OpEducation

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch, OpEducation

What’s Wrong with MOOCs and Why Aren’t They Working?

Note: The following guest piece comes to us courtesy of Harman Singh, CEO of WizIQ. He founded the company in 2006, which has evolved to be the first and only online global education marketplace to offer live instructor-led learning. His career as a visionary e-learning innovator spans more than 13 years. Singh has successfully leveraged technology to replicate the classroom experience online making it more accessible, for both students and teachers. Singh has directed the company’s growth, while developing and creating WizIQ’s vision and business strategy.

As technology advances, we have more access to information. One technology, Massive Open Online Courses (better known as MOOCs) is beginning to change the way we look at education. These online courses are free and filled with information on just about anything you want to learn – from project management skills to learning a new language. And because MOOCs are free, access is open to anyone with a computer.

Just as learners have open access to MOOCs, instructors from schools and universities to a variety of education providers, and practically anyone with a skill to share can host a MOOC. The emergence of MOOCs has the potential to inevitably change the way we receive our education.

Just how prevalent are MOOCs? There are hundreds of MOOCs globally, some from even established universities such as Harvard and Stanford. MOOCs fill a void for learners who lack the time – and/or dollars – to physically attend a course featuring high-quality content. Needless to say, MOOCs are regarded as a game-changer in online education.

But are they really changing the game in learning?

Why MOOCs Aren’t Working Right Now

In the future, MOOCs have the potential to completely transform education. However, as of right now, don’t expect to see universities shutting down as a result, as some experts have begun projecting. Despite the recent rapid rise in MOOCs, this format continues to be an evolving model, and one that isn’t quite established yet.

Despite the seemingly unlimited access to free information through MOOCs, a 2012-2013 study conducted by MIT and Harvard revealed an overwhelming 95 percent of students dropped their online courses before completion, a rate substantially higher than traditional education’s dropout rates. While some students have expressed satisfaction taking MOOCs, others give various reasons for dropping them. Among the most common reason cited behind this dropout rate: there is no live teacher engagement.

Currently, just 10 percent of MOOC registrants complete their courses. Why – if all the materials are free and available with the click of a mouse? MOOCs are structured using a series of pre-recorded video-based, self-paced classes offered to students for free. There are no live instructors to help facilitate the classes, lectures or content. There is also no straight-and-narrow path from beginning-to-end and the format does not encourage the exchange of different thoughts and ideas among learners. The lack of live instructor involvement also means no follow-up with the student, or any assurance along the way that the student’s learning trajectory is heading in the right direction. At the course’s conclusion, only the learner can determine if he or she was successful.

The modern MOOC – without live and interactive teacher engagement – is essentially an Internet version of a book. That said, there is tremendous potential for the MOOC to evolve in a major way. To reduce dropout rates, the MOOC must be structured around live teacher engagement.

Some online learning platforms are now taking notice of this need for student-teacher engagement. At WizIQ, for example, our platform is an open marketplace where anyone can offer a MOOC, but we are integrating actual teacher engagement into the MOOC, filling a need within the online education sector.

Still Plenty of Room – and Time – For Growth

With the potential evolution for more online courses to include live instructor interaction, MOOCs can have a significant impact in higher education. Economics alone provides a huge advantage for MOOCs. According to a Deloitte study: “Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Not Disrupted Yet, But The Future Looks Bright,” in 2003, the total amount of student debt in the U.S. had reached more than $200 billion. Just nine years later, that debt ballooned to $1 trillion. In that same study, since 2000, the tuition cost in colleges has increased by 72 percent, whereas earnings for people ages 25-30 have decreased by 15 percent. Looking at this information, it’s obvious that economics are on the side of MOOCs.

Some colleges have partnered with companies to develop programs and pipelines that meet the student’s current and future needs. This type of partnership could also help students enter the workforce fresh out of graduation. If, somehow, MOOCs are able to establish similar partnerships with companies and provide better opportunities for students to find work, there is a real incentive for people not to go to college and just register for MOOCs. This shift will not occur anytime soon, however, because the social pressure to go to college and get a degree still exists. Such pressure results in the ongoing issue of student debt in our country. When this pressure no longer exists, and when economics play a larger role in determining how students receive their education, it is at that point when MOOCs could potentially replace higher education as we know it.

