Matthew Lynch

Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, HBCU's, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch

Black Men and College Advantages: Fair or Unfair?

There’s no denying that the numbers are dismal when it comes to black young men who attend and graduate from colleges in the U.S. Statistically speaking, black men have the lowest test scores, the worst grades and the highest dropout rates – in K-12 education, and in college too. The school to prison pipeline is a real phenomenon, with state prisons systems determining their future populations with stunning accuracy based on fourth-grade reading assessment scores. The recognition of this educational crisis has led to some strong initiatives targeted at young black men with the intention of guiding them through the college years and to successful, productive lives that follow.

Any college initiatives targeted at a particular group of people are bound to see some push-back from those who are excluded. Despite the obvious need for college incentive programs for the young black men of the nation, there are plenty who complain about the special treatment these young men receive. Even highly-regarded institutions like Stanford University have alumni who have spoken out against affirmative action practices, pointing out that instead of eliminating racial discrimination, these initiatives have actually led to reverse-discrimination on college campuses.

A Gallup Poll found that 67 percent of Americans are against any type of special treatment when it comes to admittance to college based on ethnicity or race, favoring instead a system that admits students based solely on merit. The belief that black, and other minority, college students who are given special considerations for admittance and financial aid are somehow stealing opportunities from other deserving students is certainly widespread and gaining traction.

Black Women Cry Foul

Perhaps the most surprising of those who are vocally against the increasing amount of financial, mentoring and other college transitional services for black men are black women. On the surface, this would appear to be a detrimental activity. Isn’t the fight for equality and opportunities for black men really a fight for all black people? If you ask the black women who are angered by the initiatives available for their counterparts, that answer is “no.” Where is the love for black women with college aspirations – many of whom fall into disadvantaged categories themselves?

Programs like San Jacinto College’s Men of Honor target black male college students with life programs that not only aid in college graduation, but in the development of life skills and networking opportunities. The TRUMPET program implemented at Northeastern Technical College has increased the retention rate for black students from around half to nearly 90 percent. Programs like these that focus on guiding black male college students through the process appear to be working, but is it at the detriment of female black college students?

Why DO black men seem to be hogging all the college initiative programs?

Less Need for Intervention

The truth may lie in the success of black women in college settings without an overwhelming amount of extra help. Black women are enrolling in college at a higher rate than any other group, and black men graduate from college at a rate that is two-thirds lower than their female peers. Black women appear to be a victim of their own successes, it seems, when it comes to being targeted for help to get through college. Of course there are college incentive programs for black women – from on-campus initiatives to United Negro College Fund options – but the overall spotlight seems to favor black men where college encouragement is concerned. And the women resent it.

So what is it about the young women of the black community that seems to inherently better prepare them for the college setting – without as much of an external push to succeed as the black men? What is so different between a sister and brother raised in the same household that leads the female to prioritize college, while the male needs someone else to prioritize it for him?

It can all be traced back to the contemporary setup of black families. You can call it stereotyping or overgeneralizing, but 68 percent of black women who gave birth in 2012 were unmarried and 48.5 percent of black children grow up in single custodial home, with the overwhelming majority of those parents being mothers. The divorce rate for black families is higher than for white or Hispanic families. More black children grow up without the influence of their fathers than any other demographic.
As a result, black women tend to grow up with strong female role models who emulate independence and a self-sufficient lifestyle. These single moms go out and get the job done every day, and as their daughters get older, they realize that there is a better life outside of these constraints – and that college is the path that will get them there. The young men, though seeing the same role models from their mothers, do not have a male version to look up to in many cases.

Which is why college motivation within and without the black community is so vital for these young men. At this point in the nation’s history, they are in the greatest need for the lifestyle change that higher education can provide, and not just for individual growth but for the benefit of the entire nation. Black women, presumably tired of carrying the load for their community, may not be able to see beyond what they perceive as unfair when it comes to their personal circumstances to the long-term goal of a stronger black community. So while the negative feelings of black women college students regarding the advantages afforded their male peers are founded, a look at the long-term benefits of these male-centric initiatives on college campuses may change their perspective.

 

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

3 Ways to Improve U.S. Students’ Standing Worldwide

The latest international report on student knowledge and success worldwide once again paints U.S. students in a bad light. This is not the first time American students have lagged behind their peers on the OECD PISA global education survey that tests and compares student outcomes in areas like math, science and reading. The results are really just more of the same.

