Teachers

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Education and esafety: Why You Shouldn’t Believe Everything You Read in the News

Note: The following guest post comes to us courtesy of Keir McDonald, Chairman of EduCare, a company that provides bespoke training solutions for schools. Their courses are available both online and on paper, and cover child protection and duty of care issues.

Media horror stories bombard us daily when it comes to students and esafety, but is going online really as dangerous for children as some journalists would have us believe? A new report from the London School of Economics has found that children might be better at self-regulating their internet usage than we usually give them credit for.

The influence of news stories on children is particularly strong when it comes to stranger danger and bullying, but do media representations of the internet empower children, or destabilise their development of effective online risk-management skills?

After speaking with 378 children about esafety, academics from LSE found that many children actively seek out ways to stay safe online by “planning” and “reflecting.” For example, when using social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, older children take precautions such as changing their privacy settings to protect themselves online.

Even younger children, between the ages of 9 – 11, are competent at avoiding problematic websites or applications by simply clicking away. This is an obvious but “effective tactic” when it comes to staying safe on the internet. Most children were able to recognise both the risks and the symptoms of internet addiction, including health problems, losing interest in other things and losing friends.

Though girls are “more likely to seek social support […] than boys,” both sexes are generally reluctant to approach an adult for help when an incident of cyberbullying occurs. Children are commonly able to react proactively to abusive messages by blocking the send or disabling their own account, but sometimes this isn’t enough and internet conflicts escalate rapidly.

Why are children reluctant to seek support when faced with bullying?

Children are often reluctant to seek support, preferring instead to minimise or downplay the significance of cyberbullying. However, this is an inefficient tactic and schools can do more by harnessing the power of the peer-group for their anti-bullying and esafety lessons.

As adults, we can encourage children to feel comfortable sharing their online problems with us by being more reasonable, and less sensational, when it comes to the internet. For one thing, when we talk to children about the internet, we should acknowledge the many good points as well as cautioning against the dangers. Monitoring our children’s online activity is fine for very young children, but as they get older, we can earn their trust by respecting their need for a certain amount of privacy.

Parents and teachers can try to ban Facebook and other websites, or limit their children and student’s internet usage, but they should be aware of the potential consequences. Using social networking sites, among other online skills, has become almost mandatory both in the wider world and in the modern workplace. Banning children from social networking instead of teaching them how to network safely is doing them no favours in the long run.

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

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

Keeping children back a year doesn’t help them read better

Paul Thomas, Furman University

If you’re an eight-year-old living in Charleston, South Carolina, you’re soon going to need to study extra hard at reading. The US state has joined in with a policy trend across the country that links children’s chances of progressing from third to fourth grade with their performance on reading tests.

Back in 2012, 14 states plus the District of Columbia had policies in place that hold students back a year on the basis of their reading ability.

New efforts to reverse the trend, in states such as Oklahoma, remain rare. This is despite research showing that holding children back a grade – known as grade retention – causes more harm than good.

Following Florida

In the US, holding children back a grade as a key element of reading legislation can be traced to a 2001 programme Just Read, Florida. Because of this programme, Florida was characterised by the New York Times education writer Motoko Rich as: “One of the pioneers in holding back third graders because of inadequate reading skills.”

But two problems lie in the popularity of such grade retention policies. First, while the Florida model has significant bi-partisan support among both Democrats and Republicans in the US, reviews of the outcomes of the Florida policy show research on it is misrepresented and inconclusive, at best.

Alongside this, 40 years of research into the policy of holding children back a grade refutes the practice.

Long-term consequences

The policy of holding children back a school year remains “widespread” internationally, according to a 2013 study by two Belgian scholars who studied retention and behaviour in Flemish high school students.

Research addressing retention in Senegal, in Belgium, and in Lebanon reinforces disturbing patterns about the overwhelming negative long-term consequences and ineffectiveness of grade retention. In the UK, where the practice is very uncommon, the policy has been assessed as costly and ineffective.

Holding children back a grade is strongly correlated with behaviour problems for retained students. Examining the Florida model, CALDER education researcher Umut Özek concluded, “Grade retention increases the likelihood of disciplinary incidents and suspensions in the years that follow.”

