Diversity

Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Higher Education, list, Matthew Lynch

4 Fascinating Truths about First-Generation College Students

College attendance has become less of a privilege and more of a necessity in the contemporary workforce. This cultural shift is a reflection of President Obama’s goal of having the largest percentage of college graduates out of all the countries in the world by 2020. With this push has come an influx of students that may not have been part of the college scene as early as a decade ago. Availability of courses online and expansion of options at the community college level have paved the way for non-traditional students to earn degrees and a better living. A growing demographic in college attendance and graduation are first-generation students.

First-generation college students face a unique set of challenges, and some of them may just surprise you. Here are some fascinating truths about first-generation college students.

  1. Half of the college population consists of first-generation students. A 2010 study by the Department of Education found that 50 percent of the college population is made up of first-generation students, or those whose parents did not receive education beyond a high school diploma. The National Center for Education Statistics released numbers in 2010 that broke down the educational levels of parents of current college attendees. Minority groups made up the largest demographics of students with parents that had a high school education or less, with 48.5 percent of Latino and Hispanic students and 45 percent of Black or African-American students included. The parents of students of Asian descent came in at 32 percent with a high school diploma or less and Native Americans at 35 percent. Of students that identified themselves as Caucasian, only 28 percent were first-generation college students.

Though higher in minority groups, these numbers show the overarching trend of first-generation college attendance in all American demographics. While an education is viewed as an advantage in the job marketplace, the degree alone does not automatically lead to better opportunities and pay. In order to ensure optimal career success in the growing group of first-generation college students, the specific needs of these young people must be addressed – beyond what lies in textbooks.

  1. First-generation students are less prepared to make the most out of their education. The simple assumption is that a higher number of educated first-generation college students will translate to better jobs for these graduates and a better quality of life. The answer to the equation is just not that simple, however. Even with a college degree, first-generation students often come from low-income, minority or immigrant families and do not have the same set of life skills and personal capital of middle-to-high income bracket students.

Parents of first-generation students also do not have the life experience to adequately guide their children to the next step in succeeding in the college-educated workforce. A 2004 report in the Journal of Higher Education put it this way: “first-generation students… may be less prepared than similar students whose parents are highly educated, to make the kind of informed choices… that potentially maximize educational progression and benefits.”

The transition from a college setting to a full-time career is often bumpy for all college students, especially first-generation graduates. The things learned in a classroom simply cannot adequately translate to the real-world; in addition to “book smarts” colleges and universities have a responsibility to prepare attendees, particularly first-generation ones, for the challenges of the modern workforce.

  1. Mentorship and academic success programs go a long way in helping first-generation college students. There are some federally funded programs in place to address the specific issues that face first-generation college students, like the TRIO and Robert McNair programs that lend academic and tutoring services to this group. The problem with these programs, and others like them, is that they are not required for college graduation and are vastly underutilized. A better approach is proactive mentorship and advising that mandates interaction between students and professors or other staff members that can provide real-world guidance. These programs would focus on the translation of knowledge to marketplace settings from people that know the ropes.
  2. Some students may need to learn how to apply what they learn to the real world. Colleges and universities should place continued focus on developing skills and employability among students. Schools with especially high numbers of first-generation students, like California State University Dominquez Hills, have implemented workforce “101” courses to up the social and intellectual skills of future graduates. It is not enough to assume that students inherently know how to apply classroom skills to a real-world environment, particularly in the case of first-generation ones.

Researching the needs of these students should be a priority of all institutions of higher education as it would help them form a better-prepared student body and strong workforce.

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

Diverse Conversations: Affordability Makes Diversity Possible on College Campuses

By Matthew Lynch

Colleges use the buzz word “diversity” when talking about their ideal student populations, but ideals and reality do not always add up. Dr. Paul Porter is the director of multicultural affairs at the University of Scranton and knows firsthand how important support programs are for minority and international students. Before his current role, he served as the director of the first-year experience program at the university, working to help students adapt to the demands of a college setting.

I spoke with Dr. Porter about his current role at the University of Scranton and what trends in diversity he expects to see in the coming years.

Q: How do affordable college options play into diversity?

