Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

What You Need to Know as an Educator: Understanding the Impact of Educational Governance at the State Level

Are you aware of the governing educational structure of your state? Many components of this structure are affected by regulations while still enabling academic freedoms. In this article the basic state structure of K-12 school systems in the United States will be observed.

The educational system in the United States can best be described as extensive (due to the large size of the country), decentralized (determined by the individual states or even, at times, local areas), and diverse (the children to be educated come from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds). In 2007–2008, approximately 49 million children were enrolled in K–12 schools, while 6.9 million teachers worked in the nation’s 99,000 public elementary, middle, and secondary schools.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individual states control over education within their boundaries, and many state constitutions state that all children have a right to minimally adequate education or include similarly worded clauses. States have the right to determine policy, to set curriculum, and to decide how to spend the majority of funds allocated to education. Furthermore, states are responsible for setting the minimum requirements that a student needs to meet in order to graduate high school. Slightly more than half of the states (26) require students to complete state-regulated exit exams, although these may not be considered particularly rigorous because they contain knowledge and skill levels comparable to proficiency at the eighth- or ninth-grade levels. Finally, states are ultimately responsible for the selection and the evaluation of educational personnel. Chief educational officers or state commissioners of education may be appointed or elected. When elected by the voting public, the chief educational officer is wholly responsible to the public for his or her decisions and policies.

The governance structure can vary from state to state; the governor is typically the head of education, although the members of the state legislature are equally as powerful when it comes to setting statewide policies and regulations. Many states have a state board of education (SBE), which is either appointed, elected, or a combination of both, with some members appointed and others elected. Certain other states, such as New Mexico, Minnesota, and Oregon, have alternate bodies. Check the National Association of State Boards of Education Web site to see what entity exists in your state. Many states have a chief state school officer, who is directly responsible to the SBE and normally serves as the head of a state department of education. At the local level, school districts are governed by school boards. School board members may be elected or appointed. School boards are normally responsible for hiring a school district superintendent, who is responsible for implementing educational policies at the local level. The superintendent is also responsible for managing principals and schools located within the district. Principals are the onsite authority for education in their buildings. Teachers are directly responsible to principals.

Since each state has some leniency with the governance structure it is important to understand your individual school system. Know thing proper protocol will enable you to stay involved and in communication with your local district leaders and provide the appropriate method for addressing concerning about your school system.

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

STEM Funding in Danger – But Does Anyone Care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High School Dropout Rate: Causes and Costs

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

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

Why are students dropping out?

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

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

How valuable is a high school diploma?

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

Why should I care?

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

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

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

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

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

Why more K-12 schools should teach the Arabic language

By Kelly Doffing

From improving memory to increasing global understanding, the benefits of learning a foreign language are abundant. As globalization continues and we progress toward a more connected global community, the importance of learning a second language is not only beneficial, but also essential. The U.S. Census reports that only 21 percent of Americans speak a language other than English (at home), yet 75 percent of the world’s population does not have a basic understanding of English.

It is imperative that students be given the opportunity to study a second language in order to ensure that the next generation is equipped to be global citizens who are able to cross geographic and cultural boundaries to solve global problems.

Why we need more Arabic in K-12 classrooms

According to Ethnologue.com, Arabic is the fifth most spoken language in the world and, despite a growing importance of the Middle East in international affairs, there is a shortage of qualified Arabic-language educators in the United States. So, what are schools in the United States doing to further the study and teaching of Arabic?

Qatar Foundation International (QFI) is a U.S.-based not-for-profit dedicated to connecting cultures and advancing global citizenship through education. QFI conducted a survey of school administrators of Arabic-language programs to look at the various challenges, benefits, and logistics of offering Arabic. Between December 2012 and October 2013, the Arabic Language and Culture Program of Qatar Foundation International conducted a phone survey of 201 U.S. K-12 public and public charter schools that teach Arabic. Of the 106 responses, 84 schools self reported that they currently offer Arabic classes.

