Policy & Reform

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

8 Reasons Common Core Will Ultimately Fail

By Matthew Lynch

Since their initial implementation, national Common Core standards have caused quite a stir. It seems that everyone from politicians to parents have an opinion on these learning benchmarks and their corresponding testing systems. Everyone is throwing his or her two cents into the Common Core discussion and it has all led to a firestorm of questions surrounding the future of K-12 education in the U.S. and whether one streamlined goal program can really be effective with all students.

As a disclaimer, I actually support a lot of the components of Common Core and believe that heightened, more focused teaching toward subjects like math and science are necessary for this generation of K-12 students to survive and thrive in the future world workplace. Despite my personal feelings on the heart of Common Core standards, however, the initiatives are misdirected in more ways than one and will be rendered ineffective in the end. Here are just a few of the reasons I feel this way:

  1. Common Core is tied to President Obama.

Even though President Obama did not draft or implement Common Core standards, he is inextricably linked to them. This is due in part to the fact that his Race to the Top program connects federal funding with states that have Common Core standards in place and who excel in the testing of the material. The President has certainly put his weight behind the ideals of Common Core standards and has always been vocal about his belief that streamlined learning benchmarks and continued teacher accountability is necessary for the future of the nation’s economy and knowledge base. He did not, however, come up with the idea for Common Core standards nor approve them upon completion. The bi-partisan National Governors Association did that. Still, people who already dislike President Obama seem to think that passionately disliking Common Core is just another way to show their disapproval of his administration. While this specific group is certainly not large enough to topple the standards alone, it is influential, particularly when it comes to politicians that are looking for an easy way to please constituents. Which brings me to my next point…

  1. Politicians are using Common Core as a platform.

Republican governor of Indiana Mike Pence was once a supporter of Common Core initiatives, and so was Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Yet both are now some of the most prominent politicians to speak out against Common Core standards – and in the case of Pence, he has since withdrawn Indiana from the program (and then replaced the standards with eerily similar “state developed” ones). It seems that Common Core is becoming a platform for politicians looking for their next news byte or front-page photo op. It’s not limited to politicians in office, either.

In April, Republican Rob Astorino of New York, a gubernatorial hopeful, made a public announcement that his own children would not be taking state assessments based on Common Core benchmarks. The spotlight-stealing is not limited to Republicans, of course. Just this month Virginian democrat Adam Ebbin who hopes to replace long-time Senator Jim Moran said he does not support Common Core standards (which Virginia has so far opted out of using). Politicians from both sides of the aisle are seeing the fiery side of their constituents and looking for a way to push that passion in their own directions.

  1. Parents think common core standards are too rigorous.

The heightened concepts of learning and retaining Common Core materials means that some students will get left behind. The aggressiveness of the learning campaigns, however, make it difficult for teachers to spend extra time on subjects or circle back to them once most of the class has retained them. In a perfect world, this is where the parents would step in and fill the gap, or at least hire a tutor to do it. Ever since No Child Left Behind legislation, however, the assumption is that public schools are responsible for the total learning process of all their students. Parents who find that Common Core is leaving their own children behind find it easier to point the finger at the standards instead of initiating a way to make them work for their kids.

  1. Parents don’t understand the material.

Particularly when it comes to math, some of the new-fangled methods that Common Core implements are foreign to parents. Moms and dads who remember excelling in elementary school math are suddenly befuddled by the homework questions their second-graders must figure out. Parents, even the very young ones, did not use many of the tactics now in place in K-12 classrooms and certainly were not required to learn as many complicated subjects at such a young age. This lack of comprehension translates to lack of confidence – and causes parents to become defensive about the materials their children are expected to learn.

  1. Parents are growing wary of the testing culture.

Parents are a finicky bunch when it comes to education. They want the best career opportunities for their kids but resent the idea of teaching too specifically for the simple sake of scoring higher on an assessment test. The items on state assessment tests, more than ever, are designed to test the knowledge set deemed appropriate for the future economy (in part, at least). Though parents want the best job opportunities for their kids, they don’t want knowledge to be so narrowly dispersed. The truth is that no teacher has enough time to teach everything to his or her students. Some of that learning must happen at home and in other real-world applications.

Standards are a calculated guess as to what learning materials should be prioritized among U.S. students – not an end-all-be-all list. Parents see items that they deem “important” missing from Common Core standards and believe it signals a complete dysfunction of the benchmarks. The growing movement to protest or even eliminate standardized tests is being driven mostly by parents. Though it’s unlikely that they will ever truly succeed on this front, their outspoken concerns about Common Core will eventually aid in dismantling the standards – particularly if their political representatives are listening.

