Matthew Lynch

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
Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

STEM Funding in Danger – But Does Anyone Care?

Under proposed budget changes for the 2014 fiscal year, many STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) educational initiatives may no longer exist. Though overall funding for STEM programs is actually slated to rise by $3 billion, or 6 percent, consolidation of STEM education may leave specific programs out in the cold. The annual $15 million in funding for the Science Education Partnership Awards that are funded by the National Institutes of Health, for example, are not included in the proposed budget changes. Every year the awards provide over 75,000 K-12 students with informal, hands-on science education intended to spark lifelong interest in an area where America consistently lags behind other developed countries.

While the knee-jerk reaction is to blame lack of prioritization of STEM education on the Obama administration and the budget advisors on this particular project, I think the issue is much, much bigger. A report released in December 2012 called Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study showed that just 7 percent of U.S. students had advanced level eighth-grade math skills, compared with 47 percent in South Korea and 48 percent in Singapore. Further, the U.S. was ranked as 11th in fourth-grade math and 9th in eighth-grade math. American students ranked higher in reading, but still fell behind Hong Kong, Russia and Finland.

It seems that when these test results are released, there is an initial public outcry about the slipping state of the American public in science and math. Those voices quickly fade, however, content to download another smartphone app that does metric conversion or even one that is advertised to complete math homework with a few taps of a touchscreen. It is easier to utilize technology than to learn how to perform equations; it is simpler to grab produce from the grocery store shelf than to question where that food came from or what went into its production.

It would be great to blame this indifference towards STEM initiatives on the uneducated public, or the convenience of Internet technology, or even the media (why not?). The truth is that this uncaring attitude is a byproduct of academic disengagement, fueled by the way children are taught in American K-12 schools. As interactive technology becomes commonplace in classrooms, education becomes more of a form of entertainment. Yes, educators should find innovative ways to reach students with educational messages but there is a blurry line between creative learning and babysitting tactics to keep students from declaring boredom and simply not trying.

Are math, science, engineering and technology topics too complicated for the short attention spans of today’s American K-12 students – and do educators add to this problem by spending too much time trying to put on a song and dance? I think the answer to both of these questions is “yes.” This is not to say that it is the fault of educators but merely to point out that they are in a quandary made possible by screen-culture and an education system that favors standardized learning over intellectualism. By emphasizing fact memorization, and placing no priority on hands-on math and science experiences, it is no wonder that 46 percent of Americans believe young people do not pursue math and science careers because they are “too hard.” In the same Pew Research study, 20 percent of Americans said careers in science and math are “too boring.”

Clearly something is being missed along the way in our K-12 system. How can science, the intricate study of how things work with and without our known universe, be boring? How can math, the way things balance out and make our world run smoothly, be too complicated to pursue? It seems these questions just bring up even more questions and there are not enough people who care enough to seek out answers.

What factors do you think contribute to indifference in STEM education?

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

Examining the Impact of Culture on Academic Performance

A person’s culture and upbringing has a profound effect on how they see the world and how they process information. This fact was discussed by Richard Nisbett in his work, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently — and why Nisbett worked with psychologists in Japan and China and determined that the holistic way of viewing the world typical of many students from those countries differed from that of their American counterparts, who tended to view the world in parts or distinct classes of objects that could each be defined by a set of rules.

In other words, the Asian children see the world in terms of the relationship between things, whereas the American children see the world in terms of the objects as distinct entities. This information is helpful when we consider how cultural background might influence approach to both learning and school performance. There are a number of theories that seek to explain differences in school performance among different racial and ethnic groups. Three theories particularly stand out: the cultural deficit theory, the expectation theory, and the cultural difference theory.

The cultural deficit theory states that some students do poorly in school because the linguistic, social, and cultural nature of the home environment does not prepare them for the work they will be required to do in school. As an example, some students may not have as many books read to them as children in other homes. Not being able to read has a negative influence on their vocabulary development. Vocabulary development may also be stifled by the amount and nature of verbal interaction in the home. As a result, some children arrive at school lacking the level of vocabulary development expected. The cultural deficit theory proposes that deficiencies in the home environment result in shortcomings in skills, knowledge, and behaviors that contribute to poor school performance.

