By the early 1900s the idea that every American child had the right to an education had gained mass adoption. Even students destined for a life in the mines, or on the railroads, deserved basic spelling, arithmetic and science lessons. Public schools were a place to absorb the common learning priorities that other students were also absorbing throughout the country. This view of public schools gave all children (at least the white ones) an equitable start in life, at least when it came to actual curriculum presented. School as a national pastime was established with the sole purpose of giving students base knowledge. From there, the students were free to carve out the lives they wanted, or follow in a predetermined path based on family or geographic limitations.
Just after the start of the 20th century, a new public education ideology began to emerge that hinted that schools should be utilized as more than spots to memorize facts. According to reformers like University of Chicago professor John Dewey, public schools needed to serve a greater good – for the individual and the country. Dewey was a figurehead of the Progressive Movement that insisted schools be socially conscious places where more than book learning took place.
While Dewey’s theories were widely known and discussed, they did not see much realization in the height of his popularity. Much like the public school districts of today, Dewey faced bureaucratic red tape at every turn and an unfriendly approach to change. In the eyes of educators, schools were established for learning what was written in a textbook, not for any other purposes, particularly ones that could easily be duplicated in homes.
Though slow to gain adoption in his own time, Dewey’s theories of public schools as socializers, and agents of change for the better, are certainly evident in school systems today. Consider public awareness campaigns, like First Lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” initiative that infiltrated schools in the 1980s, or the emphasis on Earth Day every April in public schools throughout the nation, or First Lady Michelle Obama’s current Let’s Move campaign that offers specific health awareness programs to schools. In the U.S., schools are the front lines for initiating change in behaviors as a nation and telling (more so than showing) students what is “right” or “wrong” in cultural terms.
Along with the base, common knowledge that accompanies the facts in textbooks, K-12 students in America are expected to know a set parameter of life truths before they graduate, or decide to drop out, like: smoking will kill you, drugs will kill you, obesity will kill you, taking care of the environment is not an option, stealing is bad, going to jail is bad, lying is bad, and cheating is bad too. Though not religious institutions, public schools have transformed in the past century from agents of factual information to ethics-infused entities. It is not enough for students to pass a test at the end of each grade and at the end of a K-12 career; to be true contributors to society, they must have moral compasses and understand the responsibilities of citizenship.
Of course some schools are better at this than others. In areas impacted by high poverty and crime rates, it is more difficult to graduate students who rise above their circumstances. Even middle- and upper-class school districts have their own bad apples. Still, these students are certainly aware of the right and wrong ways to live their lives, at least in theory, though they may not truly believe those truths themselves. Dewey would certainly be proud of the approach of public schools when it comes to socially conscious behaviors, if not disappointed by the outcomes of such efforts.
Though his theories were not particularly political, Dewey’s ethically-minded approach fed into the nation’s thirst for patriotism. Part of contributing to society was loving it and all its symbolism too. Consider the morning ritual of every public school in the nation since the early 1920s: reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In his young adult fiction novel Nothing But the Truth, author Avi challenges patriotic rituals in public schools through the character of a young man who refuses to quietly listen as “The Star-Spangled Banner” plays in his classroom. The boy becomes a national celebrity, with both supporters and detractors. The supporters believe he was trying to sing along and should be celebrated for that fact. The detractors say he didn’t show enough respect for the song by refusing to stay silent as it played. On the final page of the book, the boy is asked to sing the National Anthem on a radio talk show and he admits he doesn’t know the words. The point then of the novel is that much of what students learn, at least when it comes to patriotism, is not based on an intrinsic loyalty but on one that is imposed.
The same can be said of the other ethics-based lessons that are part of American public schools today. The principles that constitute being a good citizen are just that: suggestions for living, not commands. Students are still guided by their own free will, though aware of the consequences. The idea, however, that schools should at least be presenting a socially conscious agenda started in the early-to-mid 20th century and still permeates K-12 public school classrooms today.Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.
The first attempt at regulating exactly what American students were learning in those schoolhouses came in 1837 from now-famed education reformer Horace Mann. When he took over the role of Secretary of Education in Massachusetts, he set out to create a common way of teaching educational content, particularly to elementary students. He borrowed his idea from a Prussian model that also stressed training for educators.
Along with shared content, Mann’s reforms brought about the first age-grade systems where students were promoted up based on age, not academic aptitude. While this led to greater concentration on subjects that increased in difficulty as students grew older, it also planted roots of American students as passive learners, as opposed to active ones. The idea that each student of a certain age should master content by a certain time, and based on set criteria that was in no way customized, was founded as a way to keep students moving through the public education system, and advancing in their studies rather than idling on topics they already knew while younger students learned them for the first time.
States around the nation rushed to duplicate Mann’s ideas in their own schools and multi-age classrooms disappeared in the coming decades. As the American population rose, it just made sense to accommodate students in a more segmented way. Age-grading was meant to improve efficiency of classrooms and the entire public education system. The more students that could be passed through the public schools, the better. It made economic sense, and in the minds of reformers like Mann, it also meant a more highly-educated public.
Though Mann’s system for age grading was introduced over 175 years ago, it is still the main form of organization in the public, and private/independent, schools in America today. While some students are retained (or held back) when they do not master the material at hand, the idea of socially promoting students based solely on their ages is more popular than you might think. It is difficult to measure exactly how many students are passed on to the next grade based more on their age, and less on their academic merit, because teachers are obviously not keen to admit it. Retaining students is simple to measure but only tells half the story. Of the students who are not retained, how many of them should be?
In the past two decades, the social faux pas associated with students who are held back a grade has begun to fade. A Public Agenda survey from 2003 found that 87 percent of parents would rather that their children be held back than promoted if they have not mastered their grade-level material. There was once a time when a student who was held back was viewed as being outside the “norm” of what we have come to expect in U.S. classrooms. That’s changing though as parents begin a push back against social promotion.