A: The altruistic response is that they avail campuses to a multitude of self-identifying populations, while also creating a powerful educational experience in the classroom and beyond. However, they also call attention to the desperate need for institutional introspection. Before exploring the effects of affordability, campuses have to wonder if they are truly ready for population change. What type of experiences await students as campuses diversify? Are institutions appropriately preparing faculty and staff to engage an evolving student population and address potential changes in campus climate? Maybe most immediately, do we clearly understand our own frailties, prejudices, and concerns, as well as their influence on our institutional profile? Without a keen exploration of these issues, diversity of any kind becomes problematic.

Q: What trends in multicultural learning/campuses do you see coming in the next five years?

A: Preparation for a cultural reality that we’ve talked about but still remains unseen. For example, the increasingly blurred line between racial minority and majority; intensified discourses surrounding gender equity and the potentiality of more women in high level leadership roles (e.g. the White House); and even a reconstructed definition of marriage. I think it is safe to assume that we will be challenged to speak candidly yet sensitively about a continuously evolving social landscape – ESPECIALLY as these realities affect the climate of our campuses and the lives our students. But I’m also hopeful for a broader conversation that is more inclusive of not only the wealth of identities that shape our world view, but also the intricacies that emerge when those identities intersect.

Q: Is there still an advantage for students to attend a college campus, over online courses?

A: Absolutely! We live in a world in which people can disconnect themselves from human interaction far too easily, and our overuse of technology is the force that enables it. We don’t talk anymore. We have become cold to the human condition. However, the college campus as a social structure has done, by far, the best job of accommodating our digital obsession without dehumanizing us. Online courses, while convenient, don’t offer the type of engaged dialogue that takes place in the classroom. There is no service learning, or co-curricular activities like intercollegiate forensics (speech and debate). It’s called school spirit for a reason, and that reason is simple: campus is the physical space that plays host to the soul of a college or university. It is the one thing you cannot download. There’s no “app” for that.
Q: Do you think that being a small campus helps or hurts diversity at The University of Scranton?

A: It helps, primarily because the responsibility of maintaining a welcoming and inclusive environment sweeps across campus. Diversity is not a goal at The University of Scranton, it is an expectation. We all work from the “top-down” to ensure that it remains embedded in our institutional identity.

Q: What does your international student population look like?

A: We host approximately 130 international students and scholars, representing 20 countries, and our campus has experiences a gradual increase in enrollment every year. We have a strong Saudi Arabian student presence and a thriving Latino/Latina population.

Q: What programs/initiatives are in place to make The University of Scranton a truly multicultural place?

A: Maintaining a campus climate that celebrates multiculturalism is deeply rooted in our Jesuit Catholic tradition. From the lens of our Office of Multicultural Affairs, we pride ourselves on a philosophy that reframes the word multicultural to broaden the scope of students we serve. We are conscious of identities such as veteran status, geographic location, family structure, political preference, mental/physical ability, and body type when developing our programming, initiatives, visions, and goals. More importantly, we recognize and honor those identities without side-stepping or diluting the complexities of “traditional” cultural topics (e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.). We provide safe and nurturing spaces for all members of the campus community to develop, understand their cultural identities; and then encourage affective and appropriate means of expression.

I’d like to thank Dr. Porter for his insight and sharing his expertise with us.

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

2 Ways Educational Opportunity Has Risen 80 Percent Since 1970

According to the Historical Report of Opportunity, released by Opportunity Nation and Measure of America, educational opportunity has escalated by 80 percent since 1970. The Report defines Educational Opportunity as the number of children in preschool, the number of high school students who graduate on time, and the number of adults with an associate’s degree or higher. Over the past four decades, Massachusetts improved the most; Nevada, the least.

Let’s look a bit closer at how educational opportunity has manifested itself in the United States.

  1. More kids in preschool: Between 1970 and 2010, the number of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool increased by nearly four times, emphasizing the growing awareness of the benefits of early childhood education. Studies show that low-income children who attend high-quality preschool are more successful academically and more likely to graduate from high school and enroll in postsecondary education. Some states have cut funding for public pre-K, yet early childhood education continues to be a priority in many states.
  2. More adults getting degrees: Every state experienced growth in the percentage of adults aged 25 or older who obtained at least an associate’s degree. This indicates the changing global economy that requires higher levels of education of employees. During the four decades measured, Americans with at least an associate’s degree increased by 105 percent.

