The central focus of every curriculum is imparting knowledge in the best way possible. But who decides what “the best way possible” really is?
The K–12 curriculum is often referenced in abstract ways, with many schools and districts claiming to want to teach the “whole child.” But what does that actually mean in the context of contemporary classrooms? Not every student exposed to the same information will achieve the same success and life outcomes. Just what is actually considered knowledge is interpretive, at best. Educators must narrow information to the learning materials that will make the biggest positive impact on a particular group of students.
K–12 schools have four kinds of curriculum. Official curriculum is outlined by governmental or educational bodies as the framework for every student. Taught curriculum is what teachers actually pass on to the students under their care. Tested curriculum is what is examined in standardized and graded testing materials. Learned curriculum includes those items that may not show up on testing results but are integral to student development and the learning experience. Depending on whom you ask, any one of these categories of curriculum may be considered the strongest, while others may measure as weak or unnecessary.
Though there is some federal oversight on curriculum choices and the funding accompanying them, curriculum is generally chosen on a local level. Some of the factors that go into curriculum choices are the personal belief systems of the decision makers and their overarching worldviews. Some things are considered “absolute”—like the rules of grammar or the way math equations are solved. Many other parts of K–12 learning are interpretive and are influenced by the individual educator or by imposing views on a global scale. Even the “facts” of history may be presented in differing ways based on the type of curriculum believed correct by officials. Often what is left out of curriculum is just as telling as what is included.
When educators are involved in the role of choosing curriculum, there is an assumption that the best interests of a student population and its achievement are at heart. For the most part, this perception is true. There is a reason why teachers and administrators require degrees and continuing education courses to obtain and keep their licenses; a lot of expert thought goes into the material that is chosen for students. In recent years parents have started to become more of an influential force in curriculum choices of K–12 schools. A law passed in 2012 in New Hampshire allows parents to object to any course material presented in public schools, provided that they can recommend a suitable alternative. While this law affects a very small subset of the national student population, it represents a trend in all schools to cater to students, and more specifically to parents, as customers. If public K–12 schools are to remain equalizers, however, the demands of small, fringe groups cannot be met. While parents may believe they know what is best for their own children, curriculum decisions for the collective student body are best reserved for objective, expert educators.
As an educator, it’s your job to thoroughly understand the reasoning behind any curriculum you implement. Know the pros, so you can defend what you’re teaching, if necessary. But know the con’s, too, so that you’re prepared to explain how you’re handling or working around those. Be realistic. Be informative. Be a teacher.
Should teachers be judged on student performance? Is it a fair assessment of their skills as educators?
A recent study published in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis is the latest in a number of forms of research that cast doubt on whether it is feasible for states to evaluate teachers based partially on student test scores. Research shows us that little to no correlation between high quality teaching and the appraisals these teachers are given.
We have seen a sharp rise in the number of states that have turned to teacher-evaluation systems based on student test scores. The rapid implementation has been fueled by the Obama administration making the teacher-evaluation system mandatory for states who want to receive the Race to the Top grant money or receive a waiver from the 2002 federal education act, No Child Left Behind. Already the District of Columbia and thirty-five states have placed student achievement as a significant portion in teacher evaluations. Only 10 states don’t necessitate student test scores to be factored into teacher evaluations.
Many states also use VAMs, or value-added models, which are algorithms to uncover how much teachers contribute to student learning while keeping constant factors such as demographics in mind.
These teacher-evaluation systems have drummed up controversy and even legal challenges in states like Texas, Tennessee and Florida when educators were assessed using test scores of students they never taught.
Just last month, the American Statistical Association urged states and school districts against VAM systems to make personnel decisions. Recent studies have found that teachers are responsible for up to 14 percent of a student’s test score, in combination with other factors.
In my opinion, we need to make sure students are exposed to high quality teachers. But is it fair to subject teachers to tough standards based on how students test? I do not believe so, especially in underprivileged areas. If we continue to scrutinize teachers with these types of stressful evaluations, it will only discourage teachers from taking jobs in urban and minority schools – perhaps where they are needed the very most.
Homelessness is another step down on the ladder of poverty and it is a very real problem faced by 1.5 million children in the United States. Here are a few facts and tips that will help you work with any homeless students you happen to have in your classes.
Many homeless families live in shelters in rural or urban areas. With one income, high rent and living expenses, many families are just one emergency away from disaster. As a result, even children who still have a home to go to could lose it in a heartbeat.