In addition to its potential in higher education, MOOCs that feature instructor engagement will also benefit those taking courses to enrich their lives. Classes like learning an instrument, a foreign language or how to cook would be enhanced by the presence of a live instructor, who can exchange feedback with the student on whether or not the assignments are being done properly. Programming courses on WizIQ, for example, allow students access to remote, virtual labs with live lab instructors to run programs practicing real world scenarios. This method is far more efficient than learning from a video-based course, or trying to understand course lessons on YouTube.

Where Will MOOCs Be Just Two Years From Now?

Within the next two years, MOOCs will quickly evolve from lacking teacher engagement to having a lot of teacher engagement. Right now, it’s essentially a model where computers are teaching students. This model is simply not sustainable in the long run without live student-teacher engagement. Teachers are the key that unlocks learning in these courses. They help students resolve issues and problems.

Will the biggest change in online education moving forward be putting live teachers at the center of the MOOC (not just on video)? We will know the answer very soon.

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

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

3 Reasons Today’s Students Might Be Worse Off than Their Parents

The great dream of all parents is that their children will grow up to have even better life circumstances than they do. Parents want their little ones to have more materially and academically – to, in essence, face more opportunities in their lives and continue to progress. In America, this desire has translated to a reality in general terms. Robert J. Gordon of the New York Times reports that a typical American was four times as “well off” in 2007 as in 1937, and eight times better off compared to 1902. He points out that these numbers of improvement have traditionally had a direct correlation with the level of education achieved. As the American public has become better educated, its quality of life has risen.

But just how far up can improvement numbers rise? At what point do Americans become so comfortable with their ways of life that they simply stop trying to achieve more?

If you look at the education system, beginning with the K-12 years and extending into the college years, it looks as if current generations of Americans may end up worse off than their parents, and potentially their grandparents too.

Let’s look more closely at how this is happening—and why.

  1. High school dropout rates are not improving: In 1970, 80 percent of Americans graduated with an official high school diploma. That number was only at 74 percent in 2000. The numbers are climbing back up, with the Department of Education reporting that the dropout rate was only 7 percent in 2011 but the way those numbers are calculated needs consideration. Those who group G.E.D. earners in with other high school diploma recipients when it comes to graduation rates present a skewed view because long term, G.E.D. students earn around the same amount as high school dropouts.
  2. “Teaching to the test” is hurting our students: Initiatives to democratize education, like No Child Left Behind, have actually hurt schools by placing too much emphasis on teacher performance and ignoring the learning needs of the students. Increasingly, K-12 teachers have to prove themselves to onlookers and at the demise of the young people who are there to learn.
  3. Minority groups are being left behind: Certainly factors outside the school environment can affect the likelihood that a student will earn a high school diploma. In 2011, 14 percent of Hispanic students dropped out of high school, compared to 7 percent of Black students and 5 percent of White students, proving that minority groups are still at a disadvantage when it comes to the American education system. Poverty, hunger, family dysfunction and just a general lack of educated role models play into the way these numbers add up.

If the high school dropout rate is higher than it has been in past generations, one of the first places to look for answers is in the classroom. What can educators do to ensure the students sitting at their desks are equipped to outperform their ancestors academically and in their careers? Is there really any way to battle environmental factors and stringent teacher accountability metrics and come out on the winning side of educating America’s youth?

For the graduates of 2020 and beyond to live up to their parents dreams of a better life, a better foundation is needed in K-12 years. The flame of desire when it comes to academic achievement must be fanned in the foundational learning years. A future that is “better” than the present is one that not only has material gains, but academic ones too. At some point, having things will simply not be enough anymore. American students will need a renewed love of learning to come out ahead of past generations and that passion will need to be born in K-12 classrooms.

