observations continues, the plan will be to have all teachers within a grade level conduct “vertical” observations. This would include visiting and observing instruction of classrooms one grade below and one grade above the grade they teach. This will allow the teachers to understand the rigor of instruction at those grade levels, and how it impacts their own instructional practice at their grade level. Wherever the school proceeds to next with observations, the idea is to build upon the level of trust, support and collaboration that has been established. The “culture of collaboration” has been instrumental in improving the way the staff operates on a day to day basis, and the results seen in student achievement and teacher development have validated the efforts.

As a district, we are moving forward together with a foundation of trust and open-mindedness. We are a collaborative team that has created a unifying vision for our district. We believe that every child is entitled to a high quality education, that teachers and leaders impact every child’s achievement, and that collaboration improves student learning and sustains our mission to see our students make positive progress.

Just this past year, we achieved the highest scores in district history in grade 3 reading, grade 5 science, grade 6 math, grade 7 reading, and grade 8 reading and writing. Our school climate data were equally impressive. Since 2010–2011, suspensions have decreased by 58%, expulsions are down 88%, and school-based arrests have been reduced by 77%. In the Meriden Public Schools, we know that in this era of accountability, our approach has to be more than simple compliance; we have to create a professional learning community where teachers learn from one another. We must create schools where students and staff want to be.

___

Mark D. Benigni, Ed.D. ([email protected]) is Superintendent of Meriden Public Schools and is Co-chair of the Connecticut Association of Urban Schools Superintendents. Dr. Benigni also serves on the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) national Governing Board.

Thomas W. Giard III ([email protected]) is Assistant Superintendent for Personnel and Staff Development of Meriden Public Schools and is an adjunct professor at Sacred Heart University in the Educational Leadership Program.

David P. Levenduski ([email protected]) is Principal at Ben Franklin Elementary School in the Meriden Public Schools and is the architect of Meriden’s school-based peer coaching model.

___
Resources:
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional Rounds in Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Govindarajan, V. & Trimble, C. (2010). The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kelly, M. (2007). The Dream Manager. New York, NY: Beacon Publishing

Sinek, S. (2009). Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. (2011 ed.). New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Teitel, L. (2013). School-Based Instructional Rounds: Improving Teaching and Learning Across Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional Learning in the United States: Trends
and Challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Wong, K., & Nicotera, A. (2006). Successful Schools and Educational Accountability: Concepts and Skills to Meet Leadership Challenges. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Is today’s university the new multinational corporation?

**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.**

Jason Lane, University at Albany, State University of New York and Kevin Kinser, University at Albany, State University of New York

A growing number of colleges and universities are emerging as multinational organizations – creating start-up versions of themselves in foreign countries.

Those vacationing in western France may drive past a campus of Georgia Institute of Technology. Similarly, those visiting Italy may come across a Johns Hopkins nestled in Bologna; or if you are a visitor to Rwanda, you may come across a Carnegie Mellon University campus.

According to the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT) at SUNY-Albany, 51 US universities now operate 83 branch campuses outside of the United States. Arkansas State has recently announced it will build a campus in Mexico. Qatar is already home to campuses from six American universities.

Students can now earn degrees from New York University in New York City, Abu Dhabi or Shanghai.

This sort of activity is being duplicated by institutions from Australia, the United Kingdom, India and more than two dozen other countries. Globally, universities in 32 countries export 235 branch campuses across 73 nations.

How are we to understand these developments? Do they bring advantages for students, academia as well as nations? Have higher education institutions become tools of public diplomacy? Or, are such institutions evolving into multiple national corporations with limited affinity with their home nation?

For the past five years, as co-directors of C-BERT, we have been tracking the development of this phenomenon, research that has included visits to some 50 of these institutions in 15 countries.

Universities go global

The fact is that no longer are global activities limited to the for-profit educational conglomerates such as the Apollo Group University of Phoenix and Laureate that have developed an international footprint through investment in online education and the purchase of colleges in multiple countries.

Rather, a growing number of public and private nonprofit universities have entered this space, creating, for example, branch campuses where a student in a local country can attend classes, join student organizations, engage in research projects and earn a degree awarded in the name of the home campus.

The earliest branch campus we’ve identified opened in the 1920s, when Parsons Fashion School in New York opened a location in Paris, so they could be in the fashion capital of the world, even though much of the growth in this sector started only in the 2000s.

Today, this effort is not limited to a handful of elite four-year institutions; it includes schools ranging from community colleges to boutique graduate schools, offering associates’ degrees to doctorates.