For instance, a single mother trying to make ends meet cannot go to work because her child gets sick. She must be with her child, as she has no one to help. On top of this, she has medical bills piling up. Even if she has a job to return to, she may not be able to afford her rent.
Homeless children still need to receive an education. Yet, when they get to school each morning, they are often hungry and tired. Like many children living in poverty, homeless children move frequently, and are exposed to drugs, violence, crime and more. Also, transportation might be an issue for some homeless children and they miss a great deal of school.
When they are able to attend school, they may be teased for the clothes they wear and the fact they fall asleep in class. They may have difficulty making friends or a fear of participating in an activity in front of the class. Although many homeless children are with their families, older homeless children may be runaways or may have been kicked out of their homes. Many have been abused sexually and/or physically.
Teachers who have homeless children in their classroom need to know how to help and support children without a permanent home. Homeless children may be needy emotionally and due to lack of access to bathtubs or showers and little food, they may be unclean and unfed. Teachers can be an anchor for homeless children by showing them compassion and understanding.
It may also be a challenge to communicate with parents who don’t have regular access to a phone. Of course, the most important thing for homeless children is that their families find a home. Teachers might be able to help by working with local agencies, children, and their families to find a solution to their problem.
Homeless children deserve a quality education just like all students. Teachers are the first line of defense but we all have to pitch in and do what we can to ensure that all of our country’s children have the chance to lead happy, healthy lives. If you implement the strategies that I have outlined in this column, you will have no problem working with homeless students and their families.
Think back to your own days as a student in the classroom. Do you remember particular times when you noticed a difference in the way boys and girls were treated by the teacher?
Whatever your own gender, you may have felt like you were punished more harshly, expected to do more, or even completely ignored as a result. You certainly did not imagine this—research backs up the theory that there are many differences in how boys and girls are treated in the classroom.
It’s true that different treatment of the genders in K-12 classrooms is certainly not something that teachers do purposely, but the subtle ways that girls and boys are treated differently has an academic impact later on. For this reason, it’s good to know how gender bias affects students in K-12 schools.
Listed below are a few things that most of us would rather not think about when it comes to gender bias—but is still rather important to know.
1. Teachers pay more attention to boys than to girls.
Teachers tend to pay more attention to boys than girls by having more interactions with them. They tolerate behavior in boys that is not tolerated in girls, and tend to provide boys with more criticism and praise. Differences in the extra attention given to boys are due in part to the fact that boys simply tend to demand more attention, while girls tend to be quieter and more reticent.
Boys not only tend to dominate classroom discussion, but also access and use computers and technology more often than girls.
2. Gender representation in textbooks still leaves something to be desired.
Gender representation in textbooks and other educational material is also problematic. This has improved greatly over the past 30 years, but is still a problem. Educational materials still portray women as being more helpless than men, and stereotyping, tokenism and omission are still prevalent.
3. Boys and girls still tend to gravitate toward different subjects in school.
The types and levels of courses predominated by males and females continue to differ as well. Boys are still more likely to enroll in mathematics, science and engineering than girls and are more likely to take advanced courses in these subject areas. This enrollment pattern is not true for biology, English and foreign languages, where girls tend enroll in more advanced courses. Overall, women are underrepresented in professions that center on mathematics, science, engineering, medicine, and business leadership.
Hasn’t there been some progress though?
There are those who believe gender bias no longer exists. Proponents of this perspective contend that boys are not more accommodated than girls in the classroom. They suggest that in actuality, boys’ needs are often overlooked, as they learn best when they have more frequent opportunities to get up and move around, and engage in classroom debates– classroom activities that are often discouraged.
There is also a strong focus on the fact that the gaps in education levels between boys and girls have virtually closed since 1970 and now, even though they still lag behind boys in mathematics and science, girls in high school do better than the male students in reading, writing and other academic subjects, earn more credits, are more likely to get honors, and are more likely to further their education at colleges or universities.
While it might be argued that it is difficult to see gender bias in schools, there can be no question that in terms of money earned there is a gender bias in the work force. The average earnings of women with a high school diploma is 85 percent of that of men with the same level of educational attainment, and that figure drops to 80 percent for college graduates. This means there is a level of gender bias, even if it is somewhat hidden in the school system. Gender bias is evident as students move into the workforce. Men are more likely to be given jobs with higher status and higher salaries than women.
