Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform November 5, 2016

Explainer: What is wrong with America’s civic education

Any election demands knowledge, attention and wisdom from the whole electorate. When a campaign season does not seem to be going well, there’s often angst about whether the public has been sufficiently educated.

Anxious eyes turn to our public schools.

For instance, writing in The Atlantic recently, Jonathan Zimmerman, professor of education and history at New York University, decried the incivility of the 2016 campaign and named “a flaw with civic education.” He wrote:

Put simply, schools in the United States don’t teach the country’s future citizens how to engage respectfully across their political differences.

I have studied and advocated civic education for almost two decades. I believe civic education must be improved in the United States. First, though, it’s important to understand the condition of America’s civic education.

State of civic education

Schools have a role in educating citizens, and they perform it in several ways. Almost all public schools offer explicit courses on American government, civics or, more broadly, history and social studies.

Some require volunteer service and connect the service to classroom education as a way of teaching civic skills. Most schools also offer a range of extracurricular activities in which students learn to take leadership and make collective decisions.

Forty states require civics courses for graduation. Although each state writes its own standards, what they say about civics overlaps a great deal. For example, all states’ standards require the U.S. Constitution to be covered in the curriculum. And every state and the District of Columbia expect all students to learn about the functioning of the government.

How well are America’s future citizens being prepared? Kim Davies, CC BY-NC-ND

It is not surprising, then, that 97 percent of high school seniors say they have studied civics or government in school.

What students know – and don’t know

But what exactly are students learning? Is the situation as dire as some seem to believe? Or, do the students demonstrate a reasonable level of learning?

The answers to these questions depend on how you measure what students learn from their civics classes.

For example, after the federal government released its National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics Assessment report in 2011, The New York Times published an article titled “Failing Grades on Civics Exam Called a ‘Crisis.’”

But, a closer look reveals that students actually got a lot of the NAEP’s questions correct. When presented with a plausible list of ideals, more than half of eighth graders could choose the one that’s stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Clearly, they had studied the Constitution and remembered what they learned.

On the other hand, when eighth graders were asked to choose a “belief shared by most people of the United States,” a majority (51 percent) picked “The government should guarantee everybody a job,” and only a third chose the correct answer: “The government should be a democracy.”

Students are entitled to their own opinions about guaranteed employment, but this result suggests they misunderstood the U.S. political mainstream and current policy.

Students are spending time learning facts, but not learning how to discuss issues. woodleywonderworks, CC BY

A close and nuanced view of what young people are learning reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of the current curriculum. Almost all students are spending time learning about core documents, especially the U.S. Constitution. However, they don’t always perform as well on questions about current events or apply their knowledge to current politics.

For instance, after the 2012 election, my colleagues and I conducted a telephone survey of young adults and found that only 10 percent met a standard of “informed voting” that we defined as correctly answering most questions about current politics and the recent campaign, having an opinion about a major policy issue, choosing a candidate whose position was consistent with their expressed opinion about that issue and actually voting.

Learning to talk and listen

The deficit that Jonathan Zimmerman names is not a lack of knowledge of the formal political system or even of current events, but an inability to discuss controversial issues with civility. Some students do learn to do that in their civics or social studies classrooms, but many students miss that opportunity.

Deliberation is one of the advanced skills necessary in a democracy. In courses and schools where “civic education” devolves into learning a lot of facts about the official political system, students don’t learn such skills. They may even forget the factual details that they have crammed for tests.

Most state standards for social studies are long lists of fairly miscellaneous topics that must be covered. That way of defining and regulating civics leads to a lot of cramming information.

On the bright side, at least eight states have started using the C3 (College, Career and Citizenship) Framework to guide revisions of their standards. In the C3 framework, instead of studying one topic after another, students explore content in order to address important questions and prepare for active citizenship. The idea is to make civic education deeper, more purposeful and more interesting.

Inequality in civic education

Some students already experience exciting and challenging civic education, but some do not. Unfortunately, the most advantaged young people tend to get the best opportunities in civics, as in most other areas of education.

For instance, opportunities to discuss social problems and current events are more common for white students and students who plan to attend college than for kids of color and those not heading for college. The same is true for community service opportunities.

Opportunities to discuss current events are more common for white students. ITU Pictures, CC BY

Furthermore, schools themselves send implicit messages about who matters in society, whose voice counts, who has power and how power is exercised. For instance, African-American and Latino students are far more likely than white students to be punished for the same infractions. Schools that serve disadvantaged kids are more likely to be authoritarian and discriminatory.