Proponents argue that branch campuses provide needed educational capacity in underserved areas, while allowing the home institution to diversify its revenue and enhance its reputation. Critics claim that operating under authoritarian governments hampers the academic freedom of faculty and students.

Push and pull factors

Most branch campuses seem to fall somewhere in between the glorious and the atrocious. But, first, let us look at some of the factors leading to the setting up of these branch campuses.

In our view, there are a number of internal factors pushing institutions to open branches – mainly, resources, regulations and reputation.

With declining government subsidies at home, concerns about rising tuition rates and heightened competition for students, some colleges and universities are looking for new ways to expand their economic base, through the delivery of courses overseas, foreign research monies and relationships with donors in other countries.

Having a physical presence is helpful, and at times necessary.

Also, it is sometimes easier to expand and be innovative in a different country, where the rules and regulations of the home and host nations (or states) do not constrain their efforts as much. In the US, we have found that while accreditation standards apply to international activities, many state regulations do not extend beyond their borders.

In addition, places like the Dubai International Academic City and EduCity in Malaysia are considered “free trade” zones designed to provide such regulatory relief from both the importing and exporting nations.

In going global, higher education is changing rapidly.
Kevin Dooley, CC BY

Global engagement also seems to be increasingly tied to an institution’s and nation’s reputation. For example, global university rankings such as those by US News and World Report and Times Higher Education factor in the international engagement of institutions.

This is not all. Higher education institutions have become tools of public diplomacy. Some exporting governments see International Branch Campuses (IBCs) as a means to strengthen their alliances with the importing nations.

There are also a number of factors pulling institutions to set up overseas.

Foreign universities have demonstrated interest in locating branches near rapidly expanding academic markets and being part of the emergence of Asia as a power player in the higher education landscape. It is no accident that most of the IBCs built in the past decade are located around the Indian Ocean and Pacific Rim.

Indeed, some countries have developed strategies and enacted policies to encourage international branch campus development through an “education hub.” Hubs usually indicate a country’s intention to promote itself as a regional or international destination for students.

Places like Abu Dhabi (UAE) and Qatar have provided financial and regulatory incentives to attract prestigious IBCs. But destinations such as Dubai, that do not offer any subsidy, are popular locations as well; in fact, IBCs are charged high rents to operate in places such as Dubai International Academic City (though they can receive exemption from many local regulations).

Some importing nations seek to raise their own international reputation by aligning themselves with well-respected institutions such as Duke, Yale and Texas A&M University.

Why some fail

However, at times the reasons for expansion do not align with reality, as the recent retreats of George Mason, Michigan State and the University of La Verne illustrate.

These campuses, like the 26 others that C-BERT data report, closed because they either encountered unexpected market and cultural conditions or lacked sufficient support from the home campus.

Unrealistic projections of revenue and enrollment, regulatory conflicts, and incompatible partnerships are the hallmarks of a bungled branch.

Creating an IBC is akin to creating a “start-up” in a foreign nation – with a different set of laws, cultural expectations and educational infrastructure. Abu Dhabi is very different from New York City. And it isn’t China either.

The established infrastructure of a campus in one country is repurposed in another country with the intention of educating students, fostering local research and innovation, and, through spillover, improving the overall quality of the domestic education sector.

As pioneers in an educational experiment, faculty and staff may be called on to help with a variety of tasks including budget planning, recruiting students, course scheduling, website design, furniture construction, staffing residence halls and even fixing computers.

Changing loyalties

It is clear that colleges and universities are emerging as important international actors, offering benefits to the institution as well as the importing and exporting nations.

What is not clear is how these arrangements will affect the relationship between a nation and its higher education sector.

Historically, colleges and universities have been viewed as anchor institutions that are tightly linked to their local communities and often are significant engines of economic development.

But we are now seeing campuses move locations in their effort to find “best deals” in terms of more regulator flexibility or government subsidies. The University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business announced in 2013 that it would leave Singapore and set up shop in Hong Kong.

Similarly, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has indicated that it will leave Singapore this year. It is now looking for another Asian base.

Do these trends suggest that US universities will close their home campus if they get a better deal elsewhere? Likely not. Much of the cachet of the branch campus comes from being associated with a home country like the United States, for example.

But both institutions and nations need to realize that these endeavors can be big gambles, and not everyone has a winning hand.

The Conversation______________

Jason Lane is Associate Professor of Education Policy & Co-Director of the Cross-Border Education Research Team at University at Albany, State University of New York.
Kevin Kinser is Associate Professor of Education at University at Albany, State University of New York.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.