The survey revealed three key takeaways for current Arabic-language programs as well as for schools considering the implementation of such programs:

  • The teacher is critical for the success of the Arabic program. Schools rely on teachers to recruit students to learn Arabic and to conduct outreach events. Schools cited finding a quality teacher and recruiting and retaining students as two of the biggest challenges for offering Arabic. Consequently, twenty-four percent of schools that discontinued their Arabic programs did so because the teacher left or retired. One schools administrator advised, “Getting the correct teacher is the most important aspect [of the Arabic program]; you can do many things like market the program or recruit, but if you don’t have a solid teacher, the program will die.” The field of K-12 Arabic needs more highly trained, certified teachers who are passionate about working with children. Programs such as Teacher Fellowships to fund Arabic teacher study and certification, grants to current teachers for classroom needs and professional development, awards to celebrate excellence, and partnerships with leaders in foreign language education can all serve to increase the number and quality of qualified K-12 Arabic teachers, provide ongoing teacher training to those teachers already in the profession, and support classroom needs and innovation.
  • There is an urgent need for high-quality curricula, resources, and materials appropriate for use at the K-12 level. Many current textbooks are intended for university, private, or international students and do not meet national or state standards. Administrators noted that schools offering Arabic are “on the cutting edge,” so teachers have to learn to develop their own curricula. Most teachers develop their curricula by combining material from different textbooks, online resources, other teachers, and their own self-developed materials. The dissemination of standards-based curricula through teacher-to-teacher sharing websites, such as the QFI-supported Al-Masdar, can help Arabic teachers to identify effective student engagement techniques and ensure quality content.
  •  Getting buy-in from the community and administration is essential. The survey found that 68 percent of Arabic programs are less than five years old. Without local support, Arabic programs cannot get off the ground or become sustainable. Schools that are looking to start programs must first engage with local communities and communicate with parents, encourage students, and gain acceptance from the stakeholders. Schools choose to offer Arabic language for students’ benefit, pointing to the fact that the U.S. government has identified Arabic as a critical language of strategic value. Administrators say that their Arabic programs aim to increase cultural understanding and open up opportunities for students. For these schools, there are resources available – including videos such as “The Benefits of Learning Arabic,” which consists of interviews with multiple administrators, teachers, and students to show how learning Arabic benefits students and the global community.

The survey revealed that the number of Arabic programs has dramatically increased over the past 15 years. School administrators reported that as a result of their Arabic programs, students demonstrated increased global understanding and excitement for the language. Many administrators commented on the opportunities the program opened up for students, the school, and the community. One administrator noted, “It is a feather in our cap to have an Arabic program, especially since we are the only high school in the district to offer the language.” Another remarked that the most rewarding aspect of their Arabic program was, “to see kids who would have not normally pursued something different because… it’s from a different part of the world. Then they explore it and get excited by the language and learn about the similarities and universal truths that they share with Arabs.”

For more information – such as what administrators noted as the most rewarding aspects of Arabic programs and advice from administrators about Arabic-language programs – read QFI’s full report.

___________________

Kelly Doffing is a Program Officer with the Arabic Language and Culture Program at Qatar Foundation International. She holds a Master’s degree in Arabic from the University of Maryland, College Park and completed the Graduate Arabic Flagship Program. She has worked as an Arabic teacher, administrator, and translator in the United States and Egypt. Her interests include expanding opportunities for Arabic learning and improving the quality of Arabic language instruction.

 

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

What You Need to Know About the Conditions of Local Funding

It is important for educators and parents/guardians to understand the funding conditions of their local school district(s) because each condition impacts the amount and continual financial support provided to each school. In this blog the details of local funding conditions will be observed in order to bring awareness for the type of education your students may be receiving within their school.

Many states label schools under their jurisdiction and allot either descriptors or grades to them. Thus, schools can be characterized as “Excellent,” “Above Average,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Unacceptable,” receive a letter grade such as “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” or “F,” or be labeled using other types of systems. To meet its responsibility for openness and transparency, the state has an obligation to publish all such designations, whether in local or statewide news sources.

Schools that consistently receive poor or failing grades can be taken over by the state department of education. In some instances, state control of schools results in dismissal or reassignment of both administrators and teachers. Clearly, teachers are being held directly accountable for the achievement (or nonachievement) of the students in their charge. Student performance is looked at as a reflection of both the teacher’s and the school’s effectiveness. When choosing a school for their child, parents can use the schools’ designation (e.g., “Excellent” or “Fair”) as part of their decision. The potential enrollment of schools is impacted by the publication of the schools’ grade, and school funding can also be affected because enrollment is one of the measures used to determine the funds a school can receive.

