list

5 Expert Tips on Working with Homeless Students

Homelessness is another step down on the ladder of poverty and it is a very real problem faced by 1.5 million children in the United States. Here are a few facts and tips that will help you work with any homeless students you happen to have in your classes.

  1. Many homeless families live in shelters in rural or urban areas. With one income, high rent and living expenses, many families are just one emergency away from disaster. As a result, even children who still have a home to go to could lose it in a heartbeat.

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

  1. Homeless children still need to receive an education. Yet, when they get to school each morning, they are often hungry and tired. Like many children living in poverty, homeless children move frequently, and are exposed to drugs, violence, crime and more. Also, transportation might be an issue for some homeless children and they miss a great deal of school.
  2. When they are able to attend school, they may be teased for the clothes they wear and the fact they fall asleep in class. They may have difficulty making friends or a fear of participating in an activity in front of the class. Although many homeless children are with their families, older homeless children may be runaways or may have been kicked out of their homes. Many have been abused sexually and/or physically.
  3. Teachers who have homeless children in their classroom need to know how to help and support children without a permanent home. Homeless children may be needy emotionally and due to lack of access to bathtubs or showers and little food, they may be unclean and unfed. Teachers can be an anchor for homeless children by showing them compassion and understanding.
  4. It may also be a challenge to communicate with parents who don’t have regular access to a phone. Of course, the most important thing for homeless children is that their families find a home. Teachers might be able to help by working with local agencies, children, and their families to find a solution to their problem.

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

5 Things You Should Know about the College Gender Gap

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. Female students 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. At Indiana University Northwest, located just outside Gary, 67 percent of the student population is female.

I’m glad women are becoming more and more educated, but the gender gap is problematic. Here are some things you should know about the college gender gap.

  1. The college gender gap is not an accident.

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?

  1. This can lead to financial trade-offs for men down the line.

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.

  1. The educational disparity that results is bad for marriage.

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. The path to the college gender gap begins before college.

According to Dr. Leonard Sax, too many boys are struggling in schools today. Sax proposes that five factors are responsible for the decline in school performance among boys: video games, prescription drugs, endocrine disruptors, devaluation of masculinity in popular culture, and teaching methods.  Sax and many others believe that video games disengage boys from real-world pursuits. Mind-numbing keyboards and flashing images have a seductive effect on the brain.  Medication for ADHD may be damaging motivational centers in boy’s brains, and the harmful effects of estrogens from food and plastic containers are upsetting the balance of boys’ endocrine systems.  The athletic, scholarly male TV heroes of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have been replaced with Bart Simpson. These and other shifts in modern culture are responsible for devaluing traditional masculine strengths.  Additionally, Sax claims that the ways in which children are being educated today simply turn boys off from schooling.

Men who are completing a four year degree take longer than women to do so, and tend to socialize more in college, study less than women, and have poorer grades. The difference in male-female college/university enrollment reflects performance differences that are evident well before college attendance.

  1. Minority men fare even worse with this trend.

The problem escalates when race is taken into account.  Recently, the Black Star Project published findings that just 10 percent of eighth-grade Black boys in the U.S. are considered “proficient” in reading. In urban areas like Chicago and Detroit, that number was even lower. By contrast, the 2013 National Assessment of Education Progress found that 46 percent of white students are adequate readers by eighth grade, and 17 percent of Black students as a whole are too. The achievement gap between the two races is startling, but the difference between the NAEP report on Black students as a whole and the Black Star findings of just Black boys is troubling too. It is not simply Black children in general who appear to be failing in the basics – like literacy; it is the boys.

We must ask ourselves why boys and young men seem to be falling behind academically.  More importantly, what steps need to be taken in order to reverse this trend?