Study: College students feel unprepared for job market

In a startling new survey conducted by the Higher Education Authority, a significant amount of international college students “feel they are not learning job skills” — which clearly is the point of spending tens of thousands on earning a college degree.

Nearly 28,000 students from Ireland participated in the survey where they were asked about questions geared towards their college experience as well as future career outlook.

While many of students who participated DO feel unprepared, the vast majority state that they “felt they were gaining knowledge and skills that boosted their chances of getting a job.”

The study also reveals how students who major in certain disciplines feel about their job prospects post graduation.

“In general, scores for “work integrated learning” were lowest among students studying courses in the arts and humanities, which tend to be broader and may not include work placements.”

The study also found that students majoring in business administration and law, services, and “comm. techs” indexed higher scores when it came to career readiness. Each area seemingly has higher job placement than arts and humanities because the positions in those fields are far more static.

The Irish Times reports that “he survey was developed in response to a key aim of the national strategy for higher education to 2030” which may be to incorporate more of what students want into learning curriculum.

Compared to students in the United States, the findings are the same. Back in 2010, a study prepared by the York College in Pennsylvania found the same evidence: students in America “seem to be ill prepared for the demands of the workplace.”

Same goes for managers hiring students fresh out of college in America. According to Forbes.com, Harris Interactive found that “fewer than two in five managers believed college graduates were well-equipped for a job in their field of study.”

The study went on to find that many managers feel that new college graduates lack clear writing skills, can’t conduct a meeting, and cannot manage a project.

If anything this collection of studies abroad and domestically show that a college degree may be tangible and lead to a job post graduation, but skills learned in college may not help former students keep them.

Survival Tip: Integrating Standardized Test Preparation into the Curriculum

In this age of accountability, teachers are responsible for ensuring that their students learn. In order to measure what students know and don’t know, states all over the country administer standardized tests. Most new teachers are usually clueless in terms of how to best prepare their students for these high stakes tests, and this in turn causes a lot of anxiety. Most are left with one simple question, “What can I do?” Experienced teachers will tell you that standardized test preparation should be part of the day-to-day curriculum, but you should not teach to the test. Below are some tips that will help you incorporate standardized test preparation as part of the regular day at school:

• Before you can help your students prepare for the standardized test, understand the components of the test yourself. Check the specific areas that the test emphasizes. If you have not received the test guidelines from the school administration, you can get the guidelines as well as older versions of the test from your state department of education’s website.
• When you know the areas that are covered on the standardized tests and the amount of emphasis that each section receives, you can ensure that you cover those areas well in advance.
• Do not spend time on a specific section just because it is a favorite of yours.
• Use the older versions of the standardized tests and incorporate typical questions into unit tests and weekly quizzes. This ensures that the students get used to the format and do not dread the unfamiliar format when it appears on the standardized test.
• A very typical aspect of the standardized test is the assessment of higher order thinking skills. If you teach your students to think critically, you can be sure that they will be able to handle any question that appears on a standardized test. Raise the bar by creating class discussions that allow them to evaluate, analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned.
• Cross curriculum connections help the students learn information more authentically. You can use your language class to teach about historical personalities and more.

If you are able to integrate standardized test preparation into the daily curriculum, you can be sure that none of your students will be apprehensive or nervous about these once a year tests that are so feared otherwise. Good Luck!

 

Ask An Expert: Working with Homeless Students

Question: On yesterday, I received a new student in my classroom. His mother brought him to school on the first day and informed me that they were homeless. She said she doesn’t want her son’s education to suffer because of her family’s predicament. To my knowledge, I have never had a student in my room that was homeless. How can I support this child’s unique educational, behavioral and emotional needs, etc.? Kathy G.

Answer: Thank you for your question and for taking a proactive approach to this situation. Homelessness is another step down on the ladder of poverty and it is a very real problem faced by 1.5 million children in the United States. Many homeless families live in shelters in rural or urban areas. With one income, high rent and living expenses, many families are just one emergency away from disaster. As a result, even children who still have a home to go to could lose it in a heartbeat.

For instance, a single mother trying to make ends meet cannot go to work because her child gets sick. She must be with her child, as she has no one to help. On top of this, she has medical bills piling up. Even if she has a job to return to, she may not be able to afford her rent.

Homeless children still need to receive an education. Yet, when they get to school each morning, they are often hungry and tired. Like many children living in poverty, homeless children move frequently, and are exposed to drugs, violence, crime and more. Also, transportation might be an issue for some homeless children and they miss a great deal of school.