The expectation theory focuses on how teachers treat students. Teachers often expect less from students of certain racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. When teachers expect students to perform poorly, they approach teaching in ways that align with their low levels of expectations. In these instances, students tend to perform at the low levels expected of them by teachers.

Rosenthal and Jacobson tested this theory in their Pygmalion effect study. A group of teachers were told that their students were due for an intellectual growth spurt during the school year. Even though the students were average in terms of academic performance, the teachers interacted with them based on this expectation. All students in the experimental group improved both academically and socially by the end of the year. Based on the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy, students who experience high expectations seek to reach the level of expected behaviors. Correspondingly, students who experience low expectations act to meet the level of behavior expected of them.

The cultural difference theory is based on the idea that students who are raised in different cultural settings may approach education and learning in different ways. It is important for teachers to be aware of the differences between the school atmosphere and the home environment. People from different cultural traditions may have an approach to education that differs from the mainstream approach used in American schools. For instance, differences can be noted in the Polynesian concept of learning, whereby younger children are generally taught by older children rather than by adults. This is a very different approach to learning and one that may need to be considered in an American school that is attended by Polynesian students.

Teachers need to ensure that they incorporate methods of teaching in their classrooms that accommodate various beliefs and cultural notions students bring to school. This requires each teacher to develop an understanding of their student’s culture, but also to know who their students are as individuals. It is important for teachers to ensure that they treat all students the same and to have high expectations for each one, so that they may all strive to reach their full potential.

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

3 Easy Ways to Get Enthusiastic Donations from HBCU Alumni

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are three ways for HBCUs to encourage their alumni to give back more.

  1. Make college affordable.

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

  1. Personalize giving.

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

  1. Get alumni involved before they leave campus.

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

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

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

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

High School Dropout Rate: Causes and Costs

On Monday I dug into the current state of high school dropouts and where American students today stand in historic statistics. In my research, I discovered that while dropout percentages are much lower today than they were a few decades ago, there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Today I want to look at the underlying causes of the dropout mentality and how every student who does not earn a high school diploma hurts society as a whole. My hope is that in discovering shared traits among dropouts, we can achieve higher high school graduation rates as a nation.

Why are students dropping out?

One unchanging factor when it comes to the dropout rate is socioeconomic background. Since the National Center for Education Statistics first started tracking different groups of high school students in the late 1960s, the socioeconomic status of each pupil has impacted the graduation rate. Students from low-income families are 2.4 times more likely to drop out than middle-income kids, and over 10 times more likely than high-income peers to drop out.

Household income is the not the only disadvantage many dropouts have, though. Students with learning or physical disabilities drop out at a rate of 36 percent. Some behaviors that are often characteristic in dropouts include being retained from advancing a grade level with peers, relocating during the high school years and the general feeling of being left out or alienated by peers or adults at the school. Overall, a student who does not fit the traditional classroom mold, or who falls behind for some reason, is more likely to lose motivation when it comes to high school and decide to give up altogether.

How valuable is a high school diploma?

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that dropouts bring in just $20,241 annually, which is $10,000 less than high school graduates and over $36,000 less than a person holding a bachelor’s degree. The poverty rate for dropouts is over twice as high as college grads, and the unemployment rate for dropouts is generally 4 percentage points higher than the national average. In the end, the lifetime earnings of high school dropouts are $260,000 LESS than peers who earn a diploma.

Why should I care?

The financial ramifications of dropping out of high school hurt more than the individual. It’s estimated that half of all Americans on public assistance are dropouts. If all of the dropouts from the class of 2011 had earned diplomas, the nation would benefit from an estimated $154 billion in income over their working lifetimes. Potentially feeding that number is the fact that young women who give up on high school are nine times more likely to be, or become, young single mothers. A study out of Northeastern University found that high school dropouts cost taxpayers $292,000 over the course of their lives.

It’s not just about the money though. Over 80 percent of the incarcerated population is high school dropouts – making this an issue that truly impacts every member of the community. Numbers are higher for dropouts of color; 22 percent of people jailed in the U.S. are black males who are high school dropouts. As a society, we are not just paying into public assistance programs for dropouts, but we are paying to protect ourselves against them through incarceration.