Another 2009 study by the Rand Corporation for the New York City Department of Education, found:

In general, retention does not appear to benefit students academically. Although some studies have found academic improvement in the immediate years after retention, these gains are usually short-lived and tend to fade over time.

Most disturbing are the long-term consequences. As literacy professor Nancy Frey explained:

The practice of retention … is academically ineffective and is potentially detrimental to children’s social and emotional health. The seeds of failure may be sown early for students who are retained, as they are significantly more likely to drop out of high school. Furthermore, the trajectory of adverse outcomes appears to continue into young adulthood, when wages and postsecondary educational opportunities are depressed.

Despite a well-established research base discrediting the practice, the policy appears to endure for two reasons. A political and public faith in punitive educational accountability sits alongside a straw man argument that advocates keeping children back instead of “social promotion”, where they are automatically passed onto the next grade regardless of student achievement.

Reward vs punishment

Giving children punishment and rewards for reading ability, like grade retention, is ineffective, especially in the context of teaching and learning. Education writer Alfie Kohn has challenged both for years.

Punishment and rewards shift students’ focus away from learning and toward avoiding one or seeking the other. In literacy, that failure has been exposed in the popular but flawed Accelerated Reader (AR) programme that seeks to increase reading through rewards.

Writing about the AR programme, literacy scholar and professor Renita Schmidt explains

If we continue to let AR ask the questions, we may very well lose the interest of our students and create literal readers who only want to ‘get points’ and be done with reading. That’s not teaching and that’s not reading.

But the National Association of Schools Psychologists asserts that neither strategy – repeating a year, nor promoting the student automatically – is an effective remedy.

Alternatives include addressing the powerful influence of how much access children have to books at home. Other research-supported policies, suggested instead of retention by Shane Jimerson and his colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara, include focusing on parental involvement and targeted practices based on student needs. They also suggest modified reading programmes as well as more holistic approaches to supporting students, including mental health services and behaviour interventions.

But the most urgent political step is to acknowledge that holding children back a grade fails both students and their progress in literacy. Instead, we need an effective and evidence-based policy to replace decades where punishment is preferred over educationally sound practices.The Conversation

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

Paul Thomas, Associate Professor of Education, Furman University

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

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

Cloud Computing and K-12 Classrooms

Cloud computing has taken the business world by storm. Climate controlled rooms full of servers are quickly being replaced by remote storage technology, whimsically referred to as “the cloud.” Over half of U.S. businesses use some form of cloud computing to back up their important data and improve productivity. Instead of trying to find the capital to pay for a secure server structure, businesses are subscribing to cloud services and paying for more storage as their needs grow. The practical uses of cloud computing technology also translate to K-12 classrooms. Simply put, cloud storage saves space, money and time for teachers, parents, students and administrators.

A report by CDW Government found that over 40 percent of schools use cloud applications to store their data and by 2016, schools are expected to spend 35 percent of IT budgets on the cloud. The savings add up though. Right now K-12 schools report that their cloud initiatives are saving them an average of 20 percent on IT costs. By 2016, those savings are expected to reach 27 percent.

So how exactly are K-12 schools using cloud computing and what are the benefits? Let’s take a look:

Stronger communication through access. Through K-12 cloud platforms like Edline, teachers have better communication with parents and students regarding assignments, tests and projects. Parents can log in from anywhere (including their phones or tablets) and instantly know how their kids are progressing. Teachers can post important messages and keep an archive of completed work in one spot. Depending on the school, cloud forums may even allow parents and students to contribute in the application for a two-way dialogue.

Disaster planning. Schools collect a lot of information on their students and that data impacts decisions and the well-being of the kids. It takes a lot of time to build student databases and maintain them. If a man-made or natural disaster threatened the physical location of school records, whether hard copies or stored on servers, it could mean a catastrophe when it comes to student information. Using cloud computing ensures that student records are secure and accessible, no matter what happens to the physical school building.

One-stop shopping. Cloud platforms are able to bring together data pools that were previously unconnected so that educators and administrators have everything they need in one spot. Since there is no physical equipment that schools must purchase to get started with cloud computing, there is also a pay-as-you-go mentality. Schools do not need to pay upfront for infrastructure and can add cloud storage as their needs increase. It saves money, space, time and other resources.