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

6 Reasons Why You Should Become a Transformational Leader

A transformational school leader ensures students focus on their studies by being considerate of individuality, being charismatic in influencing them, and inspiring them. Instead of using set problem-solving techniques, he or she involves students and teachers to come up with solutions to problems as they arise. Transformational leaders in a school setting quickly identify areas in need of improvement, seeking out-of-the-box solutions. The leader identifies cynicism and intentions to quit among teachers, through consultation and individualized consideration. Realigning their values and goals to resonate with those of the school, the leader reassures teachers that they are needed and valued.

Becoming a transformational leader is not that easy, though. Transformational leadership is all about perception. It only works if it is able to influence the core—the follower’s feelings. Charismatic and inspiring, transformational leaders are well versed the power of language and imagery. “Transformational characteristics” are included in training courses, but the personal effort of the leader determines whether transformational leadership is achievable.

Here are some reasons for you to consider adopting a transformational leadership style:

  1. Transformational leadership is so crucial that organizations often suffer without it. The positive connection between transformational leadership and job characteristics is so strong, we should almost expect an opposite result in organizations that do not employ it. When switching to a transformational style of leadership, a principal or dean must understand how he or she is to influence task perception. The shaping of daily tasks in a transformational manner helps foster positive perceptions among followers.
  2. Transformational leadership makes work meaningful. Meta-analytic research has produced evidence of a positive relationship between transformational leadership and work-related results. These findings demonstrate that transformational leaders make work meaningful by providing autonomy. Followers of transformational leaders feel strongly that their work is esteemed and self-congruent.
  3. Transformational leadership makes workers feel more empowered. Transformational leadership encourages a feeling of empowerment in all followers. There is an inverse relationship between cynicism and transformational leadership, because persons under a highly transformational leader are usually intellectually stimulated and constantly challenged to be open-minded. Various studies have demonstrated relationships between follower empowerment and job satisfaction, decreased anger and frustration, and a sense of organizational attachment.
  4. Transformational leadership allows workers to feel connected to their organization. Transformational leaders motivate by increasing self-efficacy in followers, by facilitating social identification within a group, and by linking organizational values to follower values. This allows followers to feel more determined in their work and augments their perceived empowerment.
  5. Transformational leadership makes workers want to stay around. While cynicism and intentions to quit are widely considered symptoms of employee negativity, initial research in organizational behaviors has considered them to be generalized traits. Recent studies found cynicism to be a specific construct; a reflection of the followers’ perception of the leader. Cynicism is a product of ineffective leadership and lack of participation and consultation in decision making. Intention to quit (ITQ) is another form of employee’s negative reaction to poor leadership. Factors that have been linked to ITQ include poor pay, and lack of job satisfaction and goal commitment. Employees are unlikely to have ITQ toward an organization where their need for efficacy is met in their respective job responsibilities. Highly resilient followers are more likely to adapt after setbacks at work, rather than leave the organization.
  1. Transformational leadership is universal. A study by Boehnke, Bontis, Distefano, and Distefano investigated the existence of universally consistent behaviors. They sampled 145 senior executives in two divisions of a global petroleum company and its subsidiaries around the world.  One of the major findings of the study was that the basic dimensions of leadership that produce extraordinary performance are universal, with little variation in the six different parts of the world sampled. However, some leadership differences were attributed to the different corporate cultures in the two company divisions.

In the final result, transformational leadership is identified as consistent with a clear majority of sampled behaviors, as provided in the executives’ descriptions of their version of exceptional organizational performance. Terms such as visioning, intellectual stimulation, team building, coaching, and inspiring behavior appeared in 68% or more of the responses. All those attributes refer to a transformational style of leadership.

It is intriguing to note that the only non-transformational characteristic in more than half of the reports was “recognizing and rewarding,” at 62%, which is an element of the transactional style of leadership. It is apparent that transformational leadership is widely accepted as an exceptional leadership technique. It is applicable in all kinds of organizations, including the school setting. Whether you are a practicing leader or someone who aspires to become one, you would be well advised to add transformational leadership to your repertoire.

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.