The so called “redshirting” of Kindergarteners is rising each year in popularity. Rather than having to make the decision to hold a child back (most often it happens in grades K-2), parents are just delaying the start of school instead. In the mid-1990s, just 9 percent of children entering Kindergarten were age 6 or older. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, by 2007 that had risen to 16.4 percent. It’s reasonable to assume this rise is due at least in part to the increased demands placed on academic achievement at such a young age. Redshirting is becoming so common that Kindergartners who are 6, going on 7, are not a strange sight at all.
While it does speak to the maturity of American parents, sending children to school later does throw a wrench in the traditional age-grade system. Teachers are often ill-prepared to deal with students who are outside the age specifications in their classrooms, and in cases where both a 5 and 7 year old are in the same classroom, understandable behavior and maturity differences are evident. By adhering strictly to an age-grade system for just some, it puts a strain on the others. Teachers who hope to avoid problems for their colleagues in higher grades often take the easier route of age-grading promotion.
Despite the pitfalls of the age-grading system, the positive impact of Mann’s endeavors should not go unnoticed. Along with age-grading, he emphasized the need for mandatory attendance. Public education was not something that was a perk of American life; it was a necessity. He believed that for the nation to truly advance, its youth belonged in classrooms (not just in fields, or factories) and that states should implement attendance policies to support this view. While it took some time for his emphasis to really see mass appeal, his advocacy for mandatory public schools found some resonance. By 1900, 34 states implemented required schooling laws, 30 of which required students to stay in school until the age of 14. Ten years later, 72 percent of the children in the U.S. went to school. Just 10 years after that, every state had required attendance policies. By 1940, half of all young adults in the U.S. were high school diploma recipients.Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.
When the public school systems of America were first founded in in the late 1700s, they were practical places. In a growing country trying to build a stable economy on the world stage, public schools stood as the building blocks for the next generation of U.S. workers. Students did not need more than a few years to learn the basics of what they would need to propel the nation forward to its next level. Socialization and learning side skills, like manners, were perks of the public school system but not primary goals. The success of a particular education path was determined by the functionality in society of the student upon completion.
Without a national system in place to address educational issues, it fell on the shoulders of private institutions of Colonial America. Education was not mandatory and there were very few paid educators. Learning endeavors were voluntary – both on the part of the students and those who were able to teach. Knowledge did come with value attached but not as much, say, as learning the skill of a particular trade. Apprenticeships were common and “idle” learning was viewed negatively.
Much of the prescribed education during this cornerstone period of the nation’s growth happened in the home. Learning to read was often a task assigned to mothers, though without access to paper, most colonial children learned to write and trace letters using the ashes of the fireplace. When children had mastered enough to read on their own, they received a Bible in hand or another piece of British literature. As a result of this devotion to learning set forth by mothers, most children who did attend school already knew how to read when they arrived at the age of 7 or 8.
That’s an interesting thing to consider, particularly since the children entering today’s Kindergarten classrooms generally do not possess proficiency in literary skills. Kindergarten students, at least the ones considered “ready,” should know the alphabet, how to write their first and last names, and how to count to 20. From there, today’s teachers are expected to turn them into voracious readers who fall in love with literacy. By the age of 5 or 6 (more parents than ever are choosing to delay Kindergarten starts by one year for their kids), the seeds of interest have already been planted in kids’ heads. What’s more – by the age of 5, many learning opportunities have been missed. Research has found time and again that the first five years of a child’s life are the most vital to an individual’s overall knowledge base.
Waiting until Kindergarten to learn reading, math and other language concepts means a large missed window of learning opportunities. Children are hard-wired for learning but in contemporary America, the first five years of life are widely regarded as ones that belong to the “play” category. There are certainly things that are learned through play and everyday life but concentrated, organized learning tends to be reserved for years following the first half-decade of a child’s life. This was not the case when it came to Colonial families. Learning was a responsibility of home life and one that was not relegated to the few formal education systems that existed.
In the late 1700s, when children knew enough to reach their perceived potential in life, they left school to enter the workforce – whether on the family farm or in a trade outside their homes. Women used their own knowledge sets on the domestic front, and eventually to teach their own children. Very few Colonial-time students went on to college and very few really needed it. For all intents and purposes, school was for learning the practical side of life and for developing a shared sense of knowledge among the youth of the young nation.
Think back on your earliest recollection of American history as it was taught to you in school. The Founding Fathers didn’t earn that moniker by following alongside all the other young men in their schools, colleges and career paths. On the contrary, these men had dreams that lived outside the Colonial box and they aimed to make them reality, no matter what the personal cost. This story form repeats itself throughout American history, too. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., women’s suffrage leader Lucy Burns – they all took the road less traveled and broke out of the mold of their times to make a positive impact on the future and move the country forward.
Every country has its folk heroes, of course, and these figure heads serve as reminders that you should always, always stick by your belief systems even if they run contrary to everyone else’s. In America, though, everyone is entitled to follow in the footsteps of these leaders – these heroes that paved the way. In large and small ways, everyday Americans shape the future of the country just by tapping into their natural talents and personal stances. It’s why we have bifocals, and fire hydrants, and swivel chairs. Without American innovators, the world would have never been able to enjoy cupcakes, or graham crackers, or baseball. Had inventors like Henry Ford, Robert Fulton and Wilbur Wright walked the line and focused on the career paths and learning options their government deemed a priority, they may have never had the mind to attach an engine here, or a motor there, or a wing up there.
Innovation is what has always driven Americans, and continues to drive us all today. It’s what has simultaneously given us the labels of crazy and genius. Frankly, it’s what makes Americans a global force to be reckoned with. Without the many Americans who have stepped outside the lines to better their own ways of life and those of their fellow citizens, this nation would not be considered the greatest on the globe.
That innovation, that creative spirit, is born in our public schools. The students who will dream up the next generation’s major inventions, and come up with plans to improve the American way of life, and fill every job in between are in our K-12 classrooms today. Despite more choices than ever when it comes to the childhood learning years, public schools remain a steadfast reminder of all that is great, and inspirational, and smart about the American way.