Since a school represents the government, these kinds of disparities send powerfully alienating messages about civic engagement and further expand gaps in civic engagement by offering the most empowering experiences to more advantaged kids.

Need for innovation

Civics in the 21st century should be excitingly different. The political world for which we are preparing students has changed dramatically, as have our students’ demographics and backgrounds. For instance, to stay informed, citizens once had to understand how a printed newspaper was organized, but now they have to know which social media to trust, follow and share.

Clearly, there is a need to innovate. The point is not to “bring back” the civics we once had, which never produced an impressively informed adult public.

A major priority in improving civics should be to expand opportunities for high-quality learning and engagement where they are most scarce today. That way, we can help students learn that politics and civic affairs are interesting, relevant and
even enjoyable.

Peter Levine, Associate Dean for Research and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs, Tufts University

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

Matthew Lynch published in OpEducation, Policy & Reform November 1, 2016

Why the K-12 Blame Game Benefits No One

By Matthew Lynch

Many American parents have seen reports that American schools rank well below schools in countries such as China and Japan, or have heard President Obama declare a “dropout crisis.” An abundance of news reports and discouraging case studies has created panic among education stakeholders, who want to know why American school systems are failing. However, many insist on playing the “blame game,” which in most cases is counterproductive.

The American school system is the best-financed system in the world, but is one of the lowest performing.
The American school system as a whole has an appalling performance record. For children living in urban environments, the story is even more alarming. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are often educated in dilapidated schools where the too many educators lack the credentials and skills necessary to perform their duties adequately.
High student-to-teacher ratios are found in most urban schools, and these schools often lack the resources to deal with the diverse challenges they face, including unruly student behavior. Education has been called the great equalizer, but for students living in poverty-stricken urban areas it is little more than a babysitting service and a place to get a hot meal.

Many people question whether the No Child Left Behind Act has contributed to achieving academic success. Although NCLB was well intentioned, it has not lived up to the hopes of government or schools. In the eyes of some, NCLB has actually contributed to subpar academics becoming even worse. If American educators and school personnel do not make a concerted effort to develop effective measures to hold schools accountable for the education of all of our children, then the education crisis will continue.

There is an exception to every rule: some urban school systems are providing a quality education. Unfortunately, however, only a small number of school systems meet the state and federal government student performance requirements. For underperforming urban school systems, 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 beguile voters into believing they genuinely care about educational reform. The idea that politicians create school reform to gain popularity and votes is sad and sobering. It is discouraging to realize that our children’s futures might be used as a political device to win elections.

Politicians are not the only people at fault for the shoddy education American children are receiving, but no one will take responsibility for subpar educational environments. If administrators were asked who was at fault, they might point to a lack of parental involvement and too few quality teachers. If teachers were asked who was at fault they might also cite a lack of parental involvement and ineffective administration. If parents were asked who was at fault they might blame teachers and school administrators. Society in general seems to conclude that the lack of quality teachers, effective administration, and parental involvement are all factors contributing to educational failure.

Whatever the reason, Americans have become the laughing stock of the free world when it comes to K-12 education. The solution, of course, is for the country to unite and work together to carry the responsibility of enriching and continuing America’s future via educational excellence without playing the “blame game.” But where does that realistically begin?

Matthew Lynch published in Physical Fitness, Policy & Reform October 31, 2016

A Healthy Education Puts Literacy First

For all the quibbling done about teaching more relevant skills (STEM is the go-to for this rhetoric) and better preparing students for productive careers and to compete on a global scale, America’s schools have done a disservice to the kinds of knowledge and skills whose value is unconditional, insulated from technological disruption, and intrinsic to success in all areas.

We talk about education as being critical to our economy, from filling the jobs of the future, supporting innovation, and even helping workers to pivot in their careers to keep up with change and keep the country competitive. Well, education is also important to the health of our country, and healthcare happens to be one of the biggest single drains on our national economy, in terms of both productivity and absolute cost.

If we are going to look to education for jobs, skills, and economic strength, it stands to reason that we’d also look to education for tackling the health challenges in our country as well.

Health literacy

One of the best predictors of academic success, is whether a student is encouraged to read–or, better yet, read to as a child–by his or her parents outside of school. Basically, this amounts to whether parents support literacy. In a sense, then, literacy can become cyclical: parents of active readers are, or become, active readers themselves; children of active readers are more likely to become active readers themselves, and to, in turn, encourage reading in their own children.