In what ways do you think this generation of students will be worse or better off from its parents’ generation? Leave a comment below—I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this.

 

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

Rethinking the Emphasis on Standardized Testing

Note: Today’s guest blog is from Robert Sun, chairman, president and CEO of Suntex International Inc. and inventor of First In Math, an online program designed for deep practice in mathematics. He is a nationally recognized expert in the use of technology to enhance mathematics education; for more information, visit www.firstinmath.com.

Many who are concerned with education reform in the U.S. look to Asian education systems as the model to follow. Whether for cultural, economic or political reasons, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, and other Asian nations are widely considered to be societies that get public education right.

Children in many Asian countries are outperforming their global peers, and test scores are high. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s most recent PISA study, the United States ranks 36 out of 65 countries in mathematics proficiency. Those at the top include the Chinese, specifically children in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

One would think that China, India and South Korea in particular—countries known to hold schools, teachers and students accountable for performance through rigorous and repeated testing—have the formula all figured out. But let’s look at what’s currently happening in these high-achieving nations.

In China, kids march to the unrelenting drumbeat of standardized testing beginning at age eight. The testing odyssey lasts through middle school and high school, reaching its apex with the National Higher Education Entrance Examination, commonly known as “Gaokao.” Passing this grueling, multi-day test is the sole prerequisite for college entry. Students spend years preparing for it.

So what does China have to show for its stringent academic system? Unemployment among Chinese graduates six months after leaving college is officially around 15% (some Chinese researchers estimate twice that number), despite the fact that a record 7.26 million young people will graduate from the country’s many universities this year—a number seven times greater than just 15 years ago.

At the same time, according to the Nikkei Asian Review, an acute shortage of factory workers throughout China is causing managers to hire students from technical schools as apprentices. Yukon Huang, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, reports that China’s non-graduate unemployment is as low as 4%, causing graduates to consider blue-collar jobs despite their college degrees.

India is facing similar problems. One in three Indian college graduates under the age of 29 is unemployed, according to a November 2013 report issued by the Indian Labour Ministry. Experts report that skill development programs and college education are not creating the sort of training that is in demand in the manufacturing and services sectors.

Meanwhile, ICEF Monitor, a marketing intelligence provider for the international education industry, reported that South Korea’s emphasis on academics is beginning to have diminished returns. Despite education spending that is significantly above the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average as a percentage of GDP, South Korea’s rate of graduate employment among university-educated 25-34 year-olds is just 75%, ranking it among the lowest in OECD countries, and well below the average of 82%.

After following the academic testing mantra for more than a decade, these countries are totalling the results—millions of stressed-out graduates with skills that oftentimes don’t match up with two of the most pressing needs of their societies: first, young workers who are technically trained; and second, individuals who are encouraged to be innovative, out-of-the-box thinkers.

China is only beginning to face this new realization head on. Its education ministry recently stated that it wishes to turn 600 of the nation’s universities into polytechnic schools in order to produce more technical graduates. In many areas of the country, factory jobs are paying more than entry-level office positions—a clear attempt to steer more potential white-collar workers back into empty blue-collar jobs.

For many countries with “model” education systems, it’s becoming clear that a focus on standardized testing is actually killing the kind of independent thinking that fosters creative prowess. Among the top 10 economies in the Global Innovation Index (GII), the annual innovation ranking co-published by Cornell University INSEAD and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN agency, only two are Asian (Singapore at #7 and Hong Kong at #10). Notably, the top five positions are all held by European countries, followed by the U.S. in sixth place. China, on the other hand, is ranked 29th, and India is far down the list at #76.

No one doubts that for a nation to remain competitive it needs to prepare their next generation for success in the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). The question is, how many STEM graduates are needed? Even here in the U.S., attitudes are changing.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that while the total U.S. labor force will grow from 153.9 million in 2010 to 174.4 million in 2020—a 14.3% increase—engineering jobs will grow by only 11% over that same period (from 1.34 million to 1.45 million). Ten of the 15 engineering disciplines, in fact, will experience slower than average growth.