As America has grown in its nearly 250 years of existence, its public school system has also adjusted with the times. Different theories on properly educating our next generations have been introduced, tested, established and thrown out. Each new evolution of the public school systems in the U.S. have built upon the lessons of the ones before – both good and bad – and have culminated to bring us to the current state of U.S. education today.
So what do our school systems look like, really? If you base your knowledge of the nation’s public schools on news headlines alone, you likely have a bleak perception of what exactly is happening in the K-12 classrooms funded by our tax dollars. A report issued from the U.S. Department of Education in April of 2014 showed that high school seniors did not show any signs of improvement in math and science scores from 2009 to 2013. When compared with other developed countries, U.S. students lag seriously behind in areas like math and science, too. The students who are bringing down the national averages are not just from underprivileged areas, either. Among students from households where at least one parent has a college degree, or the family is considered “affluent,” the U.S. ranks as number 27 on a list of 34 countries in math capabilities. A Washington Examiner report also finds that more than half of 15 year olds from homes with well-educated parents are not proficient in at least one of three areas: reading, math or science.
Despite these and numerous other reports that are similar, U.S. seniors are graduating at a record rate of 80 percent. It is a happy statistic, no doubt, and one that should be celebrated but it does leave some room for speculation: how are so many U.S. students lagging behind in so many vital academic areas, yet graduating from our schools at record rates?
The truth is complicated. Standards for exactly what students should be learning at every step of their educational journey have never been more stringent. The No Child Left Behind legislation enacted in 2001 heightened educator accountability systems and put more stringent assessment processes in place to measure the true learning outcomes of students. These requirements were not suggestions, but were (and are) tied to federal funding. So a school district doing exceptionally well based on the set-forth standards receives its federal funding while another that is struggling, and is arguably in greater need for the money, is left to flounder in its failures.
Teacher accountability was in place before NCLB, and so were state assessment tests, but the legislation thrust both on a pedestal that schools are still reeling to accommodate. By setting blanket benchmarks for the entire nation, based on limited tested materials, teachers were essentially stripped of their free will when it came to educating and were forced to begin “teaching to the test.” For many educators, NCLB was a marked end to learning for learning’s sake in classrooms, and even meant dumbing down materials to be sure all students scored well on those vital assessments.
Fast forward 12 years to the recent enactment of Common Core Standards in 44 states and the District of Columbia, and accountability and assessments have even more to contend with. Tied to President Obama’s federal funding program Race to the Top, Common Core benchmarks were determined by the National Governors Association. States could choose to opt in or out, with pressure to conform enhanced by the promise of good old fashioned American money. Like NCLB legislation (which still exists alongside Common Core requirements), the new set of initiatives seeks stronger student outcomes in areas like math, science and technology.
Which is a good thing, right? If our students are lagging in these areas then it makes sense to raise our standards when it comes to learning them, doesn’t it? In theory, Common Core Standards work. Place more focus on the subjects where American students need extra help, attach some money as an incentive and then watch the test scores rise. The true effectiveness of these standards remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine that placing greater concentration on a narrow range of subjects, at the expense of others, will end up boding well for this generation of K-12 students.
Assessments and teacher accountability tied to funding are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the issues holding back the actual process of learning in our public schools. Issues of overcrowding, and inequality of resources, and a cultural shift towards anti-intellectualism weigh heavy on the schools within our borders.
By identifying the major problems that hinder the effectiveness of the public schools of our nation, we can start a journey that will lead us toward better outcomes for future generations. It is not a task that is reserved for educators alone. To really experience the changes needed to raise the quality of what we offer our children when it comes to their educations, it will take every parent, business owner and community member. Change won’t happen overnight but with concentrated efforts and societal support, it can be enacted. It’s important first though to understand the exact history of our public schools and what has taken place over the past two centuries to bring us to where we are today. The role that our public schools have played in shaping our modern society is a large one and the importance of its influence on our future should not be underestimated. To really create the type of society we desire as Americans, we must start with our public schools and understand how they are, and always have been, an integral piece of our future patchwork.
School climate and school culture directly impact student success. As a result, it is particularly important for the school culture (and the classroom culture) to reflect, acknowledge, and celebrate diversity. Taking these feel-good ideals and making them a reality can be tough for educators, especially with so many other initiatives on their ever-tighter schedules.
But I think that this is so important that as an educator, you must take the time to do it. How to celebrate diversity in the classroom is another article, but for now, I want you to begin your journey with knowing exactly why it’s important.
1. Because the idea of “diversity” is not even that straightforward. Not only must schools recognize diversity evident among broad racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Asian or Hispanic), but the diversity within these groups must be recognized as well. For example Chinese and Japanese students may share common cultural characteristics as a result of being Asian, but will also have distinctly Chinese and Japanese cultural characteristics that differ from each other. The same is true of Caucasian students who come from vastly different family backgrounds, even from the same neighborhoods. In the interest of treating students equally, giving them equal chances for success, and equal access to the curriculum, teachers and administrators must recognize the uniqueness and individuality of their students.
2. Teachers have a particular responsibility to recognize and structure their lessons to reflect student differences. This encourages students to recognize themselves and others as individuals. It also encourages the appreciation of a diverse school population, and brings a sense of connection between disparate cultural heritages within a single school’s culture. It is certainly in the best interest of students and teachers to focus on the richness of our diversity. Recognizing and acknowledging our differences is part of treating students fairly and equally.
3. So that you can facilitate the process of learning overall. One reason for seeking out and acknowledging cultural differences among students is the idea that learning involves transfer of information from prior knowledge and experiences. To assist in this transfer process, it is important to acknowledge the students’ background, and to validate and incorporate their previous knowledge into the process of acquiring new information. All students begin school with a framework of skills and information based on their home cultures. This may include a rudimentary understanding of the alphabet, numbers, computer functions, some basic knowledge of a second language, or the ability to spell and write their names. It also includes a set of habits, etiquette and social expectations derived from the home.
