Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics May 12, 2017

Pass or Fail: Retention and its Roots in Early American Public Education

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Today’s practice of retaining students is a far cry from what took place in America’s earliest public school classrooms.

Before assessing the American education system, it is necessary to understand where our roots lie. We must consider how public education became enshrined in the United States, what the objectives of public education were, how the public education system in the United States was developed, and what efforts have been made to reform the system since its inception.

The United States should be viewed from an educational standpoint as an essentially European-derived enterprise. In particular, because of the religious make-up of the first European settlers, we have a strong Protestant lineage. The goal of America’s public education system has been relatively consistent: to produce satisfying outcomes in eight broad categories:

Basic academic knowledge and skills, including reading, writing, math skills, and knowledge of science and history.
Critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, including the ability to analyze information and apply knowledge to new situations.
Appreciation of the arts and literature, including participation in and appreciation of musical, visual, and performing arts as well as cultivation of a love of literature.
Preparation for skilled employment, including appropriate workplace qualifications.
Social skills and a strong work ethic, including communication skills, a feeling of personal responsibility, and the ability to work with and interact with others from varied backgrounds.
Citizenship and community responsibility, including public ethics and knowledge of how government works.
Physical health, including lifelong exercise and healthy eating habits.
Emotional health, including self-confidence and respect for self and others.

In 1749 Benjamin Franklin pioneered American thinking on education by proposing that Pennsylvania establish a public academy of education for adolescents. Franklin suggested that such an institution should also emphasize physical fitness, as well as academics. A man of many ideas and insights, Franklin also spoke up on the importance of studying history, because it taught students temperance, order, frugality, and perseverance. Franklin thought schools should require competence in reading, arithmetic, and science, and that they should be accountable for teaching these skills. However, Franklin and his contemporaries did not envision assessments of the quality of educational institutions based on how well students acquired the skills and knowledge.

The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, held yet a slightly different view on education, suggesting that universal education would assist in socializing citizens, helping them to accept the values of their rulers, but also preparing young people for a “law-abiding” adulthood.

Falling somewhere between the aforementioned two perspectives was George Washington, who contended in his first State of the Union address that Congress should promote schools that taught citizens how “to value their own rights.” Washington recognized that public opinion makes policy in a democracy and, as a result, “it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” In none of these instances, though, does it appear that rigid standards for reading, writing, and arithmetic are the foundation for accountability. Schools were expected to go well beyond such basic provisions and, in effect, become responsible for the creation of productive, well-informed, and engaged citizens.

More than 70 years after Franklin’s comments on the components of an optimal public education, Jefferson clarified and elaborated. Jefferson believed a proper education should give all citizens the information they needed to undertake transactions at their businesses. He thought it should enable citizens to calculate for themselves, express their ideas, contracts, and accounts in writing; to improve their morals and faculties via reading, and to understand their duties to their neighbors and country.

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, drafted by John Adams, another of the founding fathers, laid out the first legal requirement for public education. This state constitution noted that the duty of the legislative and executive branches would be to maintain public schools. “Wisdom and knowledge,” the document declared, “as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, [is] necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties. In addition to teaching academic subjects, public schools should also be required to include lessons on the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments.”

There is clear evidence that the government took to heart much of what the founding fathers had to say on this topic. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance provided funds to new states that allowed them to establish public education systems, declaring that “religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Even in the earliest days of America, the notion that public education was a necessity was accepted. Of course, at that time the nation lacked the infrastructure to provide effective access to public education, so such support was mostly theoretical. Still, there were many who came forward in support of a public education system that embraced most, if not all, of the ideas and principles that the founding fathers had set forth.

This basic support was founded on the fact that people believed in access to education as a right — a belief that would be dissected over time to bring us to the retention-social promotion context of today.

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Trending Topics May 9, 2017

Pass or Fail: Horace Mann – An American Public School Pioneer

Horace Mann brought the ideal of public education for ALL children, regardless of income or ability, to the forefront in the 19th century and ushered in new philosophy on what public school should entail.

There were many early supporters of equal education for all, but there was still considerable controversy about access to education. Questions arose about whether poor children were being restricted to instruction in basic skills while the middle classes received broad education meant to maintain and improve their quality of life. It was in this period of transition from theoretical public education to an implemented system that worked for all citizens, that Horace Mann emerged as one of the principal champions of education.

Horace Mann, who many education experts and historians consider to be the father of the common school concept. With his craggy features and passionate speeches, he embodied the spirit of educational idealism during the first half of the 1800s.

Mann was born into an impoverished Massachusetts family and was largely self-taught. He managed to secure a place at Brown University, where his oratorical prowess first became evident. He was to use this rhetorical ability to further his careers in law and politics. As secretary of the first board of education in the United States, he gave lectures and started the influential Common School Journal.

Picking up on many of the ideas of the founding fathers, Mann went on to envisage how a system of universal education would best serve the social, economic, and political needs of society. He centered his lofty hopes for the nation on the solo successes of children because he believed that a common experience in school could mold them into successful individuals.

Mann developed six educational principles that would come to define his involvement, and would influence the American education system for decades:

(1) Citizens cannot maintain both ignorance and freedom;

(2) This education should be paid for, controlled, and maintained by the public;

(3) This education should be provided in schools that embrace children from varying backgrounds;

(4) This education must be nonsectarian;

(5) This education must be taught using tenets of a free society; and

(6) This education must be provided by well-trained, professional teachers.

Ever expansive in his ideas, Mann also believed that common schooling would reduce hostilities among citizens. As children grew into adults sharing a common educational experience, Mann posited that different socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds would become less significant. Mann’s vision for schools included a common moral and political foundation, as well as the provision of opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve self-sufficiency and use education to lift themselves from poverty.

By 1837, Horace Mann was busy working to mobilize support for public schools and argued that they were the training ground for youth and for individuals to be able to participate effectively as citizens of a democratic nation. Mann clearly valued a balanced and broad curriculum and supported the development of one in public schools.

Indeed, Mann’s ideal school system brought children from all backgrounds to learn together in an ungraded school. Mann advocated for the education of heterogeneous groups of students to achieve unifying goals and believed specifically in the connection between freedom, self-government, and universal education. He believed in the value of a common learning environment and the development of self-discipline. These, he maintained, could be transferred into the types of skills and behaviors needed for a free society where citizens were not only educated, but had the ability to make intelligent decisions needed for moral judgment and government participation. For Mann, the purpose of education went beyond intellectual and utilitarian goals.

Accepting that children differ regarding ability, interests, and temperament, Mann laid the groundwork for lessons to be adapted to meet the individual needs of children. The one-room school, now a nostalgic icon of American history, embodied Mann’s idyllic vision of the common school. There was little consistency in the curriculums used by one-room schools, though, and teachers had difficulty grouping children for instructional purposes.

Students studied in groups based on what they knew and what they needed to know. Students of multiple ages received instruction at the same level. Given the number of children and the different ages of children in the classroom, children principally learned via memorization. Teachers had little time to target individual needs in the classroom. Even with these drawbacks, however, the non-graded one-room school was an invaluable institution for providing free and public education for children during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Many children excelled in learning reading, writing, and arithmetic, even when the time at school was disrupted by the need to work on the family farm. The ungraded structure of the one-room school allowed for the return to school after an extended absence. It also allowed children to take a break and then return to learning, based on the knowledge they had retained.

