Uncategorized

Students in urban schools tend to have stereotypes attached to them. Rather than see these students as individual learners, many urban kids and their schools are often thrown into the “lost cause” category. Problems like deteriorating buildings and overcrowding often become too overwhelming for reformers.

In a 2009 article in the Harvard Political Review, writers Tiffany Wen and Jyoti Jasrasaria discuss the “myths of urban education.” The article points out that many people are quick to label urban schools as lost causes without actually investigating individual issues or how they can be resolved. The authors also shed light on the juxtaposition of the basic American ideal that anyone from anywhere can make it big with some hard work and the reality of urban schools. If urban students are truly not at a disadvantage, per the American dream, then why do they graduate from high school at a rate of nearly 20 percent lower than their suburban counterparts?

Overcrowding as enemy

In an Education Week guest blog post, urban music teacher Mike Albertson said that “overcrowded classrooms are one of the most common qualities of urban schools.”

He went on to say that the students themselves are not the actual problem in urban schools but that the overcrowded conditions are to blame for many perceived behavior issues and academic disengagement. More likely, it is a combination of high student-to-teacher ratios and behavior problems.

Studies have found a correlation between overcrowding and lower math and reading scores. Teachers also cite overcrowding as a definite contributor to student behavior problems. Too many kids in classrooms means too little individual instruction. It also means that academic time is spent dealing with issues that distract from education. Overcrowding is only one problem that contributes to urban student disadvantages but one that deserves the spotlight.

Bridging the Urban-Suburban Gap

As with all aspects of K-12 improvement, finding the answers to higher achievement for urban students is a complicated process. I believe that technology can work to teacher and student advantages though. The implications of mobile technology in K-12 classrooms are still being realized but one thing is certain: more individualized learning is now possible. In cases where overcrowding is detrimental to learning experiences, mobile technology can serve as a placeholder teacher in terms of directing students and keeping them engaged in learning when the physical teacher is unavailable.

More student guidance is also necessary. Statistics tell us that not only do urban students more often come from tumultuous home lives, but they are often punished more harshly for the same infractions than suburban peers. Over 68 percent of all incarcerated adult American men do not have a high school diploma.

Removal from school, while potentially the easiest short term solution, feeds the school-to-prison cycle that is built primarily in urban schools. Mentorship programs would go a long way toward directing urban students toward higher academic engagement and graduation rates. Many colleges have implemented mentorship programs for at-risk students, like first-generation college students, so why can’t K-12 schools do the same?

With budget cuts a perennial complaint, though, more money for K-12 mentorship initiatives is unlikely. The bottom line is that urban students need more individual attention in order for their academic outlooks to improve. Technology has the potential to reach a wider number of students but the human connection is what will have a lasting positive impact on urban students.

What is the key to urban school improvement?

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

Note: Today’s guest post was written by Jessica Yarbro, George Mason University, Patrick McKnight, Ph.D., George Mason University, Kari M. Arfstrom, Ph.D. Executive Director, Flipped Learning Network and Katherine McKnight, Ph.D. Pearson’s Center for Educator Learning & Effectiveness.

While various new learning styles are making headway in the classroom, none more than Flipped Learning has made such an impact. In fact, a 2014 survey, conducted by the Flipped Learning Network™  (FLN) and Sophia Learning, revealed that in a matter of two years, the FLN has seen a 700% growth in teachers joining the FLN community, which now is comprised of more than 20,000 educators. Additionally, nearly 100% of teachers recognize the term and almost 80% indicate they have “flipped” at least one lesson in the last school year.

FLN defines Flipped Learning as a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.

FLN leaders determined that there is a difference (and that they are not interchangeable) between Flipped Learning and the Flipped Classroom – which has been misused by many. Flipping a class can lead to Flipped Learning, but it’s not a definite. Many teachers may already flip their classes by having students read text outside of class, watch additional videos, or solve extra problems, but to engage in Flipped Learning, teachers must incorporate four pillars into their practice: (F.L.I.P) Flexible Environment, Learning Culture, Intentional Content and Professional Educator.

The Four Pillars

Flexible Environment
Educators create flexible spaces where students choose when and where they learn. Additionally, educators who flip their classes are flexible in their expectations of student timelines for learning and in their assessments of student learning.

Learning Culture
In a Flipped Learning model, in-class time is dedicated to exploring topics in greater depth and creating rich learning opportunities. As a result, students are actively involved in knowledge construction as they participate in and evaluate their learning in a manner that is personally meaningful.

Intentional Content
Flipped Learning Educators determine what they need to teach and what materials students should handle on their own. Educators use Intentional Content to maximize classroom time in order to adopt methods of student-centered, active learning strategies, depending on grade level and subject matter.