In 2013, 28 percent of children nationwide were enrolled in state-financed preschool. While 36.3 percent of Americans have at least an associate’s degree, economists predict that by 2020, two-thirds of American jobs will require some form of post-secondary degree or credential.

While Americans should be proud of the educational improvements our country has seen, we need to continue, or even pick up the pace to ensure people possess the skills required to build a powerful 21st-century workforce. This report acts as a good reminder to value the importance of education as the pathway to many of life’s successes.

Readers, what do you think about the educational improvements America has seen over the past several decades? Are these improvements good enough, or should we expect even more than what is happening? Let’s see your thoughts in the comment section below.

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

6 Facts You Must Know About Student Loans and College Debt

If the P-12 education system is all about preparing its students for success in adulthood, then college preparation is obviously a must. In the fall of 2012, 66 percent of high school graduates from that year were enrolled in college, and that number does not include students that waited longer to enroll or non-traditional adult students. It seems that P-12 classrooms are getting more students ready for the academic demands of a college education – but what about the financial commitment? In this article, we will discuss 6 facts that you must know about student loans and college debt.

Currently, there is a call for a more affordable college education, which makes sense. It comes on the heels of a recession that undercut the value of a college education. Even those with a college degree were not immune to the financial hit that the economy took and those still paying off their student loans were often left without the very job they had always assumed would pay off their educational debts.

In this article, I’m going to discuss a few interesting facts and statistics about student loans and debt that will hopefully trigger a conversation about possible solutions to make college more affordable in this country.

  1. Graduates with advanced degrees are not immune to inordinate debt.

A study by the Urban Institute found that almost 300,000 Americans with master’s degrees were on public relief, along with 30,000 with doctorates. The average debt of a college graduate is $35,200 and that can take decades to pay off.

  1. Half of black graduates finish school with $25,000 or more in debt.

A recent Gallup poll found that in the last 14 years, around half of black college students graduated with student loan debt exceeding $25,000. Only 35 percent of white students had loan debt that high.

Often the only way for black students to afford a college education is by taking on these loans. Four out of five black students take student loans to attend college and typically have nearly $4,000 more student loan debt compared to white students, according to a 2013 report by The Center for American Progress.

There is deep inequality here in the U.S. In 2013, the median income for black households was $34,600, and the poverty rate is 27%, nearly three times that of white Americans.

  1. College students with high debt suffer long-term health issues.

According to a new study via Gallup.com, college graduates “who took on the highest amounts of student debt, $50,000 or more, are less likely than their fellow graduates who did not borrow for college to be thriving in four of five elements of well-being: purpose, financial, community, and physical.”

The survey has an area of 25-years as Gallup only polled individuals who graduated college between 1990-2014. What the study found is that graduates who are burdened with $50,000 or more in student loan debt may struggle to repay their loans, which in turn has causes them to delay making large purchases, e.g. buying a new home.

Those saddled with debt are unable to save as much as their counterparts who do not have as much debt or none at all, and Gallup’s “thriving gap,” percentages between those with $50,000 in debt less the percentage of student’s without it, shows an 11 point percentage spread between the two parties.

The study also found that more recent college graduates seem to be performing worse than those who graduated prior to 2000. Those who obtained a college degree between the years of 1990-1999 are doing better socially, physically, and in purpose.

Student loan debt now outweighs credit card debt and has surpassed $1 trillion. With wage growth still stagnant and many individuals going without full employment, this will mean more health issues and many former graduates with void savings accounts as well.

These issues are not left ignored, however. The next few facts about college debt will focus on the solutions proposed and implemented to tackle the issue of college affordability. For example:

  1. President Obama has reformed student loans.

The Obama Administration has spearheaded college loan reform at the federal level. No stranger to student debt himself (nor the First Lady), he has implemented payment reform starting this year. Under this new plan:

  • New borrowers will pay no more than 10 percent of their disposable income towards outstanding student loans.
  • Any student debt remaining will be wiped clean after 20 years.
  • Public service employees, like military members, nurses or teachers, will have their debt forgiven in 10 years if they make their payments on time.
  1. Senator Marco Rubio and Oregon propose “paying it forward” instead of paying loans back.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio spoke about his own efforts in his home state of Florida, and perhaps on a federal level, to make college attendance a shared cost. Rubio is no stranger to college debt. When he arrived at the U.S. Senate, he still had $100,000 in outstanding student loans. Rubio has been upfront about his modest upbringing and also the power his education gave him but he has acknowledged that the cost is too high. The basics of his college plan would allow private investors to pay for the tuition of college students in exchange for a portion of their earnings later on. This would mean the students acquired no traditional debt and would not start out their careers in the hole – at least not in a typical way.