Though the standardized assessments that are part of the educational system today did not exist, children did have oral exams at the end of the school year. These were formal quizzes on what they had learned over the course of the year. The purpose of these exams was to provide teachers with information about where to start children at the beginning of the next school year.

Passing and failing were not descriptors used to classify children’s learning behaviors in the one-room school, as progress was allowed to occur at different rates. Only when students took the exams needed to enter high schools outside of their rural communities would they experience their first taste of scholastic success or failure.

Was the one-room school on to something?

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform April 19, 2017

The U.S. Education System is Under-performing and Here’s Why

The U.S. public school system was originally established to educate America’s youth. More specifically, it was created to teach children basic skills, and to make them into productive citizens. Fast forward to now, and it is plan to see that the U.S. education system is failing to live up to its original intent. In the piece, I will discuss 4 reasons why we find ourselves in this predicament.

Schools are closing left and right. It’s been a rough year for public schools. Many have found themselves on the chopping block. Parents, students and communities as a whole feel targeted, even if school board members are quick to cite unbiased numbers. There is no concrete way to declare a winner in these cases, either. Sometimes, a school closing is simply inevitable but communities should first look for other solutions. Instead of shutting down underutilized public schools – icons of the community – districts should consider other neighborhood uses, such as a community center or adult education classes. Closing public schools should not be a short-sighted procedure. The decision should focus on the only investment that really matters: a quality public education for all our nation’s children.
S. schools suspend too many students. Statistics tell us that not only do urban students more often come from tumultuous home lives, but they are often punished more harshly for the same infractions than suburban peers. Over 68 percent of all incarcerated adult American men do not have a high school diploma. Removal from school as a disciplinary measure, while potentially the easiest short-term solution, feeds the school-to-prison cycle that is built primarily in urban schools. Instead, mentorship programs would go a long way toward directing urban students toward higher academic engagement and graduation rates. Many colleges have implemented mentorship programs for at-risk students, like first-generation college students, so why can’t K-12 schools do the same?
For underperforming urban school systems, a lot of the “plans for change” are full of hot air. At least, they often seem to be. The problem usually lies with the inability to sustain existing reform efforts and initiatives. Mayors and school superintendents in these areas often concoct grandiose reform plans that are merely political devices meant to woo voters into believing they genuinely care about educational reform. It is sad and sobering to realize that often, politicians create school reform to gain popularity and votes. It is discouraging to realize that our children’s futures might be used as a political device to win elections.
School spending is stagnant, even in our improving economy. As the U.S. economy continues to improve, according to news headlines, one area is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. A report this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy. If we cannot find the funding for our public schools, how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy. Now we are in a more stable place, though, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

Can you think of any additional reasons why U.S. education system is failing?

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Policy & Reform, Trending Topics, Year-Round Schooling April 13, 2017

How to Implement a Year Round Schooling System

Do you feel year-round schools would be a good choice for your district? The article that follows offers information on how to transition to a year-round school format, if you choose to go that route.

First, you need to decide what type of year-round school scheduling system you will use. Year-round schools are usually set up as single-track (ST) with unified attendance or multi-track (MT) with staggered attendance programs. Some schools use a combination of the two. The main difference between the two systems is that single-track allows the entire student and staff population to adhere to the same calendar, and multi-track separates students and teachers and places each in one of several staggered instructional blocks and vacation schedules.

To make this even more complicated, the single-track and multi-track systems can have different variations. In the 60-20 schedule, the school year is separated into three sixty-day sessions with three twenty-day vacations. A variation on this schedule is the 60-15, which provides for an additional three- to four-week collective vacation. This plan can be used with either the single-track or multi-track system. Collectively, these calendars are used by a little more than a third of year-round schools in America.

Lastly, let’s talk about two year-round calendars that are used by around 40 percent of year-round schools. In the 45-15 schedule, forty-five days of instruction are followed by fifteen days of vacation time. The related 45-10 schedule provides an additional four-week vacation for staff and students. Again, these plans can be implemented in either a single-track or multi-track system (Quinlan et al. 1987).

Choosing an implementation team

Before attempting to set up a year-round school in your district, it is important to get approval from at least 80 percent of your faculty, staff, and parents. This will require a number of meetings, presentation of literature on the subject, and time for discussion. If you do not get approval, you should strongly reconsider implementing a year-round system in your district. Assuming that you will receive the necessary approval, let’s move on to the next steps.

When transitioning to a year-round school setup, you must first assemble the implementation team. Groups no larger than seven usually work best. The team can be made up of a variety of district personnel and staff. Implementation teams normally consist of a school board member, the superintendent and assistant superintendents, principals, teachers, and other pertinent individuals.

Once the team is created, efforts must be made to assess the district’s capacity for implementing and sustaining year-round schools. The team must ask itself whether the district has all of the resources needed to implement and sustain a year-round system. In extreme cases, when the district feels it is unable to coordinate its own implementation efforts, the team may want to consider hiring an experienced educational consulting firm to oversee the process. There are many well-qualified firms that will be able to either work in conjunction with an implementation team or oversee the process themselves. Note, however, that this can turn into an enormous job with a significant price tag.

The consulting team or team leader must be committed to developing and implementing innovative strategies that have the potential to effectively produce educational change. Simply assembling a top-notch team is not enough, however. All of the major administrators, including the superintendent and school board, must fully support the decisions of the implementation team.

Remember that parents, community leaders, and policymakers must also be included in the process. Many parents are involved in their students’ educational plans and want to be informed of any changes. The implementation team will need to decide if parents and community leaders should be included as formal members of the team, or to simply elicit their advice and expertise as needed. When making decisions concerning which individuals will populate the team, remember to include members that have the expertise to be taken seriously within the district.

Involving parents and community members in the implementation process might provide the restructuring team with a way to engage other members of the community, such as grassroots organizations, local business leaders, and area politicians. Community members can also assist the school in choosing the correct year-round school system and schedule. It is vital for the team to understand the culture of the community, its needs and wants, and the life skills its young people require.

If the school would like to create fundraisers to assist in the efforts to transition to a year-round school system, it is important that the community members understand why the school wants extra money and why they should give the extra money. If the community members disagree with the changes being made, they will be less likely to participate or contribute to the cause.

Having an implementation team is an important component in a successfully transition to a year-round school system. The task of choosing the leader and deciding on the roles of the implementation team should not be taken lightly. In many instances, the leader of the implementation team will be the superintendent or someone he or she appoints. Alternatively, the leader and other members of the team can be voted in. The leader must be held accountable for ensuring the success of the entire team as it moves to implement and sustain year-round schooling. The leader’s roles might include, but are not restricted to, determining the areas of expertise the team members bring to the table and how he or she can utilize that expertise.

Implementing a year-round schooling system

To ensure the minimum amount of time is spent on implementing the system, the leader will need to establish a standing meeting time and develop an agenda to utilize time to the fullest extent possible. The leader must decide if the team should have mandatory or optional meetings. If the meetings are optional, the leader must decide how information is disseminated to members who do not attend meetings. Prepared agendas are essential for smooth meetings and excellent communication within the team.

Once the year-round system is approved by all team members, the plan will need to be approved by the superintendent before it is presented to the school board. The same rules apply whether implementation is needed by one school or by all the schools in the district.

A concern, alluded to in the comments above, is the need to assess the district’s capacity for implementing and sustaining a year-round schooling system. To appropriately assess the abilities of the district or school, the leader will need to complete an inventory of the pros and cons. If the inventory concludes that the district or school does not have the capacity to implement or sustain the plan, it may be wise to suspend the idea until you have the necessary capacity.