4. So that you can help students assimilate what they learn with what they already know. If a student cannot relate new information to his own experiences, or connect the new material to a familiar concept, he may perceive the new information as frustrating, difficult or dismiss it completely, believing it to be in conflict with his already tenuous understanding of the world. Teachers have the responsibility to seek out cultural building blocks students already possess, in order to help build a framework for understanding. Some educational pedagogy refers to this process as “scaffolding.” Recognition of a student’s cultural differences provides a positive basis for effective learning, and a “safe” classroom environment. Every group of students will respond differently to curriculum and teachers must constantly adjust to be sure their methods are diverse, both in theory and in practice.
What are some easy ways you’ve found to promote diversity in your classroom? Leave a comment below.
Also, if you’re interested in learning more about how you can celebrate diversity in class, here are some tips I have for you.
The signature issue for Betsy DeVos, nominated to be the next U.S. Secretary of Education, is giving parents freedom of choice, either to choose charter schools or to use vouchers to buy an education at any school they like, public or private. The logical extension of such policies – permitting students to take individual courses wherever they wish, by using online options – has already begun to take root in about a dozen states.
It’s called “Course Access” or “Course Choice.” Under such plans, the funding for a course taken by an individual student goes to the school or online company offering the course, often away from the student’s local district. In Nevada, in fact, parents can spend state education dollars any way they please — on private, public, online, part-time and full-time schools, on tutoring and extra books — through education savings accounts, which an advocate for them calls “the purest form of educational freedom.”
As they have emerged in some states, these programs have been assisted by conservative groups such as Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change and the Koch Industries-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It remains to be seen whether a Trump Administration will boost them further, using federal policy.
The growth of “Course Choice” initiatives in various states was chronicled in depth by The Hechinger Report last year, in this story from our archives.
— The editors
Thanks to a relatively new state policy, all spring Clarke went to the school library during second period for an online sociology class.
“It was very cool,” said Clarke, noting it lived up to his psychology teacher’s description: “It was a very interesting topic with some things that will tie back to psychology.”
This initiative, often called “Course Choice” or “Course Access,” is, as one proponent described it, like “school choice on steroids.”
Proponents count at least 10 states that have adopted a collection of policies they began promoting as Course Access — policies that allow students to take classes part-time online (and sometimes in other off-campus classrooms) by choosing from a variety of providers, including charter schools and other districts, instead of being limited to their local course offerings or to one state virtual school. And the Course Access movement is gaining momentum as it expands across the country, with eight states adopting or considering such laws in just the last four years, according to a comprehensive report on Course Access sponsored by the conservative group the Foundation for Excellence in Education and the lobbying firm EducationCounsel.
For Clarke and other students, online schools mean options, but for school district officials, they can mean less revenue, as education dollars flow toward charter schools or other districts that offer the online courses.
And, not unlike what often happens with charter schools and vouchers, the Course Access policies can set up a competition for limited education dollars.
States generally allocate money per student to districts, but in states with Course Access, districts have to share that funding based on the number of courses a student takes elsewhere. Much of the money can end up in the hands of for-profit companies that supply the curriculum, directly provide the classes or run the online schools in which students enroll part time.
“What is possible is the exploding wiring — if you will — of money across district lines or even state lines,” said Patricia Burch, associate professor of education and policy at the University of Southern California. “That can have a very immediate funding implication for a district.”
“It is a significant cost,” said Randy Paulson, Chatfield High’s principal. His school, with 400 students, can manage it partly because no more than 40 students a year are taking an online class. In Chatfield’s case, nearly all the classes are provided by the Minnesota Virtual Academy, run by the Houston Public School District about 40 miles away, with help from the for-profit company K12 Inc.
“What we want to do is serve our own students the best we can,” said Paulson, noting that adding an online class or two sometimes helps keep students in school. “We don’t want to lose students. If we lose students, we’re not able to provide students those opportunities.”
Similar to efforts to open charter schools or offer vouchers for private schools, Course Access aims to allow students (usually in high school) and their families to make choices — in this case, about where to go for individual classes. Advocates believe that the programs have the potential to appeal to all students, even those who would never consider leaving their local schools or don’t have the option of a charter school.
“We think the market is infinite,” said Mary Gifford, senior vice president of education policy and academic affairs at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school operator, which provides the curriculum and some management for the school where Clarke and his classmates enrolled. She said that although no more than 1 or 2 percent of U.S. students will ever enroll in virtual schools full-time, the company is now working closely with districts to help them start online programs as part of Course Access policies.
So far, only a tiny fraction of eligible students have enrolled for online classes. For example, in Minnesota, which began allowing part-time online enrollment in 2006, roughly 1 percent (5,520) of the state’s secondary school students enrolled during the 2013-14 school year, according to the Minnesota Department of Education.
But the policy has powerful backers, including at least three Republican presidential candidates — former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker — along with conservative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC, the Koch Industries-backed association of state legislators and businesses), not to mention allies in the for-profit education business.
“If you rewind and go back to the last election cycle, you had at least two governors campaigning on Course Access,” said John Bailey, vice president of policy at the Jeb Bush-founded Foundation for Excellence in Education, referring to governors Bruce Rauner of Illinois and Greg Abbott of Texas.
And the reform-minded group Chiefs for Change, also founded by Jeb Bush, is pushing to include a provision in the update to the federal No Child Left Behind Act to set aside 5 percent of Title I dollars to be used, among other things, for Course Access. (The House version of the bill already sets aside 3 percent, or roughly $410 million, mostly for outside tutoring services; changes could be made when the House and Senate versions are reconciled in conference committee.)
Many of these backers prefer the term Course Access to Course Choice, to distinguish it from school choice and the controversies surrounding it, and also as a way of indicating its focus on addressing many schools’ lack of course offerings.
