list

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, list, Matthew Lynch

Wasted Data: 5 Facts about Why We Don’t Use Existing Student Databases

It’s no secret that technology implementation in P-12 schools comes with some serious red tape. While American colleges and universities tend to be at the forefront of innovative ways of learning, childhood education lags seriously behind. A recent PBS study found that while 90 percent of P-12 classrooms have at least one computer, only 35 percent have tablets or electronic readers. The amount of policy writing that goes into allowing “new” technology like tablets, let alone the budget for them, makes it prohibitive for most schools to implement the equipment in reasonable time frames.

But what about technology that already exists in P-12 classrooms, but in less flashy ways? Consider the database technology behind virtually every school system in the country. If you are not too familiar with it, here are a few facts you should know.

  1. Schools have electronic storage of everything from basic address information of students to their in-class progress in an array of subjects. Schools often track other factors too like socioeconomic status and other defining features like racial background and family circumstances. This private data collection on students starts long before the traditional start of school. Early childhood programs in every state keep track of student information and progress too.
  2. The problem with all of this data keeping is that the numbers are usually kept in isolation. Beginning with early childhood education, individual schools do not reach out to each other or across state lines when it comes to student progress and innovative teaching methods.
  3. A recent study released by The Early Childhood Collaboration found that Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation with a system for linking student data across all education programs, from early childhood learning through grade 12. Progressive California has absolutely no data linking programs in place and no plans to start one. As the report points out:

“Comprehensive and connected data on children, programs, and the workforce are used to track progress over time, pinpoint problems, identify underserved groups, and allocate limited resources.”

  1. It’s simply easier not to use the data collected. Despite such a treasure trove of data, student information seems to be recorded simply for posterity. It’s clearly not impossible to share the information (Pennsylvania does it) but states do not seem to be rushing to do it. Such an undertaking would certainly require an upfront cost which could be behind the hesitancy – but I wonder how much of the delay is simply the convenience of the status quo. Student data has always been collected for internal use, or to satisfy specific state requirements, so going above and beyond that is scary territory. How will schools find the manpower for the extra steps of sharing, and analyzing? Who will be in charge of storing the data? What about student privacy?
  2. Using these databases can change how we create and implement policies. I understand the logic behind the questions listed in the last paragraph, but these are all minor impositions. It has never been easier to connect all of the nation’s student data sets in order to build a better picture of what America’s P-12 student body looks like today, and set goals for improvement based on actual statistics. Like these databases, many education policies are created in isolation. What if the people who wrote those policies had a complete data set to inform their choices? How quickly would education legislation transform from theory to actionable plans based on fact?

The ECDC report recommends that states strengthen their abilities to securely link to student data amongst their schools, and to expand the information that is screened and collected. Some less tangible advice would be for educators and policymakers to realize the value of interconnected student information and begin to consider the true possibilities of combining that knowledge.

Would you support greater sharing of student data across schools, systems and states?

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

5 Leadership Styles that Can Transform Education As We Know It

When considering school reform, it’s often easy to think of factors such as who is responsible (teachers, parents, school systems, the government?), or of funding issues such as the fact that 23 states spend less on poor schools than on more affluent schools.

Of course all the obvious factors are important. But what about leadership? Not just who is leading the change, but how. Fortunately, when it comes to developing an ideal for effective leadership, there’s no need to invent the wheel. There are several leadership styles that prominent leaders in any school reform movement can choose to embody. Here are five of them:

  1. Constructivist Leadership

The theory of social constructivism tells us that social worlds develop out of individuals’ interactions with their culture and society. Putting it simply, every interaction between people is an opportunity to expand one’s knowledge base.

Any educator who wants to apply social constructivism theories to education needs to reframe his point of view. He is no longer a “person who teaches” but is rather a “facilitator of learning.” A good constructivist teacher questions students’ answers, without regard to whether they are right or wrong, to make sure the student has a good grasp of the concept. Additionally, instructors should have their students explain the answers they give and not allow students to use words or equations without explanations. They should also encourage students to reflect on their answers.

Constructivism is by nature a shared experience. Constructivist learning attaches as much meaning to the process of learning as it does to the acquisition of new knowledge. In other words, the journey is just as important as the destination.

  1. Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is all about perception. It only works if it is able to influence the follower’s feelings. But when it works, it really works! Charismatic and inspiring, transformational leaders are well versed in the power of language and imagery.

The positive connection between transformational leadership and job satisfaction is so strong, we should almost expect an opposite result in organizations that do not take advantage of this unique leadership style. A leader, such as a principal or dean, who switches to a transformational style needs to understand how she can influence how tasks are perceived among her followers.

Transformational leadership is so powerful that research has shown that transformational leaders are appreciated around the world. Research has also shown that transformational leaders inspire their followers by making them feel like they are autonomous and important to the larger cause.

Although transformational leadership is considered superior, there is one big drawback: a lot of people have a hard time embody the charismatic individual this style requires. No need to worry, though—there are other effective leadership models to consider.

  1. Distributed Leadership

Unlike other leadership styles, this model places its focus on tasks rather than on the qualities of the individual leader.