But basic literacy is no longer limited to reading and writing. Depending on who you talk to, everything from digital literacy to basic coding should be treated as equally essential–usually because of the economic impact such fundamental skills can make over time.

Health literacy needs a similar imperative, because as it turns out, health literacy correlates strongly with better health behaviors, more effective health treatment (when you understand your doctor’s orders, you are both more able and more likely to comply). Health, of course, underpins success elsewhere in life: careers, relationships, creativity, academics–all of the things, in short, we hope to gain from education.

Bad Medicine

Diet is but one component of this, but it is perhaps the easiest to blend practice with theory, considering the need for students to eat at least one meal over the course of their primary school day.

Hospitals and schools face a similar challenge: feeding students (or patients) well, and teaching them to feed themselves better at the same time. The cafeteria model that has gained such widespread adoption over the last century produces some serious externalities that, long-term, undermine any claims about the efficiency of such food service systems. Namely, prioritizing volume over value, and thereby reinforcing negative habits and attitudes about food: convenience first, fried and packaged rather than fresh, salt and sugar rather than balanced.

Putting health literacy on the menu, as well as in the classroom (or the examination room, where hospitals are concerned) can help undo these damaging trends. More than that, though, health literacy balances the role of authority–like doctors and nurses–with the role of individuals (take care of yourself proactively, rather than looking to get fixed reactively; don’t wait for government restrictions to improve your grocery list). Literacy itself teaches personal accountability: you learn to read and write for yourself, and to think and interpret critically.

Health literacy promises something similar, applied to the life skills of self-care and taking responsibility for each individual’s role in supporting population health.

Getting Physical

Balance is missing from our population, as well as from our schools. P.E. classes, like lunchrooms, could stand to reintegrate some balance to help repair our culture starting with the youth.

In other academic models, gamification is the latest buzzword to gain traction with its premise, essentially, of making learning engaging and fun. Physical education–training students to exercise, be active, and care for their bodies–seems a lot like the original model of gamification, but we’ve let the games overwhelm the lessons, and the competition dissolve the core value. We have a cultural problem when it comes to staying active.

Sports anchored to schools have more than their share of problems, and the association has grown beyond unhealthy. It is entirely possible that the professionalization of sports at all ages, and the pressure on children to specialize athletically at younger and younger ages, is partially responsible for the failure of physical education programs in the U.S. The intensity of the competition, and the emphasis on talent and relative skill over the intrinsic value of participation may well put kids off of sports, and by extension, exercise. It encourages kids of all ages to take unnecessary risks, “play through the pain” and even take drugs to gain a competitive edge.

Adopting the “everybody gets a trophy” approach is not helping. Physical fitness–and physical education–are the counterparts to the sort of health literacy training that can take place in the cafeteria. Again, the model of parents reading at home may be instructive. When participation in exercise of any form is reflected at home and at school, the focus can return to where it belongs: personal health and wellness.

Reading together promotes learning as well as fostering community. So, too, does eating together. There is no reason why athletics cannot provide a similar model for behavior as an individual as well as a group member.

Literacy underpins communication and helps us advance as individuals and collectively. Health literacy can do the same for our collective health and cultural approach to wellness by means of what we eat and how we care for ourselves.

Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Bullying, Education Leadership, First Year Teachers, Policy & Reform, October 28, 2016

14 Signs of Cyberbullying in the Classroom

By Gabe Duverge

One of the biggest trends affecting education across the country is the migration of bullying to digital media, which is commonly referred to as cyberbullying. About 7 percent of students in grades 6-12 experience cyberbullying each year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying is much harder for educators to detect and address. The perpetrators are often able to maintain anonymity, and much of the cyberbullying activity occurs outside of school.

Like traditional bullying, there are warning signs for teachers to watch for in their students. These signs can help you identify a victim or a cyberbully and step into the situation. Cyberbullying can be quite harmful to the well-being of students if it goes unchecked. In addition, the negative effects on students can severely damage your ability to manage the classroom.

Emotional Signs of Cyberbullying

Emotional changes in a student might be hard to see, but they are often some of the most severe signs. These signals show that cyberbullying has really had an emotional impact on a student.

1. Becomes a Loner

Cyberbullying victims often take every opportunity to keep to themselves. They refrain from being in groups and take steps to isolate themselves. For typically outgoing students, this will be an obvious change.