Often, volunteer team members do not understand the dedication and length of time it will take to carry out the transition to a year-round schooling schedule. Before the team starts to implement the necessary changes, the leader will need to stress to all team members the enormity of the task, the number of hours the members will need to dedicate to the project, and what is at stake.

Once the team’s year-round schooling plan has been approved, it is time to implement the approved plan. First, the implementation team will discuss possible impediments to the approved plan and ensure the team has a contingency plan in place to deal with the issues as they arise. Next, they should implement their target goals and timelines. The leader will need to appoint a member of the implementation team to take on the responsibility of collecting, reporting, and evaluating any data collected. The leader will use the data collected to continuously revise and refine the team’s implementation efforts, as well as report their findings to the superintendent and/or the school board.

A useful tool for education specialists considering a move to year-round school years is the “Year-Round Education Program Guide” published by the California Department of Education. The guide takes you through the process of deciding on and implementing a year-round schooling calendar. The steps below are taken from the guide.

Implementation steps

Select schools and grade levels.
Establish a process for resolving issues.
Select and approve a calendar by working with employee groups.
Assess the need for facilities modifications, including shade modification and storage areas for off-track teachers.
Submit budget requests to district business office.
Decide if year-round education will be implemented on a voluntary or mandatory basis for students and employees.
Develop and approve a track preference and assignment policy for students, keeping in mind the need for same schedules for family members. Balance tracks by ethnicity, academic ability, socioeconomic level, and educational need.
Develop and approve a track assignment policy for teachers and staff.
Determine staff in-service schedule.
Institute a year-round education informational network for certificated and classified staff members and parents.
Send choices of tracks to parents by early spring.
Notify parents as soon as possible of track assignment.
Develop a policy and system for track-change appeals.
Develop a system for delivering services during the summer (e.g., classroom supplies and textbooks).
Modify/expand food services according to need.
Modify payroll periods.
Develop a system for plant maintenance and utilization of empty rooms.
Ensure that air conditioning and insulation are able to provide summer comfort.
Bargain with all appropriate classified and certificated units.
Develop a work schedule for office, custodial, and administrative staff members.
Develop a system to deliver electives and special services, such as special day classes, psychological services, resource specialists, and bilingual education.
Ensure appropriate cash reserves to meet summer payroll and supply expenses.
Modify transportation system as required, including routes, number of buses, and service schedules.
Establish a system for teacher room rotation or roving.
Develop a community-school communication system for notifying off-track families of important school dates and activities.
Provide activities for connecting off-track employees and parents.
Reschedule special events such as holiday programs.
Design attendance accounting system as required.
Modify report card schedule.
Coordinate with community services, such as the recreation department, youth organizations, church groups, and the police department.
Identify and coordinate with child care providers.
Identify intersession instructional programs and schedules.
Modify student testing program (California Department of Education 2015).

Track assignment considerations

General axioms

Establish the following priorities in deciding who gets first track preference, of a track:

Respect district employees and keep parents on the same track as their children.
Respect the terms of divorce settlements by respecting parents visitation schedules.
Consider unique family circumstances (e.g., predictable annual visits of families located in different parts of the country or the world).
Acknowledge unique educational opportunities (e.g., a cello prodigy who is offered a summer camp).
Use a fair, balanced track assignment policy once priorities have been honored. Each track should mirror the ethnic and socioeconomic composition of the entire school population.
Minimize ability and/or special education need track segregation. If a special population must be put on one track, isolation and segregation can be minimized by partial day integration of self-selection of track.
Develop an appeals process, including:
A site administrator.
An appeal committee (made up of an administrator, a teacher, and a board member).

Do not:

Load tracks by ability level.
Load tracks by special groups (e.g., band or football).
Move students from track to track each year (unless requested).
Wait too long to announce track assignments.

Operational strategies for special services

Special day classes

Typically confined to one track (or two if the population warrants).
Extended school year days are typically offered during intersessions (California Department of Education 2015)

Evaluation of a year-round schooling system

In order to validate their efforts, the implementation team will need to evaluate the effectiveness of its year-round schooling system. The process of evaluation can be completed in-house, or the district can hire outside consultants to perform the task. Hiring outside consultants is preferable, as it provides an impartial evaluation of the year-round schools. However, this can be costly, so many school districts may have no choice but to do it themselves. If the implementation team is willing to evaluate the success of the year-round school system, they must first develop a plan for evaluation.

The team’s evaluation plan should have been developed before the year-round schooling system was implemented. Performance goals that were created at the beginning of the implementation process should be used to guide the evaluation process. The team will need to decide who will collect, analyze, and interpret the data. In order to avoid biased results, it may be in the best interests of the school to hire an outside consultant who may provide a more objective assessment. The team will also use the results to determine whether the year-round schooling system was effective. The results may indicate that the plan was not a success. In this case, the best solution is to build upon the small successes and learn from the mistakes.

Implementation of a year-round school system is a long-term process. Reform occurs on a continuous cycle that must be sustained in order for improvements to be maintained and furthered. Keep in mind that not every reform effort bears fruit. Even the best schools have to continue to work in order to perfect their year-round schooling system.

References

Adler, Rachel, Rebecca Franckle and Kirsten Davison. 2014. “Accelerated Weight Gain among Children During Summer Versus School Year and Related Racial/Ethnic Disparities: A Systematic Review.” Preventing Chronic Disease 11:130355. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130355.

“Benefits of Year-Round Schools Touted.” n.d. Education News. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.educationnews.org/articles/benefits-of-year-round-schools-touted.html.

Breslow, Jason. 2012. “By the Numbers: Dropping Out of High School.” PBS Frontline. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/by-the-numbers-dropping-out-of-high-school/.

Burgess, Matt. 2013. “Mapped: How Many Hours Do Children Spend at School around the World?” Help Me Investigate. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://helpmeinvestigate.com/education/2013/04/mapped-how-many-hours-do-children-spend-at-school-around-the-world/

California Department of Education. 2015. “Year-Round Education Program Guide.” Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/yr/guide.asp

Chaika, Gloria. 1999. “Is Year-Round Schooling the Answer?” Education World. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin137.shtml.

Dessoff, Alan. 2011. “Is Year-Round Schooling on Track? Summer Learning Loss and Overcrowding Drive Alternative Schedules.” District Administration. Accessed September 9, 2016. https://www.districtadministration.com/article/year-round-schooling-track

“Education Policy: Advantages.” n.d. K12 Academics. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.k12academics.com/education-policy/year-round-school/advantages#.V9VFZ_krLDd.

Fitzgerald, John. 2009. “Minnesota School Year Requirements Too Casual.” Minnesota 2020. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-matter/education/minnesota-school-year-requirements-too-casual

Holzman, Seymour. n.d. “Year-Round School: Districts Develop Successful Programs. Education USA. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED062682.

Lederman, Doug. 2009. “The Impact of Student Employment.” Inside Higher Ed. Accessed September 9, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/work.

Mendez, Edgar. 2014. “Congressional Report Highlights Year-Round Schools.” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, July 8, 2014. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/news/266264841.html

Morin, Amanda. 2016. “The Pros and Cons of Year-Round Schooling.” Child Parenting. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://childparenting.about.com/od/schoollearning/a/year-round-school-pros-cons.htm.

O’Brien, Daniel M. 1999. “Family and School Effects on the Cognitive Growth of Minority and Disadvantaged Elementary Students.” University of Texas at Dallas. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp-erc/pdf/wp_obrien_1999_family_school_affects.pdf .