When they are able to attend school, they may be teased for the clothes they wear and the fact they fall asleep in class. They may have difficulty making friends or a fear of participating in an activity in front of the class. Although many homeless children are with their families, older homeless children may be runaways or may have been kicked out of their homes. Many have been abused sexually and/or physically.

Teachers who have homeless children in their classroom need to know how to help and support children without a permanent home. Homeless children may be needy emotionally and due to lack of access to bathtubs or showers and little food, they may be unclean and unfed. Teachers can be an anchor for homeless children by showing them compassion and understanding.

It may also be a challenge to communicate with parents who don’t have regular access to a phone. Of course, the most important thing for homeless children is that their families find a home. Teachers might be able to help by working with local agencies, children, and their families to find a solution to their problem.

Homeless children deserve a quality education just like all students. Teachers are the first line of defense but we all have to pitch in and do what we can to ensure that all of our country’s children have the chance to lead happy, healthy lives. If you implement the strategies that I have outlined in this column, you will have no problem working with homeless students and their families.

Moving ‘quality’ teachers between schools will not help disadvantaged children

Paul Thomas, Furman University

The bi-partisan federal legislation in the US popularly known as “No Child Left Behind” was passed during George W Bush’s first term. It had two important goals: to increase scientifically based education research and to narrow the racial achievement gap. Both goals have proven to be elusive and complicated.

Scientifically based education research has been ignored repeatedly in the US. Instead, many ongoing school reforms continue despite limited evidence from the research base of their efficacy. These include reforms such as the “Common Core standards” (a national curriculum for all public school students), the widespread take-up of charter schools, and increasing support for the alternative (non-certification) teaching programme, Teach for America.

Current education policy has also increased debates about and efforts to address teacher quality. Now, a renewed interest in how teachers are assigned to particular schools appears to be gaining momentum. The US department of education is developing a 50-state strategy to equitably distribute the best teachers around the country.

Hard to identify a good teacher

Traditionally in the US, teacher quality has been rewarded based on years of experience and advanced degrees. But few efforts to identify what makes a good quality teacher have proven effective. More recently, policies that quantify teacher quality using value-added methods, combined with paying on merit, have replaced traditional teacher compensation and evaluation.

Value-added methods being adopted across the US involve students sitting pre- and post-tests and using that data in complex calculations that determine each teacher’s “value”, or impact on students’ test scores.

While linking teacher quality to student test scores has political and popular appeal, that process is less precise than advocates claim. Further reforms, aimed at determining teacher quality, are addressing how students are assigned to teachers.

A report for the Education Trust, a US not-for-profit, back in 2006, detailed the inequity of teacher assignment by social class and race across the US. It found that high poverty and high minority schools have a disproportionate number of un-certified and under-certified teachers, especially for subjects such as maths. These students were also disproportionately assigned to new teachers.

The study’s authors, Heather Peske and Kati Haycock, concluded: “Overall, the patterns are unequivocal. Regardless of how teacher quality is measured, poor and minority children get fewer than their fair share of high-quality teachers.”

Flawed move towards pay for results

Since teacher quality and assignment have historical and current patterns of inequity, many reform advocates promote greater use of value-added methods to address that gap. But as maths teacher and blogger Gary Rubinstein explains, trying to use these methods to close the teacher quality gap is also flawed.

He says there is a problem with the implication that those teachers who are rated as “effective” in one school with a wealthier population, will “still get that same ‘effective’ rating if they were to transfer to a poorer school”.

Identifying teacher quality is complex not only because different populations of students affect teacher quality but also because teacher quality contributes only a small percentage of measurable student achievement.

While states in the US are increasingly replacing traditional practices for evaluating and compensating teachers, Stanford University’s Edward H Haertel warns this can translate into “bias against those teachers working with the lowest-performing or the highest-performing classes”.

“Attempts to recruit and retain the best teachers where they are needed the most,” explains former UCLA lecturer Walt Gardner, “have largely been unsuccessful”. These earlier and even more recent efforts have focused on increasing teacher pay to attract high-quality teachers.

Repackaging incentives and bonuses will not retain experienced and effective teachers in high-needs schools and students. Gardner argues that instead:

If we want to create equitable distribution of teachers, we have to make conditions for teaching in schools serving poor and minority students so attractive that few will refuse the opportunity to teach there. I suggest starting with three periods a day, each containing a class of no more than 15 students. I’d then add a non-certificated adult to act as a teaching assistant for each teacher. This will be expensive, but if we’re serious about getting the best talent it’s the price we have to pay.