So the problem of gender bias as it relates to success is one that extends well beyond K-12 classrooms, but it certainly originates there. As teachers become more aware of the ways that their actions impact the long-term success of their students, gender interactions will likely improve and equalize. It is just a matter of being willing to change traditional classroom models and interactions for the betterment of all students – regardless of gender.
What do you think about gender bias in K-12 classrooms? Are boys and girls being treated fairly in the classroom? Leave a comment below.
As referenced in the recent documentary, Waiting for Superman, the American educational system is not living up to it’s potential. Comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is falling behind academically. Even with the tremendous changes taking place since No Child Left Behind was enacted, serious problems still exist. For example, the cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are our school systems in the state that they are? This is a common problem with any bureaucratic monopoly.
Statistics, and common sense born of observation, tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman documentary put it, “The dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.” Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvements are being made. Of course, everyone wants to improve our system; they just do not seem to know how to do it.
The American public must feel that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. Today, people are concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although theoretically important, can hold a low priority to the more pressing problems of keeping a roof over their heads. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the marketplace. Education can provide those skills. Furthermore, those enhanced skills and improved technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle in the 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler. In fact, it is just the opposite. The skills needed in the world marketplace require a better education and improved, and more advanced abilities. Planning to turn out workers for the factories of today is a crucial element, but those same workers also need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. Workers taught in an educational system that is subpar will not only hurt them and their families; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.
Educational reform will occur once we decide that enough is enough and make the commitment change happen no matter what it takes. When America realizes all children deserve a stellar education regardless of where they are from, whom their parents are, or what their socioeconomic status is, we will be able to reform our educational system. Americans have to stop treating minority students in underperforming urban environments like collateral damage. The disheartening reality is that America has billions of dollars to fight a two-front war, but cannot or will not properly educate its children. If a hostile country attacked America, it would take less than 24 hours for American troops to be mobilized into battle. However, we seem unable to mobilize a sea of educated teachers and administrators to wage war against academic mediocrity, which is a bigger threat to our national security than Iran or North Korea.
Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teachers unions, placing blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. However, the film also shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools, the sadness of the lottery system for what are perceived as the best schools, and the general hopelessness that some have about our educational system. One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This shows that while our students seem to have confidence, they do not have the skills to actually succeed. As a nation we rank behind more than 20 other developed countries when it comes to teaching math and science. Our own deep probing into our educational system has repeatedly revealed serious problems; yet, perhaps we did need such a documentary to bring it back to the forefront of people’s thoughts. Certainly, Waiting for Superman has served as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been.
The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet some simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.” What America needs is to view this film as a call to action, where each of us is called upon to be Superman, or at least to have a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen needs to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system. Each of us needs to understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and stop placing blame. Rather, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our educational system. The future must be planned for now! It certainly will not be an overnight process; however, by taking steps one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years.
A set of reports on Louisiana’s statewide school voucher program recently revealed a number of important features of that program’s operation and overall performance.
The most startling of these reports indicated that students who used school vouchers performed much worse on standardized tests than those who remained in traditional public schools.
This result echoes evidence presented last month from a separate team of scholars, who found negative impacts after one year of voucher use in Louisiana. The latest study not only confirmed that finding, but showed the pattern persisting – albeit less severely – after two years of voucher use as well.
School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools. And these reports provide the first evidence that participating in such a system may harm kids’ academic achievement, at least in math.
As a researcher who studies both vouchers and other forms of school choice such as charter schools (independently operated public schools) I believe the new Louisiana studies are important to longstanding debates over the extent to which such choice enhances academic outcomes.
It may be tempting to use this news as an argument against vouchers, especially because the evidence is drawn from the most sophisticated research tools available to scholars who study these programs. However, it should be stressed that test scores provide only one indicator of program success or failure.
Impact of vouchers
The motivation for school voucher programs dates back to the 1950s, when the economist Milton Friedman began to argue that parents should have opportunities to choose between different providers of education for their children.
School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools. 401(K) 2012, CC BY-SA
The first school voucher program began in 1990 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Over the years since, especially in the last decade, voucher or voucher-like systems have spread to 24 states, all of which differ individually on some key details such as the number of children who will be eligible for participation and the maximum amount of tuition available to these students.