Differences in the amount of money for education gained through property taxes mean the difference between getting a good education that enables students to become productive members of society and failing to do so. For parents and teachers alike, this can be a source of frustration. Teachers sometimes can’t obtain required materials, have to teach in buildings where the environmental conditions are not conducive to learning, and have to deal with social issues that are more prevalent in less-affluent areas, such as crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and the presence of gangs.

On the other hand, it can be very difficult to redistribute and reallocate funds for education, because wealthier areas may not be happy with their funds being taken away from their schools to finance schools in poorer districts. This approach has been termed the Robin Hood effect, where money is taken from wealthier areas and reallocated for spending in poorer areas of the state. The objective is to allow all students to receive the same access to education, thereby bringing about equity in the education received by all students in the state. This does not, however, always have the desired effect.

Redistribution of funds from wealthier areas may, for various reasons, cause a decline in the quality of education, teaching, or access to resources in the wealthier areas without bringing about a similar increase in the same factors at the recipient school in the poorer area. This creates an overall decrease in the quality of education offered to all students in the district. Several states, including Arizona and New Mexico, have a system in which all taxes go into a central fund and are then reallocated according to a complex “equalization formula.”

Some groups argue that instead of focusing on educational equity, districts and local administration should be focusing on educational adequacy. Unfortunately, adequacy is a term that is ill-defined because there are no prescribed criteria to define how you determine whether or not education is adequate. It could mean that you expect that all high school graduates are capable of attending university-level instruction, whether they choose to or not.

It could also mean that you expect that high school graduates are competent in handling life outside of the school environment, which may not focus on higher education at all. Alternatively, it could simply mean that all students are required to pass all standardized, state-level testing requirements, without placing any focus on future objectives. It is unlikely that, without a clear definition of educational adequacy, any further remediation of funding disparities between wealthy and poorer areas will lead to a solution that is beneficial to all.

It’s essential that schools adapt within a fast-changing economy, but our system still arranges funding in an inequitable manner. Those realities severely limit our educational system’s ability to effectively and accountably use resources in planned ways. Critics of increased spending on education routinely highlight nationwide cases of misspending of major increases in funding that provided little or no positive outcomes for student learning. Without adjustments in the distribution of resources, their use, and accountability, Americans may end up with a more expensive, though not necessarily more efficient, public education system.

Our children require and deserve a proper education, and we must strive to provide them with the type of education that they deserve. The money available for schools must be used in the most effective manner possible. And most important, we must understand the deficiencies in our educational funding system and strictly forbid placing blame—which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children.

Funding is crucial for the support, survival, and overall level of success for school districts. Therefore take time to review your jurisdiction and the functionality of funding.

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

Understanding State Funding: 4 Types of School Financing Systems

Educators can argue that the funding within education determines student success, staff morale, and the overall functionality of school system. The importance of understanding all types of funding is crucial to your development as an Educator, parent/guardian, and student. In this blog, state funding will be addressed and aid in creating a better understanding of school financing systems.

States generally use one of four types of school financing systems to provide districts with state funds: foundation, general aid, flat rate/local effort equalization, and full state funding. When using the foundation financing system, states set a desired (guaranteed) per-pupil amount they wish to see spent on students’ education in the state (e.g., at $12,000 per pupil). States then make up the difference between the amount generated by districts’ local taxes and the state-guaranteed per-pupil amount.

General aid is a foundation approach using three separate calculations to establish the amount districts receive from the state. When determining state aid to districts, states consider the guaranteed minimum per pupil and calculations of the percentage of district resources below or above the guaranteed minimum.

The flat rate/local effort equalization financing system is based on a quantifiable unit of need, such as a district’s average daily attendance or total school enrollment, and on districts’ property tax rates to determine state aid. Schools are fully funded in Hawaii and Vermont, with no consideration of local taxes.