Another college payment idea that is arising across the country is a state-run repayment program that is similar to Rubio’s private investor one. Already in Oregon the Pay It Forward program has been approved (though not yet enacted) that will give students their public college education upfront, free of cost, in exchange for paying the state a portion of their earnings post-college. Supporters bill it as a “debt free” alternative to a college education, but like Rubio’s plan there is still money owed at the end of the college term that does impact actual earnings. It will be interesting to keep an eye on Oregon in the coming years to see how the program impacts the first groups of students who take advantage of it.

  1. Tennessee and Bernie Sanders want to make education free.

What if a public college education were completely free, though? That’s the approach Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam wants to take when it comes to the state’s community colleges. At his State of the State address, he called for free tuition at Tennessee’s community colleges in order to improve the state’s reputation as one of the least educated. Haslam proposed that the money to pay for it come from the state’s lottery earnings that would be placed in a $300 million endowment fund. While a short-term solution, I’m not sure that this is a sustainable payment plan. But if even one class of students in the state are able to take advantage of it, that may make a huge positive impact on Tennessee’s long-term economic outlook.

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has proposed trying to ease the student loan debt burden that many college graduates now carry and he’s proposing something even more radical: free college tuition to students who attend four-year colleges and universities.

Sanders plans to present his proposal later this week as a way to encourage future labor participation and to combat the ever growing problem with student loan debt.

In his press release about his college tuition bill, Sanders also said that he believes passage of this legislation will help place the United States back at the top of the world in the percentage of people who graduate from college.

According to the Boston Globe by way of commondreams.org, the class of 2015 will carry a student loan debt of $56 billion and is “the most indebted class in history.”

Sanders’ bill has a close to zero percent chance of passing. Still–one has to admire his way of thinking. Student loan debt is out of control and so is the price of tuition at many of the country’s best colleges and universities. For lower income students, they are usually preyed upon by for-profit institutions with promises of attaining a college degree and future job placement.

What do you think about the current affordability of college in the United States? Do you think that any of the proposed solutions come close to hitting the mark?

 

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

Explainer: why transgender students need “safe” bathrooms

Alison Gash, University of Oregon

Bathroom safety has become the next battle for transgender students on college campuses across the nation.

Often referred to as “bathroom desegregation,” calls for safer bathrooms have inspired “shit-ins” at California Polytechnic and San Diego State, where transgender advocates asked student allies to use only gender-neutral restrooms.

Recently, “urine” blockades also confronted Berkeley students at Sather Gate, the main entrance to campus. Advocates filled plastic cups with fake urine and lined them up to greet students as they crossed the threshold into campus to protest inadequate restrooms for transgender students.

Why all the contention over bathrooms? Recent studies suggest that over 50% of transgender individuals will experience sexual assault in their lifetime (a rate that is far higher than for nontransgendered individuals), and using bathrooms could pose a significant threat of physical harm or harassment.

Fear of violence

Studies show that transgender students could be harassed, sexually assaulted or subjected to other physical violence when they are required to use a gendered bathroom.

One survey, commissioned by the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA, found that 68% of participants were subjected to homophobic slurs while trying to use the bathroom. Nine percent confronted physical violence.

Another study that surveyed transgender individuals in Washington, DC found that 70% were either verbally threatened, physically assaulted or prevented in some way from using the bathroom of their choice. Some experienced more than one form of such behavior.

Yet another survey found that 26% of transgender students in New York were denied access to their preferred bathrooms altogether.

Redesigning bathrooms

As a result, transgender students need to constantly weigh the trade-offs as they consider bathroom options.

As one University of Washington student articulates:

Do I choose physical safety or emotional safety? Do I choose physical health or mental health?

Universities are bringing in policies to have gender-neutral bathrooms.
Ted Eytan, CC BY-SA

So, from California to Texas, in elementary schools and colleges, administrators are considering the costs and benefits of redesigning bathrooms to accommodate transgender students.