3 Entities That Rebelled Against Standardized Testing in the US

Standardized testing in K-12 education is a perennial hot button issue. Proponents feel that measuring knowledge in these rigid ways helps lift the entire educational system. But critics say the measurements do nothing but encourage “teach to the test” methods and narrow the scope of what instructors are able to teach if they want to have acceptable test results.

This article will look at three groups of people who have urged us to reconsider standardized testing in our country. Here they are:

  1. Maya Angelou and other authors. Along with 120 other children’s book authors, beloved poet and activist Maya Angelou (now deceased) called President Obama on the carpet for his “testing overuse and abuse.” The authors said that the pressure on children to learn narrow testing materials, and then perform well, robs them of a love for learning. Among the authors on the list are Ruth Spiro, Whitney Stewart and Alma Flor Ada.

The letter, addressed to President Obama himself, scolded the Administration’s role in heightening standardized test ramifications and therefore putting more pressure on students and teachers to perform. Some highlights of the letter include:

“Our public school students spend far too much time preparing for reading tests and too little time curling up with books that fire their imaginations.” 

“Students spend time on test practice instead of perusing books. Too many schools devote their library budgets to test-prep materials, depriving students of access to real literature. Without this access, children also lack exposure to our country’s rich cultural range.”

“We offer our full support for a national campaign to change the way we assess learning so that schools nurture creativity, exploration, and a love of literature from the first day of school through high school graduation.”

While many teachers, parents and education experts (like Diane Ravitch) have spoken out about their concerns with teaching-to-the-test, and most recently the Common Core Standards, this was the first time such a list of “who’s who” has come out against reading and testing culture. Angelou had always been a strong and vocal supporter of Obama.

  1. School districts in Florida. Some school districts passed motions against standardized testing and certain parent groups have tried to opt their children out of various exams.

As a result, last year, The Florida Department of Education announced plans to review the state’s standardized testing. The announcement came after a year of criticism of testing policies and opposition toward the new standards.

Florida Education Commissioner Pam Stewart stated that in addition to the plans to review the testing, she was establishing a Keep Florida Learning Committee. The Committee would examine areas where the state could deregulate the school system, boost parental involvement, review instructional material and track the introduction of Florida Standards throughout the upcoming year.

“At the Department of Education, we are committed to ensuring our education system has appropriate policies and procedures in place to help Florida’s students excel,” Stewart said.

“I am proud to lead these efforts, which I am confident will help us better understand students’ needs so we can better prepare them for colleges and careers,” added Stewart.

Stewart said that there was no plan to stop the end-of-course exams or the Florida Standards Assessment, which was due to begin last spring.

  1. Education officials across the US. Due to growing complaints from the public, education officials offered to re-examine standardized testing in the U.S. last year. The general consensus is that students pre-kindergarten to 12th grade are taking too many exams.

Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools said, “Testing is an important part of education, and of life. But it’s time that we step back and see if the tail is wagging the dog.” The Council of Great City Schools represents 67 urban school systems.

The Council of Chief State School Officers, which represents education commissioners in every state, also joined in on the effort.

Teachers have always administered tests; but exams became a federal mandate in 2002 under the No Child Left Behind Act. It requires states to test students annually in math and reading, starting in grades 3 through 8 and ending with high school.

In the past few years, four states delayed or repealed graduation testing requirements. Four other states, including Texas, where the idea of using these tests began, reduced the number of exams required or decreased their consequences.

In addition to federally required tests, states have added on more assessments, many that mandate exams such as an exit test to graduate high school.

On average, students in large urban school districts take 113 standardized tests between pre-K and 12th grade.

The number of standardized tests that U.S. students take is too high. While I feel that the idea to use tests to hold schools accountable is a good one, the frequency and redundancy of standardized testing has gone too far. It is essential to measure student achievement, but I hope that further analysis of standardized testing will lead to ways to relieve some of the burden that these tests bring to our students.

4 Interesting Facts about Education in Mississippi

Mississippi is my home state, and an interesting state at that. Some time ago I wrote an article about what MLK would say about education in Mississippi, and I wrote it because of some startling realities about education in this state. I brought up that 24% of people in the state are estimated to live below the poverty line, and that many of Mississippi’s poorest residents are children of color — many of them are black children. For this reason, among others, Mississippi may need special attention when it comes to addressing P-12 education.