“President Obama Wants to Keep Kids in School Longer: Extended Days, Weekend Hours, Shorter Summers.” NY Daily News, September 28, 2009. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/president-obama-kids-school-longer-extended-days-weekend-hours-shorter-summers-article-1.407418

Quinlan, Claire, George, Cathy and Emmett, Terry. 1987. Year-Round Education: Year-Round Opportunities. A Study of Year–Round Education in California. Los Angeles, CA: California State Department of Education.

Rogers, Kate. 2014. “How to Keep Your Electricity Bills Cool This Summer.” Fox Business. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/05/27/how-to-keep-your-electricity-bills-cool-this-summer.html

Von Hipple, Paul. 2007. “Save Iowa Summers.” Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.saveiowasummers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Paul-von-Hipple-Research1.pdf.

Washington, Jessica. 2013. “Year-Round School Could Be the Answer to the Minority Drop-Out Problem.” Politic365. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://politic365.com/2013/05/20/year-round-school-could-be-the-answer-to-the-minority-drop-out-problem/

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. “WatchingTV/Screen Time and Children.” n.d. Accessed September 9, 2016. http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-And-Watching-TV-054.aspx.

Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform April 3, 2017

18 Reasons the U.S. Education System is Failing

Once upon a time, enthusiasts designed a formal education system to meet the economic demands of the industrial revolution. Fast forward to today and, with the current global economic climate, it seems apparent that the now established education system is unable to meet the needs of our hyper-connected society – a society that is in a constant state of evolution. Let’s examine 18 problems that prevent the US education system from regaining its former preeminence. Check out ExamSnap for all your exam needs.

Parents are not involved enough. Of all the things out of the control of teachers, this one is perhaps the most frustrating. Time spent in the classroom is simply not enough for teachers to instruct every student, to teach them what they need to know. There must, inevitably, be some interaction outside school hours. Of course, students at a socio-economic disadvantage often struggle in school, particularly if parents lack higher levels of education. But students from middle and upper class families aren’t off the hook, either. The demands of careers and an over-dependence on schools put higher-class kids at risk too when it comes to the lack of parental involvement in academics.

Schools are closing left and right. It’s been a rough year for public schools. Many have found themselves on the chopping block. Parents, students and communities as a whole feel targeted, even if school board members are quick to cite unbiased numbers. There is no concrete way to declare a winner in these cases, either. Sometimes, a school closing is simply inevitable but communities should first look for other solutions. Instead of shutting down underutilized public schools – icons of the community – districts should consider other neighborhood uses, such as a community center or adult education classes. Closing public schools should not be a short-sighted procedure. The decision should focus on the only investment that really matters: a quality public education for all our nation’s children.
Our schools are overcrowded. The smaller the class, the better the individual student experience. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 14 percent of U.S. schools exceed capacity. At a time where children need more attention than ever to succeed, overcrowded classrooms are making it even tougher to learn and tougher still for teachers to be effective.
Technology comes with its downsides. I am an advocate for technology in the classroom. I think that ignoring the educational opportunities that technology has afforded us puts kids at a disadvantage. being said, screen culture overall has made the jobs of teachers much more difficult. Education has become synonymous with entertainment in many ways. Parents are quick to download educational games as soon as kids have the dexterity to operate a touch screen, and with the best of intentions. The quick-hit way that children are learning academics before and during their K-12 careers makes it even more difficult for teachers to keep up in the classroom setting, particularly since each student’s knowledge base and technological savvy varies.
There is a lack of diversity in gifted education. The “talented and gifted” label is one bestowed upon the brightest and most advanced students. Beginning in early elementary grades, TAG programs separate student peers for the sake of individualized learning initiatives. Though the ideology is sound, the practice of it is often a monotone, unattractive look at contemporary American public schools. District schools need to find ways to better recognize different types of learning talent and look beyond the typical “gifted” student model. The national push to make talented and gifted programs better mirror the contemporary and ever-evolving student body is a step in the right direction. Real change happens on a smaller scale though – in individual districts, schools and TAG programs. That progress must start with understanding of the makeup of a particular student body and include innovative ways to include all students in TAG learning initiatives.
School spending is stagnant, even in our improving economy. As the U.S. economy continues to improve, according to news headlines, one area is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. A report this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy. If we cannot find the funding for our public schools, how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy. Now we are in a more stable place, though, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.
We are still using the teacher training methods of yesterday. With respect to the students of the past, modern classrooms are full of sophisticated youngsters that show up with a detailed view of the world formed from more than home life experiences. Instant access to information from instant a child can press a touchscreen on a Smartphone and widespread socialization from as young as six weeks old in the form of childcare atmospheres – kids arrive at Kindergarten with less naivety than previous generations. Teachers don’t, in other words, get a clean slate. Instead, they get young minds cluttered with random information and ideas, all of which need fostering or remediating.
There is a lack of teacher education innovation. It stands to reason that if students are changing, teachers must change too. More specifically, it is time to modify teacher education to reflect the demands of the modern K – 12 classrooms. There are policy and practice changes taking place all over the world – many driven by teachers – that address the cultural shifts in the classroom. Public education in America needs teachers who are better trained to meet the needs of specific student populations, understand the necessary role of distance learning, and are willing to speak up to facilitate classroom change. Without these teachers, effective reform to meet global demand is not possible.
Some students are lost to the school-to-prison pipeline. Sadly, over half of black young men who attend urban high schools do not earn a diploma. Of these dropouts, too, nearly 60 percent will go to prison at some point. Perhaps there is no real connection between these two statistics, or the eerily similar ones associated with young Latino men. Are these young people bad apples, destined to fail academically and then to live a life of crime? If some of the theories of genetic predisposition are true, perhaps these young men never stood a chance at success and have simply accepted their lots in life. But what if those answers, all of them, are just cop-outs? What if scoffing at a connection between a strong education and a life lived on the straight and narrow is an easy way to bypass the real issues in K-12 learning? Students who are at risk of dropping out of high school or turning to crime need more than a good report card. They need alternative suggestions on living a life that rises above their current circumstances. For a young person to truly have a shot at an honest life, he or she has to believe in the value of an education and its impact on good citizenship. That belief system has to come from direct conversations about making smart choices with trusted adults and peers.
There is a nationwide college-gender gap, and surprisingly, we are not focusing on it. If you have been following education hot button issues for any length of time, you’ve likely read about the nationwide push to better encourage girls in areas like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The thought is that by showing young women that these topics are just as appropriate for them as their male peers, more women will find lasting careers in these traditionally male-dominated fields. I’m all for more women in the STEM workplace but with all this focus in one area, are educators neglecting an even larger gender gap issue? I wonder how much of this trend is based on practicality and how much is based on a lingering social convention that women need to “prove” themselves when it comes to the workforce. Do women simply need a degree to land a job in any field? If so, the opposite is certainly not true for men – at least not yet. Will the young men in our classrooms today have a worse quality of life if they do not attend college – or will it be about the same?
We still do not know how to handle high school dropouts. It seems that every time the issue of high school dropouts is discussed, it all centers on money. U.S. Census Statistics tell us that 38 percent of high school dropouts fall below the poverty line, compared with 18 percent of total households in every demographic. Dropouts are also 40 percent more likely to rent their residences and spend $450 less per month on housing costs than the overall population. Only around 60 percent of dropouts own vehicles and they spend over $300 less on entertainment annually than average Americans. It’s clear that a high school diploma is in fact the ticket to higher earnings, at least on a collective level. The negative financial ramifications of dropping out of high school cannot be denied, but the way they are over-emphasized seems like a worn-out tactic to me. Instead of focusing on students as earners, we really need to value them as learners so that we can encourage them to finish their high school education.
We have not achieved education equity. Equity in education has long been an ideal. It’s an ideal celebrated in a variety of contexts, too. Even the Founding Fathers celebrated education as an ideal – something to which every citizen ought to be entitled. Unfortunately, though, the practice of equity in education has been less than effective. Equity, in the end, is a difficult ideal to maintain and many strategies attempting to maintain it have fallen far short in the implementation. To achieve equity, school systems need to have an approach for analyzing findings about recommended shifts in learning approaches and objectives. These approaches should also help teachers and administrators understand not what they have to avoid but what it is that they can do to achieve optimal equity moving forward.
Technology brings a whole new dimension to cheating. Academic dishonesty is nothing new. As long as there have been homework assignments and tests, there have been cheaters. The way that cheating looks has changed over time, though. Technology has made it easier than ever. Perhaps the most interesting caveat of modern-day cheating in U.S. classrooms is that students often do not think they have done anything wrong. Schools must develop anti-cheating policies that include technology and those policies must be updated consistently. Teachers must stay vigilant, too, when it comes to what their students are doing in classrooms and how technology could be playing a negative role in the learning process. Parents must also talk to their kids about the appropriate ways to find academic answers and alert them to unethical behaviors that may seem innocent in their own eyes.
We still struggle with making teacher tenure benefit both students and teachers. One of the most contested points of teacher contracts is the issue of tenure. Hardline education reformers argue that tenure protects underperforming teachers, which ends up punishing the students. Teachers unions challenge (among other reasons) that with the ever-changing landscape of K-12 education, including evaluation systems, tenure is necessary to protect the jobs of excellent teachers who could otherwise be ousted unfairly. It can often be a sticking point – and one that can lead to costly time out of classrooms, as recently seen in large school systems like New York City and Chicago. Now, I’m not suggesting that teachers just “give up” but I would support adjusting the expectations for tenure. It seems an appropriate step in the right direction for teachers in all types of schools. That energy then can be redirected towards realistic and helpful stipulations in teachers’ contracts that benefit the entire industry.
More of our schools need to consider year-round schooling. Does it work? The traditional school year, with roughly three months of vacation days every summer, was first implemented when America was an agricultural society. The time off was not implemented to accommodate contemporary concerns, like children needing “down time” to decompress and “be kids.” The system was born out of economic necessity. In fact, the first schools that went against the summers-off version of the academic calendar were in urban areas that did not revolve around the agricultural calendar, like Chicago and New York, as early as the mid-1800s. It was much later, however, that the idea as a whole gained momentum. Overall, year-round schooling seems to show a slight advantage academically to students enrolled, but the numbers of students are not high enough to really get a good read on it at this point. What does seem clear, however, is that at-risk students do far better without a long summer break, and other students are not harmed by the year-round schedule.
We are still wrestling the achievement gap. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education released student performance data in its National Assessment for Educational Progress report. The data is compiled every two years and it assesses reading and math achievements for fourth and eighth graders. This particular report also outlines differences between students based on racial and socioeconomic demographics. The data points to the places in the U.S. that still struggle with inequality in student opportunity and performance, otherwise known as the achievement gap. The achievement gap will likely always exist in some capacity, in much the same way that the U.S. high school dropout rate will likely never make it down to zero. This doesn’t mean it is a lost cause, of course. Every student who succeeds, from any demographic, is another victory in K-12 education and it benefits society as a whole. Better recognition by every educator, parent and citizen of the true problem that exists is a start; actionable programs are the next step.
We need to consider how school security measures affect students. 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, protecting some of the most vulnerable of our citizens. Emotions aside, though, how much does school security really increase actual safety? 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? Given the fact that state spending per student is lower than at the start of the recession, how much should schools shell out on 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.
We need to make assistive technology more available for students with disabilities. A key to improving the educational experience for students with disabilities is better accommodations in schools and continued improvements in assistive technology. Assistive technology in K-12 classrooms, by definition, is designed to “improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability.” While the word “technology” automatically conjures up images of cutting-edge electronics, some assistive technology is possible with just simple accommodations. Whether high-tech or simple in design, assistive technology has the ability to transform the learning experiences for the children who benefit. Assistive technology is important for providing a sound education for K-12 students with disabilities but benefits the greater good of the country, too. Nearly one-fourth of a specific student population is not being properly served and with so many technological advances, that is a number I believe can drop. Assistive technology in simple and complex platforms has the ability to lift the entire educational experience and provide a better life foundation for K-12 students with disabilities.