As someone who has spent years in the pursuit of math proficiency among America’s young people, I believe that mathematics is essential not only to lifetime success, but also for a society’s future. But in this worthy pursuit, we should not slavishly define standardized testing as the benchmark of effectiveness. Moreover, we should realize that testing can have a significant, even debilitating, downside for our children.

Testing has its place as long as it doesn’t push kids away from a sense of wonder and fascination for the world around them. Finland, another country held high for its academic excellence, believes that the overall goal should be a child’s holistic development. Finnish schools pursue the notion that children have different kinds of intellects. In fact the national curriculum dictates that public schools must have a balanced program including art, music, crafts and physical education—plus sufficient time for self-directed activities.

If America is to succeed in educating its students for the future, it’s becoming increasingly clear that rigid, standardized testing isn’t the magical solution. Global competitiveness is important—but it probably won’t come through a regimented, computer-scored exam.

A far more worthy goal would be to create a system wherein the whole individual is addressed, developed, and encouraged to thrive in the pursuit of a better life. That’s a lesson that Asia is just now beginning to learn—and it’s one we should as well, before it’s too late.

 

 

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

Why is English so hard to learn?

Sean Sutherland, University of Westminster

The prime minister, David Cameron, wants more Muslim women in the UK to be taught English to reduce segregation between different linguistic communities and even limit the lure of extremism.

Most of us who have tried it probably feel that learning a new language is difficult, even if that new language is similar to our own. So how difficult is it to learn English and especially if your first language is quite different?

The difficulty of learning a new language will depend on how similar that language is to one you already know. Despite English speakers often rating certain languages as being particularly difficult – languages such as French, which indicate the gender of nouns with articles like le and la, and the Chinese writing system – there are similarities between these languages.

If you were to learn French you’d immediately recognise many words, because the English equivalents have French Latin roots, such as ballet or amiable. If you were to learn Chinese you’d find that its grammar is similar to English in many ways – for example each Chinese sentence has a subject, a predicate and an object (though an English speaker would most likely find learning French easier than Chinese).

The most difficulty arises when people learn English when they don’t have the advantage of sharing many borrowed words or grammatical patterns with English. This will include speakers of Arabic, Urdu and Bengali – three of the most common languages spoken by Muslim immigrants in Britain.

Baffling spellings

In my experience, the most common complaint language learners make about English is that the spelling of words often has little or nothing to do with their pronunciation. It’s easy enough to teach someone how to write the letter “a”, for example, but then they must be taught that its pronunciation changes in words like hat, hate and father. In oak it isn’t pronounced at all.

Compare this to the simplicity of Spanish, a language in which an “a” and other vowels rarely change pronunciation from word to word.

Laugh is pronounced larf but the similar-sounding half is not written haugh – but of course there are regional differences in accent too. Like the “l” in half, there are silent letters sprinkled throughout English words: the “k” in knife and knead, the “s” in island, the “p” in receipt, and so on.

A recent poem of unknown origin, a favourite of English language teachers who want to amuse their students, contains tongue twisters such as:

I take it you already know
of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
on hiccough, thorough, slough and through.

Another area of difficulty that learners of English often comment on is the prevalence of irregular past verbs in English. It’s simple enough to remember that the past tense of walk is
walked, shout is shouted and pick is picked.

But what about all the irregular verbs, like hit, read and think? For hit, the past tense looks and sounds the same as the present tense. For read, the past tense looks the same, but is pronounced differently. For think, the past tense thought involves substantial change to both the spelling and the pronunciation.

There’s not always a pattern to many of these irregular verbs. For verbs ending with “ink” we have “think/thought”, but another irregular pattern “drink/drank” and a regular pattern “wink/winked”. English has several hundred such irregular verbs for learners to look forward to memorising, and many of them are very frequently used: be, get, have, see, eat, and so on.

Being polite

A delicate difficulty concerns how English speakers show politeness. Some languages have quite clear ways for their users to do this. In French you can use the pronoun vous instead of tu to be polite.