While I take issue with particular parts of the test (leader China reportedly only tested students in elite schools in Shanghai), it is a wake-up call nonetheless. When it comes to American K-12 student achievement, it is not enough to be a big fish in a little pond. To really make a splash and gain international footing, a few things need to change in U.S. K-12 education. Here are just a few:

Teacher support. This starts from administration in individual schools and extends into the community at large. Parents must also respect the role of teachers in order for kids to follow suit. Unfortunately many times teachers are pitted as servants, and not put on the pedestal they deserve. Perhaps I’m biased but what is more important than imparting knowledge to our next generation? Today’s best teachers are not simply reciting facts and expecting their students to regurgitate them; the teachers in contemporary classrooms are “showing their work” so to speak by imparting the life skills necessary for students to find answers on their own and be successful citizens in other ways.

Teachers need backup from the other people in their students’ lives and from their own colleagues and superiors. Traditionally high-performing PISA countries like Sweden, Australia and Japan all have one thing in common – high levels of community support for teachers and involvement from teachers in the course of instruction and curriculum. When new initiatives are handed down in the U.S., like the Common Core standards, teachers should have access to resources to help them reach goals. Teachers need more input in decisions, more access to continuing education resources and more faith from the administrators and families impacted by their classrooms.

STEM emphasis. There seems to be a general societal consensus that science, technology, engineering and math subjects are somehow boring, or uncool. A lot of attention has been placed lately on young women and finding ways to encourage them in male-dominated STEM fields, but I’d argue that young men need the same opportunities. Overall, more American students need to take an interest in STEM topics if we want to be able to compete on a global scale. The rapidly changing field of technology makes this part of U.S. K-12 education even more pressing. As the digital age continues to modify life as we know it, the students in today’s classrooms must have the tools to lead the country in discoveries, inventions and communication technology the coming decades.

Equal opportunities. In country that claims to be based on equality for all, there are still too many achievement gaps in our classrooms. While it should be a non-issue, the color of a student’s skin does seem to impact his or her academic achievement. It is not a direct effect, of course, but still something that needs even more focus to overcome. The best work on closing the achievement gap is in individual schools and I think that makes the most sense. No blanket national program will be able to answer all of the intricacies of why an achievement gap exists in a particular place or school. From a federal standpoint, however, schools should be encouraged to develop programs for eliminating achievement gaps and reaching individual students where it is most effective – their own classrooms.

Why do you think American students lag the rest of the world? What would you add to my list?

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

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

The Implications of Universal Preschool

President Obama has been vocal about his belief that a publicly-funded universal preschool initiative is necessary to give American children an academic advantage before ever setting foot in a Kindergarten classroom. A poll conducted by the bipartisan team of Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies found that 70 percent of respondents were in full support of a universal preschool plan as long as it did not contribute to the national deficit. Sixty percent of the Republicans polled supported the plan, despite its close ties with the Democratic Chief. It is clear that average Americans, despite party affiliation, are supportive of essentially extending the public school system to include preschool-aged students – but should K-12 educators be on

On paper, universal preschool seems like it would provide a definite boost to the K-12 academic initiatives that follow. Children with an earlier start in school settings should hypothetically have a stronger knowledge base before Kindergarten and be further developed in the social aspects that accompany the school years, and life beyond them. Common sense would dictate that adding a one-year option for preschool would lead to higher achievement throughout the K-12 journey, but the facts actually contradict this stance.

Studies of federal early education programs, like Head Start, have found that kids entrenched in academics early on show little to no academic advantages compared to kids that started school later. The positive academic impact of early education programs is non-existent by fifth grade. Further, state-based preschool campaigns in states like Oklahoma reveal no real long-term critical thinking or social advantages for the students.

The idea that setting kids in a school environment earlier than Kindergarten leads to better, smarter students is flawed – if just the results of these studies are to be trusted.

So then what is with the push for this universal preschool? Critics of the plan say it is just a way to add more education jobs, particularly since proponents want to insist that states accepting federal preschool dollars pay preschool teachers at the same rate as elementary ones.

The plan has also been accused of being a federally-funded childcare angle meant to help alleviate the cost woes of working parents along with giving kids a jump on academics. Predictably, this ruffles the feathers of constituents who are already leery of Obama’s so-called “socialist agenda” and the government having too much control over family affairs. Both claims are a stretch, in my opinion, and not the real issues that need to be discussed when it comes to the worthiness of universal preschool.