For example, students at University of Pittsburgh can now use bathrooms that conform to their own gender identity. Arizona State University, Ohio State and Wesleyan University, among several others, have instituted policies requiring all new construction to include gender-neutral bathrooms. They are assessing how to modify the existing bathrooms to become gender-neutral single-stall facilities.

This is not limited to colleges and universities. As increasing numbers of primary- and secondary-school-aged children are identifying as transgender, public schools have become “ground zero” for fights over bathroom safety.

Miraloma Elementary School, in San Francisco, for instance, removed gendered signs from many of their bathrooms.

In fact, about two years ago, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the School Success and Opportunity Act, requiring that all students be able to access bathrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their own gender identity in California’s K-12 settings.

The ‘bathroom bill’ opposition

But as with other issues concerning transgender rights, some have reacted to these changes with visceral opposition.

For instance, Wisconsin, along with several other states, is considering legislation that would require school districts to only provide separate-gendered bathrooms as a way to stop local school districts from accommodating requests from transgender students.

An elementary school student in Stafford County, Virginia, was prohibited from using the bathroom associated with her gender identity after parents and politicians in the state spoke out against the student’s request.

In fact, opposition to these bathroom accommodations figured prominently in the initiative to vote down Houston’s recent antidiscrimination ordinance, which would have, like hundreds of others across the nation, prohibited discrimination in housing, gender and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among others.

Opponents dubbed it the “bathroom bill,” framing the policy as one that would permit “men in women’s bathrooms” and would expose women and girls to sexual predators.

Consequently, the ordinance – subjected to public review under court order – failed with 61% of the voters.

This opposition exists even when transgender advocates have not only focused on their own risks but have also invoked the needs of students with disabilities, those who may need “family bathrooms” and students who have survived sexual abuse and are more comfortable with single-stall facilities.

And now, Privacy for All, a group dedicated to opposing transgender bathroom advocacy, is hoping to launch a similar campaign in California. It is currently collecting signatures to bar any public institution from permitting individuals to use bathrooms or changing rooms that comport with their gender identity.

Federal intervention has sent out mixed signals as well. On the one hand, the Department of Education issued a letter to an Illinois school district stating that denying a transgender student’s rights to access a bathroom consistent with their gender identity is a violation of Title IX.

On the other hand, a federal court rejected a transgender student’s claim that his equal rights were violated when his university rejected his request to use a locker room that matched his gender identity.

Need for safety

At this point, for most transgender students, bathroom options are limited.

Transgender students need safe spaces.
Ted Eytan, CC BY-SA

Either they have to travel quite a distance to get to the nearest single-stall gender-neutral bathroom, or change in an “alternative” locker room (often a faculty bathroom or custodial closet).

There could even be days when they go to class in their workout clothes or “hold it in.” Hence, demonstrating Berkeley students held out signs that said: “Where was I supposed to go?” or “I couldn’t hold it any longer.”

Such options have clear drawbacks and health risks. Urinary tract infections, depression and even suicide could be among them.

As a result, sometimes students see their best option as renting a house near campus so they can go home to use the bathroom.

As we mark World Toilet Day by campaigning on behalf of the billions of individuals who lack access to safe, clean sanitation, remember that among those denied access to safe bathrooms are transgender students.

The Conversation

Alison Gash, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Education News, Teachers

How we should discuss racism with students?

**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 column by Gary Hamilton

The terrible tragedy at a church in Charleston, the circumstances surrounding the death of Sandra Bland, the anniversary of Michael Brown’s shooting, and countless acts of racially-motivated violence have once again reminded us that racism still continues today. Messages of hate and prejudice – the Confederate flag, the inequities in our systems of justice and education, and the media’s standard response to events involving people of color – continue to cause feelings of fatigue and isolation.

It is still hard for us as a country to fully acknowledge the racism that permeates the US. Especially in our schools, where we too often dodge or soften conversations about racial issues.

To bring about healing and impact change, I believe that teachers must have difficult conversations about race in order to bring about unity and understanding. We have the platform to achieve this, but we need to step away from the shadows of implicit messages. We have to speak openly and guide our students as well as each other through these challenging issues.

Teachers must be able to talk openly about racial issues.