  1. American students are diverse.

It seems everywhere you look, we celebrate diversity in this country. From skin color, to language spoken, to sexual preferences, the national message seems to be “Be you. Whatever that looks like.” Except when it comes to measuring a “good” education. It’s widely accepted that students learn in different ways and customized learning initiatives are a trend fueled by in-classroom technology. HOW students learn is varied, but WHAT they are learning is somehow expected to fall into some neat, standardized package. Laying down countrywide rules of sorts for learning, and attaching those to funding, is an easy way to check off boxes on a spreadsheet but not an effective way to teach each student exactly what he or she needs to know based on career paths, interests and life circumstance

  1. It doesn’t recognize the differences among states.

It’s true that the world is becoming smaller and that the differences that once divided K-12 students by geography are shrinking. Still, there are some learning standards that just make more sense in one area over another. The benefits of learning a foreign language should be shared on a national level, but the specifics of those benchmarks should be considered. A state like Arizona or Texas, for example, with a high percentage of Spanish-speakers could benefit from more curriculum customized to that population, and in a much more effective way than a state like Iowa or Maine. Common Core is not a curriculum set, of course, but I use the language example as a way to show the difference between students and how where they live really does impact what they really should know. Industry specific learning is also a consideration when it comes to what should be taught more heavily, not as a way to pigeon-hole students but as a way to set them up for the best chance at career success. Considerations for subject areas that have been weak in a particular region should also be thought about and given priority.

  1. There is not one model student.

The idea that all U.S. K-12 students should know exactly the same things, and graduate from high school with the same shared learning experiences is flawed. Of course no one expects any two students to be identical in their learning outcomes, but the implication of Common Core standards are that there should be a cookie-cutter which every district and every teacher uses. Such an educational model goes against every other American ideal – like innovation, creativity and individuality – yet is prevalent throughout the public school system. If there were one leading flaw in Common Core requirements, it would be this: it allows no wiggle room for letting students be the people they were meant to be.

Hopefully, proponents of Common Core will read this piece, correct its deficiencies, and prove me wrong.

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

Do we know where Republicans stand on education?

Forbes.com has an interesting opinion piece posted about the GOP presidential candidates and where they stand on education. Rather, it’s what they should be asked in upcoming debates regarding education.

Because there are so many candidates and so little time to ask them detailed questions about anything during a debate, it might be tough at first to receive detailed information on their stances regarding education without viewing them through their own prisms.

While some of the questions posed in the post are generic, (“How will you support parental choice?“), others are worth exploring.

The author asks “What will you do to support better research on vital education topics?” Sounds legit to me.

“What’s more, as a recent report from TNTP (formerly The New Teacher Project) found, most current teacher training is not effective; we’re wasting teachers’ time and taxpayers’ money. The education industry is filled with training seminars that promise the moon but deliver little in terms of outcomes.”

The subject of teacher training is certainly loaded. How much, if any, money should the federal government invest in training new teachers and re-training older ones? Should it be a state decision?

Another question presented attempts to tackle federal rules surrounding education. If a Republican is elected, that individual will likely present a hands-off approach towards education. At least from a federal perspective.

But as we trudge forward to the 2016 presidential election, surely we’ll hear more about education and where each candidate stands. It’s important to start to delve into these questions now, though.

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

Well, What Do You Know? A Discriminating Look at the No Child Left Behind Act

By David Moscinski

The prime expectation of the No Child Left Behind Act is that all students become proficient in Reading and Mathematics. It mandates annual student testing, along with a comparison of the results obtained by majority and minority students. This mandated comparison has revealed the existence of an “achievement gap” between and among student sub-groups. This article looks at what we “know” about this gap and how our knowledge may unintentionally support it.

What is the relationship between knowledge and expectation? Does what we know determine what we expect? The obvious answer is “Of course it does.” Pragmatically speaking, isn’t that the purpose of knowledge – to tell us what to expect? Let’s take a closer look at this relationship.

In 1686 Sir Isaac postulated the Laws of Motion, the third of which is “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Nearly three hundred years later knowledge of this law and what to expect because of it ultimately put an astronaut on the moon. Feeling safe in expectations based on this knowledge, people will enter long cylindrical tubes that propel them six miles into the sky at speeds in excess of five hundred an hour to destinations thousands of miles away, usually without hesitation. Expectation based on knowledge is deeply ingrained in our psyche.

It may not even be unusual for expectation to take on a life of its own. The ancient Roman poet Ovid in his work Metamorphosis records the tale of the Greek sculptor, Pygmalion who fell in love with a beautiful statue he had sculpted. He petitioned the gods to give him a spouse as lovely and as perfect as his statue of ivory and according to the legend they did. Pygmalion’s man-made expectation thus became reality.