Here are a few sobering facts about education in Mississippi.

  1. Public education in Mississippi is ranked last in the nation year after year. Public education in Mississippi ranked last, yet again, on Education Week’s Quality Counts report . The state received an “F” grade for academic achievement, and a “D” for the chance of success for students.

There is no easy fix for this. Even academic programs targeted for at-risk students can only go so far. With a poverty rate of 24 percent in the state, the problems that impact student success in classrooms extend far beyond it. To really see a difference in student outcomes, the state needs economic initiatives that boost the life quality of residents and give more opportunities to students once they are done with school. Recognizing that these outside factors go hand-in-hand with student outcomes in classrooms is the first step toward moving Mississippi out of last place and putting it on course to be a P-12 leader in the country…

  1. Mississippi is short on education funding—by $1.5 billion. Durant Public School teachers in Mississippi spend their evenings on the Internet, browsing for math and other problems to give their students because the school doesn’t have up-to-date textbooks.

School leaders say that new books aren’t in the budget, nor are reading coaches to help improve the districts academic rating of “D.” To save money, teachers and their assistants have already been reduced and administrators took pay cuts.

The troubles in Durant, located about 60 miles north of Jackson, illustrate a picture of the state as a whole. Mississippi legislators have ignored a state law and spend $1.5 billion less on education than what is required; the cuts in the state are the deepest in the country.

State funding was originally cut as tax revenues plunged during the recession. According to early estimates, the state could fall $280 million short again in 2016.

Durant has 588 students in grades K-12. The teacher turnover rate is high, and when new teachers are hired they tend to be recent graduates who are inexpensive to bring on board.

Sanders-Tate, the superintendent in Durant, dreams of raising the schools rating from a “D” to “A,” but knows it’s a challenge.

“When you don’t have what you need, you’ve got to make do,” Sanders-Tate said. “I’m tired of making do for the kids when they deserve the best like everyone else.”

  1. Mississippi has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with 50 births for every 1,000 young women between 15 and 19 years old. Despite this, attempts to educate young people in the state about safe sex practices have been met with hostility.

Alarmed by the high rates of teen pregnancy, and high number (76 percent) of high school students who report being sexually active by age 17 in the state, members of the business community lobbied the state to make sexual education courses mandatory in public schools. Those lobbying won a partial victory — but actual implementation of the rule has been slowed down in the religious and conservative state.

The Los Angeles Times reports that mother Marie Barnard was pleased when Mississippi made sex education mandatory after many decades of disallowing it. She was less than pleased, however, when she found out one of the “lessons” involved students passing around an unwrapped piece of chocolate candy and observing how “dirty” it became with more contact. The message does not provide an educated view on sex, or show respect to young people who have been sexually active, she said.

The candy example is just one way the noble goal to educate Mississippi’s youth about responsible sexual activity has gone awry. Part of the enacted law requires parents to sign a permission slip allowing their children to take sex ed courses in the first place. There are also issues of enforcement and the exact curriculum being taught. Individual districts, for example, can choose to implement abstinence-only sex education classes.

So it seems the battle for a sexually-informed generation in Mississippi wages on, even in public school classrooms.

  1. Mississippi received a grade of “B” for its early childhood programs, compared to a national average of “D+.” There is a silver lining to every cloud. Despite being one of the worst-performing states in many categories of education, Mississippi ranks second nationally when it comes to Head Start enrollment (third nationally when it comes to Kindergarten enrollment and access to full-day Kindergarten programs). Getting kids signed up for early childhood programs is just the start of course. These children need to learn enough while in those classrooms, but getting them started as early as possible is definitely a step in the right direction when it comes to the future academic success of students in the state.