Educators frequently engage in heated professional discussions with one another, yet when topics of race emerge we feel that we must walk on eggshells. To me, this is a serious problem. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding each other and feeling free to share our cultures and histories. Our differences sustain who we are, and in order to create pathways for our students to feel accepted for who they are, we must foster these conversations.

I often find that some of my white colleagues stumble when speaking about issues that specifically affect the black community, if they address them at all. Maybe they feel uncomfortable and worry that I will place blame on them. Maybe they are unsure how to present their questions without offending me. But to eliminate the pitfalls of sugar-coated explanations or weak rationale for terrible acts of violence that occur, we need to be able to talk openly and honestly about racial issues.

How can we foster this? We can engage in controlled, passionate, solution-oriented conversations. In these conversations, we need to remember to leave our judgments at the door, to remain open-minded, and continue to demonstrate respect, even when we disagree. It is also important to assess the tone of the room, as some conversations are not ready for those who tend to play the devil’s advocate. Starting with validation can place individuals at ease and increase the likelihood of a healthy discussion. As educators, we can encourage these conversations with our students, their parents, and with one another.

Conversations about race are important to clarify generalizations.

I fear that my students may see the surveillance footage and media images of the man responsible for the Charleston attack, and think that the odious crimes against black people are perpetuated by all white people. The myriad of recent events where white police officers have abused their authority and acted with unwarranted violence towards black people keeps this belief afloat. Not having the space to ask questions openly about events such as these leads to stereotypes, fear, and hate.

We must acknowledge the danger of our country plunging into the abyss of racial divides. We were once and in many ways continue to be a country that treads lines of black versus white issues. We must prevent students from viewing the world through this lens by teaching them how the tainted ideology of a person can negatively impact all people. It is important to not distort the truth, but the format we use to tailor and present the truth is essential to how it will be processed.

We must remove the spotlight from the bad guy.

The spotlight should instead be shined on the inequalities within our justice system and our education system and the detrimental impact this has on minorities. It should be shined on strengthening gun control and safety laws and the increasing need for readily accessible mental health services. We need to stop focusing the perpetrators of these crimes and start focusing on systemic inequities that spur racism.

I trust that we are a nation that understands the menu for healing, but we cannot atone for ferocious acts without examining the root causes of racially-charged hate crimes. It is time that we move away from a place of fault and blame and into a place of realistic improvement for all people.

As we embrace the families whose loved ones have been lost through senseless acts of racially-motivated violence, we must recognize that history is repeating itself and that racism is still alive and well today. This truth is masked by the media and by our daily interactions with one another, where we avoid conversations about racial issues. To move forward, we need to have difficult conversations about the racism in our country. We can start these conversations in our classrooms.

___________________

GaryHamilton

Gary Hamilton grew up in the Dallas Independent School District, and is now a 5th grade special education teacher at Wheatley Education Campus in Washington, D.C.   He has been teaching for 9 years.  Gary is an America Achieves Fellow, a teacher trainer for the Flamboyan Foundation, and a Teacher Selection Ambassador for the District of Columbia Public Schools.

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

How children with disabilities came to be accepted in public schools

Jean Crockett, University of Florida

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

So did I.

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

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

I didn’t know what to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What it was like in the 1970s

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

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

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

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

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

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

What changed with a new law

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the law evolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way forward

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

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

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

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

But he would also be facing some challenges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conversation

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

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

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

3 Things Every Educator Should Know about Supporting LGBT Students

With a staggering 90 percent of LGBT students experiencing verbal harassment related to their sexual orientation, it is obvious that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, or LGBT, students have additional barriers to overcome. Dealing with discrimination toward LGBT students is a very real concern for teachers and though students have come a long way, they can still be cruel to those that they perceive as different. Peers of LGBT students frequently single them out for bullying and physical and verbal abuse.

Bullying has real implications for LGBT students, leading to high rates of absenteeism. Thus, as an educator, it is important to consider these three things as we strive to make our educational environments safer for LGBT students.

  1. Mental health is a serious issue. As Dr. Victor Schwartz, medical director of a non-profit organization that promotes emotional health among college students has discussed previously, LGBT students in particular often struggle with mental health problems. Suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teens. Transgendered teens are 20 times more likely to contemplate, attempt, and complete suicide.