Two other states have rather unique ways of providing state funds to local school districts. In Pennsylvania, school districts receive a percentage of state funds based on the amount a district needs to address key educational principles established by the state. Wisconsin uses a guaranteed tax base system, where all districts, regardless of their level of wealth, have the same tax rate. As a result, Wisconsin raises the same amount allocated per pupil from a combination of state and local sources.

Tax sources of funding are equally diverse and vary according to states. The three main tax sources providing input to education are income tax, sales tax, and property taxes. Income taxation, however, is generally enacted at a federal rather than at a state level, with much federal education aid originating from income taxes. Taxes levied on corporations are also included in income tax, although the rate of taxation differs among states. Sales tax is generated based on the sale of goods or commodities, which is paid by the person buying the goods. A special type of tax, excise tax, is levied on items that are considered undesirable for consumption, or that consumers are encouraged to spend less on, including cigarettes, gasoline, and liquor. Sales and income taxes make up approximately two thirds of all monies channeled into education, while the income derived from excise taxes makes up the remaining third.

Currently, lotteries are being marketed as a novel way of paying for public education. But in many cases, education actually ends up getting the short end of the stick. Instead of using lottery funds as additional funding for schools, state governments use these monies to cover the education budget and spend the monies that would be traditionally earmarked for education on other issues. In short, public school budgets have not received any additional funding as a result of lotteries. In the end, it’s true that billions of dollars pour into the U.S. education system, but not in the manner that we have been led to believe.

Property taxation is the most important source of revenue-generating taxation at a local level. Approximately half of the revenue generated from property tax is allocated for education. The exact amount of revenue generated from property taxes varies from region to region, due to differences in property tax rates that are based not only on the perceived value of the property but also on the amount/percentage that a constituency is willing to charge its homeowners as tax.

The school district tax rate is determined by calculating the total assessed valuation of the district, which refers to the amount of money required to be generated divided by the local tax base. The school district tax rate, however, is subject to a legal maximum, which may not be exceeded. The school district tax is added to the tax rates of other services (including fire relief, ambulance, or police services) and is described as a percentage or “millage,” where one mill is equal to one tenth of a percent. Thus, a tax rate expressed as 312 mills is equivalent to 31.2%.

During the late 1960s and in the 1970s, property values and taxation increased far more rapidly than other forms of wealth, resulting in mass dissatisfaction with the rate of property taxation. This gradually led to various legal reforms regarding the taxation of property, which again varied between individual states. In 1993, Michigan decided to replace school funds generated from local property taxes with state-generated funds. The state increased both sales tax and taxes on luxury items such as cigarettes, reallocating funds to its poorer districts, and ensuring a more equitable education for all children in the state. Other states have followed suit and have come to rely less on property taxes as a funding base for their educational systems.

In some instances, wealthier school districts have reacted to the redistribution of educational funding by actively setting out to ensure that their schools are not endangered or placed on a fiscal par with less economically fortunate areas. The Parent Teacher Association (PTA), which can receive state and national funds, and Parent Teacher Organizations (PTOs), which cannot, work with local businesses to ensure that funds other than those generated and allocated by the state are available to their schools. Parent groups conduct fundraisers and seek monies from private foundations. Some parent groups have sought legal support to ensure adequate funding for their schools. These advocates want to ensure that all schools have a base minimum amount of money on which to operate their programs and services.

The allocation of funds for education is determined by the governor and can vary greatly from state to state. The authorities must determine how available funds will be divided among all educational entities in the state. States typically funnel education funds to school districts through state departments of education. Schools may receive funds based on any or all of the following: enrollment, educational programs, or the types of activities they offer students.

Furthermore, some funds are designated for specific purposes: some can only be used for technology; others are solely for textbooks or school supplies. Thus, some schools may have a pool of money allocated to one resource, while sorely needing another. This can have a direct impact on you as a teacher. For example, you may need art supplies for your third-grade class, but because no money is specifically allocated for this purchase, you may have to be creative in how you provision your art program. You may have to consider approaching local businesses for donations of money or supplies. You may also have to sharpen your grant-writing skills and apply to both corporations and foundations for that much-needed extra cash.

Take the time to review your school’s financing system and how state funding may be creating a greater impact that is unaware to you. If your school is lacking in areas that are effecting student success consider researching the suggestions made in this blog such as submitting grants for additional funding.