It is also one of the relatively few states in America that is pushing for mandatory Kindergarten. Representative Sonya Williams-Barnes, a Democrat from Gulfport, authored of “KIDS Act” that would change the mandatory school age for children in the state from 6 to 5 years old, in essence making Kindergarten mandatory for children in the state.

So how does Mississippi stack up against other states when it comes to the Kindergarten issue? There are only 15 states and the District of Columbia that require Kindergarten by law, and there are actually six states that do not even require public schools to offer Kindergarten. Despite the bad rap Mississippi often gets when it comes to student achievement numbers, the state does pretty well on Kindergarten access and has nationally high numbers for attendance. So adding in a Kindergarten requirement would not make a huge difference in the amount of kids who attended, but will just be more of a formality.

All this said, where Mississippi could really use the legislative boost is when it comes to pre-K education — an area where strides are being made. The Mississippi Department of Education reports that two-thirds of all the kids who entered Mississippi public Kindergarten in the fall of 2014 did not have the base-level skills required for adequate learning. In my opinion, the age of 5 is too old for mandatory education in the state, but it will probably be a few more decades before Mississippi, or any other state, requires it any younger. Hopefully this latest proposal will pass with no problems to show that state leaders are unified when it comes to early childhood education initiatives in Mississippi.

My home state of Mississippi needs to make some big changes as soon as possible. I want nothing more for the state to have sufficient money to put towards improving education, and to see the ratings improve drastically.

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

3 Quick Facts about College Dropout Rates

There are a lot of metrics in place that gauge the effectiveness of P-12 schooling in the U.S. and shine a particularly bright light on public schools, particularly when they are failing students. Dropout rates are just one of the factors taken into account when these numbers are calculated and tend to weigh heavily on the schools and districts who have low percentages.

The same does not seem to be true once the high school years pass though. Compared to P-12 institutions, colleges and universities seemingly get a pass when it comes to dropout rates – perhaps because in the past, higher education was considered more of a privilege and less of a right. A college dropout was simply walking away from the assumed higher quality of life that came with the degree, but still had opportunity to excel without it.

That’s not the case anymore. As of 2013, 17.5 million students were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.  More than ever, colleges and universities have a responsibility to not simply admit students, but ensure they are guided properly to graduation. In other words, institutions of higher education should not be able to just take their student’s money and say “good luck.” They should provide the tools necessary for students to successfully achieve a college education and anticipate the issues that could prevent that.

Authors Ben Miller and Phuong Ly discussed the issue of the U.S. colleges with the worst graduation rates in their book College Dropout Factories. Here is some information about those schools—it may shock you.

  1. Some colleges have graduation rates as low as 8 percent. Washington Monthly that ranked the U.S. schools with the lowest six-year graduation rates among colleges and universities, including public ones like the University of the District of Columbia (8%), Haskell Indian Nations University (9%), Oglala Lakota College (11%), Texas Southern University (13%) and Chicago State University (13%).
  2. Several of these schools have high percentages of underrepresented minorities attending. A quick scan of the University of the District Columbia’s official page shows graduation rate numbers through the end of the 2003 – 2004 school year (the past nine years, strangely, are nowhere to be found). The school boasts 51.2 percent underrepresented minorities in the study body, including 47 percent that are Black.

In the case of Chicago State University, the latest statistics show some improvement from the 2010 ones. The six-year graduation rate is up to 21 percent – but the transfer-out rate is nearly 30 percent. The school has 92 percent underrepresented minorities that attend – 86 percent who are black and 70 percent who are female.

But good are those numbers if these students are not actually benefitting from their time in college because they receive no degree?

  1. P-12 schools rigorously track and hold themselves accountable for dropout rates. Colleges do not.

In all cases of college dropout factories, the P-12 institutions chalk up a victory on their end. They graduated the students and also saw them accepted into a college. What happens after that is between the students and their higher education choices.

This, to me, is a problem. The accountability for student success extends beyond the years that they are in P-12 classrooms. Graduation from high school, and acceptance into college, should never be the final goal of P-12 educators. That is not a victory. That is only halftime.