To help someone who is struggling with their sexuality—or with others’ attitudes regarding their sexuality—Schwartz recommends that you “make sure they know you are supportive and willing to talk about anything. Let them make decisions about their sexual orientation on their own terms and when they are ready. If someone reveals their sexual orientation to you, it is important to be supportive and allow them to talk through their feelings and fears. Coming out can be a difficult process and it helps to have a strong support network.”

  1. Anti-gay bullying contributes to an achievement gap. The levels of harassment targeting LGBT students sometimes lead to absenteeism, and even to dropping out of school completely and never obtaining that very important high school diploma.

LGBT students of color are three times more likely to skip school because they do not view schools as safe places, adding to the achievement gap between the races that educational policymakers are so desperately trying to narrow.

  1. Teachers have a legal responsibility to address anti-gay abuse in schools. Legislation indicates that failure to intervene in these circumstances may jeopardize teaching certificates and licenses.  Lambda Legal Defense cautions that if teachers and counselors are not actively helpful (or worse, hurtful) they may be guilty of legal violation in their failure to address the abusive anti-gay behavior.  In many states, this could jeopardize a teacher’s certificate, as some state laws expressly forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In recent years, many high schools have formed Gay-Straight Alliance clubs.  Like other after-school special interest clubs, supportive teachers sponsor these groups, and meet periodically to plan social events, public and community service projects, and promote understanding among all students.  Sometimes these organizations meet with resistance from the community, administrators, and school officials on the grounds of conservatism, avoidance of controversy, and the fear of promoting an agenda counter to the majority values of the local demographic.  Make no mistake, however, GSA clubs are protected under the Equal Access Act [20 U.S.C. § 4071], which states that if a school receives federal funding and has non-curricular clubs, a Gay/Straight Alliance student group is entitled to recognition just like any other student group.

It does not matter what a teacher’s personal ideology is. As educators, we have a professional commitment to make the classroom and the school a safe environment for all students.  Educators must provide positive role models and supportive, responsive intervention.  We must actively deliver the message that bullying, prejudice and hate are wrong in all circumstances.  All school personnel are responsible for keeping abusive language and behavior out of the classroom and the school culture.

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

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

Should We Rewrite American History Books?

“History has a point of view; it cannot be all things to all people.” – Samuel Taylor

When it comes to textbooks, every school district in the nation has its own system for ordering. What a district chooses impacts what the students in those boundaries learn. When it comes to subjects like math, science and even English there are some absolute truths that must be followed. When it comes to history or social sciences though, there is some wiggle room. These subjects have their own facts, of course, but the perspective can make all the difference. Of all topics, these have the ability to be biased or slanted towards a particular group.

Since the early 1990s there has been a push to make the American history lessons taught in K-12 classrooms more multicultural in their approach. From the truth behind Christopher Columbus’ alleged ruthless ways to the acknowledgment that Thomas Jefferson bore children with his slaves, the Puritanical, patriotic approach to America’s founders has been questioned – at least by some. Is it right to put these men on a pedestal? Is it wrong to point out their flaws? Which is more important – the truth or shared nationalistic beliefs?

The latest iteration of these arguments comes out of Texas. A coalition of Hispanic-American educators and over 50 organizations have petitioned the State Board ofEducation to have Mexican-American history placed on a list of over 200 electives available in Texas high schools. The list in place now includes electives like Web gaming and floral design. The petition is meeting opposition, however, because of the danger of its “leftist” ideals. Board members also cite the expense (one former member cited “millions” when it comes to price tag) and say that there is no reason to officially add the course since school districts already have the authority to teach it if they want.

Given that logic, there was probably never a need to add floral design, or Web gaming, to the official list either. Yet somewhere along the way that “cost” was justified.

Yet the history of the state told from the perspective of the ancestors of its majority student group is not worth putting on the official list.
The refusal in Texas speaks volumes to the opposing histories that exist in this country. American history has come to mean anything from a migratory European perspective. But the term “American” itself cannot be contained to just one simple definition, or one region of the world. The people here are multicultural and multiethnic, and each home country’s history IS a part of the American one. Yet some educators would rather compartmentalize the rich, vibrant and diverse histories into teachable units with a common theme. I don’t believe that gives students a full perspective on their histories and those of their fellow citizens. The narrowness in our own history classrooms leads to greater close-mindedness when it comes to other areas of the world, too.