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

Ask An Expert: Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools

Question: I recently moved from New Jersey to a small town in Louisiana. To my amazement and horror, my children’s elementary school still uses corporal punishment. Fortunately, it is an opt in system, but if parents do not consent to its use, their children are automatically suspended, whether it is in school or at home. What does research say about the effects of corporal punishment? What can we do to end this deplorable practice? Marcia E.

Answer: First of all, thank you for your question. It’s difficult to believe in this day and age that we still have some schools around the nation that are using corporal punishment as a form of discipline. At this point, there are only 19 states that now allow corporal punishment, which is allowing the school to use physical punishment on a child. Such punishment usually includes a spanking of some kind, typically done with a wooden paddle. Although not allowed in the majority of states, it is reported that there are over 200,000 children who are victims of it each year around the country. It’s difficult to imagine that so many children are going home throughout the school year with welts, bruises, and broken vessels, as punishment for something they did in school.

Spankings themselves, as well as corporal punishment, are controversial topics at best. There is a lot of evidence and research that has pointed to the fact that spanking as a form of punishment, at any age, can be problematic. We as a society need to be aware of this research, especially when it comes to it still being allowed in the schools of 19 of our states. Here’s some of the most troubling aspects of corporal punishment in schools:

• Research indicates that children who are disciplined with spanking go on to have more mental illness as adults. Spanking has been linked to children becoming adults who not only have mental health issues, but also experience more depression, and have problems with substance abuse.
• Spanking children is also believed to make them become adults who are more aggressive, antisocial, and who go on to abuse their own spouse and children.
• As a nation, we are concerned with our high school drop out rates. This makes me wonder how many adults would want to continue showing up at their jobs if they knew they would be paddled if they didn’t perform their jobs correctly. Perhaps if students were not being paddled, they may hang in there a while longer and take to their studies a little better.

Corporal punishment may be under attack, but until we outlaw it from every state in the country, we will have the problems associated with it each year. And those problems, as we have discussed, are far reaching and long lasting. They impact us as a society long after the child has completed their schooling.

While the Supreme Court allows corporal punishment in whatever states and school districts have it legally on the books, this is a matter of ethics. We as a nation need to do what is right by the next generation. By the looks of it, if corporal punishment continues in the 19 states it is currently allowed in, we will be raising a lot of children who may go on to have mental illnesses, be more aggressive, abuse their spouses, and have addiction problems.

Once they are adults, society can point the finger at them and say that it’s their own fault, and they have created the problems in their life by the choices they have made. But if we can agree that the writing is on the wall, and the potential long term impact is there, then we may need to start pointing a few fingers at the schools, as they are using a form of punishment that experts agree goes on to create more unwanted behavior.

Now is the time for parents around the nation, especially those who live in states where corporal punishment is still allowed, to take a stand. It’s time that we focus on more peaceful and less harmful ways to teach the children of the nation right from wrong. Getting rid of the paddles in the schools of this nation is a great place to start.

 

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

What You Need to Know: 9 Characteristics of Successful Schools

Do you want to have a successful school? Are you searching to work for a success school system? Check out this article to understand nine characteristics of success schools.

Successful schools often have exemplary leaders at their head. Other factors also define effective learning environments. A recent study conducted by the Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) discovered that successful schools, which performed well on standardized testing measures, had nine characteristics in common:

1. Everyone in the school—students, faculty and administrators—shares a common goal and vision. The school’s individual mission statement has been arrived at collectively with input provided by many interested stakeholders.

2. Everyone in the school believes that all students can achieve and attain high standards. Students are encouraged to rigorously follow grade-appropriate courses of study.

3. School leadership is proactive in seeking solutions and is effective at promoting achievement among all concerned: students, staff, and interested stakeholders. In a high-performing school, leadership is assumed at many levels and is not simply confined to a principal; teachers and other staff are encouraged to take on leadership responsibilities.

4. Teamwork is apparent. Everyone in the school works together, communicates effectively with one another, and collaborates to ensure student success.

5. The curriculum is in line with state standards. Teachers understand state assessment procedures and use effective instructional methods grounded in research to support student performance on assessment measures.