Getting the conditions right

For students living in impoverished homes, the conditions of living are powerful forces that overwhelm their ability to be successful at school. Since the conditions of learning at school tend to reflect those living conditions, students are further alienated from opportunities to learn.

For teachers, the conditions of teaching are also vital. The two original goals of “No Child Left Behind” are likely best served by addressing class size, teacher autonomy, facilities conditions, and schools as communities.

But attracting high quality teachers will have to do more than changing the teaching conditions in high poverty schools, which tend to reflect the same inequities found in the communities they serve.

As long as schools in the US allow children to be doubly disadvantaged by their home communities and their schools, teachers are unlikely to find either that community or that school a place to spend their career.

Policies addressing teacher quality and equitable teacher assignments must address inequity and poverty both in society and in schools. These commitments should prove to be far more effective than measuring teacher quality based on test scores or offering teachers increased salaries.

The Conversation

Paul Thomas, Associate Professor of Education, Furman University

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

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

Respect for Teaching: Why is Education So Low on the Priority List?

By Matthew Lynch

Most patriotic Americans agree education should be the most important issue in the country. After all, a country that lacks knowledge lacks power…. right? Common tells us that in order to secure a thriving future for our nation’s children, we must become high achievers in the areas of math, reading and science. Unfortunately, the collective concern for education continues to wane. This may explain why education in the United States is considered average when compared to the rest of the world.

Often employed by public officials looking for a platform, the issue of education continues to make headlines, but very little actual progress is being made. In fact, teachers across the country continue to express their dissatisfaction with leadership, salary cuts and a lack of resources. Our children are in crisis; our future is in jeopardy and with each passing day, we become more vulnerable to the darkness of ignorance and unawareness.

According to the Pew Research Center, education ranks among the public’s top ten policy priorities, coming in at number six. At first glance, this may seem impressive, but Pew also reports that in general, Americans have a declining interest in education. Not surprisingly, the economy, job creation and terrorism are the public’s top three priorities, and there’s no question each would have grave consequences if not addressed. While most agree these topics should be focal points of interest, however, many argue the public has lost sight of what should matter most: education.

The reality is our country is guilty of becoming increasingly apathetic about education. As a rule, teachers are grossly undervalued; their significance is continually diminished and their contributions go highly underrated. The majority of school teachers love what they do and consider themselves blessed to be afforded the opportunity to make a difference in the life of a child. Their profound impact on the world of academia, and their willingness to sacrifice high-paying salaries should be applauded. But at what point do we, as Americans, stand up and say that our treatment of teachers is simply unacceptable? When do we decide that a number six priority ranking for education is not good enough – and that our students and teachers mean more to our collective society than that?

Student Achievement, By the Numbers

Here are some facts you may find alarming: according to data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the performance of American students as compared to their international equivalents is mediocre at best. PISA is an international study that evaluates education systems worldwide every three years. This involves testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in more than 70 participating countries/economies.

Scores from the 2009 PISA assessment reveal the U.S. performs about average in reading and science and below average in math. Some of the top performers on the PISA evaluation were Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Finland, Shanghai in China, Singapore and Canada. Out of 34 participating countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. These statistics are staggering.

As reported by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that if the U.S. could boost its average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years, it could lead to a gain of $41 trillion for the U.S. economy over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. Therein lies the solution to every major problem facing the American people — including the economy, job creation and terrorism awareness.

Based on research provided by Dr. Steven Paine, a nationally renowned American educator, the OECD has offered a number of simple and practical lessons to the United States. According to Paine, money is not the answer to boosting our country’s international educational status, nor will it bring about a greater classroom experience. In studying the world’s highest achievers — Finland, Singapore and Ontario, Canada — Paine suggests our lack of respect for teachers is the nation’s number one enemy of education. “The major difference between those systems and the one in the U.S. had to do with how teachers are valued, trained and compensated,” he noted.

Paine stated in his report to the OECD, “In Finland, it is a tremendous honor to be a teacher, and teachers are afforded a status comparable to what doctors, lawyers and other highly regarded professionals enjoy in the U.S.” The report also suggested the teaching profession in Singapore “is competitive and highly selective, [a country] that works hard to build its own sense of professional conduct and meet high standards for skills development.” The study of Ontario revealed similar findings.

Paine insists, “The U.S. must restore the teaching profession to the level of respect and dignity it enjoyed only a few decades ago. This will not be easy, particularly in the current economic environment with states and localities strapped for funds. But improving the regard with which teachers are held is not principally about how much they are paid.”