Fast recovery of data. If you’ve ever experienced a server crash on a personal or professional level, it can be a long time while you wait for your information to come back. Cloud-based businesses recover data quickly and often handle any technical issues that might arise in a “crash” situation. A word that is often associated with all cloud applications is “redundancy” because the technology eliminates any chance of single-point failure.

Some peripheral benefits of cloud computing are decreased energy costs and high security features to ensure protection and privacy of student information. As K-12 schools move toward cloud computing, student information will be better preserved and shared content more accessible. While use of the cloud does not have a large direct impact on classroom activities it does improve teaching efficiency overall. It also has long-term savings attached which is always a bonus when it comes to K-12 technology spending.

Does your school use the cloud yet? If so, how has it improved your school efficiency?

 

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

 

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

As easy as ABC: the way to ensure children learn to read

Kerry Hempenstall, RMIT University

Human speech has long been present in every culture, and our brains have evolved specialized features to enable its rapid development when we are exposed to the speech of others. Reading however is a relatively recent skill, and we have no such dedicated reading module to guarantee success.

Fortunately, our brains are able to adapt to the task, although there is considerable variation in the assistance learners require to achieve it.

Unlocking the alphabet

Humans have produced numerous writing systems in their attempts to create a concrete form of communication, and those languages employing an alphabet have provided the most powerful means of achieving this goal.

The invention of the alphabet was one of the greatest of human achievements. It required the appreciation that the spoken word can be split into its component sound parts, and that each part can be assigned a symbol or letter.

The only other element required to have an amazingly productive writing system is for the learner to be able to identify the sound for each letter, and blend the sounds together to recreate the spoken word.

This is known as the alphabetic principle, and allows us to write any word we can say. Our written language is thus a code, and phonics is simply the key to unlocking the code.

Should we explain to our students through phonics teaching how our speech is codified into English writing? It sounds obvious that we should; indeed, that not to do so would be cruel.

Early introduction is paramount

But some believe there is a better way. English is after all a complicated language, having absorbed so many words from other languages with differing spelling patterns.

But, no, it turns out from years of research that there is a significant advantage in demonstrating from the beginning how the alphabetic principle works. This benefit is particularly evident in the 30% or so of our students who struggle with learning to read.

It also has become clear that demonstrating this principle systematically is more effective than merely sprinkling a few clues here and there as a story is read with, or to, a student.

If we do not introduce this principle early, there is a risk of students developing less productive strategies in their efforts to make sense of print.

Some of these approaches have a surface appeal because they provide a veneer of reading progress, but become self-limiting over time.

Don’t distract from the words

Despite a lack of evidence for its worth, many teachers believe that skilled reading involves making use of multiple cues in identifying words. They believe that words can be predicted (guessed), based on cues other than their structure – picture cues, meaning cues, grammar cues, and hints from the first letter.

However, routinely using pictures to determine word identity draws student attention away from print, thereby diminishing the central importance of the alphabetic principle.

Asking students to remember words as a primary strategy gives the unhelpful message that reading involves the visual memory of shapes, of letter landscapes devoid of alphabetic significance.

Stressing the integrated use of multiple cues (picture, grammar, and meaning cues) leaves students with too many ill-defined options, and produces marked variability in the preferred approach of students.

Fourth grade slump

Of course, many of the better students will develop an understanding that phonics is a foundation anyway; however, those less fortunate will be left to scour their memories for word shapes or attempt to predict upcoming words based on sentence/passage meaning or on the sound of initial letters.

Syntactic cues to word identification tend to be less employed among this less fortunate group group as their skills in grammar are likely to be under developed.

The problem is often not identified until about the Year 4; hence, the term fourth grade slump. In truth, the problem was there from the beginning, and had an instructional source, but was unrecognised because of some teachers’ misunderstanding of reading development.

What happens to these apparently progressing students? As text becomes more complex, prediction becomes less and less accurate.

Many sentences will now include difficult-to-decode words that carry non-redundant information, and hence become more difficult targets for prediction.

There are now increasing numbers of such words. For the memorisers, the number of words that must be recalled from visual memory outgrows students’ visual memory capacity.

These moribund strategies collapse, but in the absence of a productive course of action, students often hold on to them, resisting a return to decoding as a first option as being too hard or too babyish.

Resolution of the problems of these older readers is very difficult for both teacher and student. Better not to create this situation in the first place.