Not as easy as it looks.
banlon1964/flickr.com, CC BY-NC-ND

English only has you, so that doesn’t work. In Japanese you can substitute polite forms of words, so that although kuu, taberu and meshiagaru all mean “eat” in Japanese, the longer words are more polite.

In English we can use longer words: “Would you like to consume nourishment?” instead of “Would you like to eat?” – but it doesn’t sound polite, rather a bit awkward.

There are less obvious ways of marking politeness in English: use a question (“Could you pass the … ” instead of “Pass the …”), express some doubt (“I don’t suppose you could … ”) and apologise, even for small requests (“Sorry to bother you, but …”).

If subtleties aren’t mastered then otherwise-fluent learners of English (or any other language) – even if they don’t intend to be impolite – may unintentionally appear rude.

So spare a thought for those picking up an English textbook for the first time – mastering the quirks of the language is tough (pronounced tuff).

The Conversation

Sean Sutherland, Senior Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics, University of Westminster

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

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

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 board?

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, Matthew Lynch, OpEducation, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Diversity: Why Classrooms Need It

School climate and school culture directly impact student success. As a result, it is particularly important for the school culture (and the classroom culture) to reflect, acknowledge, and celebrate diversity.  Taking these feel-good ideals and making them a reality can be tough for educators, especially with so many other initiatives on their ever-tighter schedules.

Even diversity itself is not exactly straightforward. Not only must schools recognize diversity evident among broad racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Asian or Hispanic), but the diversity within these groups must be recognized as well. For example Chinese and Japanese students may share common cultural characteristics as a result of being Asian, but will also have distinctly Chinese and Japanese cultural characteristics that differ from each other. The same is true of Caucasian students who come from vastly different family backgrounds, even from the same neighborhoods. In the interest of treating students equally, giving them equal chances for success, and equal access to the curriculum, teachers and administrators must recognize the uniqueness and individuality of their students.

Diversity in Practice

Teachers have a particular responsibility to recognize and structure their lessons to reflect student differences.  This encourages students to recognize themselves and others as individuals.  It also encourages the appreciation of a diverse school population, and brings a sense of connection between disparate cultural heritages within a single school’s culture. It is certainly in the best interest of students and teachers to focus on the richness of our diversity.  Recognizing and acknowledging our differences is part of treating students fairly and equally.

One reason for seeking out and acknowledging cultural differences among students is the idea that learning involves transfer of information from prior knowledge and experiences.  To facilitate this transfer process, it is important to acknowledge the students’ background, and to validate and incorporate their previous knowledge into the process of acquiring new information.  All students begin school with a framework of skills and information based on their home cultures. This may include a rudimentary understanding of the alphabet, numbers, computer functions, some basic knowledge of a second language, or the ability to spell and write their names. It also includes a set of habits, etiquette and social expectations derived from the home.

If a student cannot relate new information to his own experiences, or connect the new material to a familiar concept, he may perceive the new information as frustrating, difficult or dismiss it completely, believing it to be in conflict with his already tenuous understanding of the world.  Teachers have the responsibility to seek out cultural building blocks students already possess, in order to help build a framework for understanding.  Some educational pedagogy refers to this process as “scaffolding.”  Recognition of a student’s cultural differences provides a positive basis for effective learning, and a “safe” classroom environment. Every group of students will respond differently to curriculum and teachers must constantly adjust to be sure their methods are diverse, both in theory and in practice.

What are some easy ways you’ve found to promote diversity in your classroom?

photo credit: woodleywonderworks via photopin cc

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

Why 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 school system 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.

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.

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.

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.

For one, 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 OpEducation, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Accountability: Just One Piece of the School Reform Puzzle

School reform can no longer rely mostly on inputs—that is, giving schools more resources and more support. In order for schools to really help the students on hand, the past must play a role and so must the individual needs of the school.

Do standards and accountability work?

Time has shown that inputs have no real impact on student performance. Federal edicts, such as NCLB, have enforced protocols based on standards, testing, and accountability. Standards emphasize performance objectives and require high levels of accountability from educators.