Paine continued, “OECD countries that have been most successful in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so by offering teachers real career prospects and more responsibility as professionals — encouraging them to become leaders of educational reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just deliverers of the curriculum.”

The report concluded that the U.S. has the resources and talent to compete more effectively and raise its level of educational achievement. This is contingent upon our willingness and ability to “demonstrate with action that it truly values education, display an understanding of the vital importance of having an educated workforce that can compete globally, and develop the political will to devote the necessary resources for educational reform.”

To make that happen, every American who cares about the economic future of our nation must come together and work to help make that plan a reality. It starts by giving our teachers the support, and financial compensation, they deserve.

We, the People, must take action to rightly place education where it belongs — as our number one concern. Get involved; make your voice heard and take a stand.

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

Allocating Resources to Improve Student Learning

Providing every child with an equal opportunity to learn has been a central challenge in public education. In fact, at its inception, universal public education in the United States was viewed as the “great equalizer.” Education was perceived, by some, as the vehicle through which individuals could rise above the social and economic circumstances which may have created longstanding barriers to reaching their potential as individuals and contributing citizens.

As the test of time has proven, education alone cannot address entrenched social problems; multiple institutions, policies and support systems are necessary to level the social and economic playing field. However, education is and will continue to be one of the primary means by which inequity can be addressed. Public funds will continue to be allocated in support of educational programs, and the rationale for these investments will likely continue to be that education creates social equity.

The purposeful and practical allocation of resources to support equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities, is a major component of education policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Leaders at all levels are charged with making decisions about how to effectively distribute and leverage resources to support teaching and learning.

Resource allocation consists of more than assigning dollar amounts to particular schools or programs. Equally, if not more important, is the examination of the ways in which those dollars are translated into actions that address expressed educational goals at various educational levels. In this respect, leaders are concerned not only with the level of resources and how they are distributed across districts, schools, and classrooms, but also with how these investments translate into improved learning.

It is critical for resource allocation practices to reflect an understanding of the imperative to eliminate existing inequities and close the achievement gap. All too often, children who are most in need of support and assistance attend schools that have higher staff turnover, less challenging curricula, less access to appropriate materials and technology, and poorer facilities.

Allocating and developing resources to support improvement in teaching and learning is critical to school reform efforts. Education policymakers must be informed about emerging resource practices and cognizant of the ways incentives can be used to create conditions that support teaching and learning.

Resource allocation in education does not take place in a vacuum. Instead, it often reflects policy conditions that form a context in which opportunities for effective leadership can be created. For example, effective leaders know how to use data strategically to inform resource allocation decisions and to provide insights about how productivity, efficiency, and equity are impacted by allocated resources.

The roles, responsibilities, and authority of leaders at each level of education also impacts whether and how they are able to allocate resources to particular districts, schools, programs, teachers, and students. Further, the type of governance structure that is in place also affects decisions about resources and incentives. Governance issues arise as leaders become involved in raising revenue and distributing educational resources. These activities involve multiple entities, including the voting public, state legislatures, local school boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers’ associations. Each of these connections can provide insights into how best to allocate resources and provide incentives that powerfully and equitably support learning, for both students and education professionals.

Resources necessary to operate a successful school or school district cannot be confined to dollars alone, however. Indeed, the resources needed to actively and fully support education are inherently complex and require an understanding that goes far beyond assessing the level of spending or how the dollars are distributed. Educational leaders must be able to examine the ways in which those dollars are translated into action by allocating time and people, developing human capital, and providing incentives and supports in productive ways.

Principals, district officials who oversee the allocation of resources, and state policymakers whose actions affect the resources the principal has to work with, are all concerned with three basic categories of resources:

1. Money. 
Activities at several levels of the system, typically occurring in annual cycles, determine both the amount of money that is available to support education and the purposes to which money can be allocated. No one level of the educational system has complete control over the flow, distribution, and expenditure of funds.

2. Human capital.
 People “purchased” with the allocated funds do the work of the educational system and bring differing levels of motivation and expertise developed over time through training and experience.

3. Time. People’s work happens within an agreed-upon structure of time (and assignment of people to tasks within time blocks) that allocates hours within the day and across the year to different functions, thereby creating more or less opportunity to accomplish goals.

These resources are thus intimately linked to one another. Each affects the other and even depends on the other to achieve its intended purpose. An abundance of money and time, for example, without the knowledge, motivation, and expertise of teachers (human capital) does little to maximize desired learning opportunities created for students.