The challenges

Even when the value of early phonics teaching is recognised by educators, students vary significantly in the ease with which they develop from their initial painstaking attempts at decoding through to effortless fluent orthographic-dominant reading.

Our challenge as educators is to be truly sensitive to every reader’s progress through careful monitoring, and to ensure the intensity and duration of instruction is appropriate to their needs.

Once they are on their way, future progress becomes a self-teaching issue, driven largely by how much students choose to read. However, until reading is effortless, we cannot expect children to choose books over the many alternative communication modes available to them today.

The Conversation

Kerry Hempenstall, Casual lecturer in Psychology, RMIT University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, International Education, Teachers

Online students need more face-to-face time, not less

Shanna Smith Jaggars, Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University and Thomas Bailey, Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University

Higher education, we’re told, is rapidly heading towards huge transformation and technological disruption.

Advocates of online education promise that advances in online learning technologies – by permitting course enrolments in the tens of thousands and leveraging crowd-sourcing for peer review — will make a high quality, low cost higher education accessible to any student.

In the meantime, in the US and elsewhere, universities and colleges are swiftly expanding their offerings of what one might call “old-fashioned” online courses: classes designed by individual instructors with enrolments of 25 or so students.

In 2011, almost seven million American undergraduates were enrolled in such courses.

For the sake of these online students, as well as those yet to enrol, it is important to withdraw our gaze from the glow of what could be, and direct it for a moment toward what is. Only by examining the actual experiences of students in online courses today can we understand both the potential of online learning, and its pitfalls.

Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, recently concluded a series of studies that took a close look at online courses
in one American state’s community college system. We found that most consisted of
readings and assignments placed online, along with “chat rooms” where students were
asked to hold discussions with their peers.

While the technologies deployed varied in
sophistication, in almost all classes one quality remained more or less constant: there
was little meaningful interaction between students and their teachers.

Students were acutely aware of this absence. They told us that if they expected to
struggle in a subject or really “wanted to learn something,” they preferred a traditional classroom where they had more contact with their teachers.

Interestingly, an analysis of the factors that predicted student performance in online classes — factors that included course design and use of technology, among others — found that only one predicted better grades: the depth of interpersonal interaction among students and instructors.

Another team of our researchers examined the role that non-academic factors play in the ability of students to successfully complete a qualification. Interviews with students and faculty made clear made clear that many students arrive at college without possessing or understanding the skills and strategies necessary for academic success.

These skills are as basic as time management, taking notes, using a library and recognising when, how and whom to ask for help.

Interestingly, interviews with online faculty made clear that they expected their students
to be relatively adept and independent learners: students had to be able to manage
their time, take initiative, and generate their own approach to mastering course material.

In other words, to be successful, online learners needed precisely the skills we found to be so deficient in entry level students.

It is perhaps not surprising, then, that our studies have found that students fail and withdraw from online courses at a higher rate — in some subjects, up to twice as frequently — than they do from “face-to-face” classes. Even more troubling, this decline in performance is steeper for groups of students, including minorities, that
are already lower performing.

In other words, existing achievement gaps between, for example, whites and blacks or females and males are exacerbated in the online classroom.

Together, these findings suggest that large numbers of college students need more, not
less support from their teachers; yet, perversely, many online courses ask students to teach themselves.

This request may be reasonable when it is aimed at well-prepared students who have the habits necessary to succeed, and most discussions about the potential benefits of online learning are held with these college-ready students in mind.

For the millions of students who arrive underprepared, however, many from families
with no higher education experience, college or university is a place they go to learn how to learn. It is unlikely that even the most responsive technologies can replace the kind of student-teacher interaction that both hard data and anecdotal evidence indicate are vital in motivating and inspiring such students to succeed.

Online learning will continue to make significant inroads in the post-secondary sector; it may even lower costs. But it remains an open question as to whether this trend will increase access to high quality higher education, or further accentuate glaring gaps in educational advantage.

To ensure the latter does not happen, universities and colleges will have to rethink their approach to online learning.

To start with, the sector should spend fewer resources expanding online offerings, and more on preparing students and training faculty for the demands of online classes.
They should be more deliberate about which courses to put online, and expend greater
effort in evaluating and enhancing student preparation.

Finally, they must require faculty
training in methods that support meaningful interaction with students in the virtual
space.