Some of these reasons are well-known and long-standing issues. However, others—such as the emergence of a screen culture—are new and even somewhat unexpected challenges. However, the nature of each issue does not matter. All of them are standing in the way of our becoming globally competitive.

Can you think of any reasons the U.S. educational systems are failing?

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

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Policy & Reform April 1, 2017

Are wealthy donors influencing the public school agenda?

This article was written by Rebecca Jacobsen, Jeffrey Henig, and Sarah Reckhow

School boards have often been portrayed as old-fashioned and dysfunctional, so much so that some school reform leaders have advocated for eliminating school boards altogether.

It is no surprise then that school board elections have mostly been known as being sleepy affairs. Most candidates in the past have been known to spend less than US$1,000 toward campaign expenses such as campaign literature and name recognition efforts. In 2010, for example, less than 3 percent of candidates reported spending more than $25,000.

However, this reality, as we have known it, is changing. Of late, out-of-state donors are writing very large checks to support candidates and political action committees (PACs) in local school board elections. Yes, there are PACs now involved in local school board elections.

Recent school board elections in places such as Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and New Orleans have seen candidates routinely raising at least 50 times as much money as the 2010 national average.

Why is this happening? And how might the involvement of these large wealthy donors change our local schools?

We are scholars of politics and education. Our research shows that such large donations have the potential to change who is elected to govern and, as a result, how our schools are reformed.

Why do school boards matter?

First, let’s look at the unique arrangement of power in the U.S. education system to understanding why this new infusion of funding is significant.

The U.S. education system is highly decentralized, with control of schools spread across over 13,000 independent, local school districts. Most boards, comprising five to eight members, enjoy considerable power over many areas, including whom to hire, what to teach, when to hold school and how to allocate budgets.

State of Maryland school board meeting. Maryland GovPics, CC BY

It is true that of late, the decision-making power of school boards has been curtailed by recent national (e.g., No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds Act) and state (e.g., state takeover laws) policies. For example, when NCLB came up with its own guidelines for “highly qualified teachers,” school boards had to ensure that their definition for teachers’ qualifications aligned with federal standards and not only with local priorities and standards. Ignoring these federal guidelines was accompanied by the potential loss of federal funding.

Even with these recent limitations, however, school boards nonetheless remain important. They can modify, regulate, innovate and resist state and federal policy demands.

This ability to resist or modify policy guidelines was evident recently after the Obama administration released its “Letter on Transgender Students,” which advised school districts to treat transgender students based on their expressed gender identity rather than their sex assignment at birth.

School boards across the country were called upon by local citizens to resist this policy. In some cases, local school boards voted to not comply with the Obama administrations guidelines.

Thus despite their relatively low profile, school boards have the power to dramatically shape local educational experiences by modifying, or even at times ignoring, state and federal rules and regulations.

How widespread is outside money?