As states around the country try to prepare more students for college and careers, they are working to provide more students with access to advanced classes, particularly in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The widespread lack of access to some key courses — only half of all high schools nationwide offer calculus and just 63 percent have physics — has become a rallying cry for Course Access supporters.
“Having a high-quality education must no longer depend on location,” wrote Jeb Bush in the introduction to last year’s Course Access policy brief. “For the next generation of students, the international stakes are too high to restrict access to great courses based on ZIP code.”
Yet at least so far, the program may not be living up to its promise of creating greater access for the very kids who might need it most. The students using the program in Texas are wealthier and whiter overall than the public school population as a whole, suggesting that gaps in access persist online. Data on the Florida Virtual School show a similar trend; in Utah, a stunningly low 6.15 percent of students participating in the state’s Course Access program are officially listed as poor enough to qualify for a fee waiver, though officials said course providers might not be filling out the information correctly.
Utah — the model legislation and its aftermath
When Utah passed the law creating a Course Access program in 2011, school districts panicked over what it would do to their budgets.
“We were fearful because those who were pushing it were pretty intense,” said Ken Grover, now the principal of Innovations Early College High School in Salt Lake City, describing billboards that advertised free online courses.
The program — officially called the Statewide Online Education Program — has been phased in over time. High school students this fall will be able to take up to five classes online during the school year while remaining enrolled in their local high school. This past school year, when students could take four classes online, it cost districts up to $366 per student per semester, according to the Utah State Office of Education.
In the fall of 2016, students will be able to take up to six online classes (usually considered a full load of coursework) while remaining enrolled.
Utah’s Course Access legislation also allows kids in private schools and home-schooled kids to participate through a separate funding stream.
The Utah policy was the model for what conservative backers of the program had imagined. In fact, Utah’s legislation is one of two officially approved by the Koch-backed ALEC. (The other, which contains two possible funding options, is based on a law passed in Louisiana, though later overturned by its state court, and on the law passed in Texas.)
The disaster that public school districts in Utah anticipated never materialized — partly because, within a few months, many districts in the state had established online schools to compete for dollars with the online charter schools.
Canyons School District, for example, went from having no online students in 2011 to 1,900 this past year. They are all enrolled part time, and all but 400 come from within the district, said Darren Draper, who runs what he’s been told is the largest of the district’s part-time schools, the Canyons Virtual High School.
“That’s huge,” said Draper. “If we didn’t build CVHS, we would have many students going elsewhere, without question.”
In fact, just 1,367 students in the entire state took an online class outside their district in 2014-15, according to preliminary state figures, meaning district budgets were largely spared.
In the end, advocates of the change and public school officials who balked at the measure can both claim victory in Utah — at least so far.
Course Access backers, however, claim credit for creating the competition that spurred the public schools to change.
“We changed the landscape in the state entirely,” said Robyn Bagley, board chair for Parents for Choice in Education, a Utah group that advocated for the law locally. “The amount of options skyrocketed in some form or another.”
Bagley maintains that the program has already grown dramatically in its first four years and will expand further.
But Grover said he doesn’t expect to see a spike in numbers. “Most parents want their kids to go to school,” he said. “They want them at school learning. It’s their identity.”
(In perhaps a reflection of where online learning is headed, both Bagley and Grover now run blended-learning schools that they say offer the best of both worlds — the personalization of an online school with the in-person interactions of a traditional school.)
Although rural Texas districts depend on Course Access, statewide its enrollments have dropped
Rural school districts across the state of Texas are using its version of Course Access to offer courses to fulfill basic high school requirements and even to save money.
In the tiny Dell City Independent School District, with fewer than 100 children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade, every single middle and high school student was enrolled in an online social studies class after the district’s teacher left mid-year. Algebra II and Spanish classes were also offered virtually, said Veronica Gomez, a physical education teacher who doubles as the liaison to the Texas Virtual Academy Network, as the statewide program is officially called.
“We live in a rural area; it’s out in the middle of nowhere,” she said. “We don’t have the staff. Because we don’t have the staff, we have to go online.” The district hadn’t found a good candidate to teach Spanish, she said, but added that the online program has other advantages: “It’s cheaper for us. We don’t have to pay benefits or anything like that.”
Most Texas districts, however, appear to be taking a different route — they are opting to spend money on their own schools and teachers instead of paying for online classes.
When the state originally started up the Texas Virtual School Network Course Catalog, in 2009, students could take courses online without the districts having to cover the costs; the state had allocated a separate pool of money for the program.
But after the state stopped covering the cost, the number of spots filled in the semester-long online classes dropped precipitously, from 22,899 in 2010-11 to 5,757 in 2013-14. The wording of the state law may have been a major factor.
The law says that districts can turn down a student’s request for a state-vetted online class only if their school offers a “substantially similar” class. Backers of Course Access said they think many districts are using a generous interpretation of that concept (they tried unsuccessfully this spring to get the legislature to close that loophole).
Louisiana’s new source of funding for college and career classes
In a striking innovation, Louisiana adopted a program, officially called Course Choice, that includes not just online courses but off-campus classes as well. As the law was originally written in Louisiana, for-profit companies and other outside groups could compete to directly provide the online or in-person classes, with parents and students choosing among them and funding going to the winners.
The political opposition to the program was initially fierce, and the law was challenged successfully. The state Supreme Court ruled that the funding approach was unconstitutional because it didn’t provide local school boards a say. Lawmakers revamped the program, removing the competition for resources, allowing schools to control what classes their students enrolled in and adding additional money — in essence, guaranteeing extra funding for the extra classes.
The revised program has expanded rapidly, according to the Louisiana Department of Education, with 19,068 semester-long Course Choice enrollments in 2014-15, just its second year. While the state has been championed as the model for Course Access policies, state superintendent John White said the program hasn’t lived up to his original vision.
The program was originally conceived as a way to bring new and inspiring classes to high school students preparing for life after graduation, White said, with “things that would not have existed without Course Choice.”