These adjustments will require time and money, and there is the possibility that truly effective online learning will not cost significantly less than traditional classroom
learning.

However, if online learning is to achieve the purported goal of helping all students attain a quality higher education, now is the time to make these investments.

The Conversation

Shanna Smith Jaggars, Assistant Director, Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University and Thomas Bailey, George & Abby O’Neill Professor of Economics and Education; Director, Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University

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

 

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Education News, Teachers

How we should discuss racism with students?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest column by Gary Hamilton

The terrible tragedy at a church in Charleston, the circumstances surrounding the death of Sandra Bland, the anniversary of Michael Brown’s shooting, and countless acts of racially-motivated violence have once again reminded us that racism still continues today. Messages of hate and prejudice – the Confederate flag, the inequities in our systems of justice and education, and the media’s standard response to events involving people of color – continue to cause feelings of fatigue and isolation.

It is still hard for us as a country to fully acknowledge the racism that permeates the US. Especially in our schools, where we too often dodge or soften conversations about racial issues.

To bring about healing and impact change, I believe that teachers must have difficult conversations about race in order to bring about unity and understanding. We have the platform to achieve this, but we need to step away from the shadows of implicit messages. We have to speak openly and guide our students as well as each other through these challenging issues.

Teachers must be able to talk openly about racial issues.

Educators frequently engage in heated professional discussions with one another, yet when topics of race emerge we feel that we must walk on eggshells. To me, this is a serious problem. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding each other and feeling free to share our cultures and histories. Our differences sustain who we are, and in order to create pathways for our students to feel accepted for who they are, we must foster these conversations.

I often find that some of my white colleagues stumble when speaking about issues that specifically affect the black community, if they address them at all. Maybe they feel uncomfortable and worry that I will place blame on them. Maybe they are unsure how to present their questions without offending me. But to eliminate the pitfalls of sugar-coated explanations or weak rationale for terrible acts of violence that occur, we need to be able to talk openly and honestly about racial issues.

How can we foster this? We can engage in controlled, passionate, solution-oriented conversations. In these conversations, we need to remember to leave our judgments at the door, to remain open-minded, and continue to demonstrate respect, even when we disagree. It is also important to assess the tone of the room, as some conversations are not ready for those who tend to play the devil’s advocate. Starting with validation can place individuals at ease and increase the likelihood of a healthy discussion. As educators, we can encourage these conversations with our students, their parents, and with one another.

Conversations about race are important to clarify generalizations.

I fear that my students may see the surveillance footage and media images of the man responsible for the Charleston attack, and think that the odious crimes against black people are perpetuated by all white people. The myriad of recent events where white police officers have abused their authority and acted with unwarranted violence towards black people keeps this belief afloat. Not having the space to ask questions openly about events such as these leads to stereotypes, fear, and hate.

We must acknowledge the danger of our country plunging into the abyss of racial divides. We were once and in many ways continue to be a country that treads lines of black versus white issues. We must prevent students from viewing the world through this lens by teaching them how the tainted ideology of a person can negatively impact all people. It is important to not distort the truth, but the format we use to tailor and present the truth is essential to how it will be processed.

We must remove the spotlight from the bad guy.

The spotlight should instead be shined on the inequalities within our justice system and our education system and the detrimental impact this has on minorities. It should be shined on strengthening gun control and safety laws and the increasing need for readily accessible mental health services. We need to stop focusing the perpetrators of these crimes and start focusing on systemic inequities that spur racism.

I trust that we are a nation that understands the menu for healing, but we cannot atone for ferocious acts without examining the root causes of racially-charged hate crimes. It is time that we move away from a place of fault and blame and into a place of realistic improvement for all people.

As we embrace the families whose loved ones have been lost through senseless acts of racially-motivated violence, we must recognize that history is repeating itself and that racism is still alive and well today. This truth is masked by the media and by our daily interactions with one another, where we avoid conversations about racial issues. To move forward, we need to have difficult conversations about the racism in our country. We can start these conversations in our classrooms.