I wonder what these numbers would look like if we took the nearly $300K that taxpayers put in over the course of a dropout’s lifetime and deposited it into their K-12 learning upfront. If we invested that money, or even half of it, into efforts to enhance the learning experience and programs to prevent dropping out, what would that do to dropout, poverty and incarceration rates? Right now the process seems to be reactionary. What would it look like if more preventative actions were put in place?

What are some underlying causes of the high school dropout rate not mentioned here?

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

Diverse Conversations: Training Tomorrow’s Educators

It’s an unavoidable reality that today’s students will be tomorrow’s educators. The professors involved in teacher training initiatives and teacher education programs today are the ones responsible for training tomorrow’s teachers. With that said, it’s increasingly important for those involved in education to be aware of innovations and trends that apply to the teaching profession and what strategies are most effective when it comes to making teacher education programs a success.

Recently I sat down with Dr. Maria del Carmen Salazar, associate professor of curriculum studies and teaching at the University of Denver’s Morgridge College of Education, to discuss this challenge of training tomorrow’s educators and what can be done to make these efforts a success.

Q: To get started, what are some of the most important trends in education currently and what impact do you think they are likely to have on the teaching profession in the future?

A: The most important trends in education are related to evaluation and accountability. These trends will have a significant impact on the teaching profession because new teachers will be held accountable for results. Teachers will need to demonstrate that students are making gains, including the students who face significant opportunity gaps. These trends will likely have positive and negative consequences for the teaching profession.

Q: Tell me about your experience with teacher education programs. What are some of the most important trends you have noticed?

A: I have collaborated on the design of 3 teacher preparation programs, including 2 Urban Teacher Residencies (UTRs) and a hybrid program that integrates traditional and residency-like elements. The trends I have noticed in teacher education include a tension between conformity and innovation, and a tension between accountability vs. connectivity (e.g., defining value added). On a more practical note, programs are trending toward increased field work hours, a focus on meeting the needs of diverse learners to meet district needs, and a focus on outputs versus inputs.

Q: What are some of the most significant challenges to teacher education programs?

A: Teacher education programs face significant challenges, including a lack of statewide data systems that link teachers to their preparation programs; misconceptions and myths about alternative teacher preparation vs. traditional teacher preparation; increased competition between preparation programs; and a lack of diverse teacher candidates and diverse teacher educators.

Q: How are the current teacher training programs measuring up given the current and predicted future trends in education? How well prepared are the teachers of tomorrow?

A: This is a difficult question because measures of teacher effectiveness vary from state to state and across districts. However, promising data is emerging from CAEP and EdTPA.

Q: What is your advice to educators and administrators involved in teacher training programs? What strategies have you found most useful for addressing the challenges and minimizing program issues?

A: Anchor your program to a framework for teaching. The best strategy we have used is to anchor our program to our Framework for Equitable and Effective Teaching (FEET). The FEET has provided a sense of cohesion and purpose that guides the dispositions, knowledge, and skills every apprentice teacher is expected to master. This tool is focused on meeting the needs of diverse learners, thus placing students from marginalized communities at the center of effective teaching.

Q: Approaching the issue from a different angle, what is the significance of innovation in teacher training programs given the current trends in education?

A: Innovation is essential in all elements of education. However, evaluation can promote compliance and conformity, thus stifling incubators for innovation, transformation, and reform.

Q: What strategies have you found particularly useful for promoting innovation in teacher education programs?

A: We teach our apprentice teachers to understand when to follow and when to lead. We use the analogy of knowing when to get in the box, knowing when to poke holes in the box, and knowing when to dismantle the box and create a new structure.

Q: How, specifically, can innovative teacher education programs best train tomorrow’s teachers?

A:
• Create a strong foundation using a framework for teaching
• Start with the needs of diverse learners
• Ensure theory and practice connections for real-world application
• Model good teaching
• Provide opportunities for apprentice teachers to teach, lead, and transform
• Be flexible, adaptive, and community-oriented
• Prepare change agents
• Think locally and globally

This concludes our interview. Thanks to Dr. Salazar for taking the time to answer my questions.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Equity, HBCU's, Matthew Lynch

Diversity at College Level Bolstered by Online Offerings

Each year online learning initiatives becomes less of a fringe movement and more of an incorporated, and accepted, form of education. More than 6.7 million people took at least one online class in the fall of 2011 and 32 percent of college students now take at least one online course during their matriculation. It is even becoming commonplace for high schools to require all students to take an online class before graduation as a way to prep them for the “real world” of secondary education.