In Louisiana, policymakers introduced vouchers in 2008 in New Orleans as part of a series of reforms following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the city and the city’s school system. In 2012, vouchers became available statewide.
As with many public programs, policymakers turn to researchers to help determine how well school vouchers work. This is true not only in Louisiana, but elsewhere as well.
And part of what makes the Louisiana results so newsworthy – but also why voucher critics should pause before leaning too heavily on the latest reports – is that many of these studies conducted in other locations, such as Charlotte, Milwaukee, Washington, D.C. and New York City, for example, found the opposite pattern. In these studies, students who used vouchers to attend private school tended to have higher test scores as a result.
The answers are not that simple
The question is whether test scores are the only way to judge schools and school performance.
It is true that public schools have to test their students, so using a similar metric is a reasonable, relative comparison between public and private schools. But test scores, while important, do not necessarily provide an absolute appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of voucher programs in a large education system.
First, we know from earlier studies that student attainment levels – high school graduation or enrollment in post-secondary education – may be higher among voucher users even when test score differences between them and their public school counterparts are nonexistent.
Whether this means that private schools are especially good at preparing kids to graduate and attend college or that they simply prioritize such success more than other outcomes is still unclear. But we see similar patterns in charter schools too: a number of studies have shown that charter school students have a higher chance of high school graduation or college enrollment even when their test scores do not differ on average from their traditional public school counterparts.
In the Louisiana context, the researchers also found more nuanced results when they posed a number of other questions.
When researchers examined, for example, whether competition from private schools pressed nearby public schools to improve performance, they found that the test scores of students in these competing schools did indeed increase, albeit modestly.
When they asked whether the declines in voucher users’ tests scores were present in noncognitive student outcomes (such as grit, self-esteem, and political tolerance), they found both public and private school students had similar levels on those indicators.
Each of these questions provides a different way of assessing the overall impact of the voucher program both on students who use them and on students in the surrounding communities as well.
Weighing other factors
More generally, it’s important to remember that voucher programs operate differently in different places.
In Louisiana, for example, one prominent explanation for the negative test scores is that heavy regulation of private providers keeps the best schools in that sector away from offering seats to voucher users. But in Wisconsin, we know that some regulations, such as requiring private schools to publicly report the academic performance of their voucher users, actually increased test scores.
Other state laws determine who’s eligible to use a voucher in the first place. In some states, vouchers exist expressly for kids with special academic needs; in others, low-income families are eligible as well.
Again, this implies that we have to be very careful. It is not as simple as taking evidence from one state and expecting the same results, good or bad, in another.
Little is known about teachers in schools that accept vouchers. EarthFix, CC BY-NC
Apart from differences between states, there are other things to consider about the way voucher programs operate.
We know surprisingly little about teachers in schools that accept vouchers. State oversight of private school teachers is far less – in some places practically nonexistent – than for public school teachers.
Researchers are beginning, for example, to devote considerable effort to understanding who teaches in public charter schools. Answering that question in different voucher programs will help explain differences in students’ outcomes between private and public schools, both within and between different states.
Finally, we need to consider not only which students accept and benefit from a voucher, but also the extent to those who do attend private school – or any nontraditional alternative – are actually able to do so over the long term.
The evidence we have from places like Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. suggests substantial turnover in voucher programs, with minority students and students with the lowest test scores leaving private schools.
All of this is to say that when it comes to educating kids, what we know about school vouchers depends on what we ask. And what we ask should be informed not only by traditional academic outcomes, such as test scores, but also by a new understanding of the many different ways that schools can contribute to student success.
As today’s school leaders seek to acquire the skills and knowledge that are necessary for effectiveness in current educational institutions, they should realize that there are no simple answers or shortcuts to achieving leadership excellence. The most important task is to find the right combination of qualities and characteristics that will consistently provide the leader with the skills and knowledge required to succeed on a regular basis. To that end, there are four dimensions that are essential to creating a positive school culture – optimism, respect, trust and intentionality.
Optimism
Optimism is the belief that people have untapped potential for growth and development. The optimistic leader is an individual who is capable of reframing problematic situations as opportunities and considering the impossible to be merely difficult. School staff are pushed towards success by a leader who is both encouraging and enthusiastic, qualities that are vital for effective leadership. When an administrator is enthusiastic and positive, spirit becomes contagious and spreads. Attitude is contagious! When leadership remains positive at all times and is constantly communicating visions for the school that are uplifting and visionary, they are building a positive school environment.