2. Mood Swings

You may witness a victim have emotional outbursts and mood swings. A situation may go from very calm to contentious quite quickly. This can occur both in a group setting and on an individual level.

3. Increased Stress

A student struggling to manage stress could be a cyberbullying victim. You may notice this during normally stressful times or in situations where the student wouldn’t normally be stressed.

4. Displays Aggressive Behavior

Lashing out aggressively is common among cyberbullying victims. This is especially true among students who are not usually aggressive. They may show aggression against peers or even educators during any situation.

5. Displays Symptoms of Depression

One of the severe effects of cyberbullying is depression. Among youth, depression may manifest as constant sadness, restlessness, a lack of enthusiasm, chronic fatigue and other symptoms. If teachers witness a student with symptoms of depression, they should immediately contact a guidance counselor and the parents. Untreated depression can have very negative effects on a student.

Academic Signs of Cyberbullying

Teachers are in the best position to identify the reasons behind a student falling behind academically. Victims of cyberbullying can take steps backward in the classroom just like in other aspects of their life. Here are a few academic-related clues that cyberbullying may be taking place.

6. Doesn’t Attend School

Teachers may see students miss school more frequently. If a student begins missing significant time, contact a parent to better understand the reason. This is a good time to get clues on whether something else is afoot.

7. Work Ethic Drops

Maybe a student stops turning in homework or submits incomplete assignments. Victims of cyberbullying may stop contributing in class regularly. This is especially true of often-successful students who are struggling with a cyberbullying situation.

8. Skips Class

Cutting class is never acceptable, but some students may try to avoid interacting in class by skipping it altogether. This may be to avoid the cyberbully or just to act out.

9. Loses Interest in School

Cyberbullying can turn a once-star student into someone less excited about school. If students who are regularly involved in the classroom begin to care less, they may be suffering from cyberbullying.

10. Grades Drop

The overall grades of victims of cyberbullying often drop. This may include performing poorly on tests, missing assignments and struggling in group projects. A sudden drop in grades may be a cry for help from a victim truly struggling.

Social Signs of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can have a tremendous impact on how students relate to their peers socially. Cyberbullies typically attack someone they know well. Students may stop trusting their usual social group and withdraw. Here are a few specific examples.

11. Stops Participating in Social Activities

A student who is on a team or in an after-school club may stop participating because of cyberbullying. Teachers who notice a previously involved student suddenly lose interest in extracurricular activities may want to explore what’s wrong and move from there.

12. Stops Eating or Sleeping

This may be harder for teachers to notice, but students struggling with cyberbullying often sleep and eat less. This will be evident during lunchtime or if a student falls asleep during class.

13. Hurts Self

Self-harming is not uncommon for victims of cyberbullying. While a teacher may not quickly notice this, they may notice a student wearing different clothing or trying to hide signs of self-harm. Friends of the student may also provide clues to potential self-harming.

14. Changes in Friends

Students who suffer from cyberbullying may switch their group of friends completely. This could be a sign that the cyberbully is someone close to them or that their feelings of self-worth have changed.

Understanding Cyberbullying

The increasing use of digital communication by young people is driving the rise in cyberbullying. Teachers must develop a strong understanding of cyberbullying and other issues affecting education. The online graduate education degrees at Campbellsville University can help you advance your career by gaining the knowledge and credentials you need. Learn more about taking the next step in your education career today.

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform October 27, 2016

Why The US Education System is Failing: Part IV

In thinking about the future of education in this great nation, we are inspired by innovation and simultaneously dejected by the slow implementation in many K-12 educational settings. While colleges and universities seem to implement new practices, policies and technologies at a fast pace, K-12 institutions are relatively sluggish. This is not only a disservice to students, but also problematic for the economy at large. Better access to top-notch education starts before Kindergarten – not after a high school diploma has been earned. In the final part of my series, I continue to examine the problems hindering the US education system from being all that it can be.

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 literally 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.

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.

School security. 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.

Assistive Technology. 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.

As this series has argued, there is not one factor to blame for public education underachievement but rather a collection of influences that undercut the cultural importance of broad-based knowledge. To reach better outcomes, we must peal back the layers of policy and perception to their cores. Through careful analysis of the present state of K-12 public education in America and its problems and issues, this series has advocated for reform that will benefit future generations of students and citizens. Hopefully the right people were reading.