Eliza Doolittle and Learning Expectations

A wonderful artistic example of expectation comes from the words of Eliza Doolittle, the Cockney speaking flower girl in the 1964 Learner and Lowe musical “My Fair Lady.” In the musical, based on the novel Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, a prominent elocutionist, Professor Henry Higgins places a bet with his friend, Colonel Pickering. He wages the Colonel that with three months of his training he can expect a lowly flower girl, played by Audrey Hepburn, to become a society accepted lady. Professor Higgins does succeed and wins his wager, but not for the reason he believes. In a poignant scene Eliza states the real reason behind her transformation:

I should never have known how ladies and gentlemen really behaved, if it hadn’t been for Colonel Pickering. He always showed what he thought and felt about me as if I were something better than a common flower girl. You see, Mr. Higgins, apart from the things one can pick up, the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she is treated. I shall always be a common flower girl to Professor Higgins, because he always treats me like a common flower girl, and always will. But I know that I shall always be a lady to Colonel Pickering, because he always treats me like a lady, and always will.

In education, the work of Rosenthal and Jacobsen in the 1960’s established the relationship between expectation, whether real or perceived, and student performance. In their book Pygmalion In The Classroom published in 1968, Rosenthal and Jacobsen described the results of an experiment in which children were pre-tested with I.Q. tests before the start of the school year. Teachers were then given the names of 20% of students who had tested as being “latently gifted.” The teachers were told these students could be expected to “blossom” in the coming school year.

Unknown to the teachers however, the students had been not been selected based on test results, but rather had been assigned at random. When post-tested at the end of the year, students who had been expected to blossom scored significantly higher on the I.Q. test. Rosenthal termed this the Pygmalion Effect. It occurred because in his words :“When we expect certain behaviors of others, we are likely to act in ways that make the expected behavior more likely to occur.”

The Iowa Lighthouse Study, conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards and published in September of 2000, further supported the importance of knowing what to expect, this time at the school board level. The purpose of the study was to determine what influence, if any, school boards could have on student achievement. For the study test districts were matched on as many variables as possible, then divided into “high” and “low” achieving districts based on their students’ test performance on annually administered state tests.

The study found that board members in high-achieving districts had significantly different knowledge and expectations than those that existed among board members in low-achieving districts.This knowledge and expectation set the tone for the district’s culture. Board members in high-achieving districts:

Consistently expressed the belief that all students can learn and that the school could teach all students. This “no excuses” belief system resulted in high standards for students and an on-going dedication to improvement. In low-achieving districts, board members had limited expectations and often focused on factors that they believed kept students from learning, such as poverty, lack of parental support or societal factors.

Looked at another way, board members in high achieving districts became The Little Engines That Could that pulled all the girls and boys of their district over any potential “gaps” in their learning.

A final thought on the subject of expectation comes from the recently published book The Social Conquest of Earth by biologist Edward O. Wilson. In his book Wilson states:

Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong. Even when the experimenters created the groups arbitrarily, prejudice quickly established itself. Whether groups played for pennies or were divided by their preference for some abstract painter over another, the participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. They judged their “opponents” to be less likable, less fair, less trustworthy, less competent. The prejudices asserted themselves even when the subjects were told the in-groups and out-groups had been chosen arbitrarily.

How does all this relate to the NCLB and closing the “achievement gap”?

If we “know” that minority students do not test as well as their counterparts in the majority, does this imply anything about our expectations for them? Like Pygmalion does our knowledge sculpt what we come to expect? Does our knowledge form our expectation? If it does, how does this help eliminate the “achievement gap”? Would education be better off simply expecting that all children can lean regardless of any cultural, ethnic, racial, income or any other quantifiable variable? Does saying that that all children are created equal, but then sub-dividing them according prescribed variables result in treatment like Eliza Doolittle received, as the instructional equivalents of Cockney flower girls? Or, are they treated like the majority students, as respected members of society?

Based on the results of Rosenthal’s study, what are the instructional behaviors likely to produce results which close the gap or even prevent it from forming? The Iowa Lighthouse Study suggests closing or preventing the gap starts at the top with the Board of Education and the firm belief that all children can learn and can be taught in their schools, regardless of circumstances. These school board members and their instructional staff have expectations for all students and excuses for none. Led by this attitude of expectation for all, they get what they expect.

And what about Edward Wilson’s findings described in The Social Conquest of Earth?

Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong.

This is perhaps the greatest caveat concerning NCLB, the required disaggregation of data by minority groups with the resulting “achievement gap.” Taken together, do they form a self-fulfilling prophesy that is the basis for a new, but subtle form of discrimination? If we truly believe that all are created equal and that all children can learn, let’s begin by examining our expectations based on these beliefs.