The real question that needs to be answered is whether or not starting kids earlier, across the board, will have a measurable impact on the success of American students throughout their careers. This answer comes with a host of complications though. What specific gains will constitute “success” in a universal preschool initiative? Higher standardized test scores? Better graduation rates? More graduates who go on to earn math and science degrees? Laying out a preschool plan that does not spell out any goals, or steps for achievement, is like sowing seeds haphazardly in a field and hoping something comes to fruition.

The second question should be: If implemented, how long will it take to see potential improvements? At what grade level will universal preschool benefits materialize – or at what age do educators stop hoping to see any positive impact?

Education is a right for all children but the how and when of that learning is muddy. Universal preschool may be the boost American children need to regain some academic ground on the world stage – or it may prove to be a better idea in theory than practice.

What are your thoughts on publicly funded universal preschool?

 

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

Fostering Diversity: A Necessary Step for HBCU Survival

Historically black colleges and universities, or HBCUs, have provided a top-notch education for African Americans since pre-Civil War days. These schools, founded prior to 1964 with the goal of serving black students, once provided windows to educational pursuits when other doors were slammed shut to African Americans. With diversity at all American colleges and universities on the rise, and the emergence of flexible online programs, where do HBCUs fit in the contemporary higher education picture?

A Powerful Educational Presence

According to ThinkHBCU.org, 70 percent of the nation’s African American physicians and dentists earned their degrees at HBCUs. Over 50 percent of public school teachers of African American descent earned their degrees at HBCUs. African Americans with communication technology degrees from HBCUs make up 44 percent of the nation’s total and 43 percent of mathematics degrees awarded to African Americans come from HBCUs. The range of industries addressed in the offerings of HBCUs is vast, contributing to a larger and more integral African American presence in the workforce.

Women gain an especially strong advantage when they earn a degree from an HBCU. The United Negro College Fund has reported that females who graduate from Bennett and Spelman Colleges make up more than half of the African American women who eventually earn science doctorates. To put that in perspective, that number is higher than the amount produced by all seven Ivy League sister schools put together. In a workplace when minorities often still struggle to reach the highest ranks, African American women hold a strong advantage with a degree from a HBCU.

Remaining Relevant

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

The original intent of HBCUs worked. Some of the nation’s brightest and most influential minds came out of HBCUs. Langston Hughes was a Lincoln University graduate. Martin Luther King Jr. earned his degree from Morehouse College. Talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, education expert Marva Collins and Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons all earned degrees from HBCUs (from Tennessee State University, Clark Atlanta University and Dillard University, respectively). These powerful pillars of the African American community were able to achieve optimal success in life because of the education they received from HBCUs.
What about now? With white students quickly becoming one small aspect of non-HBCU settings, do ambitious African American students really need a HBCU to achieve success? Perhaps a more poignant question is this: does it help or hinder the African American community when its members attend a HBCU today? I think the answer is grounded in the particular student’s intent. Young African Americans today do not NEED a HBCU to obtain a general education, but they may find particular programs at individual schools meet their career objectives. Some may even find academic inspiration in the original founding purpose of a HBCU and that feeling of carrying on tradition may fuel them to graduate, make an impact in the world and give back to their college or university.

The Future of HBCUs

The original purpose of HBCUs is no longer the only reason but that does not mean that these institutions lack other attractive qualities. In fact, many students with white European, Latino or Asian roots are choosing HBCUs because of the strength of the academic programs and generally lower tuition costs. During the 2011 – 2012 school year, West Virginia State, Kentucky State and Delaware State universities all reported that more than 25 percent of their populations were made up of white Americans. A continued push for diversity on HBCU campuses is the only way these schools can transition from the necessity of the past to the potential of the future. This means implementing more online course options and flexible degree programs so that all students can picture themselves succeeding at a HBCU. Gratitude for the original intent of HBCUs combined with forward educational thinking for students of all heritages will carry HBCUs to the next level of achievement in higher learning circles.

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here.

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

School Security: Just Smoke and Mirrors?

In theory, parents and educators would do anything to keep students safe, whether those students are pre-Kindergartners or wrapping up a college career. Nothing is too outlandish or over-the-top when it comes to protecting our kids and young adults. Metal detectors, security cameras, more police presence in school hallways, gated campuses – they all work toward the end goal of sheltering students and their educators and protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens. Emotions aside though – how much does school security really increase actual safety? And do school security efforts actually hinder the learning experience? It sounds good to taut the virtues of tighter policies on school campuses but is it all just empty rhetoric?

Recently the University of Kentucky came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union for plans to install 2,000 security cameras on campus. Representatives at UK say the move is a response to the increasing randomness of school violence at all levels of the learning process and a way to better ensure student safety. The ACLU says it is a blatant violation of privacy.