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

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform October 27, 2016

3 Reasons Not to Adopt Year-Round Schooling

I have long been a proponent of year-round schooling. In the past, I have often discussed why I feel that teachers should get behind the push to support year-round schooling and how more consistent time in the classroom will lead to higher student performance, boosting teacher accountability ratings and accommodating a much more streamlined education process. But is it really worth up-ending the school system as we know it?

Let’s look at some reasons to be concerned about changing from our traditional summers-off calendar to a year-round schooling model.

1. It could end up being more expensive.

The summer months are typically the highest ones for energy consumption. In fact, the average electricity bill for homeowners in the summer months goes up 4 to 8 percent. Having empty classrooms in the summer months means less money going out to air conditioning and prevents other warm-weather costs from hitting school utility budgets. It may seem like a minor point, but an increase in utility bills for one-quarter of the year really could hurt schools’ bottom lines.

2. The children won’t have enough down time.

Some childhood development experts believe that particularly when it comes to younger students, time off in the summer months is a vital component of healthy development. The argument follows that kids are not designed to spend so much of their time inside classroom walls and that the warmer, pleasant weather of the summer provides a perfect opportunity to get outside and experience childhood.

There’s a big problem with this argument, though. It’s that most children these days are not spending their summers frolicking in fields of flowers or running around their neighborhoods, hanging out with other kids.

The days of kids spending their summers outside, communing with nature and getting plenty of exercise, are long gone. A recent Harvard University study found that school-age children tend to gain weight at a faster pace during the summer months than during the school year, a fact attributed to more time spent in sedentary activities like watching television or using mobile devices instead of being outside or participating in active pursuits. Now, not only must K-12 students relearn the academic items, but they must also shift their mentalities from less-active, sedentary ones to sharp, alert learning models – and teachers face the brunt of this responsibility.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that by the time children graduate from high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in classrooms. What’s more – children who watch an excessive amount of television generally have lower grades in school, read fewer books and have more health problems. While some children visit summer camps, or attend child care when school is out, others stay at home, inside, with not much else to do than watch TV or play games on electronic devices. This is especially true for kids who are middle-school age or higher and are able to stay home alone when parents work. The “down time” of the summer months is really just empty time, often void of anything academically or developmentally advantageous.

3. There might be some scheduling issues caused by the calendar change.

For parents with children of different ages and in different schools, a year-round schedule could present serious scheduling issues. This argument assumes that schools would actually adhere to different time off schedules – something that seemingly could be adjusted so that all schools within a particular district or geographic area were on the same schedule. There is also the child care debate that says it would be difficult for working parents to find babysitters for one or two weeks at a time every few months, as opposed to three months straight in the summer. Again though, the market adjusts with demand and it seems to me that child care centers and camps would offer programs when students needed them. Just because those programs are not available now does not mean they would not exist when families were willing to pay for them.

The most common arguments against year-round schooling seem like a stretch. They reek more of the fear of change rather than actual concern. They are based on ungrounded assumptions and are simply not strong enough to stand against the reasons we should adopt a year-round schooling model here in the United States.

What arguments against year-round schooling do you hear? What ones do you agree with?

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform October 23, 2016

Playing the Blame Game

With skyrocketing costs, budget crises, inconsistent curricula, poor standardized testing scores, and poor morale among teachers, administrators, and students, the need for sustainable and pervasive educational change is greater now than ever before. The numbers of questions related to the quality of the U.S. educational system from multiple sectors of society is at an all-time high. Many American parents have seen reports that American schools rank well below schools in countries such as China and Japan, or have heard President Obama declare a “dropout crisis” in the USA. An abundance of news reports and discouraging case studies has created panic among education stakeholders, who want to know why American school systems are failing. However, many insist on playing the “blame game,” which in most cases is counterproductive.

Many Americans believe that only a small percentage of leaders understand the complexities of the school system, and that individuals who do understand the intricacies of the system use their knowledge to justify the mediocre performance of our teachers and students. The American school system is the best-financed system in the world, but is one of the lowest performing. The American school system as a whole has an appalling performance record. For children living in urban environments, the story is even more alarming. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are often educated in dilapidated schools where the too many educators lack the credentials and skills necessary to perform their duties adequately. High student-to-teacher ratios are found in most urban schools, and these schools often lack the resources to deal with the diverse challenges they face, including unruly student behavior. Education has been called the great equalizer, but for students living in poverty-stricken urban areas it is little more than a babysitting service and a place to get a hot meal.