_____________

David Moscinski is the District Administrator for the School District of Stockbridge in Stockbridge, Wisconsin. Stockbridge Middle School has been identified as “Exemplary” by the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators for five years. Student proficiency results there have been in the upper 10% of all middle schools in the state. In 2014 Newsweek named Stockbridge High School to its “America’s Top High Schools 2014” list as well as to its “Beating the Odds: America’s Top High Schools for Low Income Students.”

Mr. Moscinski has also had articles published in the “American School Board Journal,” the American Association of School Administrators “School Administrator” and the Wisconsin School News. His article “Proficiency For All?” was selected for inclusion in the 09-10 McGraw Hill Annual Editions – Education.

 

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

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

3 Learning Problems Bigger Than Teacher Prep

Last week seven U.S. states announced intentions to revamp teacher-preparation and licensing requirements that essentially make it tougher to become and remain a teacher. Some of the new requirements include steeper admission requirements for teacher-training programs and licensing based on performance of a specific set of skills. The plan is intended to make for better teachers, and ultimately better students over time, but stricter teacher requirements will not necessarily lead to higher-achieving students.

There are still too many outside forces with which everyday teachers contend that make it difficult for them to be as effective as legislation and policy-makers would like. Training and education for teachers is not the problem; here are three issues in K-12 education that have a larger negative impact on overall learning for students:

  1. Lack of parental involvement. Of all the things out of the control of teachers, this one is perhaps the most frustrating. Time spent in the classroom is simply not enough for teachers to instruct every student in what he or she needs to know. There must be some interaction outside school hours too. Of course, students at a socio-economic disadvantage often struggle in school, particularly if parents lack higher levels of education. Students from middle and upper class families aren’t off the hook though. The demands of careers and an over-dependence on schools put higher-class kids at risk too when it comes to the lack of parental involvement in academics.
  1. Overcrowding. The smaller the class, the better the individual student experience. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 14 percent of U.S. schools exceed capacity, but that does not include individual classrooms at schools that may not be overcrowded overall. At a time where children need more attention than ever to succeed, overcrowded classrooms are making it even tougher to learn and tougher still for teachers to be effective.
  1. Screen culture. I am an advocate for technology in the classroom. I think that by ignoring the educational opportunities that technology has afforded us puts kids at a disadvantage. That being said, screen culture overall has made the jobs of teachers much more difficult. Education has become synonymous with entertainment in many ways. Parents are quick to download educational games as soon as kids have the dexterity to operate a touch screen, and with the best of intentions. The quick-hit way that children are learning academics before and during their K-12 careers makes it even more difficult for teachers to keep up in the classroom setting, particularly since each student’s knowledge base and technological savvy varies.

I’m not saying that stricter teacher requirements are a bad thing – I’m just not sure that is where all the focus should be. What about a program that targets parental and community involvement in what kids are learning? Maybe even a seminar for parents on tangible ways to get more involved academically in what their kids do at school? There is no way to make parents attend these but perhaps there could be an incentive. With the right funding, I’m sure schools could find a way.

Instead of making it harder to become a teacher, why not spend money on making classroom size smaller and more manageable when those teachers start their careers? Or on technology programs and training that give teachers an advantage when it comes to educational gaming?

This pilot teacher-prep program seems like just another way to blame teachers for what they cannot control. More education can’t hurt, but there are so many other issues that deserve this spotlight instead.

What do you think about stricter teacher-prep laws?

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

Why schools need to introduce computing in all subjects

Uri Wilensky, Northwestern University

In his recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said schools need to offer every student hands-on computer science classes to be better prepared for the workforce.

President Obama is right: the next generation of learners will require a high level of fluency with modes of thinking in which computers act as interactive partners.

The question is: how best to make sure they acquire that thinking? Are computing classes the only way to do this?

More computer classes

There is widespread agreement that computing should play a more prominent role throughout our education system. For this reason, there have been more concerted efforts to increase computing classes in the K-12 grade levels.

The STEM Education Act of 2015 was recently passed into law, expanding the definition of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) to include computer science and encouraging more STEM education efforts.

Seven of the nation’s largest school districts are adding more computer science classes. The Chicago Public School District, for example, plans to have computer science classes at all levels of education and make it a requirement of high school graduation by 2018. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recently said the city will ensure there is computer science (CS) instruction in every public school by 2025.

I have been researching efforts to bring computing to schools and have participated in national efforts to design CS classes, train CS teachers and implement CS curriculum at a variety of grade levels.

I know that efforts to implement CS courses have encountered many challenges, particularly in teacher preparation and retention.

In contrast, efforts to train teachers to meaningfully employ computing in their own disciplines, for example, in biology or history classes, have met with significantly fewer difficulties.