Two are two reasons distributed leadership came into prominence in the first place. First is the highly delicate nature of the “charismatic hero” that is the symbol of transformational leadership. Second of all, school leaders now have to handle tasks of greater complexity. The heroic leader is overrated—it’s the mundane, everyday activities that make the difference.

The interesting thing about distributed leadership is that it already works with how most public entities handle their affairs. Government does, after all, construct a goal that would require both school and non-school actors to distribute their efforts so that they can achieve this goal. This leadership models also works well when different organizations need to cooperate in their work-related goals.

There are a few leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, that are a part of a cultural movement toward considering the role of emotions in motivating people. However, the present focus on distributed leadership has a slightly different focus, one that is geared toward the weakening of traditional logic. Organized social structure, as a result, has given way to a “network culture.”

These new changes also indicate a change in the knowledge economy. We have begun to see a form of “socialism” in education, proven by the use of terms such as “universal education” to symbolize the trend toward viewing education as something other than a market commodity in this age. Governments around the world are set on creating a policy that ensures that literacy is achieved by all. The role of the school leader is therefore shifting from economic management to social management.

  1. Invitational Leadership

Created by William Purkey and Betty Siegel, invitational leadership blends several leadership qualities, values, and principles. They described the model as shifting from emphasizing control and dominance to focusing on connectedness, cooperation, and communication.

Invitational leadership aims at “inviting” all interested stakeholders to succeed. It involves sending positive messages to people, making them feel are valued, able, responsible, and worthwhile. The messages are often delivered through the institution’s policies, programs, practices, and physical environments. These are referred to as the five Ps of invitational leadership.

When implemented in the educational setting, the elements of invitational leadership combine to create an environment that is cohesive, efficient, and conducive to learning. Invitational leaders “invite” everyone who has a stake in the success of the school to participate, and synergy is generated as all work toward a common goal.

  1. Strategic Leadership

Strategy involves decision-making aimed at shaping the direction of the organization. In a school, creating strategy takes time, three to five years and beyond. Strategy also includes considering broader core issues and themes for development in the school, instead of day-to-day issues.
Strategic leadership defines the vision and moral purpose of the school and translates them into the desired action. In their analysis of data from interviews with leaders possessing high-level strategic skills, Davies, Davies, and Ellison (2005) found that strategic leaders participate in five main activities.

They set the direction of the school and translate their plans into action. They also align the people, the organization, and the strategy. They execute their planned changes at the right time, and they develop strategic capabilities in the school.

If leaders develop strategic abilities, they would achieve more, in the form of a reflective-learning culture in teaching staff, a no-blame problem-solving approach, and a deeper understanding of learning.

What do you think of these five leadership models? Are there better ones? Do you believe we should place an emphasis on leadership style as an important tool in education reform?

References

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by James Burns (1978), and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of James Burns’ work on transformational leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

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

5 Factors that Influence the Future of HBCUs

When HBCUs (or historically black colleges and universities) first began popping up in America, they were a necessity to higher educational paths for African American young people. Benefactors like John Rockefeller founded Spelman College in Atlanta (named after his wife, by the way) in order to give black students a shot in a nation still very much in the throes of Jim Crow laws. Most of the 105 HBCUs were founded in former slave areas that still presented steep challenges for African Americans that aspired to higher education but faced discrimination in predominantly white college settings.

HBCUs fulfilled their original intent. Some of the nation’s brightest and most influential minds came out of HBCUs. Langston Hughes was a Lincoln University graduate. Martin Luther King Jr. earned his degree from Morehouse College. Talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, education expert Marva Collins and Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons all earned degrees from HBCUs (from Tennessee State University, Clark Atlanta University and Dillard University, respectively). These powerful pillars of the African American community were able to achieve optimal success in life because of the education they received from HBCUs.

What about now? Do ambitious African American students really need a HBCU to achieve success? Perhaps a more poignant question is this: does it help or hinder the African American community when its members attend a HBCU today?

With various HBCUs closing their doors for good, the question is more pertinent than ever. Saint Paul’s College was forced to close its doors in 2013 after an unsuccessful merger attempt and unsustainably low enrollment figures. Atlanta’s Morris Brown College filed for federal bankruptcy protection after finding itself $35 million over its head.

Let’s take a look at five factors that will determine the future of HBCUs in this country.

  1. HBCUs are STEM powerhouses. HBCUs are important hubs for developing the greatest STEM minds in the nation, with 65 percent of all Black physicians and half of all Black engineers graduating from HBCUs. The Tuskegee University College of Engineering and Alabama A&M University of College Engineering, Technology and Physical Sciences are not just top engineering schools among HBCUs – they are among the best in the nation. Spelman College is the second largest school in the nation that sends Black undergraduates on to medical school. Jackson State University receives the highest amount of HBCU federal research funding every year, at $68 million, and is known for its “research intensive” programs.

Claflin University students work alongside the South Carolina Center for Biotechnology and receive hands-on industry training and connections in the field long before graduation. Xavier University of Louisiana has a consistently top-ranked pharmacy program and is a sought out school for those hoping to advance to medical school. Florida A&M University consistently ranks at the top of all colleges that graduate Black students with doctorates in natural sciences and engineering. In June, Fayetteville State was awarded a $718, 000 government research grant that included plans to oversee STEM instruction to local high school students. The advancements these schools are contributing to STEM fields are not just relevant, they are groundbreaking and an asset to the industries the graduates eventually serve.