As far as the colleges and universities are concerned, higher accountability should be demanded from educators, students, parents and really any Americans that want the best economy and highest-educated population. Public institutions, in particular, should be subject to restructuring or take over if dropout rates are too high. The lack of delivery on the college degree dream at many of these schools is appalling, frankly, and has gone on long enough.

What do you think—should colleges be more accountable for the graduation rates of their students, especially given the necessity of a college education today?

4 Reasons Why We Need More Minority Instructors in Schools and Colleges

The number of minority students enrolled in U.S. schools and colleges is growing at a rapid rate, yet student enrollment is not matched by minority teacher representation.

In this article, I will discuss four reasons it is important to have more minority instructors in our schools and colleges.

1. The numbers don’t match up.

In K-12 schools, black and Hispanic students are two to three times more common than teachers of the same ethnicity. The gap is typically the widest in areas of the country with high percentages of students of color. Meanwhile, nearly 82 percent of public school teachers are white.

In colleges, the numbers are even more dismal. A report from the National Center for Education Statistics found that full-time faculty on college campuses heavily favors white candidates (at just over 1 million) over black (not even 100,000), Asian (86,000) and Hispanic (under 60,000) faculty. These numbers may not mean much out of context however, so let’s take a closer look at why they matter.
While nearly 30 percent of undergraduate students around the nation are considered minorities, just over 12 percent of full-time faculty are minorities. That number drops to around 9 percent for full-time professors of color. Though half of all undergraduate students are women, roughly one-third of full-time professors are women. In 1940, the number of women faculty was at 25 percent, showing just how slowly this particular minority group is climbing. The numbers are going in the right direction, but not quickly enough.

2. Minority students will perform better. Students will perform better when they can identify with and relate to their teachers. Minority teachers are in a position to put a stop to negative stereotypes and act as role models and mentors for students of color. Teachers who can relate to their students’ backgrounds usually are better able to look past biases of their abilities.

Even the research seems to support this point, as a study in Economics of Education Reviews tells us minority students perform better with minority teachers.

3. Minority instructors will influence the culture of the school in the long run. As far as colleges are concerned, yes, it is important to have diversity in student populations but those groups are temporary college residents. Faculty members have the long-term ability to shape the campus culture and make it more in sync with the rest of the real world. This idea can apply to K-12 schools as well.

4. Non-minority students can benefit. Increasing the number of teachers of color will help students who are not of color too. Putting minority teachers in front of children who are not minorities could prevent stereotyping and promote acceptance of diversity and equity.

The education gap is a serious obstacle our country faces – and I think that the “diversity gap” is a major part of our struggle. The education gap is staggering and it is hindering our country socially and economically. We have to find ways to get more instructors of color in our schools. Students perform better when they can relate to their teachers, and teachers who can relate to their students are less likely to have a preconceived idea of how each student will perform.

3 Unusual Statistics about the U.S. Educational System

As a former public school educator, and someone who watches public school policy closely, I believe the K-12 system here in America is on its way up. I see improvements as schools raise accountability standards, offer more social services, and focus more intently on high school graduation and college prep. Our schools are better preparing students academically and for productive lives.

But it is not that simple. The statistics and research I’ve reviewed over the past few years show mixed results when it comes to the educational system. I will discuss three unusual—even contradictory—facts in this article.

  1. Parents with children in the public school system are happy with the education system…but the general public is not.

Nearly half of American adults are pleased with the operation of the K-12 public school system in the nation. A recently released Gallup poll finds that 48 percent of Americans say they are “somewhat” or “completely” satisfied with the public K-12 system in the U.S. The poll has been conducted since 1999 and that highest satisfaction rating in this category was 53 percent in 2004.

Respondents with children who are actually in the public school system currently showed higher levels of satisfaction (57 percent) with the system than adults as a collective group. Parents who answered how satisfied they were with just their oldest child’s education were at almost 75 percent.

The fact that many parents in the poll responded positively to public schools and members of the general public responded negatively was labeled an “optimism gap” by the Gallup poll staff.