So while I believe these efforts to add CS courses are good and necessary, they are not enough.

Shortage of students

The fact is that the success of such initiatives depends heavily on schools’ ability to hire and retain qualified teachers, and on students’ ability to make room for new coursework in their already-packed schedules.

Here’s what the current picture looks like:

Currently less than one high school student per 1,000 takes Advanced Placement computer science, which is the standard course for CS education for high schools.

In fact, according to Code.org, a leading nonprofit dedicated to expanding access to computer science, the number of high school computer science classes – both introductory and AP – has significantly dropped in the past decade. Since 2005, introductory classes have dropped by 17 percent and AP classes by 33 percent. Only 25 percent of high schools have any offering at all in CS, and less than 5 percent have an AP CS course.

Even in the best financial environments, not all schools offer or plan to offer courses in computing. In most of the schools that do, the courses are elective-only and reach a small percentage of students.

According to the College Board, which tracks AP exams, only 20,414 students took the AP computer science exam in 2014. By comparison, about 263,000 took U.S. history, and 438,500 students took English language. Of those who did take the computer science exam, only 18 percent were girls. And only 3 percent were African American.

There is a shortage of teachers for computer science.
Berkeley Lab, CC BY-NC-ND

Lack of qualified teachers

In addition, there is an acute shortage of teachers qualified to teach computing courses.

In 2010, the National Science Foundation launched the CS10K project, with a goal to train 10,000 CS teachers by 2015. However, at a recent meeting, the NSF reported that they were able to train only between 200-600 teachers per year, which is approximately 2,000 teachers, and vastly short of the goal.

There are other issues as well with the training: the project has not ascertained how many of the trained teachers are still teaching CS. We do know that the trainee population has shifted from mostly senior teachers to mostly younger teachers, meaning that the project could be training teachers, who are more likely to leave for industry and less likely to stay.

In addition, most states do not have certification for computer science, and among most of those that do, the certification is weak and doesn’t make them qualified for teaching high school CS.

All this makes the task more daunting.

What can schools do?

So a preferable strategy is to incorporate computing into every school subject.

Recent studies from my lab and at a few other university labs in the past 10 years show that it is much easier to train subject area teachers in computational thinking in their subject areas – such as chemistry or history – than to train and retain full-time computing teachers.

In this way, teachers learn the computing in the context of materials they already know and see the value added of the computing. Furthermore, since this strategy involves all subject areas, it ensures that all high school students, including traditionally underrepresented groups, will have access.

Using this strategy, a host of studies have found that a range of students – not just the “geeks” – can not only learn these computational skills, but they can learn them quite easily compared to print or mathematics literacy. And these skills can help them improve their learning in other areas.

Why does this matter?

Students who are exposed to computation think more deeply about their subject areas and are able to deal with complex content at significantly younger ages.

For example, computer modeling allows middle schoolers to understand many complex patterns of the world.

Computational thinking can make kids smarter.
hackNY.org, CC BY-SA

Students engaged in computer modeling can understand the fluctuations of populations of predators and prey in an ecosystem. For example, more than 50 years of data on moose and wolves in Isle Royale Michigan show fluctuating population levels. When there are a lot of wolves, there are fewer moose, and when there are a lot of moose, there are fewer wolves.

Such phenomena are usually studied at university level, using advanced mathematics of calculus and differential equations. Using computer modeling enables much younger students to have access to the ideas and calculations without needing to master the advanced mathematics.

At the Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling (CCL) at Northwestern University, we have done extensive research with children and adults, asking them to explain complex patterns in the world such as traffic jams, changes in the fauna and flora in a habitat, the flocking of birds or the housing segregation patterns of cities.
The overwhelming majority did not understand the causes of these phenomena.

In the CCL’s work developing computer-modeling-based curriculum, we have found that computationally literate students can use their computational thinking to make sense of complex patterns and understand the role of randomness in generating complexity.

Understanding the constructive role of randomness enables us to harness it, for example using computer algorithms to let self-driving cars react to changing traffic patterns to prevent congestion, or enabling groups of robots to “swarm” together to accomplish a goal.

Some may argue that we can’t afford the resources to transform subject-wide curriculum so extensively, and some others may feel schools first need to improve reading and mathematics skills, before adding yet another literacy.

I certainly agree there are always competing priorities, but we cannot ignore computing, especially in our increasingly complex world. These are the skills students will need to thrive as adults, and moreover, these skills help students with their other subject areas. By integrating computing across all classes, we can make it a true literacy.