Required reform and accountability, particularly those which impose sanctions similar to those imposed by NCLB, often create much stress and anxiety. This certainly has been the case since NCLB went into effect. Many educators ask whether it is fair to hold schools accountable for student achievement. And, even if it is “fair,” how are we to measure such achievement? What testing and evaluation formulas will be used?  The answers to questions like the above are not easy. Obviously, achievement can only be guaranteed if we assess it in some way. However, current assessment models are flawed.

Research exists to suggest that standards and accountability may improve learning for some disadvantaged students, particularly those with disabilities. When some schools implement accountability guidelines, they promote an environment of increased collaboration among educators and created an environment where teachers expected disabled students to perform better, which in turn encouraged better learning outcomes.

Some countries have been able to show effective and useful outcomes based on their use of certain accountability policies. However, American policy-makers and researchers still do not have any real evidence that these latest accountability reforms are working to improve the performance of the vast majority of students.

What’s the argument surrounding accountability?

Conversations around school accountability have been polarized. Politicians and parents often want to hold schools and teachers completely responsible for student achievement. Teachers point to disinterested students and uninvolved parents, saying that there is only so much they can do. But studies have shown that if teachers and students work together, and schools hold themselves accountable, great strides can be made. All of this discussion of accountability and standards is intended to bring us to a place where schools are performing better and our children are learning.

Researchers at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas observed positive strides toward improved learning outcomes among a variety of middle schools. The researchers believed that improvement strategies must not only improve learning, but also develop responsiveness and social equity. While studying middle schools, they found that teachers at high-performing schools were using teaching strategies that required students to think critically, and strategies that involved the use of real-world problems.

These teachers were not simply teaching abstract ideas or teaching to the test. They noted that student achievement can be improved when students receive recognition for efforts such as note-taking and doing homework, as well as having the opportunities to work collaboratively in groups and engage in active learning like the testing of hypothesis.

These findings show that the type of assessment or accountability that NCLB brings is not the be all and end all of the teaching equation. Rather, the quality of instruction is the biggest part of learning. It is paramount that we continue to work toward a more balanced solution, finding ways to encourage quality instruction, while also monitoring results.

Inputs alone cannot properly reform a school or district; it takes constant monitoring and understanding of the student population to effect change that will positively impact the students it is meant to serve.

 

 

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

School Reform on a Budget: Where to Invest First

By Matthew Lynch

A major mistake made by school reform groups is to table educational reform efforts because the expenditure does not fit into the school budget. If children are America’s most precious commodity and the focal point of the nation’s educational system, then the lack of funding is no excuse to forgo reform efforts. If we can’t commit money to our K-12 students, how can we expect them to rise above their circumstances?

The old business adage is that you have to spend money to make money – and that should be the mentality when looking at struggling schools or districts that need, sometimes costly, reform. By smartly investing the money, even just in a few key areas, schools will see a return on that reform investment in the way of more successful, higher achieving students. And really – school reform does not need to cost a fortune to make a difference.

In truth, many school reform efforts are cost-effective and can be implemented by resourceful educators. When there is a lack of money, reform is contingent upon the faith and commitment level of the faculty and staff.  Money should not be wasted on model programs and unsubstantiated trends. Reform groups will have to work diligently and efficiently to implement the chosen reform efforts properly and effectively.

So where should the money go?

When school reform is needed and schools have limited resources, spending money on curriculum can be intimidating, but it is a vital place to put money because it makes a huge impact on student outcomes. The curriculum chosen will need to be a good fit for both teachers and students. Math and reading should be the first concern, because they are the building blocks for other subject areas, as well the most frequent measure of future success. Success in these two areas bode well for success in other subjects at all grade levels.

Teachers’ professional development is a key factor for successful school reform as well. When analyzing reform budgets, it is important to set aside money to hire teachers with the ability to create and teach in-service professional development programs. The ability to train the staff and educators internally will save the school money, and will give the teacher/expert a feeling of usefulness. For instance, a teacher with 30 years of experience and a demonstrated ability to obtain amazing results from her specific teaching strategies might create a professional development seminar to share her expertise.