The flexibility and convenience of online learning is well known but what is not as readily talked about is the way distance education promotes diversity of the college population. With less red tape than the traditional college format, online students are able to earn credits while still working full time, maintaining families and dealing with illnesses. Whether students take just one course remotely, or obtain an entire degree, they are able to take on the demands of college life more readily – leading to student population with more variety.

The Babson Survey Research Group recently revealed that while online college student enrollment is on the rise, traditional colleges and universities saw their first drop in enrollment in the ten years the survey has been conducted. This drop is small – less than a tenth of one percent – but its significance is big. A trend toward the educational equality of online curriculum is being realized by students, institutions and employers across the board. The benefits of a college education through quality online initiatives are now becoming more accessible to students that simply cannot commit to the constraints of a traditional campus setting.

A controversial experiment that could lead the way to even more college credit accessibility is MOOCs, or massive open online courses. As the name implies, these classes are offered to the general public at a low cost, or no cost, in the hopes of earning their students college credit. California-based online course provider Coursera recently had five of its offerings evaluated by the American Council on Education for college credit validity. Four of the courses were recommended for college credit by ACE, and one was endorsed for vocational credit, providing student work verification through a strict proctoring process.

These credits are not earned through community colleges or online-institutions; Duke University, the University of California at Irvine and the University of Pennsylvania are on Coursera’s list of places the courses will earn credit for students that pay a nominal fee. Students that obtain these credits through Coursera can approach any higher education institution and seek their inclusion in a degree program, but the final discretion is up to the particular school.

MOCCs are certainly in an infancy stage and do not provide a “sure thing” yet for students that participate. In the Babson survey mentioned earlier, only 2.6 percent of schools offer a MOOC, but an additional 9.4 percent are building a MOCC plan. The potential for further diversity and equality in education through MOCCs is certainly on the horizon. This form of online learning means that students do not have to commit to an entire course of study to obtain credits or even commit to a particular institution upfront.

MOOCs will further eliminate the socio-economic barriers that keep promising students from seeking out college credits. Students are given more flexibility in scheduling at an affordable price. Though the MOOC trend has its dissenters, I believe it will win over even the most skeptical and increase accessibility for all people that seek higher education. After all, at one time the mention of online courses raised a few eyebrows in the educational community and look how far the concept has come. Further development of online initiatives, specifically in the area of MOOCs, represents the next big step for enriching the diversity of the college student population in America.

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

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

Principals: 4 Factors to Consider When Engaging in School Reform

Our society is giving more and more attention to improving student learning.

This expectation has resulted in a growing expectation in some states and districts for principals to be effective instructional leaders. Consider these statistics: nearly 7,000 students drop out of U.S. high schools every day and, every year approximately 1.2 million teenagers leave the public school system without a diploma or an adequate education. There are 2,000 high schools in America in which less than 60% of students graduate within four years after entering ninth grade.

The situation is not much brighter for students who do earn a high school diploma, and enter a two –year or four-year institutions. In community colleges, approximately 40% of freshmen (and approximately 20% in public, four-year institutions) are in need of basic instruction in reading, writing, or mathematics before they can perform in college-level courses.

Principals must advocate for these students and provide leadership to reverse this appalling educational outcome. However, the odds are sometimes stacked against them. Let’s look at some issues principals face in trying to create change, and the solutions that will help them accomplish just that.

  1. Many public schools have unworkable school environments.

The failure of many public school districts to provide the working conditions that well-trained principals need to prosper is often a central reason for these ongoing graduation and future preparation issues. By having access to resources and being committed to school reform, principals are able to work with teachers to create school environments that facilitate excellence in learning.

The issues that principals need to work on with teachers include aligning instruction with a standards-based curriculum to provide a good measure of achievement, and improving both student learning and classroom instruction by effectively organizing resources. Principals must use sound hiring practices, ensure professional development is available at their schools, and keep abreast of issues that may influence the quality of teaching in schools.