Optimism does not, however, mean that negative behaviors aren’t dealt with. Administrators should never be afraid to confront negative issues, but rather should face them head on and attempt to turn negative attitudes and behaviors into positive ones. This is the core of optimistic school leadership. One good rule to implement is “Praise in public, constructive criticism in private.” This allows leaders to continue to pursue optimistic leadership while confronting and engaging problems in a constructive and productive way. It is undeniable optimism contributes tremendously to increase members’ desire to work while assuring excellence and success.
Respect
Respect is the recognition that every person is an individual of worth. The value of respect in the area of leadership is basic to organizational effectiveness. It denotes the simple belief that people have worth and value and should therefore be treated as such. When respect is a central pillar to school culture, it represents school leadership recognizing the fact that all individuals are valuable and therefore must be respected. This creates not only an inviting and inclusive school culture, but also fosters diversity and offers every individual within the school setting the opportunity to flourish. so as to create an inviting and inclusive workplace where diversity is seen as the norm and every individual has an opportunity to flourish. Respect is commonly identified as a critical element of overall leadership effectiveness. When a school principal shows respect for his or her staff, a positive atmosphere is created that brings about excellence and satisfaction within the school. Respect is absolutely pivotal to the successful acquisition of effective leadership.
Trust
Trust is the possession of confidence in the abilities, integrity, and responsibilities of ourselves and others. Trust is a crucial component of effective leadership. Trust nurtures all of the other dimensions of effective leadership. Trust is an important value, and it contributes directly to the success of an organization. On the other hand, lack of trust is a barrier to cohesive teamwork and efforts. Trust is at the heart of any functioning cohesive team. In its absence, teamwork is all but impossible. Therefore, building trust is quite a critical element that any successful leader should have.
Intention
Intention is a decision to purposely act in a certain way so as to achieve and carry out a set goal. It is having knowledge of what we intend to bring about as well as how we intend it to happen, thus giving clarity and direction to our work. Intentionality is the ability of individuals to intertwine their inner consciousness and perceptions with their actions. It is simply having an end in sight. The ability to be purposeful and focused is a very significant aspect of building a positive school culture. Leaders of effective schools are more distinctly purposeful in their vision and mission than are the leaders of less effective schools. Thus the leaders of effective schools are more likely to believe strongly in the aspect of intentionality than the less effective school leaders. Everything that an administrator does must be with clear intent. If you don’t know where you’re going you’re never going to get there. As a leader it is critical that everything is done with purpose. As with the other characteristics, intentionality is a key element that school leaders should adhere to in their desire to bring about effectiveness, long-lasting change, and excellence in their schools through a positive school culture.
These four dimensions of a positive school aim to include all interested stakeholders in the journey towards student success. The messages of optimism, respect, trust and intentionality are sometimes transmitted by interpersonal action, but are mostly disseminated through the institution’s policies, programs, practices, and physical environments.
Activism when it comes to public K-12 education is flourishing. Laws regarding K-12 education are no longer simply handed down and enforced without pushback – student, parents, teachers and outside activists have a larger voice than ever when it comes to the decisions impacting the future of their public schools.
After some thought, I came up with the six most impactful things (in no particular order) that education activists have done in the past few years when it comes to K-12 education:
1. Student-driven change. When it comes to the paths of their educations, K-12 public school students are standing up for their rights more than ever before and empowering positive changes in their learning experiences. In April, over 100 Chicago Public Schools students made news when they skipped their standardized testing to protest the tests instead. Speaking to the press, one CPS student said that the protest was designed to draw attention to the fact that “standardized testing should not decide the future of our schools and students.”
Student-led zombie flash mobs took place in front of the Philadelphia School District headquarters to oppose the closing of public schools in the city. Hordes of students in other cities like Denver, Providence and Philadelphia followed suit and spoke out against the advance of high-stakes testing and school closing. They rallied together and marched relentlessly to prove their strong dislike against standardized testing – and the belief the effects are not a true measure of success in the real world. While there may have been some parental encouragement behind the scenes, these students appeared to act alone in their pursuit of a better public school learning experience.
2. Parents as reformers. In California, the parent-led “trigger movement” made waves as parents demanded more from failing public schools. Dessert Springs Elementary School in Adelanto is an example of a school that was transformed from a consistently failing school (students had reading scores in the bottom 10 percent of the state) to a public charter that better served its student body – all because parents took a stand and demanded the change.