  1. Government-mandated policy changes may damage HBCUs. In October of 2011, the U.S. Department of Education adjusted its lending policies for these popular, and in many cases necessary, loans to align more closely with what a traditional bank would require in the way of income and credit worthiness. All colleges took a hit with these changes, but HBCUs lost an estimated $50 million in the first full year these changes took place. For many HBCUs, the college population is made up of first-generation students with parents who often have not set aside the funding for a college education, but want to contribute financially. When PLUS loan eligibility changed, it felt like a blow directed at HBCUs.

Additionally, Governors like Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Mississippi’s former governor Haley Barbour have announced plans to merge HBCUs with each other or other predominantly white institutions in moves that are intended to slash state operating costs. Treating any two HBCUs as institutions that are alike enough to merge without incident is flawed though. Planning to merge a HBCU with a predominantly white schools is even more off-base. These individual schools have their own histories, their own student cultures. Perhaps it makes financial sense to merge HBCUs with others similar in size or scope, but it undermines the collective institutions, undercutting their autonomy and what they can offer to potential students.

  1. HBCUs are still havens for disadvantaged students. The achievement gap in K-12 learning may be narrowing, but it is still exists. Even minority students who end up graduating from high school drop out of college at higher rates than their white peers. While all types of colleges are picking up on this weakness and looking for ways to retain students, many HBCUs stand out as examples of how to succeed at having students return after freshman year. A U.S. News ranking lists Spelman College (at 88 percent retention), Morehouse College (82.5 percent), Howard University (82.3 percent), Florida A&M University (79.5 percent) and Winston-Salem State University (78.3 percent) as the top five HBCUs for having students return to campus after freshman year.

As a comparison point, the top 10 predominantly white institutions, or PWIs, had retention rates that ranged from 97.5 to 99 percent – BUT the retention numbers for minority students was lower. The campus culture and student-centric programs at these PWIs are stellar but it also stands to reason that the students attending top PWIs, like Brown University and the University of Notre Dame, are predisposed to staying in college anyway – while HBCUs have many more obstacles to overcome when convincing and encouraging their attendees to stay. HBCUs are also proving to be thought leaders when it comes to advancing rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender students, with Morehouse College offering its first LGBT course this past spring.

  1. With other affordable and flexible options such as online schools, fewer people may be drawn to HBCUs.

Perhaps the largest factor crippling HBCUs today is the prevalence of online college programs. From schools like the University of Phoenix which is completely online to individual programs offered by traditional campus schools, students who need college-work-family flexibility are finding it outside HBCU campuses. All demographics have flocked to online schooling, but minorities have been especially targeted. HBCUs have traditionally been viewed as places for underdogs, but online schooling programs have overtaken that description with the combination of convenience and a wide array of programs.

However, HBCUs are still an affordable option for many students and often come with generous financial aid packages. For example, HBCUs like Coahoma Community College in Clarksdale, Mississippi cost as little as $4,940 for in-state students for an entire academic year (before any grants or financial aid) or just under $7,000 for in-state students who choose to live on campus. Even out of state students get a pretty good deal – adding just $1,000 more to that total.

Even HBCUs with top billing offer affordable routes for their students, like Howard University in D.C. that saw 52 percent of students in 2012 with their financial needs fully met.

  1. Infrastructural problems may hinder progress. HBCUs were not well-prepared for the changes in loan policies. As far as online schooling is concerned, most HBCUs are just finally implementing full-degree online programs and embracing the idea that our students don’t need to be on a physical campus to benefit. Yes, the campuses of HBCUs are their biggest advantages, steeped in history and a palpable air of shared struggle. This doesn’t mean we should force our students to set foot on our campuses, or not come at all.

A lack of stability in leadership and investment in students through equipment and resources are also issues that have plagued some HBCUs.An essay written by a recent HBCU graduate who declined to name her school specifically expressed shock at the under-sophisticated classrooms and technology resources at her HBCU. She maintains that she would rather see her former school be shuttered than donate money to it.

With a lot of changes that make education more accessible in other schools, HBCUs are going through some growing pains when it comes to staying relevant. All is not lost, though—providing a safe space for black students, embracing diversity, and playing to their strengths (such as STEM) can help HBCUs keep their place in our current landscape.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Year-Round Schooling

Top 3 Reasons the US Should Switch to Year-Round Schooling

The traditional school year, with roughly three months of vacation days every summer, was first implemented when America was an agricultural society. Learning to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic in classrooms was simply not as important as keeping up family farms and building the nation. The summer months were needed exclusively for farm work.

Since then, we have completely changed as a nation—today, the majority of U.S. K-12 students aren’t spending summers off tilling fields or harvesting crops. However, the idea of summers off from school is alive and well. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research finds that the average American student receives 13 weeks off of school each calendar year – with 10 or 11 of those coming consecutively during the summer. Barely any other countries have more than seven weeks off in a school calendar. Only around 10 percent of U.S. schools currently use a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks inserted throughout the year.