  1. Some school districts don’t have a cohesive agenda for the principal to follow.

While having good leaders in place is crucial, it is not always enough. If principals don’t have supportive work environments for their improvement efforts, then even the most talented and best-trained individuals may be discouraged by the challenges they face on a daily basis. Districts where no major high school improvements have been made don’t have a cohesive agenda for improvement. Such an agenda would specify clear goals, research-based practices, improvement-focused accountability, and strategies to support implementation. In practice, schools without such an agenda can often be characterized by disjointed actions. Many of the principals in such schools report that they are not involved in defining existing instructional issues in their schools.

  1. District-level decisions can disempower principals.

The district (or state) makes these decisions, meaning that principals have little ownership of their problems or the proposed solutions to them. They also report having little support or motivation to find solutions, and that they do not feel there is a well-designed system of improvement. Rather, they feel that “improvements” are undertaken in a series of random acts.

When decision-making is shared, leadership roles are redefined at all levels. Principals are supported by district staff members, not blocked by them. District staff members make frequent visits to schools to provide coaching, technical assistance, and staff development. Teachers benefit from continuous professional development; principals have sufficient autonomy and resources to engage and develop staff. Professional development may target groups or individual teachers, and the teachers are given opportunities to work together on curriculum and instruction.

In contrast, many districts focus on educational management instead of educational leadership. The support provided to improve instruction in these districts is not grounded in research on effective teaching. In addition, these districts lack a systemic approach to improvement and fail to provide principals with the guidance and support they require to reform processes and put effective instructional practices into place.

Many principals spend much of their time finding ways to work around the district office, rather than with them. To obtain the support they need, they often decide to avoid hiring protocols and develop “underground” relationships with individual staff in the district office. Supportive district leaders understand the challenging work principals must do, as in many cases they have been successful principals themselves.

  1. The best district leaders understand a principal’s challenge and will do what they can to help principals be successful school leaders.

These district leaders support principals’ focus on instruction and acknowledge that priority by publicly focusing on curriculum and instruction in school board and superintendents’ meetings. Rather than micromanaging staff, they routinely involve school and teacher-leaders in developing and using tools such as walk-throughs, pacing guides, and research-based instructional practices.

The best districts have developed a collaborative “lattice” approach between the central office and the school. This entails districts providing good principals with the support they need to enable their schools to succeed. When given the space by the district to focus on improving their schools, principals can then support their teachers to do the same. The focus of districts must be on raising standards and achievement, and improving instruction by supporting and enabling principals to develop their ability as instructional leaders.

What do you think are some challenges principals might face when trying to improve their schools?

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

3 Ways to See More Diversity in College Presidents

College presidents must be able to multitask. Though not in the official job descriptions, these administrative leaders must be figureheads, court the general public, delegate effectively and always keep an eye on the horizon to guide their ships to bigger, better waters. It is a tough job and like many high-profile ones, comes with its share of scrutiny in the public eye.

As the latest wave of college presidents looks towards retirement, the higher education community has the opportunity to promote a more diverse presidential core. The next five years will set the tone for college leadership at the highest level for the coming decades and really for the entire student population too.

Here are some interesting facts about college presidents:

  • 61. Average age of college presidents in 2011.
    • 92. Percentage of college presidents aged in the mid-50s to mid-70s.
    • 14. Average number of years retiring college presidents first serve in the role.
    • 40. Normal number of new college presidents in the American Association of State Colleges and Universities every year.
    • 109. Actual number of new college presidents from April 2011 to August 2012.
    • 6. Number of new college presidents this school year in the California State system alone.
    • 13. Percentage of college presidents who are racial or ethnic minorities, as of 2012.
    • 14. Percentage of college presidents who were racial or ethnic minorities in 2006.
    • 26. Percentage of women college presidents.

So how do you introduce diversity at the college president level? Here are a few steps.