This ability to alter or resist state and national policy may be the motivating force behind the recent investment by wealthy, national donors.

To examine this rise in donations to local school board candidates, we investigated over 18,000 campaign contributions in local education elections between 2008 and 2013 in five cities (Bridgeport, Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles and New Orleans). We selected these five sites for examination because they were geographically and politically diverse and yet all five had school board elections where national donors became involved.

We found that donations from outside donors were widespread and significant. In the 2012-2013 elections, for example, we found that large outside donors gave over $2.8 million to school board candidates and committees, comprising 44 percent of all funds contributed by individuals. This represents a significant increase from 2009-2010, when large outside donors comprised only 4 percent of donations in the cities we examined.

The figure below shows the growth of out-of-state donations by individuals in each city.

In-state vs. out-of-state individual donations by city and by year. Data Source: Authors’ Data, CC BY

Who’s making the contributions?

By examining publicly available campaign finance disclosure reports, which are filed by all candidates, including school board candidates, and list each donor and the amount donated, we were able to track a list of wealthy donors who contributed at least $1,000 in one election cycle (see here for an example of how to access these data). In total, we found 96 large national donors involved in education philanthropy and education reform. These donors included, for example:

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, who donated in Los Angeles in 2011 ($150,000) and 2013 ($100,000) and in New Orleans in 2013 ($2,500). The high-tech billionaire is active in supporting the development of new charter schools and founded educational organizations such as NewSchools.org and Aspire Public Schools.

Alan and Jennifer Fournier, who donated in Indianapolis in 2012 ($4,000), Los Angeles in 2013 ($2,000) and New Orleans in 2012 ($2,200). Alan Fournier is founder of Pennant Capital Management, which manages $6 billion in assets. Alan Fournier cofounded (with David Tepper, a hedge funds manager), Better Education for Kids, which advocates for tenure reform and greater teacher accountability.

Katherine Bradley, the president of CityBridge Foundation, which “finds, incubates and invests in the most promising practices in public education,” who donated in Denver in 2009 ($500) and 2013 ($6,500), New Orleans in 2012 ($2,500) and Los Angeles in 2013 ($2,000).

Laurene Powell Jobs, wife to the late Steve Jobs and founder of Emerson Collective, who donated to Los Angeles in 2009 ($1,000) and 2013 ($103,000), New Orleans in 2012 ($2,500) and Denver in 2009 ($2,525). She is active in school reform and is a board member for several education nonprofits including Teach for America, the New Schools Venture Fund, and Stand for Children.

Could the top 0.01 percent change local schools?

Outside money may not be a bad thing if the values and interests of donors align with residents in the communities. It might even be a good thing if outside donations raise the visibility of school board elections, so often plagued by disengagement.

Perhaps bigger campaign war chests and close election battles will fuel engagement in school board elections, increase voter turnout and increase awareness of education issues. But these presumed benefits rest on the assumption that these elite donors share the same values and interests of the local community.

Research suggests that this assumption is unlikely to hold because policy preferences among the very wealthy differ from most Americans. Research by prominent academics working on economic inequality, Benjamin I. Page, Larry M. Bartels and Jason Seawright, captures these differences. These scholars found that,

“[o]n many important issues, the preferences of the wealthy appear to differ markedly from those of the general public.”

These different preferences are borne out in our data as well. We found that national donors favored “reform” candidates, or, put simply, those who supported policies such as school choice, performance-based accountability and adoption of the Common Core of State Standards.

School choice offers parents the ability to choose a their child’s public school rather than being assigned one based on one’s home location. Performance-based accountability plans generally require that school or teacher performance evaluations be based upon student standardized test scores. Schools or teachers may face sanctions if these targets are not met. The Common Core of State Standards (CCSS), adopted voluntarily by states, outline what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade.

We found that candidates who received union support received almost no support from large, national donors. This targeted funding ultimately shaped, at least in some cases, the focus of the election debate.

Here is why it matters

The concentration of funds on candidates with particular policy agendas can squeeze out other policy issues. For example, a candidate we interviewed who was very interested in restoring adult education programs for immigrant parents noted,

“It [money] changes the discourse…their [the reform candidates] message is the only message. Not just the dominant message anymore. It’s the only message that people are hearing.”

While this candidates wanted to focus on the importance of providing adult education programs for immigrant parents, he felt his message about the importance of this issue was unable to compete with the messages being put forth by the reform candidates because he lacked funding to promote his policy agenda.

What changes in public schools when wealthy donors get involved? woodleywonderworks, CC BY

In our interviews, candidates who received outside funds noted that additional funding enabled them to reach voters more often and through multiple strategies. One candidate supported by large, national donors explained that in addition to mailings and yard signs, more traditional forms of reaching voters, the additional funds enabled him to hire a professional videographer who filmed and edited three vignettes that were shown on TV: one at his home with his family, one in a local library in the community and one in a classroom.

Even traditional forms of contact were given an upgrade. For example, a candidate noted that her materials were “more polished” with “nice photos,” something other candidates were unable to do because of a lack of funds.

Some candidates we interviewed felt voters benefited from this, whereas others worried that voters were “inundated” with information from just a few candidates. One candidate described how a friend received seven mailers from a candidate supported by outside funding in a single day. Candidates without this level of funding repeatedly noted that their message couldn’t compete.

Increasing polarization

As with state and national elections, we heard from several candidates that outside donations were also leading to increased conflict during campaigns and less willingness to compromise once elected.

One candidate described the polarization of the local board as being “very much like our federal government” where board members were either “a charter school candidate or a union backed candidate” and when on the board, “nobody can cross the line.”

As a result, some expressed concern that voters were becoming more cynical and less confident in their local public schools.

One candidate shared that she heard from voters on several occasions to “please stop calling” because “I’ve already gotten 10 calls this week about the election.” This candidate was concerned that disengagement in the form of low voter turnout was a direct result of citizens being turned off by the election.

What does this mean for public schools?

We certainly support greater attention to improving our public education system. But reform takes time. It takes compromise. It takes understanding of the day-to-day realities of local schools.

The old fashioned school boards, with all of their faults, were often slow and pragmatic, a force that could shield school leaders, teachers and students from broader political forces that whip the local agenda back and forth.

It remains to be seen whether school boards are strengthened by the nationalization of local school board elections or whether the injection of national funds will hinder the ability of schools to improve.

Rebecca Jacobsen, Associate Professor of Teacher Education, Michigan State University; Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, and Sarah Reckhow, Assistant Professor of Political Science , Michigan State University

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

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform March 31, 2017

Year-Round Schooling: How it Affects Students

The traditional school year, with roughly three months of vacation days every summer was first implemented when America was an agricultural society. The time off was not implemented to accommodate contemporary concerns, like children needing “downtime” to decompress and “be kids,” but was born out of economic necessity. In fact, the first schools that went against the summers-off version of the academic calendar were in urban areas that did not revolve around the agricultural calendar, like Chicago and New York, as early as the mid-1800s. It was much later, however, that the idea as a whole gained momentum.

A survey of school decision-makers in 1971 found that 84 percent of respondents felt that year-round schooling would be in all U.S. schools within the next 15 years. As we know now, those respondents were wrong, but it makes sense that they would feel that way. Two districts in San Diego were the first to implement year-round academic calendars in 1971, and by 1974, there were another 13 in the state that followed suit. Even today, California and its neighbors lead the year-round trend, with four-fifths of all of these school schedules in the nation happening in Western states. Over half of them are implemented in California. In total, over 2 million U.S. students attend school on year-round schedules every year in around 3,000 schools in 46 states.