Furthermore, an abundance of human capital without money or time to distribute it does little to alter practice in classrooms or to share expertise with others. From their position of influence over the acquisition, flow, and (intended) use of resources, educational leaders thereby undertake a massive attempt to coordinate, and render coherent, the relationships of the various resources to the goals they set out to achieve.

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

How to Choose the Right Childcare Center

**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 Anica Oaks

Leaving your child and going to work is one of the most difficult things that a parent must do. There are always horror stories of daycare centers and home care providers that don’t treat the children how they should. There are ways you can make sure that your child is in good hands by doing a bit of homework.

Ask Tons of Questions

Even if you are being a bit annoying, be sure to ask plenty of questions to the person in charge. Find out what their backup plan is when people call off work and request the child-to-adult ratio they use. It is not being nosy when your child is concerned. Be sure to ask them about the daily routine and what type of things they will be teaching. A daycare center that puts a child in front of a television set all day long is not good for the child’s development.

What Kind of Workers Do They Have?

All workers should be drug tested and have a background check performed before they can be around children. Make sure that the daycare center has this policy in force. Do they hire educated people or just anyone who is 18 years of age? Some centers, like Youthland Academy, only hire the best of the best to work with the children entrusted to their care. If the center doesn’t have a great group of employees, look elsewhere.

Don’t Make the Decision Based on Money

The old saying “you get what you pay for” certainly applies here. If you only care about the financial aspects of the center, you will miss the big picture. Sure, you need to be able to afford the daycare center’s rates, but you also would pay an extra $10 or $20 a week if it meant your child was safe from harm. While money is important, safety and good quality employees are even better.

Tour the Facility: Give the White Glove Test

Before making a decision on a daycare center, tour the facilities. Ask to see even the simple things like the diaper changing area. Look for safety violations and issues that might cause problems with the child’s safety. Don’t ever feel bad to question the health and safety of your child. Look at the restrooms, lunchroom, and the napping center. Make sure the toys are not broken and play areas are divided by age.

 

You want to make the right decision regarding a daycare center. While most of the centers are really good, there are still those certain few that make a bad name for everyone else. For the sake of your child, an investigation is warranted.

___

Anica is a professional content and copywriter who graduated from the University of San Francisco. She loves dogs, the ocean, and anything outdoor-related. She was raised in a big family, so she’s used to putting things to a vote. Also, cartwheels are her specialty. You can connect with Anica here.

Top Four Ways to Engage Millennials in Learning Environments

Note: Today’s guest post comes to us courtesy of Dr. Tina Rooks, who serves as Vice President and Chief Instructional Officer at Turning Technologies. With over 16 years of experience in education, she was instrumental in developing the educational consulting team and building the Turning Technologies school improvement initiative specifically for the K-12 market.

Whether you’re teaching a high school class or delivering a corporate training session, you’ll face a unique challenge when it comes to engaging millennials – the generation born between 1980 and 2000. It’s the largest generation in US history at almost 80 million strong, and, like the baby boomers and Gen Xers who preceded them, millennials have distinct generational characteristics. Since they grew up with the Internet and tend to be in constant communication with peers via social media, millennials as a rule are highly interactive. To engage this generation, instructors should keep millennials’ interactive nature and technology orientation in mind when designing lessons and defining the learning environment. Here are some tips that can help:

  1. Integrate response technology into the learning setting. PowerPoint is the go-to solution for many instructors, and it can be a great way to present concepts and messages. But with millennials, who are used to interactive learning, sitting through a PowerPoint presentation can be a challenge. Response technology can be the answer: With an integrated response technology solution, you can embed questions directly into your slides and allow students to answer with a keypad or smartphone. Then you can display their answers – in aggregate – right on the slide. This is a terrific way to keep an audience focused and involved in the learning process.
  2. Define objectives up front. Clearly outlining your goals for the session is a great tactic no matter who is in your audience, but millennials in particular tend to expect open, transparent communication. State your goals for the session, and periodically measure knowledge levels to see how students are progressing during the training to make sure they are meeting learning objectives. This will not only give students a greater sense of accountability, it will let you know when to spend more time on topics and when you can fast-forward through familiar issues for a personalized learning experience.
  3. Keep slides simple. Like a well-designed website, slides should be clean and simple. When you have a lot to say, it’s tough to resist the temptation to include as much information as you can on a slide, but remember that the bulk of the knowledge transfer will occur during the discussion about the topic, not from the slide itself. Keep that in mind as you’re designing your presentation, and make sure the messages are short and the slides are uncluttered. Millennial students tend to be video and image-focused, so if you have relevant material that fits into your presentation, by all means use it. But make sure it’s on point and doesn’t crowd the key messages.
  4. Keep your presentation interactive throughout. As digital natives who grew up with the Internet and in constant contact with friends, millennials expect a greater level of interactivity. Old school presenters tend to hold the floor throughout the presentation and only allow the audience to interact at the end during a question and answer session. You’ll have better luck with millennials if you keep the presentation interactive throughout, either by actively engaging students person-to-person or using response technology to allow them to give their input for discussion. You can design questions to measure students’ topic knowledge, or you can ask open-ended questions to spark discussion – both tactics can be highly engaging.