  1. Take advantage of the new way to find college presidents. In the past, college presidents from other schools and college vice presidents have most often ascended the ranks to fill empty presidential seats. While this still happens about 19 and 25 percent of the time, respectively, other leaders like provosts and deans are increasingly being considered to fill the college president vacancies. Some schools even search outside the college community to find leaders from other industries that fit the bill. There is really no hiring formula that applies to all college president spots and a “qualified” candidate could feasibly jump several levels of hierarchy to claim the spot.
  2. Recognize the opportunity at hand. American institutions of higher education often consider how a diverse student, and even faculty, population should look but do not extend that to top-tier leadership roles. Colleges need to rethink that strategy. I believe the trickle-down diversity effect works well in college settings. Instead of starting with the largest group (students), start cultural change at the top of the pyramid. If a school has a well-balanced student population already in place, chances are that the faculty and administration reflect that fact too.
  3. Include diversity in the search process. I’m not saying that white men with the right qualifications should be excluded from the running; I just mean that colleges with open president seats should make sure the short list of candidates has some variety in experience, ethnicity, sex and race. The Rooney Rule, established in 2003 by the NFL, mandates that at least one minority candidate be interviewed for all head coaching spots. I think colleges need to do that same with their academic leaders.

Those in lower to middle-level leadership roles in colleges that have presidential aspirations should get ready now. Make sure your name is associated with talks about the future of the college by getting yourself involved in the action. Get published. Envision yourself on the same plane as the college presidents that went before you but realize that you have a unique voice to lend to the college community you want to lead. Embrace the turning tides. Be an active part of the changes in college administration and you will in turn be part of the progress.

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

Diversity at College Level Bolstered by Online Offerings

Each year online learning initiatives becomes less of a fringe movement and more of an incorporated, and accepted, form of education. More than 6.7 million people took at least one online class in the fall of 2011 and 32 percent of college students now take at least one online course during their matriculation. It is even becoming commonplace for high schools to require all students to take an online class before graduation as a way to prep them for the “real world” of secondary education.

The flexibility and convenience of online learning is well known but what is not as readily talked about is the way distance education promotes diversity of the college population. With less red tape than the traditional college format, online students are able to earn credits while still working full time, maintaining families and dealing with illnesses. Whether students take just one course remotely, or obtain an entire degree, they are able to take on the demands of college life more readily – leading to student population with more variety.

The Babson Survey Research Group recently revealed that while online college student enrollment is on the rise, traditional colleges and universities saw their first drop in enrollment in the ten years the survey has been conducted. This drop is small – less than a tenth of one percent – but its significance is big. A trend toward the educational equality of online curriculum is being realized by students, institutions and employers across the board. The benefits of a college education through quality online initiatives are now becoming more accessible to students that simply cannot commit to the constraints of a traditional campus setting.

A controversial experiment that could lead the way to even more college credit accessibility is MOOCs, or massive open online courses. As the name implies, these classes are offered to the general public at a low cost, or no cost, in the hopes of earning their students college credit. California-based online course provider Coursera recently had five of its offerings evaluated by the American Council on Education for college credit validity. Four of the courses were recommended for college credit by ACE, and one was endorsed for vocational credit, providing student work verification through a strict proctoring process.

These credits are not earned through community colleges or online-institutions; Duke University, the University of California at Irvine and the University of Pennsylvania are on Coursera’s list of places the courses will earn credit for students that pay a nominal fee. Students that obtain these credits through Coursera can approach any higher education institution and seek their inclusion in a degree program, but the final discretion is up to the particular school.

MOCCs are certainly in an infancy stage and do not provide a “sure thing” yet for students that participate. In the Babson survey mentioned earlier, only 2.6 percent of schools offer a MOOC, but an additional 9.4 percent are building a MOCC plan. The potential for further diversity and equality in education through MOCCs is certainly on the horizon. This form of online learning means that students do not have to commit to an entire course of study to obtain credits or even commit to a particular institution upfront.

MOOCs will further eliminate the socio-economic barriers that keep promising students from seeking out college credits. Students are given more flexibility in scheduling at an affordable price. Though the MOOC trend has its dissenters, I believe it will win over even the most skeptical and increase accessibility for all people that seek higher education. After all, at one time the mention of online courses raised a few eyebrows in the educational community and look how far the concept has come. Further development of online initiatives, specifically in the area of MOOCs, represents the next big step for enriching the diversity of the college student population in America.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share