With the US lagging behind countries such as Korea in terms of academic performance, it may be time to consider drastic changes to our public school system. Year-round schooling might just be a solution—and surprisingly, it could even be one that students will enjoy. Here’s why:

  1. Students will actually remember what they learn.

Year-round schooling means that students do not fall victim to the “summer slide,” or the well-documented phenomenon where students unlearn some of the knowledge they worked so hard to attain when too much consecutive time is taken off from school.

A study released in 2007 by The Ohio State University found that there are really no differences in learning between students who attend school year round and those who are on a traditional schedule. However, the National Summer Learning Association often cites decades of research that shows that it can take anywhere from 8 to 13 weeks at the beginning of every school year for teachers to get their students back up to speed and ready to learn the new grade’s material.

Either way, when it comes to learning and retention, students who attend year-round schools have nothing to lose and much to gain.

  1. It’s an easy way to bridge the achievement gap.

Minority students, students who speak English as a second language, economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities are the most affected by the summer fallback. Studies have found that disadvantaged students lose about 27 percent more of their learning gains in the summer months than their peers.

If that is not enough to affirm the need for year-round schooling for minorities, researcher Daniel O’Brien concluded that minority students progress their learning proficiency the fastest during the school year when compared to white and economically advantaged students.

Furthermore, Anna Habash of Education Trust, a nonprofit that works with schools to better serve their student populations, says that for minorities, a year-round school schedule does more than help academically. In an interview with Education News, Habash said that schools with high numbers of poverty and minority students benefit greatly from year-round schooling because it keep students “on task” and leads to more “meaningful instruction” when there are not a lot of academically sound options at home.

Minorities also drop out of high school at rates that are higher than their white counterparts. According to Jessica Washington of Politic365, the solution is year-round schooling. She reports that the national dropout rate is 5 percent, while the dropout rate for year-round school students is just 2 percent. These dropout statistics are not broken down by racial or socioeconomic backgrounds, but if the overall dropout rate is lower for year-round schools, it is likely that the minority dropout rates in this model are also lower. The reasons why dropout rates are lower in year-round setups are easy to deduce: students have less time to adjust to time off from school, and in the case of high schoolers, they have less time to work.

While this inability for teenagers to work and make money in the summer has been cited as a pitfall of year-round schooling, the disadvantages of this are short-lived. High school graduates earn $11,000 more per year than those with a G.E.D. or less, and that number rises to $36,000 more with a bachelor’s degree. Giving up a few summers of minimum wage work in exchange for the higher lifetime earnings a high school diploma affords is a small price to pay.

  1. Students will actually like school.

Students will do more than just learn better in a year-round school.

Teachers and students experience a closer relationship in year-round schools than they do in traditional, shorter-calendar-year schools. In the absence of any long-term break from school, students do not feel detached from the school environment.

The experience of immersion in learning offered by year-round schools, with more time spent in classrooms, proves to be beneficial to many students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in particular, including those for whom English is a second language. Many second language learners who have difficulty mastering English benefit from the opportunity to immerse themselves in English during intersession classes. They also develop better relationships with other students.

Results from research studies show that students in year-round schools are more self-confident, have a higher self-concept, have fewer inhibitions, and feel positive about their schooling experience.

But what about down time? Don’t children need time to just “be kids”?

Some childhood development experts believe that for younger students, time off in the summer months is vital to healthy development. They believe that kids are not designed to spend so much of their time inside classroom walls and that the warmer, pleasant weather of the summer provides a perfect opportunity to get outside and experience childhood. The problem with this argument, of course, is that most children are no longer spending their summers frolicking in fields of flowers or running around their neighborhoods, hanging out with other kids.

A recent Harvard University study found that school-age children tend to gain weight at a faster pace during the summer months than during the school year. Children today spend more time in sedentary activities like watching television or using mobile devices instead of playing outside or participating in active pursuits. Not only must K-12 students relearn the academic items, but they must also shift their mentalities from less-active, sedentary ones to sharp, alert learning models.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that by the time children graduate from high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in classrooms. What’s more – children who watch an excessive amount of television generally have lower grades in school, read fewer books and have more health problems. While some children visit summer camps, or attend child care when school is out, others stay at home, inside, with not much else to do than watch TV or play games on electronic devices. This is especially true for kids who are middle-school age or higher and are able to stay home alone when parents work. The “down time” of the summer months is really just empty time, often void of anything academically or developmentally advantageous.

As the US establishes itself as a knowledge and innovation-based economy, the usefulness of a traditional school year diminishes. There are many reasons changing from our traditional school year to year-round schooling makes sense. As with any adjustments, making the switch would not be easy. However, with all its advantages, it is certainly worth considering.

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

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

4 Reasons We Should Stop “Waiting for Superman”

Recently I viewed the documentary, Waiting for Superman, for the umpteenth time, and I noted that almost 5 years after the film’s September 24, 2010 U. S. premiere, the American educational system is still not living up to its potential. Sure, education reform was the phrase on the tip of everyone’s tongue, but after a year most of the fervor and commitment to educational change that was initially exhibited has all but subsided.

It’s time to recommit to the change that the documentary called for. Here are four reasons we should all stop “waiting for Superman”—and, together, make positive steps toward a better educational system in America.