There are history and social studies teachers who do a good job presenting more than one side to each story, and those teachers should be applauded for their efforts. But for K-12 students to have a fuller, well-informed view on their own histories and futures, courses like Mexican-American history need to be taught, along with Asian-American, African-American and any other type of “American” ones. We need to give our students the credit to come to their own conclusions about their country, and not leave out inconvenient details. By essentially censoring what they learn, we do our students a great disservice and our country, too.

What do you think? Is it possible to expand the depth of history classes and still have students with shared values?

 

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

How can HBCUs raise more alumni dollars?

Anyone following Historically Black Colleges and Universities knows that it has been a tumultuous few years. Saint Paul’s College closing its doors to new students and placing current students at other schools. Morris Brown College filing for federal bankruptcy protection. Most recently, the nation’s oldest HBCU, 119-year-old South Carolina State University, declared financial exigency.

Between schools being shuttered or declaring bankruptcy, it’s a distressing time for HBCUs and anyone attending or working at them. Online colleges, robust diversity programs at predominantly white institutions and more affordable community college offerings are all competing for the students who once could really only find a quality education at a HBCU.

Finding ways to keep these institutions relevant is more important than ever and that includes one part of financial responsibility that I believe is being overlooked: alumni giving.

HBCU graduates are some of the proudest in the country, often with a stronger sense of social responsibility than their PWI-graduate peers. Yet HBCUs aren’t doing a strong enough job tying that pride back into alumni giving programs. Case in point: Harvard raised a record-breaking $752 million in alumni and other gifts in the fiscal year 2013. At HBCU “black Ivy League” Spelman College saw just $157.8 million ($20 million from alumni) during its Every Woman Every Campaign in 2013 that was a special, targeted campaign beyond normal annual endeavors.

Perhaps comparing Harvard’s financial gifts to any other school isn’t completely fair, but it does give an idea of what HBCUs are up against in the non-elite college market. If Spelman, considered the “best” HBCU, can only bring in one-fifth of the giving of Harvard in a year when Spelman aggressively went after donations, what does that say for every other HBCU?

An even better question is this: What can HBCU alumni giving campaigns improve upon to bring in more dollars to benefit their current crop of students?

Make college affordable.

Even the best college education will come with resentment attached once a student has to start paying back those burdensome loans. HBCUs have a better shot at alumni giving back once a college education is paid off, so why not make that debt burden lighter? HBCUs have some of the best statistics when it comes to financial aid in the form of Pell grants and scholarships and these institutions should continue to push for the funding to make obtaining a degree affordable – particularly for minority and first-generation college students. More money in these graduates’ pockets will translate into more alumni giving in the early years following graduation.

Personalize giving.

I don’t know about you, but getting a standard alumni giving form in the mail with a return envelope does not usually inspire me to pull out my checkbook. The same is true of emails without much personality. Instead of just asking for the money, HBCUs need to put faces and causes along with the requests. What are some of the upcoming projects that this money could go towards? Who will receive scholarships from this giving? Even non-glamorous giving campaigns that go towards basic infrastructure have a better shot of meeting goals if alumni are informed of what money is being solicited to do. HBCU alumni who can associate their own positive memories with money-making campaigns are more likely to want to be a part of making those things happen.

Get alumni involved before they leave campus.

Don’t wait until students are off campus to solicit them for help facilitating the college experience of the classes who follow them. Cash in on the good feelings that accompany graduation time from both the students earning degrees and their families. Even those who don’t have much may be willing to give a little to keeping the college dream alive for other students who are still trying to accomplish their academic goals. Set up a table outside commencement with giving forms and other alumni information. Have literature that explains to students how alumni giving dollars have facilitated what they’ve enjoyed while on campus. Send out an email blast to soon-to-be graduates that invites them to visit the alumni website, like its Facebook page, and join its official club. Don’t wait to chase alumni down after they’ve left; rope them in before they leave and keep them active in the coming years.

Just as HBCUs have a responsibility to get their students workforce-ready, alumni have a responsibility to give back to their institutions. HBCUs need to do a better job of conveying that though and encouraging former students to step up to the plate.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

  • no reactions
0
Share