I say it is money wasted because all the security cameras in the world would not have prevented the largest school tragedies of recent history, from Sandy Hook Elementary to the Virginia Tech massacre. Security cameras and other monitoring devices give us a false feeling of security and an actionable course when there are no answers to pointless questions.

While extreme, UK’s camera monitoring plans are in sync with what is happening in K-12 schools across the nation. In the 2009 – 2010 school year, 84 percent of high schools had security cameras for safety monitoring. Over half of all middle and elementary schools had them too, with 73 and 51 percent respectively. Despite this, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the percentage of high schools with controlled access to school buildings during normal hours is lower than that of middle and elementary students. Though not expressly stated in these findings, it would seem that in the case of high schools, cameras are more of a way to catch rule-breakers after the fact than a way to prevent violence and other criminal activities.

Students are not the only ones who are the subjects of safeguards like surveillance cameras.  Teachers, administrators and other staff are also vital when it comes to putting school safety into place – and in the case of teachers, they are on the front lines of what is going on with students. Limited access to K-12 campuses is meant to protect outsiders from harming the many people who are supposed to be there. But what about student-versus-student violence, or student-versus-teacher physical altercations? In 2011, 12 percent of high schoolers reported being in a physical fight at school that year. Nearly 6 percent reported carrying a weapon, like a gun or knife, onto school property in the month preceding the survey. By the time a security camera picks up on the fact that a student has a knife or gun, is there really any timely way to prevent the inevitable.

Given the fact that state spending per student is lower than at the start of the recession, how much should schools shell out in the way of security costs? Perhaps the best investment we can make to safeguard our students and educators is in personal vigilance. Perhaps less reliance on so-called safety measures would lead to higher alertness.

What role should school security play on K-12 campuses, and should it be a financial priority?

 

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

Ask An Expert: Teachers Are Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse

Question: I am a third-grade teacher who works in a suburb outside of Philadelphia, PA. Based on several signs and a gut feeling, I suspect that one of my outgoing students is experiencing child abuse. I plan to report my suspicions through the proper channels, but my question is: can I be sued by the child’s parents if I am wrong? Helen S.

Answer: Helen, don’t be so hard on yourself. Parents who abuse their children go to great lengths to cover up their crime and convince everyone else that all is well. Child abuse and child neglect are issues that we would rather avoid. Unfortunately, they are all too real and are so prevalent that, as teachers, we must rise to the challenge.

It is very important to remember that it is not always obvious in which family abuse might occur, and abuse and neglect do not necessarily have to be ongoing. Parents may end up becoming abusive for various reasons, including financial or psychological stress, or unrealistic expectations of their children. It can be as simple as losing one’s temper under stress and calling a child “stupid,” or smacking them in the face.

As a teacher, you are a mandatory reporter of child abuse and neglect. In simple terms, you are legally obligated by your state to report signs of child abuse and neglect to the proper authorities, especially in situations where you see physical and emotional signs of possible abuse. You should report your suspicions at the first sign of trouble while also following district and state guidelines.

Many teachers clam up in this type of situation, mostly due to their fear of falsely accusing someone of such a heinous crime. Thankfully, social service agencies do a good job of investigating reports of child abuse, so if a child is being abused, more often than not social services makes the right call. Also, many teachers are afraid of being sued by the child’s parents, and possibly incurring their wrath.

The good news is that, in the United States, teachers are protected from litigation in situations where they report suspicions of child abuse, as long as they follow the requirements specific to their district and state. So breathe a sigh of relief, as chances are your worst fear will never come true. In the end we have to realize that the safety of the students placed in our care is our number one priority, and if we are proven wrong … well, we want to be proven wrong, don’t we?

Child abuse is a very serious problem that must not be taken lightly. Any sign of abuse must be reported, and teachers must be ready to offer support and encouragement to these students. You can never be 100% sure that your suspicions are right, but don’t let your doubt stop you from following your intuition.

As you gear up to report your suspicions through the proper channels, take solace in the fact that you are doing the right thing and will not face litigation as a result. Not only are you performing your legal duty, but you can sleep comfortably at night knowing that you took the bold action required to protect the students under your care.

 

 

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

3 Reasons K-12 Education Still Needs Federal Oversight

Educating American children has always been a responsibility that has fallen heavily on the states. As the public k-12 education matured in the 20th century, however, it became increasingly apparent that states left to their own educational devices meant dangerous consequences for many children—especially students with disabilities and those living in poverty, for example. Historically, the federal government has always been the one to pick up the slack in k-12 education when states have fallen short.