  1. We are falling behind academically, despite spending lots of money on our pupils.

The comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is still falling behind academically. The cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are many our school systems of such a low caliber, and further falling behind?

  1. Everyone in the United States could benefit from an improved educational system—not just students from low-income backgrounds.

Statistics and common sense born of observation tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman put it, “the dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.” Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvement is being made to the system itself.

Of course everyone wants to improve America’s education system. They just do not seem to know how, or they can’t agree on how to do it.

  1. Education is not viewed as a top priority in the United States.

The American public must believe that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. It is understandable that, in today’s economy, people are primarily concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although important to most, can hold a low priority in the mind of the average American, who is mostly concerned with keeping a roof over their head. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough in an economy such as ours, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the local (and global) marketplace. The education system is where people turn to acquire these skills.

  1. The demand for highly skilled workers is growing.

Furthermore, enhanced skills and technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle towards sustaining a dynamic 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler — in fact, it is just the opposite. Along the same lines, workers down the road will need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. If American students and workers find themselves in an educational system that cannot fulfill these necessary, required functions because it is sub-par, not only will these individuals and their families find little success in an economy that has left them behind; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.

How do we fix this?

Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teacher’s unions, placing the blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. Nevertheless, the film shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools; the sadness of the lottery system; and the general hopelessness that some express about our educational system and its future.

One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This scene shows, in a metaphorical sense, that while our students seem to have confidence, many do not have the skills to actually succeed.

A year later, Waiting for Superman still serves as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been. The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet many appear to simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.”

America needs to view this film as a public call to action, where each of us is summoned to be a Superman (or Superwoman, as the case may be), or at least to lend a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, we should strive towards getting every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system, and to work together to fix them.

What is most important is that we understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and strictly forbid placing blame — which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children. Collectively, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our education system.

The future must be planned for; now. It certainly will not be an overnight process. However, by taking positive, productive steps, one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years. If we simply work together, we can restore the U.S. educational system to its former preeminence, and give our children the bright futures they deserve in our great country and aboard. We must become the Super-citizens that we have been waiting for.

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

College Football: 6 Ways to See More African American Head Coaches

College football is arguably the most popular sport at the nation’s colleges and universities. Bringing in over $90 million annually in revenue at the highest grossing University of Texas, it is no wonder that school leaders view the football team as less of an extracurricular activity and more of a moneymaker. The revenue that is generated by college football programs only represents a small piece of the overall financial benefits. Schools with strong athletic programs, particularly in the area of football, bring in more prospective students and have larger booster groups in place.

With all that comes from college football programs, it would be nice to see more African American coaches in colleges. Here are the facts and solutions so that African Americans can enjoy this profession and the robust culture that comes with it.

  1. Of the 124 Division 1-A college football schools, only 15 had African American coaches in the 2012 season, according to an executive report by the Black Coaches Association. The Big Ten conference has seen zero black head coaches in the past 10 years.
  2. While head coaches are the most visible, support positions are severely underrepresented as well. Only 312 of 1,018 of college football assistant coaches are black and only 31 of 255 of offensive and defensive coordinators are African American. Combined, black football coaches and support staff represent a measly 5 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision numbers.

At Division II and Division III schools, diversity is even worse. The Black Coaches Association reports that in the 2012 season, only 9 schools of 113 in these two categories had head coaches of color. These numbers exclude historically black universities.

Despite the thousands of black college football players in recent decades, barely a handful has been trusted with leading teams. These ex-players obviously understand the game and know what college athletes face on the field — so what gives?

  1. Part of the problem is that schools are quick to dismiss coaches of all backgrounds when immediate improvement does not take place. The most recent high-profile example was the firing of Jon Embree by the University of Colorado in November. Floyd Keith of the Black Coaches Association called the firing a “disappointment” and wished that the school had given Embree a third season to prove himself. The school pointed to a 4-21 record over the course of two seasons as the reason for the firing but critics, like Keith, say that just two years is simply not enough time to turn a team around.
  2. Many critics are also quick to point out that white coaches with bad numbers are often still considered a hot commodity by other schools when they are on the market, whereas black coaches have historically been given just one shot to prove their talent.

It is also important to note that a college football coach does not have the same responsibilities as an NFL one. Winning is valuable to the university, but so are other aspects like graduation rates of players and team conduct. Both play an indirect role in the revenue the school is able to generate in future years by attracting new students. Yet with turnover rates of all college coaches rising every football season, a shift toward a “winning takes place on the field” mentality is evident.

So what can be done about this?

There is no disputing statistics when it comes to underrepresentation of African Americans in all levels of college football coaching. With so much being said about this issue, not much problem-solving has happened.

  1. Colleges and universities would do well to take a cue from the NFL when it comes to hiring minority coaches. Established in 2003, the Rooney Rule requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate for all vacant head coaching positions and other executive football operation spots. After just three seasons, the Rooney Rule lead to an increase of 22 percent in the number of African American head coaches in the NFL and those numbers rise every season. A similar rule only makes sense in a college athletic setting, especially since so many other aspects of higher education use affirmative action programs to bolster diversity and opportunity.
  2. Another possible option is for schools to set up coaching mentorship programs for minority players that show leadership potential. An even better approach would be an NCAA-sanctioned program that seeks out talented players and gives them some exposure to coaching and maybe even a certificate program. These earmarked players could then begin working their way through the coaching ranks sooner and have a common knowledge base.