The Lone Star State had some big news this year when a coalition led by parents was successful in petitioning the state to reduce by two-thirds the number of tests required to graduate high school. In 2011, the state required at least 15 high-stakes tests on students prior to earning their diploma. Two years of hard work later, the Texas legislature passed an education bill reducing the number of tests to five.
3. Activists stepping up. During 2013, civil rights advocates found an audience with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. In January, these public-school supporters gathered in DC to discuss their grievances to the Department of Education. The Journey for Justice came as Chicago was on the cusp of closing around 50 schools, and New York and Philadelphia had voted to close more than 20 each.
These activists had every right to speak up – research shows that the closing of public schools in urban areas has the biggest negative effect on Latino and Black students. Mass school closures often shake up communicates and disrupt children’s learning, among other effects on displaced students. Perhaps the biggest public school activism success story for 2013 was the teacher union-led Scrap the Map in Seattle. After months of protesting Washington’s mandatory MAP standardized testing at Garfield High School, a decision was made to make the test optional for students throughout the state. In 2013, public school activists came out en masse and took to their local, state and federal legislators to protest detrimental closings and other public school legislation.
4. Pushing for increased funding. In 2013, activists were vocal about the need for stronger programs in science, technology, engineering and math. Thankfully, President Obama listened. His 2014 budget includes $3.1 billion in investments in federal STEM programs – an increase of nearly 7 percent over the budget of just two years ago. Of that total, $80 million is intended to recruit 100,000 well-qualified educators and another $35 million is earmarked for the launch of a pilot STEM Master Teacher Corps. The rest of the money will go to supporting undergraduate STEM education programs and investment in breakthrough research on the way STEM subjects are best taught to modern learners. At the urging of advisors and activists, the president realized that demand for STEM-related jobs is there and the money allocated to STEM learning initiatives will better prepare today’s students for the worldwide workforce.
5. Supporting Race to the Top. Over the last 2 years, education activists have continued to support the president’s incentive-based Race to the Top program. Race to the Top was launched in 2012, and it rewards states that are willing to reform their education models to best adapt to modern student learning needs. The Race to the Top initiative has raised standards for learning to reflect a push toward college and career readiness. Each year, the program gives even more in federal funding to states that prepare plans for reforming their student offerings and 2013 was a big year for it.
To date, the program has allocated more than $4 billion among 19 states that have shared well-developed plans to improve learning standards, teacher effectiveness and struggling schools. The states that have been granted the funds represent 42 percent of all low-income students in the nation – making the initiative an effective way to close the achievement gap and equalize funding in areas where schools may struggle based on their geographical location.
6. Lobbying for college affordability. College affordability activists urged the president to make earning a college education more affordable for all Americans and convinced him that this will impact future K-12 classrooms. In August 2013, the President announced plans to assign a ratings system to colleges by the 2015 school year that takes items like tuition, graduation rate, debt and earnings ratios of graduates and percentage of low-income students who attend into consideration. The grand plan? To base the amount of federal financial aid colleges receive on the rankings system by 2018.
The overall principle is not to call out colleges but rather to make them more accountable to students, and to ensure that every American with college degree aspirations has the actual means to make it happen. Long term, this will impact the quality of teachers in the classrooms, particularly in urban settings where research has shown that the most effective teachers are generally those who come from the same background. More lower-income college students earning degrees will have a positive impact on the entire education system and the college scorecard initiative is a step in that direction.
What would you add to my list? Don’t forget to leave a comment.
In theory, parents and educators would do anything to keep students safe, whether those students are pre-Kindergartners or wrapping up a college career. Nothing is too outlandish or over-the-top when it comes to protecting our kids and young adults. Metal detectors, security cameras, more police presence in school hallways, gated campuses – they all work toward the end goal of sheltering students and their educators and protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens.
Emotions aside though – how much does school security really increase actual safety? And do school security efforts actually hinder the learning experience? It sounds good to taut the virtues of tighter policies on school campuses but is it all just empty rhetoric?
Recently the University of Kentucky came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union for plans to install 2,000 security cameras on campus. Representatives at UK say the move is a response to the increasing randomness of school violence at all levels of the learning process and a way to better ensure student safety. The ACLU says it is a blatant violation of privacy.