Although a welding program, an elite private college’s associates degree program and an ACT-preparation program have successfully flourished as prime examples of innovation under the revised program, schools across the state are most commonly using the program to prepare high school students for life after graduation, specifically allowing students to earn college credit through the state’s four-year universities, technical and community colleges. More than two-thirds (13,000) of the course enrollments have been in these so-called dual-enrollment classes.
“That’s an important thing,” White said, but added, “much of that would exist — not all of it, but much of it would exist without Course Choice.” (Significant numbers of students already took dual-enrollment classes before Course Choice ever started.) He had also hoped, with the initial bill, to put decision-making control in the hands of parents instead of school boards, and argues that the program now has less innovation as a result.
White, who heads the Chiefs for Change group, said federal funding of Course Access, if changes are made to the No Child Left Behind Act, could drive further innovation, with outside groups essentially guaranteed a chance at significant funds. “You’re going to attract a lot of actors that you wouldn’t otherwise attract — creative actors,” he said.
Despite the wide consensus that the program is now working, critics still aren’t happy about how it was originally conceived in Louisiana. “I think it was an ALEC-driven, an American Legislative Exchange-driven, initiative that Superintendent White felt would work in Louisiana,” said the Louisiana School Boards Association executive director, Scott Richard, who helped launch a lawsuit against the state program as it was initially conceived.
“I think it’s all part of the national reform, so-called reform, from the national think tanks,” he added, arguing that the new form of Course Choice had provided districts with resources to make important changes.
White said his inspiration was the online experience in Louisiana and with charter schools and school choice generally, but acknowledged that, because schools are happier with the revised version of the program, principals and teachers are collaborating with the state on everything from scheduling problems to reaching students who hadn’t had access to courses in the past.
Some proponents of Course Access now say that a program that doesn’t start off as competitive for funding may be best.
“I don’t see one system as better than the other; they’re just very different,” White said.
Other options besides Course Access
Of course, for many advocates of Course Access, the program represents just one possibility for changing the public education system — their goal is to put more power in the hands of students and parents to decide where state education dollars are spent.
Nevada passed a law in June that allows parents to spend state education dollars any way they please — on private, public, online, part-time and full-time schools, on tutoring and extra books — through education savings accounts, or “vouchers on steroids,” as they were called in one news story about the legislation. (Four other states have similar laws, but they limit the savings accounts significantly — to students with special needs, in foster care and/or from high-poverty households.)
“I think Course Choice is sort of evolving, just as a policy area, into what you may know as an educational savings account,” said Lindsay Russell, the director of the ALEC Task Force on Education and Workforce Development. “We’re evolving as a country, and I think students continue to need to be competitive, not only within the United States, but globally as we continue to slip. I think educational savings accounts are the purest form of educational freedom.”
Course Access in its current form, while seemingly less radical than Nevada’s approach, appeals to some of its more conservative backers because it can be set up to pay schools and other course providers only when students complete a course (or potentially pass an outside exam).
Proponents call this a step toward accountability and paying for the right thing — results, instead of student attendance, especially given the dismal completion rates for online classes. (In Louisiana and Utah, providers of courses receive half on enrollment and half when the course is completed, for example.)
“Nevada is the poster child for seeing a different way to approach this,” said Michael Horn, co-founder and executive director of the Clayton Christensen Institute. “We need to step back and start learning what policy environments work in terms of incentivizing the right behavior. Course Access is this intriguing place to play with a lot of policies that move away from seat time toward competency-based learning and measuring individual student growth and things like that.”
This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Read more about blended learning.
Modern technology offers a plethora of cognitive tools for implementation in your classroom. You’re likely familiar with pedagogical tools and teaching resources, but you may also be wondering what exactly a “cognitive tool” is.
Cognitive tools are tools that, when used outside of the classroom, play a role in productivity. They include word-processing programs, spreadsheets, and e-mail programs. Applied to the classroom, these become cognitive tools, because they improve the learning process, enhancing thinking and understanding. Let’s look at some examples:
Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets are screens that are divided into rows and columns, and are supplied in programs that have mathematical and statistical computational capabilities. This information can also be used to generate graphical data from the numerical data. Spreadsheet analysis programs are provided with a wide range of formulas that allow many functions, some of which resemble low-level programming, while others are complex mathematical functions. Both of these functions can be used to assist students with learning. Spreadsheets require the prior collection of data, which may be obtained from various real-life or online sources. Real-life sources could be data from a student’s bank account showing how much money the student earned, received, or spent in a month. Or a group of students could collect data while conducting a study on how many cars come in and out of the school parking lot in a month. T
he data would need to be organized into a row- and-column format to make use of the analytical capabilities of the spreadsheet. This skill in itself is useful in showing students how to identify which data is important and how to arrange it. Analysis could be largely automated through familiarization with the various formulas available within the program. Further familiarization with the program would allow students to be able to take their data and convert it into a graphical or visual format, making it meaningful, relevant, and interesting to other students. This could also reduce the work required of the teacher, who could design the exercises so that the correct arrangement of data, formulas, or analysis is crucial in allowing the graphs to appear correctly, thus allowing them to quickly identify students who require additional assistance.
Databases
Another cognitive tool that’s very useful in statistical analysis is a database, which is a vastly more powerful tool than a spreadsheet. Databases are larger, more robust stores of data, but are generally built on a more advanced programming platform than spreadsheets. Whereas spreadsheets store single items of data, databases can store information regarding how the data has been changed, and can link items of data together to form data relationships. Databases allow much larger stores of information to be created, as well as allowing multiple students to access them and make changes over a period of time, keeping a history of those changes for future use.
Word-Processing Programs
These have many advantages over paper and pencil. Editing is a lot less tedious, as you can change the document while you work on it without having to erase and start over. Some word-processing programs offer students the option of group activities, so that the group can all work on the same document.
Desktop Publishing and Multimedia
These programs allow users to combine text elements with audiovisual information, such as graphics, videos, audio clips, animations, and other display and design elements. Students who learn with these options become competent in constructing and delivering a complete document that includes videos, audio, and graphic information as well as text.