Many question whether the No Child Left Behind Act has contributed to achieving academic success. Although NCLB was well intentioned, it has not lived up to the hopes of government or schools. In the eyes of some, NCLB has actually contributed to subpar academics becoming even worse. If American educators and school personnel do not make a concerted effort to develop effective measures to hold schools accountable for the education of all of our children, then the education crisis will continue.

Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Policy & Reform October 22, 2016

Are gifted kids more sensitive to screen violence?

Jonathan Wai, Duke University; Brad Bushman, The Ohio State University, and Yakup Cetin, Fatih University

The past few weeks have been full of several unfortunate violent events: the massacre in Orlando, the killing of black men by police officers, the sniper attack in Dallas, the Bastille Day attack in France, the violent coup attempt in Turkey and the shooting in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

While many of us may not have been directly affected by these events, we watched the news as it unfolded on broadcast and social media. Witnessing such violence on media can take a severe toll on us even when our near and dear ones are not directly affected.

Surprisingly, what research is beginning to uncover is that impact on young children – especially young gifted children – can be worse.

Impact of violence on adults and children

A large body of research has demonstrated a link between exposure to violent media and aggression and violent behavior across multiple countries and cultures. A synthesis of this literature found different reactions in adults and children. The short-term impact of watching violence on screen was greater for adults, while the long-term effects were greater for children.

Research specifically related to children has shown that violent media events like the ones we are currently seeing can frighten and worry them. Scholars have discussed how witnessing violence harms children’s mental health.

However, this impact can vary. We are researchers who study gifted children and violence. Although definitions of “gifted” vary, gifted children can be generally defined as those high in general intelligence as indicated by a standardized test score.

Gifted kids show greater motivation, memory, moral reasoning and development. US Army Garrison Red Cloud – Casey Follow, CC BY-NC-ND

Based on this definition, gifted children tend to have many advantages. For example, higher intelligence is linked to greater achievement, motivation, memory, moral reasoning and development, social skills, sense of humor, educational and occupational attainment, leadership, and even creativity. Higher intelligence is also linked to lower impulsive behavior, delinquency and crime.

However, research also shows that higher intelligence is linked with greater emotional sensitivity. Scholars studying gifted children have argued that because of this, they are not necessarily advantaged in all contexts.

Studying the impact of violence on gifted kids

But what things might gifted children might be more sensitive to? One factor that might play a role is violence – even violence depicted in something as seemingly harmless as cartoons.

Along with Cengiz Altay, a doctoral student at Fatih University, we tested 74 “gifted” children and 70 children from Turkey who were “less gifted” or had relatively lower intelligence scores. The “gifted” group were those students scoring 130 or higher (top two percent) on the intelligence scale. The school from which these students were drawn had a gifted students unit and were initially screened for higher intelligence than the general population.

The study was conducted in 2015 over a period of half a year. At the time of the study, these children were 10 years old. We examined whether exposure to media containing violence compared to media that did not contain violence differently affected the verbal ability of children.

To do that, we asked all students to take a verbal test before (pre-test) and after (post-test) watching a video. Participants were asked to generate words from a different set of letters for both these tests.

The most common letters in the Turkish alphabet were randomly divided into two groups for the pre-test and post-test. In the pretest, participants were asked to generate words starting with the letters A, L, M, S, C, E, B and H. In the post-test, participants had to generate words starting with the letters I, D, N, O, F, K and T. They had one minute to list as many words as possible that began with the particular letters.

Between the pre-test and post-test, participants in both the gifted and less gifted groups were randomly assigned to watch either a nonviolent cartoon or a violent cartoon. We used two animation shows that are commonly watched by children.

Even animation series that depict violence can have an impact.Loren Javier, CC BY-ND

One was “Bakugan Battle Brawlers,” a series with episodes that depict violence in a battle, and the other “Arthur” – a story that revolves around the many friend and family issues of a young boy named Arthur. This latter series does not have any episodes of screen violence.

What our findings show

Our research, published recently in Gifted Child Quarterly, a leading journal on the study of giftedness, shows that children’s abilities could be negatively impacted by exposure to violence, especially gifted children.

We found that gifted students generated more words than the other students when they were asked to generate words prior to watching the video. However, the gifted students assigned to the video which showed violence generated slightly fewer words than the less gifted group after they had watched the video.