6. Students are continuously assessed and are offered support whenever necessary. Teachers make adjustments to their teaching methods to ensure that all students have access to learning.

7. Instructional staff receive professional development opportunities in line with the school’s vision and educational mission. The ongoing learning of the staff coincides with the school’s direction.

8. Students are treated with respect and feel connected to the staff. Learning is personalized to meet individual student needs. Class sizes tend to be small.

9. The community is actively involved in the school. Education is not simply a responsibility for educational professionals.

Is your school successful? If not, what changes can you make or suggest to help your school implement these characteristics of success?

 

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

3 Stories That Reveal How Important Arts Education Really Is

The arts have always had a secondary place in K-12 learning. If you doubt that statement, think of the first programs to go whenever budget cuts are implemented – music, fine arts and even physical fitness which includes dance. I’ve yet to hear of a school board or administrators discussing the way cutting math programs could help the school’s bottom line. There is a hierarchy of academics in America, and arts education tends to fall pretty low on the totem pole.

Let’s look at three notable events that show the state of arts education in America and what that reveals about our society.

  1. New York City schools lack arts education—and low-income students suffer the most.

A report from the New York City comptroller finds that many public schools offer no arts programs, and that low-income and minority students are hurt the most by it. The report is written based on data from the U.S. Department of Education that finds 20 percent of New York’s public schools have NO arts teachers. This includes one in seven middle and high schools, despite that fact that arts instruction at that level is a state requirement.

The biggest areas hit by the lack of arts teachers? Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx. In those schools, more than 42 percent have no state-certified arts instructors. Between 2006 and 2013, spending on arts equipment and other supplies dropped a whopping 84 percent, perhaps due to pressure to meet higher accountability standards in basic subjects.

At any rate, the lack of arts education in NYC schools is indicative of a larger cultural issue that undercuts arts education for the sake of higher test scores.

  1. The First Lady wants to make arts education a priority.

An estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure, First Lady Michelle Obama said.

The First Lady Michelle Obama joined the stage with middle- and high-schoolers who performed in the first ever White House Talent Show, created to celebrate the importance of the arts in American education. At the opening of the show, the First Lady emphasized the need for arts programs to be a part of all school curriculum, and not something that comes secondary to other academic pursuits like reading, math and science.

“Arts education isn’t something we add on after we’ve achieved other priorities, like raising test scores and getting kids into college,” said the First Lady. “It’s actually critical for achieving those priorities in the first place.”

The Talent Show celebration comes two years after President Obama introduced the Turnaround Arts program in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education. The goal of the program is to see if strong arts programs aid in other strong student academic outcomes. In the original eight schools where the program has been implemented, reading and math scores have improved, and so has behavior. Two of the schools have shown so much progress that they are no longer considered in need of a “turnaround.” In each case, big-name artists or performers like Alfre Woodard and Sarah Jessica Parker have adopted the turnaround schools and provided guidance in the programming.

At the show, the First Lady announced that the program will expand to 35 schools in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

  1. Some districts have adopted arts integration as a creative solution.

Sometimes schools cannot afford to implement arts departments in their schools. Some districts have instead integrated the arts in their existing curricula. Instead of treating the arts like a separate, distant relative to other classroom endeavors, these programs integrate musical instruments, painting, dancing, drawing, singing and more into traditional subjects like science, math and language. When implemented correctly, these programs are enthusiastically received by students who learn comprehensively.

Take a look at the West Michigan Academy of Arts & Academics in Ferrysburg, Michigan. The charter school has found ways to make stale topics like economics interesting through dance, music and visual art learning components. WMAAA may appear to be a “fun” learning environment, but its arts integration actually has legitimate outcomes. The test scores of WMAAA students rival the highest-rated traditional public schools in its district and in neighboring ones too. By allowing students to be active, instead of burying them in text books or regular written assignments alone, learning moves from a place of isolation to one that has other applications beyond the topic at hand.

Public Middle School 223 in the Bronx is another example of a school using arts integration methods effectively. Students in the school – the lowest income district in all of New York – participated in a four-year arts integration program that took students from basically no arts learning to multi-faceted lesson plans with arts inclusion. The results? An 8 percent improvement in Language Arts scores, 9 percent improvement in math scores and less absenteeism. Whether the last point impacted the higher scores is irrelevant. If students want to be in school more because of arts integration, and their test scores improve as a result, that is reason enough to call a program a success.