This saves the school an enormous amount of money, and saves the administrator the trouble and cost of hiring a consultant. Another low-cost/no-cost option is to hire professors from neighboring colleges and universities to provide professional development services to your district as a form of community service or to fulfill requirements to obtain or maintain tenure.

In the end, schools operating with limited funds to support reform efforts will need to be both resourceful and creative in order to effect positive change. Forward thinking leaders, committed and imaginative teachers, and a supportive community can contribute to change that improves the educational experiences of our children.

 

 

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

Can Schools Succeed without Enough Money?

Free, public education in this country comes at a price. When the country hits turbulent financial times, like the recent recession years, it takes its toll on the quality of education available in our K-12 schools, and it can even take decades for the true deficiencies to show.

When town and city administrators are forced to curtail the hiring of new teachers, or force the retirement of older teachers, class sizes then increase.  The teacher-to-student ratio expands accordingly meaning less face time per student, reducing the overall effectiveness of educational institutions.

An economic crisis does not just affect the schools in terms of budgets.  Financial difficulties within students’ families also play a huge role in the educational problems of the United States.  With more parents scrambling to make ends meet, there is less parental involvement with their children.  As a result, students may become unmotivated and slack off on assignments.  They may become problematic at school, meaning more time and effort from school administrators, leaving less time to improve their various systems.

Most American homes are dual-income, with both parents working one or more jobs to try to meet their financial obligations. There are also many single parent families, where the time for work and domestic tasks takes away from one-on-one educational work with children. In nearly every family situation, the time parents have to give their children any type of grounding in basic knowledge is severely limited.  The result is children starting school without much of the very basic knowledge children had in generations past.  Without that early foundation on which to build, children find themselves forever running at a deficit.

Furthermore, testing regimens for our children are anything but uniform. Some children are over-tested to an extreme; States like Massachusetts may be venerated for their stringent policies and standardized testing, but that level of stringency does not necessarily carry over to other states. In fact, many other states are not nearly as rigorous in their own testing procedures, preferring to do only what is required to ensure that they receive federal education funds, and nothing more.

This level of inconsistency then becomes yet another problem for students.  Given the economic climate of the nation, many students may find themselves moving from state-to-state as their parents pursue employment or better jobs.  Inconsistency among state’ standardized testing procedures may result in students who have relocated suddenly finding themselves under a lot of pressure to do better than what was required in their previous school.

The Difference between Then and Now

In generations past, children starting school came into the system with far more knowledge already in hand.  They knew their letters, they knew how to count, and some of them already knew the fundamentals of reading.  This, of course, stems from the fact that most families had a parent who stayed home during the day and was therefore able to spend more time with the child. There were also less electronic distractions from the basics of reading.

Teacher retention is also difficult, stemming from economic factors. A number of the accelerated teacher certification programs, such as weekend and online programs, have good intentions but are turning out teachers that are unprepared to the meet the challenges that they soon will face in troubled classrooms.

Although these teachers are inexpensive since they are brand new and have not worked their way up to better pay scales and benefits, they are more likely to jump ship and leave the school system instead of staying to nurture their profession. Of course, the next group of teachers to replace them is new and inexperienced, too, but provides fresh bodies in the classrooms at an inexpensive level – so the cycle repeats itself. This is good for the budget, but not so good for long-term performance, morale, and achievement.

Certainly, the economic situation affects the task of balancing budgets, by the school system, government entities, and parents. Conversely, more money does not necessarily mean more improvement – but not enough causes a host of its own problems too.

America spends more per student than any other nation in the world, and yet we see meager results. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are our school systems in the state that they are? There’s no arguing that our schools need to be well funded in order for our children to succeed, but clearly our schools need to do a better job utilizing the funds that they already receive too.

How can public schools continue to thrive, even in difficult economic times?

photo credit: horizontal.integration via photopin cc

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share