Like the generations that came before them, millennials have their own unique style and media consumption preferences. They are used to two-way conversations rather than top-down lectures, and unless they feel included in a personalized learning process, it’s a challenge to hold their attention. Fortunately, there are technology solutions and presentation techniques available that can help you engage millennials or students of any age. Use response technology to make your students a part of the action rather than passive audience members. Make sure your objectives for the course are clear and that you understand students’ progress. Keep slides clean and simple to promote clarity. And keep your presentation interactive from start to finish. By following these tips, you can ensure millennial students stay focused and engaged.

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

When a school, a community, and the world are held together by a paperclip

By Judith A. Yates

A 1988 history lesson at Whitwell Middle School began simply. “Six million Jewish people were exterminated in the camps during the Holocaust,” teachers Sandra Roberts and David Smith explained. One student raised a hand and asked, “How many is six million?” And more than a history lesson began.

Whitwell is a town of 1,600 nestled in the Sequatchie Valley of the Tennessee Mountains. Ninety-four percent of the population is white, only 65% has a high school diploma; it is a Christian, blue-collar, rural area where education can be a privilege rather than a given. Whitwell is hardly a place where one would find a memorial to eleven million victims of the Holocaust. The Memorial location, Whitwell Middle School, is a most extraordinary school though.

With the permission of principal Linda M. Hooper, students researched something to collect that would represent “six million people” and give meaning to their project.  Paper clips seemed to be the answer. Norwegian Jew Joseph Valler invented the paper clip; Norwegians wore paper clips on their lapels to silently protest the Nazi occupation in WWII. Students began collecting the paper clips; each one representing a life lost in the Holocaust. They contacted famous people for paper clips, asking for a letter with a reason to share the paper clip. Now the project boasts over 30 thousand documents, books, letters, art pieces, and artifacts.  It is the responsibility of the students to count, catalogue, and maintain the items in the Children’s Holocaust Memorial Research Room at Whitwell Middle School. Students act as docents for the thousands of tours that arrive at the school. This is the only Memorial managed and designed by children.

A WWII German railroad car used to carry people to their deaths now sits in front of the school as part of the Memorial. It holds the 30 million donated paperclips (extended to represent not only Jews, but others exterminated in the death camps). When the car arrived, the town rallied and worked together, donating the materials and labor to build the cover and stairs for the car. Educators saw a development in the citizens. Whitwell’s people reported a change; bigotry and prejudice became things of the past for many.

According to the statistics at Whitwell Middle School, bullying (from name-calling to physical fights) decreased dramatically since the introduction of the Paper Clip Project. Linda M. Hooper, now the Volunteer Coordinator says, “A child learns name-calling in the cafeteria can lead to bigger things.” Students understand how Adolph Hitler’s campaign to exterminate people started out subtle, with “name-calling …we teach that it’s the little things you do can make you a better person, or not.” One student volunteer reports there is some teasing from a few who do not understand the project, but the overwhelming majority of students are proud the Paper Clip Project is at Whitwell.

A 2004 award winning documentary “Paper Clips” introduced the world to the project. A book was published in 2005, to include a turtleback school and library binding edition. The project has grown to an interactive service-learning program for 5th grade students and above.

And it all started with the raise of a student’s hand and a simple question.

For tour and Memorial information, here:
http://www.whitwellmiddleschool.org/?PageName=bc&n=69256

For information on the interactive service-learning program “One Clip at a Time”:
http://oneclipatatime.org

To purchase the documentary go here:

http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Clips-David-Smith/dp/B000CMNJF4

To purchase the book go here:
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Million-Paper-Clips-Childrens/dp/158013176X/ref=pd_sim_mov_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0M8ETVF7KR4EE4M6DXBB

____

Judith A. Yates is currently completing a PhD in Criminal Justice. She has taught at several schools, within the field of law enforcement; has worked as trainer, attended classes across the country, and has been a mentor in several programs. Her website can be found at judithayates.com.

Latest Posts