The Conversation

Uri Wilensky, Professor of Learning Sciences, Computer Science and Complex Systems, Northwestern University

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

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

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

How to Build, and Keep, the Best Teaching Staff

By Matthew Lynch

In order for school reform in the U.S. to be successful, we must recruit, train, retrain, and fairly compensate teachers. School districts continuously engage in the complementary processes of recruiting and retaining teachers. The strain on school budgets impacts the ability of school districts to hire and sometimes to retain high quality teachers. There are steps that every school and district can take, however, to strengthen its staff no matter what the financial situation. But first, a look at patterns that impact the staffing of teachers.

Teacher Entry, Mobility, and Attrition

The highest proportion of new teachers in any given year is female, with White women accounting for higher numbers than women in ethnic minority groups. There is evidence, however, that in the early 1990s the number of new minority educators increased. No matter what their gender or ethnicity, teachers show a similar trend in high turnover and drop-out rates, both in their early years of teaching and when nearing retirement, producing a pattern related to age or experience.

Higher attrition rates have been noted in Whites and females in the fields of science and mathematics, and in those who have higher measured academic ability. Location of teaching position also impacts mobility and attrition rates. Most studies show that suburban and rural school districts have lower attrition rates than urban districts. Public schools, on average, actually have higher teacher retention rates than private schools. Not surprisingly, higher salaries are associated with lower teacher attrition, while dissatisfaction with salary is associated with higher attrition and a waning commitment to teaching.

Compensation and Working Conditions Impact Retention

Entry, mobility, and attrition patterns discussed above indicate that teachers are looking for increased salaries, greater rewards, and improved working conditions. Educators tend to transfer to teaching or even non-teaching positions that meet desired criteria. Higher compensation results in lower attrition. These findings suggest teacher recruitment and retention is dependent on the desirability of the teaching profession in relation to other opportunities. The inherent appeal of teaching depends on “total compensation” which compares the total reward from teaching, both extrinsic and intrinsic, with possible rewards determined through other activities.

Schools with high percentages of minority students and urban schools are harder to staff, and teachers tend to leave these schools when more attractive opportunities become available. Certain factors, which can apparently be influenced by policy change, may affect individuals’ decisions to enter teaching, as well as teachers’ decisions to transfer within or leave the profession.

Lower turnover rates among beginning teachers are found in schools with induction and mentoring programs, and particularly those related to collegial support. Teachers given greater autonomy and administrative support show lower rates of attrition and migration. Better working conditions, intrinsic rewards, and higher salaries remain the most compelling elements of concern to teachers. The traditional system, whereby teachers are paid based solely on their years of experience and level of education, has caused many critics to claim that it does not promote good teaching, or is not as fair as other systems that pay based on performance, ability in certain skills, or willingness to teach in areas of high need.

Proponents of the traditional system argue that teachers’ experience and education are crucial indicators of their performance, and that because of its open and fair assessment it is the only logical choice. To reach an optimum balance, educators and policymakers have created numerous methods for revising how teachers are compensated, each seeking to adjust teacher incentives differently.

As the scientific evidence on these methods’ effectiveness is extremely limited, it is difficult to choose among them. Historically, implementing any pay reform, let alone directing a critical study of one, can be a demanding issue. A number of ambitious and interesting reforms have folded, often within a few years, under opposing political pressure or from fiscal restrictions. Attempts to study the few surviving reforms have yielded little usable data to date.

Establishing Pre-service and In-Service Teacher Policies

Literature on the influence of preservice policies on teacher recruitment and retention are limited, however there are two important points that should command attention of school districts. One of the recommendations of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future in its report, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future was that teachers be licensed based on demonstration of knowledge and skills.

This edict led states and teacher education programs to require teachers to pass a battery of tests before they exited teacher education programs and/or before they were licensed by states. These actions resulted in a reduction of the number of minority students entering and completing teacher education programs. Therefore school districts seeking more diverse teaching staffs will see a limited number of minority candidates available for recruitment.

A second pre-service teacher policy to which districts should attend is the difference between candidates completing traditional teacher education programs and those completing alternative route programs. Teacher candidates completing alternative route teacher education programs tend to be older and more diverse. Further, they tend to have higher retention rates than candidates completing traditional programs. Recruiting teacher candidates from these programs could address both the needs for more diverse teaching staffs and the desire to retain good teachers.

Districts wanting to retain their best teachers should strongly consider what matters to teachers who remain in their teaching positions. Mentoring and induction programs tend to matter to inservice teaches, as does class size, autonomy, and administrative support. It is also interesting to note that state accountability practices also impact teachers’ decisions to remain in their positions.

Financial circumstances notwithstanding, districts have control over some of these issues. They should consider publicizing situations favorable to inservice teachers, as a tool for both recruitment and retention. As districts develop their reform agenda, they should put at the forefront a vision for the type of teaching force needed to support their plans for reform, and use empirical studies as a guide to recruit and retain teachers.