All changes need to be initiated by the NCAA, college athletics governing body. For a real dynamic shift to be felt across the board, every school needs to have the same diversity opportunities and rules as all the others. It is not enough to wish that more schools took a closer look at African Americans to fill head football coaching spots; an overarching game plan needs to be in place for true change to occur.

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

3 Reasons Students Don’t Play More Games in the Classroom

Children are becoming acutely acquainted with mobile technology long before their K-12 classroom years. When they arrive at their first organized school experiences, they are often already savvy on basic computers and mobile devices. If their parents used this technology correctly, these kids have had at least some exposure to phonics and math through learning websites, downloads and other applications.

With these new developments, you would expect that children would continue to learn in this fun and easy way—but this is not the case. Research suggests that once these young learners enter a classroom, however, learning through tech “games” disappears. Families may still choose to buy the apps and use them at home but schools are slow to bring gamification of education into their classrooms.

A report by the market research group Ambient Insight found that edtech in the forms of learning games is not making its way into classrooms. Instead of educators making learning game purchases, marketers target parents because they are the ones who buy them. The North American edtech market is expected to grow over 15 percent in the next half-decade but company leaders have candidly said that they will focus marketing efforts on parents, not schools. To paraphrase, targeting schools is simply a waste of time.

So why are games developed for young learners having such a difficult time entering classrooms? Let’s take a look at a few reasons why.

  1. It’s always about the money. Money is a factor and it impacts more than the purchase of the games or applications themselves. K-12 schools are still in the process of creating mobile technology policies and finding the money in their budgets to fund these initiatives. There are also issues of slow internet speeds and low bandwidths that prevent too many students from flooding the network at once. If teachers do not have the right technology in their classrooms, they cannot purchase the games to enhance lessons.
  2. Regulations are another issue when it comes to the quick implementation of learning technology, including games. There seems to be a distrust of games, and in some cases of technology in general, and their place in the classroom setting. By the time teachers can prove the worth of the games they want to use, another game is available with more bells and whistles. For-profit companies that develop these learning games have no hoops to jump through with parents but the same cannot be said of schools.
  3. Too much screen time rots your brain…or at least that is the prevailing belief. Researchers have actually found benefits of these games for young minds. In her paper “Children’s Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development,” Cheryl Olson found that games, even non-educational ones, improve decision-making and encourage self-expression in children. If there is an educational feature, children absorb the knowledge while finely tuning motor and strategic skills.

It stands to reason then that children with access to gaming technology at home are at an advantage. If there was no educational gaming at home AND no educational gaming at school, it would be a different story. Instead, parents that can afford the vehicles for the technology and the games themselves are able to better prepare children for the classroom and academic success – furthering a socio-economic achievement gap. Through educational technology that is readily available to consumers, the advantaged become more so and the disadvantaged fall farther behind.

For all students to benefit from edtech initiatives, schools need to find the funding for better technology suites and cut through red tape more quickly. Otherwise the educational opportunities presented through gaming will never be fully realized and the students will suffer.

Have you found ways to incorporate edtech, particularly when it comes to gaming, into your classroom?

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

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

Top 3 Little-Considered Issues Related to Student Diversity

Schools and colleges tout the buzz word “diversity” when talking about their ideal student populations, but ideals and reality do not always add up. Diversity is more than filling a quota, or having a certain number of students from an under-represented minority group in your classroom.

There are many issues to address that will help improve our education system in a manner that celebrates the diversity in this country. Here are three issues related to diversity that you might not even have thought about.

  1. Native Americans are falling through the cracks when it comes to education. Obama wants to dedicate $1 billion to changing this.

Young people in Indian Country are some of the most at-risk in the United States. Many grow up in communities suffering from poverty, unemployment and substance abuse. More than one-fifth of Native Americans over 25 years of age never earned a high school diploma. Of those who attend college, only 39 percent earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

Administrative officials said the President was inspired to increase funds to better serve this population partially as a result of last year’s visit to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. He and the First Lady traveled to North Dakota and met with young people who shared how drugs, violence and poverty impacted their lives.

President Obama’s budget request includes $1 billion for American Indian schools next year, with millions of those dollars dedicated to restoring crumbling buildings and connecting classrooms via broadband Internet.

The federal government reports that around one-third of Bureau of Indian Education schools were in poor condition last year. This has forced students to learn in classrooms that fail to meet health and safety standards.

I can only imagine the impact $1 billion would make on the Native American community, one that is in such dire need of resources. Students do not deserve to have roofs caving in on them — they deserve to attend school and get an education in dramatically better conditions.

  1. There is a gender gap in colleges now—and the imbalance works against men.

If you have been following education hot button issues for any length of time, you’ve likely read about the nationwide push to better encourage girls in areas like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The thought is that by showing young women that these topics are just as appropriate for them as their male peers, more women will find lasting careers in these traditionally male-dominated fields.