Professional Educator
The role of a Professional Educator is even more important, and often more demanding, in a Flipped Classroom than in a traditional one. During class time, they need to observe students, providing them with instant feedback and an assessment their work. While Professional Educators take on less visibly prominent roles in a flipped classroom, they remain the essential part that enables Flipped Learning to occur successfully.

While the Flipped Learning model may not work for every class, the model represents an innovative approach to teaching with the potential to create active, engaged and learning-centered classrooms. FLN’s four suggested pillars serve as ways to help educators successfully implement a Flipped Learning model. What are some other suggestions that you’ve seen being implemented in a successful Flipped Learning classroom?

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

The traditional school year, with roughly three months of vacation days every summer was first implemented when America was an agricultural society. The time off was not implemented to accommodate contemporary concerns, like children needing “downtime” to decompress and “be kids,” but was born out of economic necessity. In fact, the first schools that went against the summers-off version of the academic calendar were in urban areas that did not revolve around the agricultural calendar, like Chicago and New York, as early as the mid-1800s. It was much later, however, that the idea as a whole gained momentum.

A survey of school decision-makers in 1971 found that 84 percent of respondents felt that year-round schooling would be in all U.S. schools within the next 15 years. As we know now, those respondents were wrong, but it makes sense that they would feel that way. Two districts in San Diego were the first to implement year-round academic calendars in 1971, and by 1974, there were another 13 in the state that followed suit. Even today, California and its neighbors lead the year-round trend, with four-fifths of all of these school schedules in the nation happening in Western states. Over half of them are implemented in California. In total, over 2 million U.S. students attend school on year-round schedules every year in around 3,000 schools in 46 states.

So what impact does this non-traditional school schedule have on the people it most affects – the students?

Academic strides

A long-time thorn in the side of K-12 educators has been the “summer slide,” or the theory that knowledge is lost when students get so much time off (like in the summer months) from academic pursuits. The National Summer Learning Association often cites decades of research that support the claim that students do forget or unlearn things they have learned when too much time off is given between classroom sessions. A study released in 2007 by The Ohio State University, however, found that there are no differences in learning between students who attend school year-round, and those who are on a traditional schedule.

While the overall student numbers show no significant differences in learning for better or worse, at-risk students tend to do better in year-round setups. Studies have found that disadvantaged students lose about 27 percent more of their learning gains in the summer months than their peers. By being in school the same number of days, but with shorter breaks, these students can keep their minds on a learning track that may not otherwise be fostered at home in the off-months.

Socialization

In districts that use year-round schedules, there are two models: single track and multi-track. In the latter, students are in groups that place them on different schedules and different vacation times. The main benefit of dividing students in this way is that those who need extra or remedial help can attend school on the off days since there are still teachers on campus. It is similar to the concept of summer school, but takes place throughout the year and may only require one or two weeks here and there, instead of an entire summer’s time.

Parents are split into two groups when it comes to the way students’ socialization is impacted by year-round schooling. Some say that kids seem more interested in school without the stop-and-go routine of traditional academic calendars. Others complain that students on year-round schedules, particularly multi-track ones, miss out on time with their friends and come to resent school as a result. Overall, the social growth of students is thought not to change much since they are still in session the same number of days each year and have shorter gaps in time apart from their peers.

Overall, year-round schooling seems to show a slight advantage academically to students enrolled, but the numbers of students are not high enough to get a good read on it at this point. What does seem clear, however, is that at-risk students do fare better without a long summer break, and the year-round schedule does not harm other students.

Next, I will look at the way year-round schooling impacts the teaching profession.

Do you think year-round schooling benefits or harms students?

In this series I have been writing about different facets of the year-round schooling debate. First I looked at the effects on students and then moved to the impact on teachers. As I researched both groups, I found no distinct disadvantages to either (and some advantages) when placed on a year-round academic calendar.

Today I want to move away from the individual groups impacted and take a closer look at the overall economic effect of year-round schooling. Does this academic setup help or hurt taxpayers’ pockets?

On-campus costs and savings

Year-round school programs are based on one of two different concepts: single-track, which releases all students for breaks throughout the year together, and multi-track, which staggers student breaks and effectively keeps the school building occupied year round. Obviously on a multi-track schedule, school maintenance costs rise because the building is in full use year-round. The cost does not increase by as much as a quarter, though, because most traditional schedule school buildings do have some employees there in the summer months and most offer summer school classes for some of that time too. Still, in cold-weather climates, the cost of not having to pay for air conditioning alone can be a deal-breaker when the topic of year-round schooling is broached. There is also the added cost of transportation on more days of school, custodial staff and additional administrative staff.