Most of the programs mentioned here now come standard with laptops and desktop computer software. If you’re curious about how to best implement these cognitive tools in your classroom, read on in future articles about how to best apply technology to your curriculum.
Globally, the U.S. is at risk of declining economic competitiveness due to its continuing lower levels of educational attainment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
The U.S. currently ranks 44th according to the quality of its mathematics and science education.
A “leaky STEM pipeline” – in which factors such as lower expectations, discrimination, and a lack of interest make it less likely that racial or ethnic minorities, women or those from low-income families will pursue STEM careers – makes many adults less likely to be employed in these types of positions.
Yet STEM positions are often high-paying and provide greater economic well-being and employment stability, especially as the U.S. transitions to a knowledge-based economy.
Efforts that increase schoolchildren’s science achievement – particularly those from diverse, traditionally marginalized populations – could help provide children with greater future employment opportunities while ensuring that the U.S. remains economically competitive.
The question is, when should these efforts begin? That is, how early do leaks in the STEM pipeline begin to occur?
Science achievement gaps
My research seeks to understand why some groups of children are more likely to struggle academically in U.S. schools. To date, I have been reporting on factors that increase children’s risk for lower achievement in reading and mathematics.
Researchers have found that large science achievement gaps occur within the U.S. These gaps are very large by middle school, and they are disproportionately experienced by children who are racial or ethnic minorities, English Language Learners (ELLs), and those from lower-income families.
For example, 63 percent of U.S. eighth graders who are black display “below basic” (that is, less than partial mastery of knowledge and skills necessary for grade level work) levels of science achievement. The contrasting percentage for white children is 20 percent. While 52 percent of low-income children display below basic levels of science achievement, only 20 percent of higher-income children do so.
Yet why these science achievement gaps are occurring has been unclear.
Very few studies have examined children’s science achievement across time. Most studies have used samples of middle or high school students. As a result, when science achievement gaps begin to occur has not been well understood.
Here’s what our study shows
To better understand these science achievement gaps, we analyzed a nationally representative sample of U.S. schoolchildren as they entered kindergarten and then continued through elementary and middle school.
The data were collected by the U.S. Department of Education, and designed to be representative of the population of children who entered U.S. kindergarten classrooms in 1998-1999.
The data included children’s reading and mathematics achievement, their classroom behavior, and many characteristics of their families and schools. Such characteristics included the quality of the children’s parenting, their family’s income, and the racial segregation of their schools. From third grade to eighth grade, the surveys included a measure of children’s science achievement.
During kindergarten and first grade, the surveys assessed children’s general knowledge about their natural (e.g., the seasons, the lunar phases, erosion) and social worlds (e.g., what a fireman does, what planes and trains have in common).
Our analyses of these data yielded three surprising findings.
First, we found that very large gaps in general knowledge were already evident among children entering kindergarten classrooms in the U.S. For example, about 60 percent of black children scored in the bottom 25 percent on the general knowledge measure. The contrasting percentage for white children was 15 percent.
About 65 percent of low-income children entered kindergarten with low levels of general knowledge. Only 10 percent of high-income children did so. The general knowledge and science achievement gaps in kindergarten were even larger than the reading or mathematics achievement gaps.
In other words, leaks in the STEM pipeline were originating “close to the tap.”
The second surprising finding was that general knowledge gaps by kindergarten strongly predicted science achievement gaps by third grade. For example, of those whose general knowledge was in the lowest 25 percent during kindergarten, 62 percent, 60 percent and 54 percent had levels of science achievement in the lowest 25 percent at the end of third, fifth or eighth grade, respectively.
This suggests that children who are already struggling with low levels of general knowledge in kindergarten are likely to still be struggling in science throughout elementary and middle school.
Children’s general knowledge was a stronger predictor of third grade science achievement than race/ethnicity, reading or mathematics achievement, classroom behavior or family income.
Both the general knowledge and science achievement gaps were very stable over time.
Children who are racial or ethnic minorities, English Language Learners or from low-income households displayed lower levels of science achievement by third grade and typically continued to lag behind throughout elementary and middle school. Girls displayed relatively lower science achievement than boys in third grade.
Closing these gaps
Our third finding was more encouraging. We found that we could explain most of these general knowledge and science achievement gaps. And this could help inform efforts by parents, practitioners, and policymakers to close these gaps.
For example, we were able to explain 75 percent of the third grade science achievement gap between black and white children as well as 97 percent of the gap between low- and high-income children.
Factors that helped explain science achievement gaps included children’s reading and mathematics achievement, their behavior and, most importantly, their general knowledge.
Helping young children to be more knowledgeable about their physical and social surroundings, as well as to be better at reading and mathematics, may increase their science achievement as they grow older.
Asking children questions about their surroundings while encouraging and extending their initial explorations could help them improve their general knowledge and science achievement.
Encouraging policies that lead to high-quality childcare for children most at risk could reduce these gaps. Policies that counter the racial segregation of U.S. schools might also be helpful.
It is never too late to help children grow to be successful. But if we are really serious about their as well as our nation’s future opportunities, we will do more to help all children begin kindergarten already knowledgeable about their natural and social worlds.
Collective, coordinated, and sustained efforts by parents, practitioners, and policymakers during children’s early school careers could make all the difference.
NEW ORLEANS — Nov. 30, 2016 — After implementing the Kickboard school culture system in five schools and seeing dramatic reductions in suspensions and discipline referrals — and sizable increases in positive behaviors — St. Louis Public Schools(SLPS) is expanding the use of Kickboard to 25 schools this fall.
Carver Elementary, Farragut Elementary, Lyon Academy at Blow Elementary, Patrick Henry Downtown Academy, and Sigel Elementary began using the Kickboard school culture systemto help teachers and administrators establish consistent behavior expectations; collect, analyze and act on real-time behavior data; address behavior issues; conduct responsive interventions; and create a more proactive, positive learning environment. The schools also participated in Kickboard’s Leadership Coaching to help leadership teams drive school-wide improvement.