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

4 Bold Education-Related Promises from Presidential Candidates

This year has brought out many interesting candidates for the 2016 presidency, including Hillary Clinton, and Jeb Bush. It is not surprising that these presidential hopefuls are already making lofty claims related to education. Here are just four of those promises, ranging from the hopeful to the outrageous.

  1. Bernie Sanders wants to make four-year college free. Sanders proposed something almost unheard of from any candidate: free college tuition to students who attend four-year colleges and universities. Sanders wants to encourage future labor participation and to combat the ever growing problem with student loan debt.

In his press release about his college tuition bill, Sanders also said that he believes passage of this legislation will help place the United States back at the top of the world in the percentage of people who graduate from college.

According to the Boston Globe by way of commondreams.org, the class of 2015 will carry a student loan debt of $56 billion and is “the most indebted class in history.”

Sanders’ bill has a close to zero percent chance of passing. Still–one has to admire his way of thinking. Student loan debt is out of control and so is the price of tuition at many of the country’s best colleges and universities. For lower income students, they are usually preyed upon by for-profit institutions with promises of attaining a college degree and future job placement.

  1. Jim Webb emphasizes adult education. Webb isn’t necessarily known for his stances on education but Forbes.com has compiled a small list of where the former senator stands on matters regarding education.

He’s a proponent of “second chance education” as well as adult education. In talking about the latter, Webb said that he wants “to place renewed emphasis on our public education system, including the often overlooked area of adult education.”

His idea of ensuring that most adults are able to read beyond an eighth grade level is good, and it matches well with Webb’s want to give young adults another shot at attaining a good education.

Regarding second chances, Webb says that just “75% of the kids in this country finish high school.” Fixing that problem is ambitious and will take years of political capital to adjust.

  1. Bernie Sanders wants to erase student loan debt. Sanders would work to forgive some student loan debt if elected president. In a speech he gave to students at the University of Iowa back in February, Sanders said that the federal government has made billions of dollars off of student loan interest payments in the last 10 years.

“We must end the practice of the government making billions in profits from student loans taken out by low and moderate income families. That is extremely regressive public policy. It also makes no sense that students and their parents are forced to pay interest rates for higher education loans that are much higher than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages,” Sanders said.

Sanders’ numbers are correct by the CBO’s standards but have been openly challenged. According to the Washington Post, the math is fuzzy and there is no true way of knowing if the federal government is making a true profit off student loan payments.

Either way, numbers show and prove that the federal government has to pivot towards a new process for collecting payments from student loans or risk creating a new set of economic problems.

That, more than anything, seems to be part of the point that Sanders is making. He also acknowledges that if students weren’t forced to pay back so much of the loan or if the interest rates were lower, they would then have the ability to reinvest into the economy by purchasing a new car or a new home.

  1. Hillary Clinton wants to take on early childhood education. According to Bloomberg.com, Clinton visited a YMCA in New Hampshire to talk about her desire to increase funding for head start and other early childhood programs.

During her speech, Clinton took the opportunity to chide Republicans on their lack of interest in improving early childhood education.

“Republicans took care of those at the top and went after the kids. Republicans aren’t just missing the boat on early childhood education, they’re trying to sink it,” Clinton said according to Bloomberg.com.

In addition to fully funding early childhood programs, she wants extra tax breaks for “people who are taking care of kids” and wants to ensure that “every 4-year old has access to high-quality preschool” within 10 years.

Certainly striking a more progressive tone this go around, Clinton is likely trying to shore up the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. With Senator Elizabeth Warren turning into a certified political rock star over the past couple of years, Clinton has to do all that she can to appease the part of the party’s tent that supports Warren.

What do you think of the presidential hopefuls’ plans to improve education in America?

Check out all of our posts on Hillary Clinton here.

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

Time to Learn: Revisiting the School Calendar Debate

The nine-month school calendar that emerged over a century and a half ago has proven resistant to change. It remains the predominant organizational structure within which learning takes place today, despite significant social, economic, and cultural changes over the past century that could have resulted in alternate ways to structure time for learning. Still, most school districts continue to organize learning around a 180-day, 6-hour school calendar, with summers as a period of limited or no district-sponsored learning activities.

One explanation for the present school year is that it follows the 19th-century agrarian calendar, freeing up youth to work on farms during the summer months. Other explanations include the notion that children should not be exposed to the discomfort of early 20th-century, factory-like, non-air-conditioned school buildings in the summer.