There are some areas where year-round schools can be long-term money saving options, though. If a particular district has more students than traditional schedules can accommodate, the capital cost of new buildings can be avoided with a multi-track schedule that allows more students to use the same building. Beyond the capital cost of a building, money can be saved through a higher amount of students using the same resources, like library books or physical education equipment. Some schools have even listed a decrease in vandalism as a financial plus of year-round occupancy.

Community cost and savings

Each individual community will feel a different economic impact when it comes to year-round schooling. A tourist community with summer attractions, for example, may feel more of a squeeze if its low-cost employee pool of high school students is suddenly in class instead. The same could be said for ski communities though that could benefit from multi-track scheduling of high school students during its busiest seasons. The summer months tend to be when most high school students earn the most money, however, because there is a significant duration of time with no school responsibilities. Without those months of a steady paycheck, students (and parents) stand to lose potential college money. Trying to work and maintain a job alongside classes can have a negative impact on grades according to most research and most employers cannot accommodate students who are only available two or three week spans at a time.

So the potential economic cost of year-round schooling is two-fold: the individual student may suffer financially, and the local businesses may have to pay out more for jobs that are better-suited for high school students who do not have the time off to work them.

Savings to the community are a little less tangible, but can be reflected in some research that says year-round schooling reduces teen crime, thus saving money for the community. At-risk students tend to perform better in year-round setups, making them more successful in their academic career which could feasibly mean a stronger economy down the road if those students avoid dropping out of high school. While the savings associated with year-round school schedules may not show up on something as straightforward as a utility bill, they still exist.

Like the impact on students and teachers, the financial ramifications for year-round schooling do not seem significantly negative. But for cash-strapped districts, any upfront costs can be a deal-breaker.

What other potential costs or savings do you associate with year-round schooling?

It seems that the phrase high school dropout is often accompanied with the word crisis. Depending who you ask, kids everywhere are giving up on education before they obtain a diploma and the situation has never been worse.

But is it really that bad? Is the state of the high school dropout rate in the U.S. deserving of the “crisis” label?

This week, I’m going to delve into the statistics and facts of high school dropout rates in the U.S., where the current generation stands historically, what is driving contemporary numbers, who is at the highest risk for dropping out and ultimately what can be done to increase the high school graduation rate.

So let’s get started by taking a closer look at where the dropout rate stands today. Check back throughout the week for the second and third installments of the series.

What is the high school dropout rate in the U.S.?

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national dropout rate was 7 percent in 2011. The number is calculated by taking the number of 16 to 24 year olds that are not enrolled in school and do not have a diploma, or a general educational development (G.E.D.) certificate. In 1990, that number was 12 percent so based on that criteria, the dropout rate has dropped in the past two decades. In fact, dropout numbers have been on the decline since 1970 when it was 15 percent. Perhaps a more interesting stat is that the percentage of 16 to 24-year-old dropouts who were in employed in 1970 is the same as 2011 – 49.8 percent. As dropout rates have declined, the importance of finishing high school has increased in America. One big problem with the NCES dropout calculations are that they imply that a high school diploma and G.E.D. are equal when it comes to opportunities for earners. In reality, studies have found that G.E.D. holders earn about the same amount as dropouts long term.

Here are 10 shocking facts about the dropout crisis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0I9jYKN7Q

Who is dropping out?

Since the government started tracking the dropout rates specifically for Hispanic students in 1972, this group has consistently had the highest percentages. In 1972, over one-third of all Hispanic students dropped out of high school. Today that number is down to 13.6 percent, but the group still leads all races and ethnicities when it comes to young people out of school with no diploma or G.E.D. Black students dropped out at a rate of 29 percent in 1967 (the first year the group was tracked) and that number is down to 7 percent (the same as the national average) today. White students have always held on to the lowest percentage of the dropout pie chart, even when their numbers represented a larger majority of total student populations. In 1967, 15 percent of white students dropped out of high school; today, just 5 percent do.

When it comes to gender, there has not been much differentiation when it comes to dropout percentages in over 40 years. There have been four years since 1972 when the rate for young men dropouts was noticeably higher than young women: 1974, 1976, 1978 and 2000. As far as economic backgrounds, lower-income students have always been at a high school graduation disadvantage. In 2009, students from families in low-income brackets ran a risk of dropping out that was five times higher than high-income peers. Still, the future is not completely bleak for kids from disadvantaged economic environments; in 1975, low-income students dropped out at a rate of 16 percent but that number now sits comfortably under 10 percent.

Where are drop-out numbers highest?