In his piece for The Daily Beast, Jonah Edelman of Stand for Children warns that members of the newly-seated Congress have already voiced intentions to reduce accountability and transparency over states’ educational systems, while providing additional flexibility with federal funding.

I have my reservations about this. Contrary to what some states-rights activists claim, states do not always act in the best interests of their residents, especially when it comes to education. Left to their own devices, states tend to enact discriminatory practices. Allow me to share a few reasons I think education still needs the support of the federal government:

  1. Some states will run wild once given control.

My home state of Mississippi is an example of state control gone awry. If its schools were wholly reliant on the state to outline learning benchmarks and divvy up funding (based on a state population with 24 percent in poverty and over 70 percent of its students eligible for free-and-reduced-price lunch), the inequalities would compound exponentially.

And those inequalities are already startling. For example, while 83 percent of high schools in New Hampshire offer calculus, only 41 percent of those in Mississippi do.

Mississippi has never quite been able to recover from its rampant poverty that began after the Civil War. Even when freedom was granted to slaves in the state and nearby, the African-American population was not able to elevate its quality of life due to the barriers erected by segregation and Jim Crow laws. Less-overt inequalities still exist that keep each new generation of African-American students in the state from breaking the cycle of poverty at home and underachievement in the classroom.

  1. Federal intervention can give students rights when states refuse to.

Edelman mentions issues like desegregation as wins for the federal government when states refused to do the right thing for all students. Without federal intervention, for instance, we wouldn’t have programs like the DREAM Act, which encourages continued education for students who might otherwise have been eligible for deportation. Instead, because of this federal program, they can contribute positively to their communities and to our country.

  1. The federal government can help raise the standard of education so that all states have something to aspire to.

Federal guidance is needed to measure how much students are learning from one state to the next. Establishing a common high bar for academic performance that includes rigorous college-prep expectations can only be brought forth through federal involvement in schools.

It will be interesting to see what twists and turns the NCLB rewrites take and certainly no group will ever be completely satisfied. But the basic principle that guaranteeing every student in every state equal access to education is one worth fighting for.

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

3 Real Facts About Behind the Senate’s Refusal to Consider Climate Change Education

The latest version of “No Child Left Behind” had a section that would have created climate change curriculum for K-12 students.

However, the Senate said “no” to this portion of the bill.

Why did this happen? Let’s look at the facts behind this decision.

  1. According to theHill.com, the measure failed 44-53.

“The measure, from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would have created a grant program for school districts to “develop or improve climate science curriculum and supplementary education materials,” according to the amendment text. It failed on a 44-53 vote.”

  1. Chair of the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Lamar Alexander said that he wasn’t fond of the measure because it further inserts the federal government into public education. But that wasn’t all…
  2. Alexander believes in climate change but is afraid that allowing the amendment to pass would, in essence, create a slippery slope due to political partisanship.

Interesting that politics is the reason why a measure like this failed. Climate change is real and has been proven by simple science. While the development of the curriculum hopefully wouldn’t grow around partisan ideas, giving baseline information on climate change and its impact on the earth seems fairly logical.

Explaining why temperatures in the ocean continue to rise, why the polar ice caps are melting, and why tornadoes have gotten more powerful is information all students should know. This attack on climate change as “made up” is not helpful to anyone — least of all the next generation of adults who will deal with this on an even larger scale.

Hopefully the Senate tries again with rewritten language and passes the measure. Our students need to learn about climate change and at an early age.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch

Mainstream Technology Gives Lift to Assistive Learning

The concept of assistive technology to help special education students achieve more in K-12 classrooms is nothing new, but the portability of many of the devices is a relatively new trend that is making a big impact on the ways students with special needs learn. Assistive technology devices used to be big, clunky pieces of equipment that drew attention to learning and physical disabilities. Today, assistive devices are often the save types of technology K-12 students are using in traditional classrooms and there is a “coolness” factor in both instances.

The way that assistive technology looks is just one aspect of the effectiveness of the educational equipment, though. The use of assistive technology is also changing to provide students with more customized learning experiences. Studies show that dropout rates for special education students are on the decline – at least partially because the technology exists to keep these kids comfortable and in class longer than in the past.