Missing from these explanations for a nine-month calendar, however, are discussions that focus directly on student learning and achievement, which should be at the forefront of conversations focused on schooling. The propensity to naysay an alternate or modified school calendar routinely includes an array of non-achievement-based concerns. Issues such as family vacations, costs, use of facilities, extracurricular activities, teacher and administrator stress, and even the summer-recreation industry too often enjoy parallel positions of importance.

Students in the U.S. spend fewer days in school than their counterparts in many industrialized countries. In Japan, for example, students attend school 243 days a year, and academic learning does end not once the school day is over. The school day is extended, as many students attend Juku, which are privately run afterschool services that primarily focus on academic subjects, although some provide tutoring in the arts and sports.

Public schools involved in extended learning time efforts provide a U.S. version of a Juku; albeit one that is public and available to all students. They recognize that the amount and quality of time does influence learning, and their efforts result in improved learning and achievement for a number of children. Even though extended learning programs may primarily focus on low-performing, high-poverty schools, given the international achievement gap, all schools should keep a close eye on the success of these schools.

Extension to the school day is important, but extension to the school year is important as well. Research suggests that not only do achievement gaps develop when children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are away from school, but the rate of these gaps accelerates during the summer months. Comparable achievement occurs during the school year for children from both backgrounds.

During periods away from school, however, skills for children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds continue to grow, while no such advances occur for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Evidence suggests that modified calendars have a positive impact on achievement for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and thus should remain a viable option for schools seeking to improve achievement for students living in low socioeconomic environments.

Clearly, a structure for learning is needed that restores our stature as a well-educated nation and contributes to our ability to be a major player on the global economic playing field. Just as important, we need to provide enough time for learning so that young people have an education that allows them to grow into competent and confident adults able to choose how to live their lives. Holding on to a rigid traditional school calendar seems imprudent when viewed in light of such goals. Historically, supplemental schooling experiences to the nine-month calendar have existed. The time is ripe to flip the arrangement, so that the traditional calendar becomes supplemental to more effective arrangements of time for learning.

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

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

Study: U.S. teachers are absent too many days

A study from the National Council on Teacher Quality looked at teacher attendance for over 234,000 teachers in 40 districts during the 2012-13 school year.  Teachers in the U.S’s largest school districts missed an average of 11 days, and 16 percent of teachers missed 18 days or more.

Kate Walsh, president of the Washington think tank that advocates for teachers says, “Big city school districts are striving to improve student achievement, yet they seem to forget one of the most basic aspects of teacher effectiveness; teachers being on the job regularly, teaching kids.”

Nancy Waymack chimes in, “Teacher absences affect student achievement. No matter how engaging or talented they are, teachers can only have an impact if they are in the classroom.”

The cities with the lowest average absences include Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Louisville, Tampa and Washington, D.C.  The highest teacher absences occur in Columbus, Cleveland, Ohio, Nashville, Portland, Oregon and Jacksonville.

The study was based on a 186-day school year and did not factor in long-term absences for maternity or paternity leave or serious illnesses.

Absences also cost a lot of money. The 40 districts spent around $424 million to pay substitute teachers.

It was also noted that districts with formal policies to discourage teachers from missing school do not appear to have higher attendance rates over schools without policies in place.

I agree with Walsh and Waymack. Teachers need to make it a priority to be present in the classroom.  There are always occurrences where they may be absent a couple of days, but ultimately students need a teacher to be present consistently in order for students to reach their full potential.

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

How Common Core levels the K-12 playing field

By Matthew Lynch

Inequality of resources and opportunities for American K-12 children runs rampant and effects every member of society. When children are not given basic access to the same education as their peers, the country cannot progress the way it should.  One way that access can be assured is through federally-encouraged programs like Common Core Standards.

Developed by state governors, Common Core Standards are about creating a baseline of knowledge and skills that translates across all states in the nation. It is NOT about forcing children to all study the same curriculum or to be expected to learn the exact same ways.

The Committee for Economic Development, or CED, has put together a great short video (just about 3 minutes long) that explains exactly WHAT Common Core is meant to achieve. It also delves into some of the misnomers that surround this hotly-debated educational initiative. Take a look:

There is a reason why an economic organization would be so supportive of Common Core initiatives. There is clearly a belief that Common Core WILL make a difference when it comes to our future workforce and that matters NOW — not in another 20 years when we realize that the previous generation of K-12 students was not adequately prepped for the global workforce. There are a lot of educators who support Common Core initiatives but I think its vastly important that supporting groups, like the CED, speak up to its merits as well. It truly does take a village to raise and educate our nation’s youth. That’s the only way our kids will be able to compete, and succeed, in the global job market.

You can read the rest of my commentary on the CED video series here. 

Check out:

Why the business community cares about Common Core Standards

A look at how strong educational standards help the U.S. economy

  • no reactions
0
Share