___________________

GaryHamilton

Gary Hamilton grew up in the Dallas Independent School District, and is now a 5th grade special education teacher at Wheatley Education Campus in Washington, D.C.   He has been teaching for 9 years.  Gary is an America Achieves Fellow, a teacher trainer for the Flamboyan Foundation, and a Teacher Selection Ambassador for the District of Columbia Public Schools.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Parental Involvement, Teachers

How to use safe and private messaging for your school community

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Nick Grantham

Overview

Remind (formerly Remind101) is a one-way messaging service created specifically to help teachers communicate with their school community as simply and safely as possible. Allowing students and parents to sign up via text, email or online using a unique class code, the service keeps phone numbers completely hidden so teacher-student-parent communication is 100% private and secure.

Name: Remind  – www.remind.com
Pricing: Free
Compatibility: Desktop / iOS / Android
Access: Email / Google signup
Privacy: Private (privacy policy)

How teachers can use it

1. Broadcasting your message

As the main purpose of the Remind platform and app, simple and secure messaging is the primary use for most educators. This could be an alert to students when work is due, a reminder to parents to fill in permission slips, weather information, school closures or even just a motivational quote or message for the day.

2. Send more than words

One of the huge advantages Remind has over conventional SMS is the ability to attach files to messages. As long as the attachment is less than 10MB in size, any file type can be used. Try sending an end of week happy snap of your class to parents each Friday to keep them feeling connected. Attach a map or flyer if you are messaging about an event. Even attach a pdf copy of the homework, just so parents know exactly their children are working on.

3. Archiving message history

One key safety feature of Remind is that you cannot delete messages once they are sent. This ensures there is always a clear record and trail of your messages and allows you to stand over every interaction you have made. What is particularly useful is that the system also allows you to easily download a PDF copy of every message you have made. This is extremely useful for archiving, potential legal requirements and any administrative requests.

4. Send messages from the future

Remind lets you schedule messages to be sent at any time in the future (unfortunately the past is not yet possible…). This works extremely well for setting project deadlines or dates for upcoming tests. This way messages can be created when you think of them rather than at awkward times or when you may not have the capacity to craft the message carefully.

5. One way conversation

Make sure to remember when using Remind that it is a one way communication channel. If you need to have a discussion or require feedback from parents or students, email, phone or face to face conversation may be a better option. Over time you will find that certain individuals react better to certain communication mediums, so although Remind may not allow replies, you can use it as a trigger speak or mail on a subject further.

This post originally appeared on Fractus Learning, and was republished with permission.

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

_______________

The founder of Fractus Learning, Nick Grantham is an Australian educator living and working in Dublin, Ireland. With a background in education, engineering and digital product development, Nick launched Fractus Learning in 2011 to connect people with a shared passion for technology and how it can bring education to life.

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

Ask An Expert: Dealing with a Parent’s Death

Question: When a student’s parent dies, it impacts the whole school community. How do you recommend schools handle the death with respect to the student whose parent has died, the teachers and students who are impacted and the community at large? — S. C.

Answer: Thank you for submitting your question. You are correct, a parents’ death does have ramifications for the entire school community. In this column, I will delineate how schools can handle the death with respect to the student(s) whose parent has died, the teachers and students who are impacted and the community at large. Without further ado, I will begin.

The loss of a parent is a devastating event for children, no matter the age. Children derive their sense of security from their parents, so the death of a parent can make them feel vulnerable and afraid.  In regards to their reaction to the death; this depends on the maturity level and the resilience of the child in question. Regardless of how well they take it, they will need the love and support of those closest to them in order to make it through the grieving process. The school community can help by conveying how much they care for the student and being empathetic to their loss.

Children must be allowed to grieve on their own timetable without feeling rushed. At the same time, you can’t allow the student to use their parents’ death as a crutch or an excuse. You don’t want them to fall into a pit of despair and pity, so of course the school counselor’s or psychologist’s services will be offered to the student. Children need access to these services both immediately after the death and for a period of time after that. With the support of the school community and their family, most of the children who lose parents go on to lead healthy productive lives.

In regards to teachers, students, and the community at large, immediately after the death they will be searching for answers and information. Schools can help them by serving as a key disseminator of information. This is very important to the process, because we all know that misinformation can sometimes run rampant in situations such as these.

Everyone will not be affected by the parent’s death in the same way, but nonetheless, the death must be acknowledged by the school community. Hopefully, your school already has an emergency team that steps in when a crisis like this arises. In the hours or days immediately after the death, your school may not have a lot of details about how the student’s parent died,  however, you still should disseminate whatever information that you have.