So what impact does this non-traditional school schedule have on the people it most affects – the students?

Academic strides

A long-time thorn in the side of K-12 educators has been the “summer slide,” or the theory that knowledge is lost when students get so much time off (like in the summer months) from academic pursuits. The National Summer Learning Association often cites decades of research that support the claim that students do forget or unlearn things they have learned when too much time off is given between classroom sessions. A study released in 2007 by The Ohio State University, however, found that there are no differences in learning between students who attend school year-round, and those who are on a traditional schedule.

While the overall student numbers show no significant differences in learning for better or worse, at-risk students tend to do better in year-round setups. Studies have found that disadvantaged students lose about 27 percent more of their learning gains in the summer months than their peers. By being in school the same number of days, but with shorter breaks, these students can keep their minds on a learning track that may not otherwise be fostered at home in the off-months.

Socialization

In districts that use year-round schedules, there are two models: single track and multi-track. In the latter, students are in groups that place them on different schedules and different vacation times. The main benefit of dividing students in this way is that those who need extra or remedial help can attend school on the off days since there are still teachers on campus. It is similar to the concept of summer school, but takes place throughout the year and may only require one or two weeks here and there, instead of an entire summer’s time.

Parents are split into two groups when it comes to the way students’ socialization is impacted by year-round schooling. Some say that kids seem more interested in school without the stop-and-go routine of traditional academic calendars. Others complain that students on year-round schedules, particularly multi-track ones, miss out on time with their friends and come to resent school as a result. Overall, the social growth of students is thought not to change much since they are still in session the same number of days each year and have shorter gaps in time apart from their peers.

Overall, year-round schooling seems to show a slight advantage academically to students enrolled, but the numbers of students are not high enough to get a good read on it at this point. What does seem clear, however, is that at-risk students do fare better without a long summer break, and the year-round schedule does not harm other students.

Next, I will look at the way year-round schooling impacts the teaching profession.

Do you think year-round schooling benefits or harms students?

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform March 16, 2017

Disengaged Students, Part 19: Lack of Support for Teachers

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

New teachers enter the job with a certain amount of naive enthusiasm. Experience discourages them rapidly. This is likely true to some degree in every profession, but teachers seem particularly vulnerable to burnout. Compare the attitude of first-year teachers to that of teachers who have put in two or more decades on the job. Perhaps you know people in both groups firsthand. The veteran teachers are likely to lack enthusiasm. Even if they have a little excitement left, they have generally stopped voicing new ideas or looking for ways to innovate their classrooms and schools. Some of this is the natural consequence of time and fatigue which take their toll on people in every career. But this weariness is intensified by working in a highly demanding job that comes with little support and with much adversity caused by students, parents, administrators and the community at large.

Under Appreciation of Teachers Underestimated

If you think that it is inaccurate for teachers to be painted as martyrs, consider these facts. The National Center for Education Statistics found that the average teacher’s salary was only 3 percent higher in the 2010-2011 school year than it was in 1990-1991. At the end of the 2012 school year, the number of days teachers took for stress-related time off was 10 percent higher than four years earlier. American teachers make only 67 to 72 percent of what a person with a bachelor’s degree should make over the course of a career.

Some professions may be able to implement measurable and reasonable benchmarks for higher compensation. Teaching has too many intangible outcomes that are not valued by the cut-and-dry American policymakers and public. While teachers who demand better working conditions and pay are often portrayed as greedy or uncaring, most educators say that their gripes are not about their paychecks per se but about the value society places on their work. In a culture that shows appreciation through financial rewards, teachers are clearly undervalued.

Teaching Performance and Pay

This issue is further complicated when pay-for-performance rules are implemented. Such rubrics compromise the teaching experience. They reward teachers for teaching to standardized tests instead of encouraging critical thinking skills that provide a long-term foundation for educational betterment. Performance-based incentives for educators are flawed because they turn students into assets that have an impact on the earning potential of teachers.

Teachers need accountability, but their work rightly includes many immeasurable goals of that fall outside of testable material. All occupations have their own forms of review and feedback, but the constant testing culture of contemporary education leaves many teachers feeling inadequate and under-appreciated.

For teachers to truly lead students out of a state of academic disengagement and into a state of thirst for knowledge, they need to believe that there are people who believe in the value of their vocation. It’s always been understood that children may not naturally cling to intellectual initiatives but if enough adults in their lives do, it can have positive results when it comes to academic engagement. It is a teacher’s job to impart an academic rigor and a love of learning which go far beyond outcomes which can be measured on a standardized test. Without encouragement from outside forces, that job becomes nearly impossible.

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform March 13, 2017

Disengaged Students, Part 18: Religious Fundamentalism, TV and Anti-Intellectualism

While the struggle between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism is longstanding, the 40 years leading up to the first election of President Barack Obama have been especially harsh for intellectuals.

In her bestselling book The Age of American Unreason, historian Susan Jacoby identifies some key factors in this harsh climate. A rise in religious fundamentalism, a decrease in Americans’ general knowledge of the sciences, and the public’s reliance on “infotainment” to deliver facts have all contributed to the dangerous ideological conditions that citizens face collectively. Jacoby talks about how legendary American ideas like the “self-made man” actually do more harm than good when it comes to progress, and how the celebrity status of both right- and left-wing pundits preys upon the vulnerabilities of everyday Americans.

Faith versus Fact

Religious fundamentalism, loosely defined as a set of beliefs that adhere strictly to a religious text despite new knowledge or changes in modern thought, tends to spike during times of intense or rapid change. If you look at Jacoby’s 40-year timeline, beginning in 1978 and ending as the first African-American President was awarded a spot in the White House, the reasons for a rise in fundamental thought systems is easy to surmise. In America’s nearly 250 years’ history, change has never stopped barreling forward and the momentum of the past four decades continues to gain steam.

Fundamentalists generally dislike change and view it as a departure from simpler times and therefore as a danger to their way of life. Fundamentalists tend to like absolutes and singular, straightforward answers to topics that others may consider more complex. If one passage in the Bible, for example, can be thrown out as a story or parable rather than a factual description, then who is to say that the rest of the scriptures are literally true? Though not always tangibly damaging to its adherents, fundamentalism generally bars progressive thought in science or in other realms of knowledge.

When a core population becomes increasingly fundamentalist, an argument can be made that the intellectual progress of the entire nation is hindered, at least in part; and yet it is the American way to encourage citizens to express religious beliefs of all varieties even if those beliefs run counter to scientific or other fact-based thought.

TV: Educational Help or Hindrance?

Jacoby also explores the educational value of television as a medium. She admits she was raised in a Midwestern household that put faith in the potential for television to educate a wider group and bring heightened awareness to world issues. She notes that the original teaching nature of television has given way to a culture which depends on what emanates from the airwaves instead of using that information as a supplement to other forms of self-discovery and education. The Internet has only compounded video culture, making it possible for amateurs with unfounded opinions to carry the same weight as well-learned experts on the same issues.

But with so many accessible opinions, shouldn’t the state of intellectualism actually be improving? Understanding other opinions, after all, is essential to truly having a well-rounded, and therefore well-grounded, view of the world. The problem here is that too much information has the tendency to overwhelm and saturate readers. Rather than take the time to read, compare and debate each position, people (Americans, especially) tend to choose the quickest, easiest answer that best fits their belief systems instead. The availability of so much information, and the tendency of perception to favor presentation over actual facts, has created a culture that has far too many ideas to process. The result is a blanket “live and let live” approach to dissenting opinions that may seem tolerant and even intellectual at first glance, but that reeks of indifference.