I say it is money wasted because all the security cameras in the world would not have prevented the largest school tragedies of recent history, from Sandy Hook Elementary to the Virginia Tech massacre. Security cameras and other monitoring devices give us a false feeling of security and an actionable course when there are no answers to pointless questions.
While extreme, UK’s camera monitoring plans are in sync with what is happening in K-12 schools across the nation. In the 2009 – 2010 school year, 84 percent of high schools had security cameras for safety monitoring. Over half of all middle and elementary schools had them too, with 73 and 51 percent respectively. Despite this, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the percentage of high schools with controlled access to school buildings during normal hours is lower than that of middle and elementary students. Though not expressly stated in these findings, it would seem that in the case of high schools, cameras are more of a way to catch rule-breakers after the fact than a way to prevent violence and other criminal activities.
Students are not the only ones who are the subjects of safeguards like surveillance cameras. Teachers, administrators and other staff are also vital when it comes to putting school safety into place – and in the case of teachers, they are on the front lines of what is going on with students. Limited access to K-12 campuses is meant to protect outsiders from harming the many people who are supposed to be there. But what about student-versus-student violence, or student-versus-teacher physical altercations? In 2011, 12 percent of high schoolers reported being in a physical fight at school that year. Nearly 6 percent reported carrying a weapon, like a gun or knife, onto school property in the month preceding the survey. By the time a security camera picks up on the fact that a student has a knife or gun, is there really any timely way to prevent the inevitable.
Given the fact that state spending per student is lower than at the start of the recession, how much should schools shell out in the way of security costs? Perhaps the best investment we can make to safeguard our students and educators is in personal vigilance. Perhaps less reliance on so-called safety measures would lead to higher alertness.
What role should school security play on K-12 campuses, and should it be a financial priority?
It seems that every time the issue of high school dropouts is discussed it all centers around money. U.S. Census Statistics tell us that 38 percent of high school dropouts fall below the poverty line, compared with 18 percent of total households in every demographic. Dropouts are also 40 percent more likely to rent their residences and spend $450 less per month on housing costs than the overall population. Only around 60 percent of dropouts own vehicles and they spend over $300 less on entertainment annually than average Americans. It’s clear that a high school diploma is in fact the ticket to higher earnings, at least on a collective level
I wonder, however, if our cultural obsession with the financial implications of dropping out of high school sends the wrong message to teenagers. Earning a proper living is certainly valuable but what about all the other great reasons to finish the K-12 academic course, and potentially college-level learning following it? Money is not everything and is certainly only one piece of the value of a high school diploma. Some other areas of focus when it comes to the pitfalls of dropping out of high school should include:
Value of a career versus a job. Over 68 percent of high school graduates begin college coursework the following fall. Students who earn high school diplomas are that much more inspired to continue their academic journey and seek out a lifelong career match, not just clock hours at a “job” until retirement. The fulfillment people receive from a job they enjoy should not be underestimated. Studies have found that happier people are healthier and are even able to better fight off common illnesses like colds and the flu. Considering more time is spent working than in any other pursuit, job satisfaction plays a major role in overall happiness. The value of careers go beyond individual satisfaction, however. As a nation, everyone benefits from well-educated workers who earn a living in areas where they possess natural talent too.
Social strength. The childhood years go by so quickly and high school represents the last stage before adulthood. The social opportunities that high school provides are not duplicated anywhere else, with the exception of a college setting and high school dropouts miss out on both. What’s more, high school dropouts tend to get into more trouble than their in-school peers. The National Dropout Prevention Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. prisoners are high school dropouts. The life lessons found in the later years of high school are more valuable than they get credit for and the peer-level socialization is a vital part of late-childhood development.
Learning for its own sake. In our material society, it is difficult to explain the intangible value of things like intellectualism, particularly to young people. Until greater value is placed on obtaining knowledge for no other reason than to broaden individual and societal wisdom, students will continue to drop out of high school. After all, how can the economic importance of a high school diploma really be explained to children who have never had to earn their own living? Even those in dire socio-economic conditions do not have a grounded concept of what money means in quality of life and long-term happiness.
The negative financial ramifications of dropping out of high school cannot be denied but the way they are over-emphasized seems like a worn-out tactic to me. To really reach today’s students and encourage them to finish at least a high school education, they should be valued as learners and not simply earners.