Even when schools do not have the money to support an official arts integration program, teachers can make arts integration a reality on their own. Teachers do not need to be artistic to successfully use arts integration – they simply need to be innovative enough to merge art concepts with other content. Social media is an amazing platform for teaching ideas, particularly when it comes to the arts, and teachers should take advantage of these available resources from around the world to integrate arts and traditional academics.

As results range from increased engagement in schools to better test scores, one thing is clear from all this: arts education should be made a priority in U.S. schools.

 

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

Examining The Federal Government’s Role in Educational Reform

In the decades of attempted educational reform, the U.S. government has been the biggest player. Following the Nation at Risk report the federal government became more focused on the achievement of all students in the nation’s schools.

In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act passed with the goal of supporting states’ efforts to develop curriculum standards that would outline what students should know and be able to do, as well as state and district efforts to improve student achievement along the standards. The act did not stop at standards-based education. It included goals focused on safe schools, parental involvement, and teacher development, all of which ostensibly influence student achievement. And it also addressed goals for education from early childhood to adulthood. Goals 2000 included the following:

  • All children in America will start school ready to learn.
  • The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.
  • All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging 
subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation’s modern economy.
  • U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
  • Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  • Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
  • The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.
  • Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.

The NCLB of 2001 built on goals outlined in Goals 2000, and in many ways NCLB amplified and extended goals that originally appeared in Goals 2000.

NCLB is the leading federal legislation governing K–12 schooling. Its introduction meant that the federal government took a greater role in education in the United States. A major objective of NCLB was to decrease the achievement gap between students with low scores and those with high scores. Schools and districts not reaching stated annual progress toward the goal of removing the achievement gap would be penalized.

NCLB has divided opinion. It has been positively recognized for requiring a disaggregated format for student performance reports, enabling evaluation of the performance of different groups of students. This has particularly benefited disadvantaged students, whose performance was often overlooked in the past. However, as you’ll see in the following section, NCLB also has many detractors.
Reforming NCLB

Many have called for reform of NCLB itself. Suggested changes include removing the 2013–2014 target years for eliminating the achievement gap among different groups of children, because educators and policy makers alike believe the target year is unrealistic. Critics state that NCLB places too much emphasis on standardized testing and too little on the education of individual students. They also suggest that using standardized tests as the only measure of progress has led to instruction more aligned with students’ performing well on tests rather than learning a broad array of topics. Critics suggest that student growth should be a measure of the difference between students’ performance level at the beginning of the year and their performance level at the end of the year, rather than an arbitrary expectation for annual performance. And critics recommend expanding the measures used to determine student performance, so that standardized tests are not the only measures used.

The funding arrangements for NCLB are also the subject of discontent, with suggestions that much more funding is required to achieve the stated objectives. Under NCLB, states are responsible for the type and level of assessments given to students. Critics have suggested that variations across states in terms of levels of performance proficiencies makes it next to impossible to accurately compare performance across states. The focus on testing only mathematics and reading has also come under scrutiny, with suggestions that knowledge and skills in other subjects should be assessed as well.

NCLB requires states to staff their public schools with “highly qualified teachers.” This provision of NCLB can be viewed as a successful school reform measure, because research has shown that excellent teachers have a positive impact on student achievement. The provision seeks to ensure that students are taught well-prepared and highly qualified staff—teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it.

Although not explicitly required by NCLB, gaining National Board Certification is one way to become a highly qualified teacher. National Board Certification is an advanced teaching credential that is offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. It supplements, but does not supplant, a state teacher license. National Board Certification is achieved on successful completion of an optional assessment initiative intended to identify effective and accomplished teachers who meet high standards based on what teachers should know and be able to do.

National Board Certification is available nationwide for most pre-K–12 teachers and has been a positive school reform measure since its inception. Whatever your thoughts on educational reform, National Board Certification is a powerful tool to have in your toolbox to help you be an effective educator and voice for change.

  • no reactions
0
Share