The results of this poll tell me two things: One, American confidence in the public school system has a ways to go to reassure the general population that it is doing its job; and two, that those who actually interact with the public schools are less influenced by things like news stories when it comes to shaping their personal opinions.

  1. 80 percent of students are graduating high school…yet less than half of these students are ready for what’s next.

The U.S. Education Department reports that the high school graduation rate is at an all-time high at 80 percent.  Four out of five students are successful in studies completion and graduate within four years. While these statistics sound like a reason for a standing ovation, they are overshadowed by the crisis that is sweeping the United States. While 80 percent of high school seniors receive a diploma, less than half of those are able to proficiently read or complete math problems.

The problem is that students are being passed on to the next grade when they should be held back, and then they are unable to complete grade-level work and keep up with their classmates.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the largest standardized test administered in the United States, reports that fewer than 40 percent of graduating seniors have mastered reading and math and are poorly equipped for college and real world life.  These students who are passed to the next grade are at a serious disadvantage and have an increased chance of falling behind and dropping out of college.

  1. We spend trillions of dollars on education…but we have not seen any improvement in public schools since 2009.

The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress has some shocking news: since 2009, there has been no improvement in math and reading performance among our nation’s high school seniors.  Despite the trillions of dollars we have hurdled into our schools, our students aren’t better off in those subjects.

How can that be? It seems to me that the problem lies in that we simply teach to the test.  We train thousands of students to learn a few of the “core” subjects so they score well on tests – but that doesn’t really make the students better educated. Higher test scores in any subject does not mean these young adults are smarter. Think about the utterly essential part of success: learning how to write well.  This is a prime example of a subject that no multiple-choice test can measure.

To really learn, students must have the thirst to drink from the fountain of knowledge.  They must feel compelled to understand problems and have the urge to find the solution, even if that means they answer incorrectly.  Yes, the core subjects are important for students to learn – but let’s not forget about literature, music and the arts – and the other subjects that help teach students to explore.

What the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress tells us is alarming. How have ten years passed, and these trillions of dollars not rendered any improvement in math and reading performance among high school seniors?

There are some schools out there that are taking a better approach at teaching today’s diverse student population but so much more needs to be done. What public education needs is the ability to implement more practical models of teaching to guide students instead of following master plans devised to ensure students test well.

 

3 Issues that are hurting the American Educational System

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

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

From overcrowded schools to lack of parental involvement, there are many obvious problems within the education system that immediately come to mind when thinking of how to improve education in America. But some issues fly under the radar. Here are just three of those factors that, when addressed, could make the US more competitive on a global scale:

  1. The amount of time students spend in school

Let’s look at where American schools rank right now when it comes to days in school versus time off. Thirty states require schools to have a 180-day calendar, two ask for more than 181 school days and the rest ask for between 171 and 179 days on the official school calendar each year. Minnesota is the only state in the nation that has no minimum requirement for number of days students are in the classroom (though the state averages 175 school days). This means that in states with the lowest day requirements, students are out of school for more days than they are in it (as many as 194 days per year), a number that contrasts greatly with other developed nations.
Korea has the highest required number of school days, at 225, followed by Japan at 223 and China at 221. Canadian requirements are close to the U.S., at 188 days, and England is at 190 days. When all developed nations are considered, the international average for days in school is 193 – a full two weeks+ higher than most of the U.S.

But are all these days considered equal?

How long are the school days in places like Korea, China and England? It varies, but it is not uncommon for Korean high school students to spend 16 hours each school day in classrooms. That is more than twice the amount of time that American students spend at school, and perhaps a bit too extreme. Yet Korean students consistently rank at the top of developed nations when it comes to subjects like math and science, vastly outpacing U.S. students. By contrast, in England school-aged children spend 6.5 to 7 hours at school – the equivalent of American students (but, remember, they spend more days in the classroom).

President Obama is in favor of more time in the classroom.