“To maximize learning for every child, it’s essential to focus on academic rigor and school climate and culture,” said David Hardy, deputy superintendent of academics for SLPS. “Before we began working with Kickboard, we couldn’t pinpoint some of the key challenges our schools faced. Kickboard identified these missing data points to show our schools where they were struggling, and support them in creating action plans to transform their cultures. The Kickboard software and coaching are pushing our schools to think differently about what makes students and teachers successful, how they can create stronger cultures, and how they can sustain this improvement over time.”
During the 2015-16 school year, the pilot schools saw substantial improvements. For example, at Carver Elementary, the number of office referrals dropped from 250 per week to only 35 per week — an 86 percent decrease. Farragut Elementary recorded an 84 percent decline in recess detentions, and a 64 percent drop in suspensions. Lyon Academy saw a 79 percent decrease in referrals to the school’s reflection room. At Patrick Henry Downtown Academy, the number of suspensions fell from 48 in 2015 to only seven in 2016.
“Kickboard allows us to dive deeper to see what’s behind the numbers, so we can intervene before small problems become large. Our use of school culture data is changing the way we’re supporting our students to be successful,” said Hardy.
In addition, Kickboard enables school leaders to accurately measure the impact of positive culture programs, such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS). For example, in 2015-16, Patrick Henry Downtown Academy recorded a 149 percent increase in the number of occurrences of “active learning” taking place in the classroom.
“With Kickboard, we have much greater insight into how to effectively use school culture data to improve student outcomes,” said Hardy. “Instead of looking only at suspension rates and attendance, we’re now looking at data such as the ratio of positive to negative behaviors in the classroom or in a school. Having that data available helps us align our thinking around the culture and the behaviors we want to see in our classrooms. It allows us to look at each child holistically, so we can provide targeted support to meet the needs of our students, teachers, leaders and schools. Our students and staff are truly invested in our partnership with Kickboard and in the results we’re achieving.”
About Kickboard
The Kickboard school culture system is a configurable, web-based platform used by K-12 educators to improve school culture through positive behavior reinforcement, intervention management, classroom management, and district-wide school culture analysis. This unique combination of features allows schools and districts to directly impact student achievement, attendance, discipline, and more. For information or to sign up for a free school trial, visithttps://www.kickboardforschools.com.
State and local lawmakers have put policies in place to address and prevent bullying. Many schools too have implemented interventions to improve school climate to reduce bullying behaviors.
Despite these efforts, in my research and experiences in schools as a counselor educator and school counselor, I have found bullying based on bias continues to be an issue in school settings.
“Bias-based” or “identity-based” bullying, defined as students being bullied specifically based on their race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, socioeconomic status or weight, is far more difficult to recognize or address when compared to traditional forms of bullying.
Teachers too may fail to notice and address such behaviors and, at times, may even be involved in them.
Response to bullying
Bias-based bullying incidents involve explicit and implicit forms of racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice or discrimination. They are not only harmful emotionally, socially and psychologically to students, but are also a violation of a student’s civil rights.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights urges schools to be vigilant in the identification and prevention of bias-based bullying and provides guidance on specific laws that prohibit bias based harassment such as Title IX, a federal law, that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, Section 504 or Title II, which protects individuals with disabilities, and Title IV, which protects individuals from harassment based on religion, ethnicity or shared ancestry.
Despite this protection, however, bias-based bullying behaviors persist and can go unnoticed, or even be endorsed, by teachers in the field.
For example, a recent study investigated physical education teachers failing to respond to bullying behaviors against students being targeted due to their weight. Studies have also highlighted teachers failing to respond to students being bullied due to their sexual orientation.
Failure to recognize bias-based bullying behaviors can lead to tragic consequences.
Ryan Halligan, a 13-year-old student who committed suicide in October 7, 2003, was targeted primarily with homophobic slurs. A more recent case was that of Kennedy LeRoy, a teen who committed suicide in June 2015 after he was bullied partly due to having Asperger’s syndrome.
Bullying by teachers
Worse still, some students report being victimized not just by their peers but by their teachers as well.
In a study titled The Youth Voice Project published by my colleagues, Charisse Nixon and Stan Davis, students in special education testified that their teachers were more abusive toward them than toward their peers in general ed.
Although this information may seem surprising, teacher involvement in bullying students extends beyond special education settings to general and alternative education settings.
Although most schools are preparing educators and staff to recognize and respond to bullying, behaviors that are based on bias are often overlooked.
The results of a study I conducted indicated that educators may lack the knowledge of and skills to respond to bias-based bullying.
I investigated perceptions of undergraduate students in teacher education programs. I asked participants about their perceptions of their role when faced with a situation involving bias based bullying.
Most people consider themselves outsiders and do not respond to bullying. Denise Krebs
Approximately 50 percent of participants considered themselves to be outsiders or not involved in situations involving bias-based bullying. Additionally, participants believed that they lacked the knowledge and skills to respond to situations involving bullying and prejudice.
There was one encouraging finding, however. After participating in a full-day workshop that included bullying prevention and prejudice reduction, participants reported significant changes in attitude. Their knowledge and skills to respond to situations involving bullying and prejudice improved. And they also changed how they perceived their role – from considering themselves to be outsiders (57 percent pre-workshop, 20 percent post-workshop) to defenders of victims of bias based bullying (20 percent pre-workshop; 78 percent post-workshop).
Training teachers
So how can schools respond to bias-based bullying?
School administrators can include questions regarding bias-based bullying on their school environment, assessments and evaluations. This can help schools gain a better understanding of what forms of bias-based bullying are most common in their schools. Training teachers to recognize and respond to bias-based bullying could also improve the likelihood that they would intervene when they saw bullying.
These initiatives can be effective when implemented as a part of an intervention that includes the whole school, parents and the community.