I’m all for more women in the STEM workplace but with all this focus in one area, are educators neglecting an even larger gender gap issue?

Nationally, over 57 percent of college attendees are female when public and private school stats are combined. Females have been consistently edging ahead of their male classmates since the late 1970s when the percentages flip-flopped. Aside from all-female schools, there are others that have marked disproportionate numbers. Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena has nearly 96 percent females in attendance, and the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis has over 93 percent.

There are a few reasons why more young women than men are choosing a college education. The first is that there are more trades that do not require a college degree that appeal to men. The second is that economically speaking, women earn a better living with a college degree than without one in comparison to men. Though there is still a wage gap (in 2012, women earned just 80.9 percent of the salaries of their male counterparts), women see the value their earning potential can gain from achieving a college diploma.

I hear people asking this question all the time: What are K-12 educators doing wrong when it comes to preparing young women for STEM careers? It’s a valid one.

But based on the statistics I’ve listed here, shouldn’t we also be asking this question: What are K-12 educators doing when it comes to preparing young men for a college education?

It all comes down to the weight we assign to the worth of a college education. If a diploma is simply a way to earn more money over a lifetime, then perhaps men are doing the intelligent thing by launching into the workforce early and without student loan debt. That logic is flawed, however, when taking into account the fact that blue-collar jobs are declining in favor of white-collar ones. A young man making a lifelong career decision today simply cannot predict what educational demands will be placed on his field in another 10, 20 or 30 years.

Money aside, there are other pitfalls in a disproportionate number of men going to college. Statistics show that marriages where the couples have differing education levels more often end in divorce than couples with the same educational achievements. And even before divorce is an option, women who set college educational goals may not want to settle for men with less motivation – at least when it comes to academics. If this trend continues, social dynamics may be impacted.

  1. Even as student bodies are becoming more diverse, college faculty remains homogenous.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, just 16 percent of full-time professors at post-secondary institutions are minorities. That means that 84 percent of those in full-time professorships are white. 60 percent are men and 25 percent are white women.

Those numbers decrease slightly with faculty. 79 percent of the “instructional faculty” within this nation’s colleges and universities are white and just six percent are black.

Considering the hiring boom that many schools have experienced since the start of the 1990’s, it’s mildly surprising that not many minorities were included in that growth.

“The Condition of Education: Characteristics of Post-secondary Faculty” shows that there was a 42 percent increase in the number of instructional faculty hired from 1991-2011. During that 20 year period, not many institutions hired minorities to fill their vacant positions.

What’s striking is the gross under-representation of minority professors at America’s higher education schools. While many may be concentrated within Historically Black Colleges and Universities or schools who have a high number of black students, that percentage makes barely a dent in the overall number of black, Asian, Hispanic, and American indigenous who may teach at America’s best schools of higher learning.

While the government is rightly focused on college affordability, we should slightly turn our attention towards why many colleges and universities fail to hire minorities for faculty and professorship positions.

What do you think? Do you think we need to expand our focus on what diversity is and re-think the initiatives we use to increase it?

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

 

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

3 Reasons to Embrace Diversity on College Campuses

It’s easy to think of college campuses as islands – academic havens with little interaction with the greater world beyond. In reality, the work done on the grounds of colleges and universities has a big impact on society, from medical breakthroughs to mass adoption of social change. It’s important then that U.S. institutions of higher learning are representative of society as a whole in their student bodies and staff. That’s easier said than done, of course, but multicultural representation on college campuses should be a top priority.

Beyond the boost a multicultural campus brings to the immediate student and faculty body, there are some things they can bring to the “real” after-college world too. Here are three of them.

1. It can help us eliminate the wage gap. There is a gender wage gap and there is a minority wage gap. Unless you are a white male, you are probably making less than white males who do the same job as you. Some argue that the wage gap doesn’t exist but statistics show otherwise. The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that women make 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man in the U.S. The racial pay gap varies but in industries like technology, minority workers make $3,000 to $8,000+ less than white counterparts.

Even if these numbers are not 100 percent accurate, they are telling of an overarching problem with the American workforce: people are not paid equally. By having more diversity in the amount of highly educated workers, Americans have a better shot at getting rid of the nasty wage gap for good. Not only will these educated workers be more apt to ask for what they are worth, but it stands to reason that more diversity will emerge in positions of leadership (i.e. – those that make salary decisions). Feeding diversity into the professional workforce goes a long way toward pay equality and ups the standard of living for minorities and women.

2. It can help us get rid of discrimination. Racial tensions have spiked in the past year or so around the country, accented by the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City. Though a lot of people like to believe that discrimination is no longer an issue in the U.S., these incidents and reactions to them highlight just how much more work needs to be done to eliminate prejudices, injustice and discrimination between races.

In my experience, it is easier to judge and alienate hypothetical people that you have never actually met. Once you’ve spent some time with the very people you once judged, it becomes more difficult not to view them as equals. Unfortunately when it comes to our nation’s public schools, diversity is difficult to achieve in districted areas. Kids go to school alongside their neighbors – people who often look like them, have a similar socioeconomic background, and who have the same basic life experience. Colleges and universities are able to break out of this mold and can be the first pass at diversity students experience. It’s important to maximize that opportunity by making sure not just campuses, but individual programs, are well represented with students from a variety of racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. It is harder to discriminate against a friend and colleague than a nameless ideal of a person.