Conversely, when gifted students were shown the cartoon without violence, they outperformed the other students on both the pre-test and the post-test. This suggests that it was the violence in the cartoons that reduced the gifted students’ mental performance rather than simply watching a cartoon.

Overall, all kids under performed after watching the violence, but gifted kids showed a greater performance drop.

Are gifted kids more sensitive?

One commonly held belief is that gifted students don’t need help and will do fine on their own. This perception may be due to the empirical evidence showing that many gifted students do end up quite successful later in life.

Scholars, however, have argued that it is a myth that gifted students don’t face problems and challenges. Our study adds to the evidence that gifted children do face disadvantages or challenges, specifically when it comes to exposure to screen violence. Violence in the media impact children generally, but our study shows this negative impact is amplified for students with higher intelligence.

We are just beginning to explore the reasons for this surprising finding. Perhaps greater sensitivity of the “gifted” group leads them to react with more anxiety to the violent media. And perhaps exposure to such media lowers their working memory capacity, reduces their attention to the mental task and thus lowers their performance. In our study, gifted children thought the violent cartoon was more violent, liked it less and saw it less frequently at home than did the other children.

Screen violence and harm

Our findings have implications for parents, educators and policymakers who need to be aware that violence on screen may have a negative impact on kids, and in particular gifted kids. The impact of violent video on verbal tasks could be particularly important given the heavily verbal nature of schools.

Screen violence could lead to nightmares and other sleep disturbances. Boys image via www.shutterstock.com

A just-released statement from The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended, along with attention to children’s “media diets,” that “parents should be mindful of what shows their children watch and which games they play.” Other experts too have warned that screen violence, whether real or fictional, could lead to nightmares, sleep disturbances and increased general anxiety.

Our findings support this earlier evidence. In general, the violence depicted in our videos was quite small compared to the violence that children are often exposed to, such as in the news. So, it’s possible our study provides a lower estimate on the impact of violent media on the mental performance of children.

Optimal educational development requires not only including positive impacts but also reducing and removing negative impacts. Such risk factors could be greatest for talented but disadvantaged students who likely live in neighborhoods with higher rates of violence, which might accumulate and contribute to their eventual underachievement.

With the rise of digital devices and constant switching of tasks, it is difficult to control student exposure to violence. However, more attention needs to be paid to media diets that could detract from educational development over a period of time.

Jonathan Wai, Research Scientist, Duke University; Brad Bushman, Professor of Communication and Psychology, The Ohio State University, and Yakup Cetin, Head of the Department of Foreign Language Education, Fatih University

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

Matthew Lynch published in First Year Teachers, OpEducation, Policy & Reform, Teachers October 21, 2016

Healthy Body, Healthy Mind: The Impact of School Lunch on Student Performance

By Gabe Duverge

By now, it is no mystery that what people eat has an effect on their daily physical and mental health. When people keep themselves well-nourished, they can participate more fully and effectively in a wide variety of activities. Of course, nutrition has an impact on K-12 students as well, from their academic performance to their behavior in the classroom.

During the 2012–2013 school year, more than 30 million students participated in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report. By providing healthy lunches, schools can help their students perform better in the classroom and improve their overall health.

The State of School Lunches

The School Nutrition Association (SNA) is the largest professional organization for school lunch providers in the country, with 55,000 members. The SNA offers a fact sheet of statistics about the current state of the National School Lunch Program.

Through the program, nearly 100,000 schools and institutions serve lunches each day. Of the total 30 million students served:

2 million are receiving free lunches (children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible)
5 million are receiving reduced-price lunches (children from families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible)
7 million pay full price (school districts set their own prices for paid meals)

Currently, 130 percent of the poverty level is $31,005 for a family of four, and 185 percent is $44,123.

This data points toward one of the major issues with school lunches in America. If 19.2 million students are receiving free lunches due to their socioeconomic status, school lunch could be their only opportunity for a nutritious meal each day.

The National School Lunch Program costs the country $12.65 billion. Almost all of this money comes from the federal government.

School Lunch Legislation

In 1945, President Harry S. Truman signed into law the National School Lunch Act, which created the National School Lunch Program. In post-World War II America, Truman and Congress intended the bill to help absorb new farm surpluses.

When President Barack Obama was elected, first lady Michelle Obama sought to revitalize the National School Lunch Program as a part of her mission against childhood obesity. Nearly one in three American children are either overweight or obese, putting them at risk for chronic health problems related to obesity, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and asthma.