Lacking Basic Knowledge

Anti-intellectualism also manifests itself in Americans’ lack of general knowledge on topics outside their immediate needs. In her book, Jacoby talks about the juxtaposition between the record-high numbers of U.S. college graduates and the large percentage of Americans who seem to lack basic, foundational knowledge. A 2009 study conducted by Harris Interactive and commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and Citizens discovered that most Americans fail when it comes to answering basic science questions correctly. Respondents could not accurately answer how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun, or what percentage of the Earth is covered with water.

Despite these dismal results, 80 percent of the Americans surveyed insisted that science education is “absolutely essential” to navigate issues like the U.S. economy, healthcare system and global reputation. This wacky divergence of idealized knowledge and actual knowledge is a classic example of anti-intellectualism in American culture. Citizens place high value on scientific aptitude but on the other hand, are not terribly concerned by the fact that they do not possess it.

Perhaps having too much access to knowledge has actually had the reverse intended effect. Could it be that the information is so easy to come by that Americans have just stopped trying?

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform March 10, 2017

Global academic collaboration: a new form of colonisation?

Hanne Kirstine Adriansen, Aarhus University

Higher education in Africa is as old as the pyramids in Egypt. But the continent’s ancient institutions have long disappeared. The type of higher education that’s delivered in Africa today, from curriculum to degree structure and the languages of instruction, is rooted in colonialism. This has led many to question whether African universities are still suffering from a sort of colonisation – of the mind.

The story of renowned climate change researcher Cheikh Mbow is an example. Mbow was born in Senegal in 1969 and studied there. Looking back at his experiences during his first years of university, Mbow observes: “I knew all about the geography and biology of France but nothing about that of Senegal.”

Mbow also happens to be my friend, and together with one of his colleagues we wrote a book chapter about the production of scientific knowledge in Africa today. The chapter is based on Mbow’s life story – which I’ll return to shortly.

In recent years a new consciousness has emerged about higher education’s historical roots. People are calling strongly for a decolonised academy. This feeds into a broader debate about the role of modern universities.

There’s little doubt that Africa’s universities need to be locally relevant – focusing their teaching and research on local needs. Unavoidably, though, they’re simultaneously expected to internationalise and participate in the heated global higher education competition. Standardisation is the name of the game here. Universities compete to feature on global ranking lists, mimicking each other.

Internationalisation also sees African researchers like Mbow travelling North in search of research environments with better resources. These international collaborations can be hugely beneficial. But all too often it’s organisations, universities and researchers in the global North that call the shots.

So how can the continent’s universities manage the tricky balance between local relevance and internationalisation? How can they participate in international collaboration without being “recolonised” by subjecting themselves to the standards of curriculum and quality derived in the North? How can they avoid collaborative programmes with the North that become mere tick-box exercises that only benefit the Northern researchers and organisations?

International collaboration grows

Over the past 20 years, international interest in African higher education has intensified. Aid agencies in the North have developed policies that are designed to strengthen Africa’s research capacity. Scandinavian countries were among the first to do so: Denmark has the Building Stronger Universities programme. Norway and Sweden have similar collaborative programmes.

Such initiatives are important. Research funding is very limited at African universities. National higher education budgets are quite low, especially compared with universities in the North. In their bid to educate rapidly growing populations, African universities tend to emphasise teaching rather than research. So these institutions rely heavily on external funding for research and depend on support from development agencies via so-called capacity building projects. These projects engage researchers from the North and South in joint activities within teaching and research, ideally to create partnerships based on mutual respect.

Many researchers from universities in the North and South are involved in these collaborative projects, usually as practitioners. Only rarely do we turn these collaborative projects into a research field, turning the microscope on ourselves and our own practice. After participating in a capacity building project in Africa, some colleagues and I became interested in understanding the geography and power of scientific knowledge.

We wanted to know how this power and geography is negotiated through capacity building projects. We also sought to understand whether such projects functioned as quality assurance or a type of neo-imperialism.

Simply put, our research explored whether capacity building and the tendency towards increased international collaboration in higher education is helping or hindering African universities. The answer? Both.

‘Monocultures of the mind’

The problem with such projects is that they might create what Indian activist Vandana Shiva calls “monocultures of the mind”. Shiva argues that these make diversity disappear from perception and consequently from the world. People all end up thinking in the same ways.

International collaboration can cause African universities to become more dependent on the North. Their dependence is on funding; through publication in journals from the North; and through technology that only exists in the North. It also manifests in thinking mainly using concepts and solutions developed in the North.

Another problem is that this international collaboration may draw African universities into the competition fetish that dominates higher education today. This may help them to become globally competitive. But they risk losing their local relevance in the process.

Capacity building projects risk creating Shiva’s monocultures of the mind. But they can also have the opposite effect: they can empower African researchers and help them to become more independent.

Empowerment through capacity building

Renowned climate scientist Cheikh Mbow in action.

For Cheikh Mbow, the North represented both an imposed curriculum through colonial heritage and the chance to acquire the skills needed to become an
emancipated academic capable of creating new knowledge.

His PhD project explored natural resource management in Senegal “but using methods designed in the global North, in particular from France”. During his project he travelled from Senegal to Denmark and was exposed to another way of behaving. At his home institution, the Université de Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar, questioning the knowledge and methods of older professors was perceived as misbehaviour. In Denmark he experienced a different system. There he was asked to question what was taken for granted even if it meant questioning older professors.

Paradoxically, the Danish system enabled Mbow to become an independent researcher. He became aware of how knowledge and methods inherited from the North were used in an African context without being questioned.

Mbow explains:

After several years of research, I began challenging some of
the received knowledge and managed to specify what is particular to Africa.
After being able to contextualise knowledge, I was able to create knowledge
that concerned and responded to societal needs and local realities in Africa.

This is precisely what the African academy – and its societies more broadly – require.

Collaboration to decolonise

I would argue that collaborative projects such as capacity building programmes can be a means to assist African universities in producing contextualised knowledge. These projects can even lead to some sort of decolonisation of the academy if they are based on long-term partnerships, a close understanding of historical, political and geographical context, and not least a common exploration of knowledge diversity.

This article is based on a blog that originally appeared here.

Hanne Kirstine Adriansen, Associate Professor, School of Education, Aarhus University

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

The U.S. Education System is Under-performing and Here’s Why

Are wealthy donors influencing the public school agenda?

Why do school boards matter?

How widespread is outside money?

Who’s making the contributions?

Could the top 0.01 percent change local schools?

Here is why it matters

Increasing polarization

What does this mean for public schools?

Year-Round Schooling: How it Affects Students

Disengaged Students, Part 19: Lack of Support for Teachers

Disengaged Students, Part 18: Religious Fundamentalism, TV and Anti-Intellectualism

Global academic collaboration: a new form of colonisation?

International collaboration grows

‘Monocultures of the mind’

Empowerment through capacity building

Collaboration to decolonise

Main Links

Blog

Pedagogue

My Profile

Why do school boards matter?

How widespread is outside money?

Who’s making the contributions?

Could the top 0.01 percent change local schools?

Here is why it matters

Increasing polarization

What does this mean for public schools?

International collaboration grows

‘Monocultures of the mind’

Empowerment through capacity building

Collaboration to decolonise

Main Links

Blog

Pedagogue

My Profile

Are you sure you want to delete post?