Make sure that you inform your staff, faculty and administrators as soon as possible. Why? Because in addition to the school itself, these are the people who will be inundated with questions from students, parents and community members. If they are out of the loop and are unable to provide these sectors with viable information, your school could end up looking unprofessional and uninformed. Use every viable communication medium that you can think of to accomplish this goal, even if the school is on break.

Also, the staff should be briefed on the appropriate way to address the situation in their individual classrooms, and how to recognize signs that the death is affecting students negatively. Students can be affected regardless of whether or not they knew or are related to the deceased parent. This may lead to anxiety or sadness, especially when children come to the realization that we all are human, even their parents. Some students may become overly preoccupied with death and the possibility that their parents could meet the same fate. Remember, students who are having a difficult time dealing with the situation should be referred to either the school counselor or psychologist.

It is not a good idea for us to believe that we are protecting students by withholding information. Like adults, students want to be told the truth. If they don’t get the truth from the adults around them, they tend to try to put the pieces to the puzzle together as best they can, which can quickly turn into myths and misconceptions. Even if you don’t know the whole truth, tell them the factual information that you possess concerning the parent’s death.

It is best to prepare a written statement to inform the entire student body about the death. Teachers can read the statement in their classrooms. The worst thing that you can do is to deliver the news over a PA system, because it is too cold and nonchalant to express the true gravity of the situation. After the news is announced, students should be allowed to freely express their feelings and ask questions. Also, teachers can use this situation as a springboard to talk about death and dying.

It is also important to remember that parents are also a part of the equation. As soon as possible, preferably via a letter home or a personal phone call, parents should be informed of the death and also of the information that has been shared with their children. It is also important to have a generic form letter that can be used in such instances. Parents will want to know the specifics surrounding the death, as well as strategies that they can use to talk to their children about the situation.

As I established at the beginning of my advice column, a parent’s death has ramifications for the whole school community. In this column, I have provided you with information that your school can use to handle a parent’s death with respect to the student whose parent has died, the teachers and students who are impacted and the community at large. At the end of the day, the golden rule in this type of situation is to “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, in your time of bereavement.”

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

Are Bilingual Programs Worth the Extra Effort and Expense?

The debate on the best way to educate ELL students continues, with little promise of a clear-cut way to proceed emerging anytime soon. Meanwhile, the diversity of languages spoken in U.S. schools continues to expand. Languages include Spanish, Hmong, Urdu, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Polish, Korean, Tagalog, and Swahili…and that doesn’t cover everything! Achieving the goal for all students to obtain a satisfactory level of learning is often compromised by the cultural, social, and language differences among various groups. The inability to provide the best approach for the learning needs of ELL students places them at greater risk of falling behind.

The original enthusiasm for bilingual programs has diminished, and these programs are now criticized as ineffective. Support for the immersion model has also declined, and initial supporters now believe ELL students simply aren’t learning English quickly and thoroughly enough. They now suggest that the immersion program does not facilitate ELL students’ ability to cope with American culture, not only in school but also beyond school boundaries. The slower learning curve experienced by ELL students in immersion programs may plague them for the rest of their lives.

This belief is based on research suggesting that Hispanics who were enrolled in bilingual programs from the 1970s through the 1990s have earned less money on average than Hispanic students educated during the same period in an English-only setting. Hispanic high school dropouts who were in English-only classrooms are also fewer in number and more likely to return to school later. Immersion makes it difficult for the teacher to provide support for all students’ needs. In the case of a complex assignment such as a research paper, language and usage are challenging even for fluent students. The further complication of using a second language puts ELL students at a serious disadvantage if they don’t have special support. The immersion method of teaching has yet to establish itself as an effective program for minority students.

Supporters of the transitional and developmental models insist that students taught at least some of their core academics in their native language can better keep pace with their English-speaking peers. According to research studies, transitional instruction in both the native language and English helps students learn English more quickly and effectively. Transitional instruction helps students become more literate in their native language, which in turn improves their ability to learn English.

An issue that complicates the education of the ELL learners is the lack of training among teachers and the apparent lack of urgency on the part of states to ensure highly qualified ELL teachers. Most states have no requirements for new teachers to demonstrate competency in ELL instruction. And most states do not have incentives for teachers to pursue a license or endorsement in ELL instruction. Regardless of the model chosen, qualified teachers are necessary for quality programs.