In 2009, he stated that the amount of time students currently spend in school places us at a competitive disadvantage. “Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.”

Predictably those comments have received some pushback in the years since, both from parents who believe their children are already under too much pressure at school and need every single day off they are allotted, and from teachers unions who want to know how educators will be properly accommodated for the extra time spent in classroom instruction. The idea of adding more time to student school calendars is an unpopular one – but I’m not sure that is reason enough to rule it out.

  1. The lack of respect we have for the teaching profession.

According to the Pew Research Center, Americans have a declining interest in education. Not surprisingly, the economy, job creation and terrorism are the public’s top three priorities, and there’s no question each would have grave consequences if not addressed. These topics should certainly be focal points of interest. However, some of these priorities are related to or even dependent on the quality of education in this country.

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

Based on research provided by Dr. Steven Paine, a nationally renowned American educator, the OECD has offered a number of simple and practical lessons to the United States. According to Paine, money is not the answer to boosting our country’s international educational status, nor will it bring about a greater classroom experience. In studying the world’s highest achievers — Finland, Singapore and Ontario, Canada — Paine suggests our lack of respect for teachers is the nation’s number one enemy of education.

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

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

  1. A lack of regard for arts education

According to First Lady Michelle Obama, an estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure. In schools such as the New York City public schools, a significant percentage of schools have no arts teachers.

The arts may not be considered as important as math and science, but it is still very important for student engagement and learning. A school in the lowest income district in all of New York participated in a four-year arts integration program that took students from basically no arts learning to multi-faceted lesson plans with arts inclusion. The results? An 8 percent improvement in Language Arts scores, 9 percent improvement in math scores and less absenteeism.

Can you think of any other little-known factors that might have an impact on the U.S. educational system?

 

4 Factors to Consider about Teaching Jobs and School Reform

School reform is never easy. When sweeping changes are decided upon and implemented, everyone must fully participate in order for students to benefit from the changes and certainly not to suffer during the transition. Part of providing that stability for students is through a strong front of teachers that remain at the school during the sometimes turbulent reform process.

Here are a few things to think about when evaluating school reform:

  1. Reform just isn’t possible without a united front of educators and administrators. A shared vision is challenging to create and maintain without stable leadership, and a supportive culture from the staff.  It is a simple fact of life that high staff turnover can create instability and have a negative impact on efforts to establish a consistent learning environment for students. High staff turnover is also quite costly, particularly when the recruitment of teachers, and then the training of new teachers in the intricacies of the reform effort are considered.
  2. More effort and support needs to be given to the recruitment process for teachers at the outset as schools and districts initiate reform efforts. Hiring teachers who “fit” reform goals will likely reduce teacher attrition.  Still, more support needs to be available for new teachers. Even teachers who ostensibly have the skills and attitudes that align with reform goals will need mentoring and other supports as they begin their jobs. Every attempt must be made to reduce the debilitating rate of turnover.
  3. Most efforts now are centered on how to make the most of current funding and utilizing money effectively in order to maximize the positive impact of reforms, rather than how to access untapped resources. Despite the dearth of new money, it is possible to free up cash through alternative means of spending. An extreme proposal to accomplish this is to reduce staffing to the absolute minimum. For example, a school with 500 students would have 20 teachers and 1 principal. Approximately $1 million could become available, depending on how many education specialists (regular and categorical) and instructional aides worked within the school. This is radical option, and there are other, less extreme ways to change the way money is spent, to include increasing class sizes, spending less on upgrading technology, and eliminating some programs.
  4. Sometimes, spending money on non-essential areas does support school reform efforts. Prioritizing what money is spent on does not automatically mean cutting all non-academic projects. What gets cut will depend on the goals of individual schools. This should be a workable situation, as long as the school is still accountable to the state and the district for shifts in expenditures. An understanding that cutting teaching jobs can actually be detrimental to reform is important though, instead of just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper.

What do you think? Is an austerity approach (trying to have as few teachers as possible) better than one that places a higher importance on the teachers than on the budget?