According to the latest set of national statistics, released in 2012, high school graduation rates were the lowest in the District of Columbia (59 percent), Nevada (62 percent), New Mexico (63 percent), Georgia (67 percent) and Oregon and Alaska (both with 68 percent). By contrast, the states with the highest graduation rates were Iowa (88 percent), Vermont and Wisconsin (87 percent), and Indiana, Nebraska and New Hampshire (86 percent). The type of area a student lives also impacts graduation rates. The average high school grad rate in the largest 50 U.S. cities is just 53 percent, compared with 71 percent in suburban America.

Based on these numbers, it may seem that the high school dropout problem has seen significant improvement in a few, short decades. While that may be true, the numbers are still too high to stomach, especially with all of the alternative options high school students now have to finish their diplomas outside traditional classroom settings. At this juncture in U.S. K-12 progress, the dropout rate should be barely worth mentioning.

What do you think? Should the current dropout rate be celebrated or shunned?

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

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

Why are students dropping out?

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

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

How valuable is a high school diploma?

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

Why should I care?

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

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

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

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

This week I’ve been blogging about the bleak numbers that surround the national high school dropout rate and examining more closely the underlying causes. Many of society’s other problems – like unemployment, poverty and overcrowded prisons – can all be linked back to the individual decision to quit high school. It seems that this one factor is an indicator of other difficulties throughout the dropout’s life and it has a negative impact on society as a whole.

If we know that earning a high school diploma is the first step to a better life then that is a starting point for focus. So what can be done to increase the percentage of high school graduates?

Involvement from the business community

The economic impact of high school dropouts cannot be denied. As I mentioned Wednesday, the nation as a whole will miss out on an estimated $154 billion in income over the lifetimes of the dropouts from the Class of 2011. From a business perspective, this is a missed opportunity. There is money to be made and an economic boost is possible – but only if these students stick around long enough to obtain a high school diploma, and potentially seek out college opportunities. Georgia is a great example of a state that has taken advantage of the business community to help improve graduation rates. Areas like Atlanta Metro have some of the strongest business leaders in the nation, and school officials have begun to call on them for guidance and funding when it comes to improving graduation rates.

The report Building a Grad Nation 2012 found that between 2002 and 2010, Georgia showed high school graduation rate improvement from 61 to 68 percent, in part because of involvement from the business community. In that eight-year span, the number of “dropout factories” (schools with 60 percent or lower graduation rates) fell from 1,634 to 1,550. Making graduation numbers an issue of economic stability, and having backup from business leaders, is just one step toward reducing dropout numbers.

Further support outside the classroom

As discussed already, risk factors for dropouts include coming from low-income or single-parent families. Teachers simply cannot address the academic and emotional needs of every student within normal class time, so programs need to be in place for students who are at risk for dropping out. A pilot program in San Antonio called Communities in Schools has set out to accomplish this through offering on-campus counseling services for students on the fence about dropping out. The program offers a listening ear for whatever the students may need to talk about, from lack of food or anxiety about family financial woes. Of the students in the program in the 2012 – 2013 school year, 97 percent obtained a high school diploma instead of dropping out. While students can certainly talk about their studies, the main point of the program is not academic. It is simply a support system to encourage students who may be facing life obstacles to keep pushing forward to finish high school. These programs are often what students need to feel accountability toward the community as a whole and also worthiness for a high school diploma.

Earlier education for all

Much of the attack on the dropout rate happens when teens are already at a crossroads. In truth, the learning and social experiences they have from birth influence their attitudes about education, society and their own lives. Perhaps the dip in dropout rates in the past four decades hinges on another statistic: from 1980 to 2000, the number of four-year-old children in the U.S. enrolled in preschool programs rose from half to over two-thirds. Pre-K learning is only an academic right (free of charge) in 40 states and in 2012, total funding for these programs was slashed by $548 million. Instead of putting money where it belongs – upfront, at the beginning of a K-12 career – lawmakers could be contributing to a higher dropout rate, and economic cost, in future decades. It’s time to stop making the high school dropout issue something that is confronted in the moment; prevention, as early as pre-K learning, is a long-term solution.

What do you think? What is the solution to the high school dropout crisis?