Bilingual programs—are they helpful or harmful? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

 

 

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

Explainer: what is all the fuss about the Common Core?

Ken Libby, University of Colorado

When it comes to US public education, few topics engender such heated debate as a new set of maths and English standards for school children known as the Common Core.

Since the final standards were released in 2010, they have been adopted by 44 states and the District of Columbia. This marks a departure from the long history in the US of leaving most educational standards up to the whims of states and local school districts, resulting in different standards in every state for kindergarten to grade 12.

The Common Core counts supporters and critics in both of the two major US political parties. This makes the conversation about the standards quite messy and interesting – especially given the upcoming congressional elections in November.

Fighting ‘ObamaCore’

Although moderate conservatives generally favour the Common Core, those further to the right, like the Tea Party, portray the new standards as inappropriate meddling by the federal government. Some engage in wild conspiracy theories, and attack the standards as part of a broader anti-public school agenda.

The fight over the US’s recent changes to healthcare policy, Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as “ObamaCare”), provides a way for some conservative activists to jump into the Common Core fray by claiming the new standards are the educational equivalent (“ObamaCore”). It’s a poor comparison, but permits easy entry into the debate for those with little substantive knowledge.

Left-leaning critics cite concerns about the potential for private companies (such as publishing group Pearson) to profit from the Common Core as a reason for rejecting the new standards.

Criticism of the standards is coming in all shapes and sizes.
amerigus/WWYD , CC BY

There are also concerns as to whether the standards for early elementary students are developmentally inappropriate. Others dismiss the new standards as a solution to a problem that does not exist, or a band-aid for much bigger problems, like the high child poverty rate in the US.

Some critics of the Common Core view it as further cementing the use (and misuse) of standardised testing in American schools.

State-driven testing

In addition to the new standards, two consortia of states – Smarter Balanced and the Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers – have been working to develop tests tied to the standards. However, some states, such as Kansas, have opted to develop their own assessments.

These new and ostensibly better assessments created by the two consortia may provide some real advantages compared to previous tests. However, early trials of assessments tied to the Common Core indicate up to 70% of students in New York may not receive a passing mark given the more challenging nature of the standards. While that may well paint a reasonably accurate picture of how many students can truly meet the new standards, it is a politically tenuous position to maintain.

Supporters, on the other hand, claim the standards are more challenging than previous state standards (and they are, at least for most states). They also say that the standards will better prepare students for college-level work, and create a more level playing field for children across the country.

The shift to the Common Core comes as states pursue several other policy changes, including teacher evaluations based in part on student progress on standardised tests. These new evaluations attempt to use statistical models to calculate a measure of teacher quality based on how much a teacher’s students improve their performance on standardised tests, usually controlling for a host of other variables.

What teachers think

Pursuing both the new Common Core standards and teacher evaluations at the same time is worrying, especially if teachers and schools are not adequately prepared to help students reach the goals of the new standards.

While teachers generally support the common core, they also express reservations about implementation. A poll conducted in July 2013 by the largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), indicated that teachers wanted more time to collaborate with colleagues about the new standards, updated resources, and enhanced technology for the classroom.

With each state and school district responsible for implementation, the degree to which teachers feel supported (or not) varies greatly. Heads of both the NEA and the second largest teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers, have expressed concerns about Common Core implementation in recent months.

Personally, I do not consider myself a strong supporter of the common core. Nor am I an opponent. Although some critics make wild charges and engage in conspiracy theories, there are certainly legitimate concerns about the changes.

Implementation seems rushed in far too many places, leaving teachers and students inadequately prepared for the shift. If equity across the country were truly a concern, we would talk about how states do an exceedingly poor job of financing schools equitably, giving fewer resources to districts populated with low-income students and racial minorities. We would also tackle the inequitable distribution of teachers and various out-of-school factors – poverty, residential segregation, inequality and racism.

With more states shifting to the new standards and assessments in the coming year, the Common Core will likely remain an important issue in US public education and political debate. The standards themselves are rarely discussed – in large part because the biggest concerns are about related (and perhaps intertwined) issues like testing, teacher evaluations, and implementation.

The Conversation

Ken Libby, PhD student studying educational foundations, policy and practice, University of Colorado

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

  • no reactions
0
Share