School lunches had reached a point where they were not providing the nutrients students needed to succeed and be healthy. With so many students relying on free school lunches as their primary meal for the day, reform became imperative.

In 2010, Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. This bill made significant changes to school lunches for the first time in decades.

The most important change was the introduction of higher nutrition standards developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The bill also places emphasis on the utilization of local farms and gardens to provide students with fresh produce. It requires schools to be audited every three years to see if they have met the nutrition standards.

As the USDA worked on turning the guidelines into regulations, pushback came from several groups. Some members of Congress who had supported the legislation began to criticize government intrusion into schools, and food companies that became fearful of falling profits began to lobby for delaying the changes.

Nevertheless, the USDA regulations went into effect during the 2012-2013 school year. With every meal, schools are required to offer students fruits and vegetables, low-fat or fat-free milk, whole grains and lean protein, according to the Student Nutrition Association.

Some school districts have had to overcome challenges with implementing the USDA standards due to the increasing cost of feeding students. In school cafeterias, lunches must be easy to prepare and distribute in an efficient manner.

Impact of Nutrition on Students

For years, scientists have been studying the effect of nutrition on student performance. In 2008, a Journal of School Health study discovered that fifth-graders eating fast food scored worse on standardized literary assessments. A follow-up study of fifth-graders published in The Journal of Educational Research in 2012 linked eating fast food to declining math and reading scores. How exactly do these foods affect children?

Nutrition can affect students either directly or indirectly. A 2014 report, “Nutrition and Students’ Academic Performance,” summarizes research on these issues.

Direct Effects

There are several direct effects that involve the immediate impact of nutrition on the daily performance of a student. Mental and behavioral problems can be traced back to unhealthy nutrition and poor eating habits.

Nutritional deficiencies in zinc, B vitamins, Omega-3 fatty acids and protein have been shown to affect the cognitive development of children. There is also evidence to suggest that diets with high amounts of trans and saturated fats can have a negative impact on cognition. This will harm the ability of students to learn at a pace necessary for school success.

Scientists have also established a link between student behavior and nutrition. Access to proper nutrition can help students maintain psychosocial well-being and reduce aggression. This can have a positive effect on students by avoiding discipline and school suspension.

Indirect Effects

The indirect effects of poor nutrition can be severely detrimental to the performance of students over time. Students with unhealthy lifestyles are far more likely to become sick. These illnesses then have an effect on the amount of class time missed. By not attending classes, students are much more likely to fall behind. And when they are in class, they are more likely to have little energy and to have concentration issues.

The Future of School Lunch and Student Performance

Teachers know that school lunches are a key part of the school system. They have a daily impact on the well-being of students both inside and outside of school. If you’re a teacher interested in developing your leadership skills and expanding your knowledge of how to improve student academic performance, consider the online Master of Arts in Education from Campbellsville University. The fully online program can help you gain the credentials you need while maintaining your responsibilities. Learn more today!

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Secondary Education, Teachers October 16, 2016

High school Dropout Rates Up; Are Math and Science the Cause?

More rigorous math and science requirements for high school graduation are in place, and simultaneously dropout rates in the country are up.

Research back to 1990 showed that the US dropout rate rose to a high of 11.4 percent when students were required to take six math and science courses, compared with 8.6 percent for students who needed less math and science courses in order to graduate.

The dropout rate is up to 5 percentage points higher when gender, race and ethnicity are considered.

William F. Tate, vice provost for graduate education and dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences says that part of the problem with adding math and science courses to requirements was that a significant number of students weren’t prepared to meet the revised requirements.

Andrew Plunk, a postdoctoral research fellow in the psychiatry department at Washington University School of Medicine, says the study highlights that the one-size-fits all approach to education requirements is not ideal due to various demographic groups, states and school districts that are all different.

When educational policies cause an unintentional consequence like an increase in students dropping out, the effects reverberate far beyond the classroom walls.

“Communities with higher dropout rates tend to have increased crime,” says Plunk. “Murders are more common. A previous study estimated that a 1 percent reduction in the country’s high school dropout rate could result in 400 fewer murders per year.”

While I do feel that the high drop out rate could be blamed on math and science courses, I don’t feel that the US should ease up on those requirements. I think the key is to better prepare the students. We need to make sure the students are ready for the requirements and aim to help all students graduate high school.