3. It can help us become more competitive on the world stage. The more ideas brought to a discussion, the better the chance of a good one. When a variety of perspectives are pooled, innovation and creativity emerge. Nations like Japan have always had an academic edge but Americans often win out because of the one thing that just can’t be taught: visionary thinking. When everyone brings the same experience to a problem, there will be less ways to solve it. A diverse college body means a more diverse workforce after graduation. This helps EVERYONE. When the U.S. succeeds on the world stage, Americans all benefit.

Diversity matters on college campuses and not just for the benefit of those institutions. Could the next generation of college grads be the one to help the U.S. surge ahead of world competitors through collective creativity? To eliminate the wage gap? To put an end to discrimination? All of these accomplishments are on the horizon in the U.S. – and colleges and universities can give them all a boost by fostering multiculturalism and diversity on campuses.

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

5 Studies That Will Blow Your Mind

Just when it seems like most trends are predictable, you find a few that just run against common knowledge and intuition.

Read on to discover five study results that might shock you.

  1. Too much homework makes students poor.

Seriously.

This is a finding from Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Gerald K. LeTendre, an education professor at Pennsylvania State University, explains how homework can be economically stressful.

“If we step back from the heated debates about homework and look at how homework is used around the world, we find the highest homework loads are associated with countries that have lower incomes and higher social inequality.”

The study also found that homework has no correlation to “high academic success.” So just because a teacher assigns it, and the students follow the assignment through to completion, does not automatically indicate that a student will do well.

Staying with that theme, the study shows that if kids receive too much homework, they become sleep deprived and stressed out.

What makes that information worse is that many of the students who may fall under that umbrella are just in elementary school.

  1. More college students are getting high—every day.

A new survey released by the University of Michigan shows that marijuana use with college students is on the rise.

“Daily or near-daily marijuana use was reported by 5.9 percent of college students in 2014 — the highest rate since 1980, the first year that complete data was available in the study. This rate of use is up from 3.5 percent in 2007.”

Even for students who only use it socially or just occasionally, there has been an uptick in the numbers.

“The percent of students using marijuana once or more in the prior 30 days rose from 17 percent in 2006 to 21 percent in 2014.”

If this seems like bad news, there is a silver lining attached. College students no longer smoke as many cigarettes as they used to. Just 13 percent of college students said that they smoked a cigarette in the last thirty days.

  1. For-profit institutions are the major offender when it comes to student loan debt.

A new report by the Brookings Institute asserts that a good chunk of student loan debt is held by students who attend for-profit institutions.

“The so-called student loan crisis in the U.S. is largely concentrated among non-traditional borrowers attending for-profit schools and other non-selective institutions, who have relatively weak educational outcomes and difficulty finding jobs after starting to repay their loans.”

That’s a fairly significant finding.

Students who attend non-profit private schools or public universities do not face the same debt issue because their job prospects are much higher upon graduation.

“[T]the median borrower from a for-profit institution who left school in 2011 and found a job in 2013 earned about $20,900—but over one in five (21 percent) were not employed; comparable community college borrowers earned $23,900 and almost one in six (17 percent) were not employed.”

The report also finds that students who attend the University of Phoenix hold the most debt. In 2014, students there held over $35 billion dollars in student loan debt.

  1. 11 states spend more on prisons than on higher education

According to a new report  by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 11 states spend more money on correctional facilities than public research universities.

Higher education spending didn’t start to fall once the recession started. Funding for higher education in many states begin toppling back in 1990 from 14.6 percent to just 9.4 percent in 2014.

Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Connecticut all failed to make the cut. Each state has a higher budget for jails and prisons than public research universities.

Adjusted for inflation, spending on corrections increased over 140 percent between 1986 and 2013.

Oregon seems to be the worst offender. Less than 5 percent of general fund expenditures are dedicated to higher education but the state spends nearly 15 percent of that money on correctional facilities.

  1. Teaching observations performed by submitting a video might be as effective as the traditional in-person observations.

An interesting study released by the Best Foot Forward Project, a part of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University, examines how effective classroom observations may be if conducted by video.

400 teachers from California, Colorado, Delaware, and Georgia participated in a two-year project to analyze if “video technology can make the classroom observation process easier to implement, less costly, and more valid and reliable.”

This has had positive results. After reviewing the video, teachers were more “self-critical” and “rated their own instruction lower than comparison teachers, particularly in terms of time management and their ability to assess student mastery during class.”

But maybe two of the biggest wins from the study were found in the interaction between teachers and their supervisors as well as teachers finding ways to improve.

The study found that “63 percent [of teachers] reported that video was ‘quite helpful’ or ‘extremely helpful’ in identifying areas where they need to improve.”

Regarding teachers and supervisor interaction, the project found that there were “fewer disagreements on the ratings they received and were more likely to describe a specific change in their practice resulting from their post-observation conference.”

Overall, this study was loaded with good and useful information regarding how teachers are observed and the wins received when video is used instead of an in-person observation.

Did any of these results surprise you? What do you think these findings mean for the state of education in our country?

  • no reactions
0
Share