Strides in Arizona

In December, the Arizona Department of Education announced a $260,000 federal grant among traditional public and charter schools in 12 districts to aid specifically with assistive education efforts. Through the grant, students with special needs can get personalized technology for iPads, notebook-size word processors and electronic pens that can scan words and display definitions. All of these efforts are intended to keep special education students in the K-12 system through graduation by having the technology to keep up in class.

This is not the first effort by the state to give an advantage to students with special learning needs. To help with the small technology budgets, the Education Department has an assistive-technology loan library on the Northern Arizona University campus. Last year, schools checked out over 2,000 items – ranging from pencil grips to iPads – to allow teachers and students to give the devices a trial run before the district made the purchase.
The assistive technology initiatives in Arizona district place traditional classroom inclusion on a pedestal with a heavy emphasis on technology. What administrators are finding is that non-verbal kids with devices prove they know a lot more than ever they themselves realize. Students with autism, cerebral palsy and other disorders that impair speech are reaping the benefits of these devices and feeling successful. Best of all: the students are developing better relationships with one another.

Autism and iPads

Depending who you ask, the iPad has varying effects on children with autism – but most parents and teachers would say that the device has made in-roads in their students’ attitude about learning. Experts at Apple say that iPads “cure” sensory overload and give autism children control, along with a way they can communicate effectively. Using less extreme language, researchers at Vanderbilt University say that speech-generating devices, like iPads, can encourage late-speaking children with autism spectrum disorders to speak, even from the ages of 5 to 8. In other words, the basic technology that is readily available in classrooms and many households is also effective in learning initiatives for children with a specific disorder that impacts traditional learning.

The iPad is just one example. E-readers with screen variance in size of font, brightness and even speaking command options make in-classroom learning possible for children with sight obstacles. Students who need extra help learning to read can spend that extra time with e-readers or computer programs that customize the experience. Students with physical disabilities can sit at a regular computer in a traditional classroom and use specific equipment or simply their voices to achieve the same academic results as their peers.

As assistive technology continues to integrate with typical technology, the students are the beneficiaries. The technology is not enough to keep them in their seats if they are not comfortable using it.

How has the assistive technology of the past few years had a positive impact in your classrooms?

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

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

5 Fascinating Statistics About High School Dropouts in America

Considering the flack the United States educational system gets for its underperformance, you might think that the high school dropout rate would be a cause for concern. However, the reality of our high school graduation rates would actually surprise you. Here are some fascinating statistics about high school dropouts in the United States.

  1. The numbers have fallen across all demographics. In 1972, the government started tracking the dropout rates specifically for Hispanic students because this group has consistently highest percentages of students who do not get their high school diploma. Back then, over one-third of all Hispanic students dropped out. Today that number is down to 13.6 percent. However, the group still leads all races and ethnicities when it comes to young people out of school with no diploma or G.E.D.OK

In 1967, black students dropped out at a rate of 29 percent. That number is down to 7 percent, the same as the national average, today. White students have always held on to the lowest percentage of the dropout pie chart, even when their numbers represented a larger majority of total student populations. In 1967, 15 percent of white students dropped out of high school; today, just 5 percent do.

  1. Low-income students are much more likely to drop out than their middle-class peers. In 2009, students from families in low-income brackets ran a risk of dropping out that was five times higher than high-income peers. 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.

Still, the future is not completely bleak for kids from disadvantaged economic environments; in 1975, low-income students dropped out at a rate of 16 percent but that number now sits comfortably under 10 percent.

  1. Students with disabilities are still being left behind by schools. 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. 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.
  2. Men and women drop out at around equal rates. When it comes to gender, there has not been much differentiation when it comes to dropout percentages in over 40 years. There have been four years since 1972 when the rate for young men dropouts was noticeably higher than young women: 1974, 1976, 1978 and 2000.
  3. D.C. has the lowest high school graduation rate and Iowa has the highest. According to the latest set of national statistics, released in 2012, high school graduation rates were the lowest in the District of Columbia (59 percent), Nevada (62 percent), New Mexico (63 percent), Georgia (67 percent) and Oregon and Alaska (both with 68 percent). By contrast, the states with the highest graduation rates were Iowa (88 percent), Vermont and Wisconsin (87 percent), and Indiana, Nebraska and New Hampshire (86 percent). The type of area a student lives also impacts graduation rates. The average high school grad rate in the largest 50 U.S. cities is just 53 percent, compared with 71 percent in suburban America.

As you see, there are many factors that seem related to the high school dropout rates in this country. However, one thing is certain—in most demographics, fewer and fewer students are dropping out. That is encouraging, even if we do have a way to go.

  • no reactions
0
Share