The way that K-12 learners are taught is in rapid flux, particularly when it comes to students in special education programs. According to a report by the Fordham Insititute, special education participation by K-12 students represented 13.1 percent of the nation’s student population in 2010. From 2000 to 2010, students in special education categories like learning disabilities, mental retardation and emotional disturbances dropped in numbers. Cases of autism spiked dramatically, though, quadrupling over the 10-year span. Combine these statistics with the way classroom technology has changed since the year 2000 and it makes sense that special education is in an adjustment period. The way that students are served through special education initiatives is evolving, as it should. Here are a just a few of the current trends in special education:

LAMP

Language Acquisition through Motor Planning, or LAMP, is an approach that connects neurological and motor learning in a way that makes communication easier for students with autism and related disorders. These principles are proving especially helpful for students who do not speak or have very limited verbal skills. Paired with technology, LAMP principles empower a growing student population with autism to effectively communicate and reach higher academic achievements. LAMP is present in technology – from specially made computers to learning apps.

Assistive technology

The tools needed for academic success when it comes to students with physical disabilities are progressing. The same is true of students that may have learning disabilities, or a combination of both. Assistive technology can help any student with any number of issues. The technology can be as common as using an e-reader instead of a traditional book or as advanced as a computer that responds to the eye movements of the student as commands.  It can be argued that while assistive technology certainly enhances the learning process for traditional students, it gives those in special education access to learning that would not exist without the technology.

Early detection

Of course, discovering disabilities early in life is nothing new but it has become more than simply a labeling game. Groups like Easter Seals are behind the cultural push to fund programs that specialize in early detection of developmental delays that can often be helped with intervention programs. The Centers for Disease Control reports that 11 percent of the children who are served in federally funded early intervention programs (before Kindergarten, as young as 24 months) end up not needing any special education in the school years. Despite this, the CDC also reports that the median age for diagnosis of spectrum disorders like autism is older than 6. It will take a change in thinking at all levels  – from parents to lawmakers – for kids to receive the help they need in early childhood and improve special education through adulthood.

Classroom integration 

Long gone are the days when special education students were placed in separate classrooms, perhaps even in completely different parts of a school. Special education students are often now sitting alongside their traditional student peers for at least part of the day. The amount of time spent in a “normal” classroom is determined by the particular disability but more special education students are in classrooms than in the past – giving them the common school experience of their classmates.

Student-led planning 

When special education students reach high school, they are being called upon more and more to have input into their individual learning plans. This is to prepare these students for more independence in adulthood. It also gives teachers more insight into the methods these students favor when it comes to learning. Instead of dictating what and how special education students should learn, student-led input helps chart the course toward academic and life skills.

Overall, special education is becoming a more normalized experience for the students. Our tech-hungry culture is the perfect backdrop for the tools that these special education learners need to succeed in K-12 classrooms.

What changes have other educators noticed in special education over the past decade or so?

As mobile technology continues to steal the spotlight in K-12 classroom methodology, certain areas of study tend to be gravitating towards the trends more strongly. Last week an Education Market Research report found that 28 percent of class time for math-based courses is spent using digital tools or interacting with digital content. The report goes on to outline a strong shift towards digital teaching methods for math since 2009. While students’ positive response is one of the reasons mobile technology is rapidly gaining speed, EMR’s report says that educator enjoyment of the technology is also a contributing factor to its snowballing implementation.

The conversation about the benefits of mobile technology for students is constant but should there also be a discussion about educator preference? It seems the debate is always student-centric but for these students to excel, teachers need to thrive too. This means administrative plans beyond simply purchasing mobile devices, or implementing bring-your-device policies, that include teacher empowerment of the technology.

Mobile technology has potential to change the student-teacher dynamic for the better but only if implemented correctly. Here are a few ways I think all teachers can benefit from smart mobile technology use:

Higher engagement levels. At least at the outset, use of mobile technology in K-12 classrooms will mean more students are interested in the class material. It remains to be seen what will happen once the novelty effect wears off, but perhaps by then mobile learning will be even more advanced than it is today, capturing students’ attention in new ways. Part of the interest in mobile learning from students’ perspectives is the flashy, fun element but the bigger attraction is empowerment. Lessons leave the blackboard and take place at the desk, giving students more control over it. Higher engagement from K-12 students who use mobile technology is a direct result of a feeling of ownership on the part of the student, whether perceived or not.

Convenient progress tracking. Mobile education applications keep electronic records of where students succeed and where they need more help. This provides a great service to teachers who lack the time and resources to create customized learning plans based on student work profiles (though there are certainly some teachers who do put in this time, painstakingly). When students learn through mobile technology, teachers benefit from the convenient reporting. There is no guesswork on what skills need sharpening, particularly in areas like math. If an entire class population is struggling with a skill, the technology reporting signals to the teacher that the topic needs to be revisited. On the flip side, excess time is not spent on topic areas that are already learned.

Less paperwork. Mobile learning gives copy machines a break and amounts to less paperwork for teachers. Instead of students waiting for an in-class assignment to be graded and then redone, mobile applications allow immediate opportunities to try again. This is a practical perk of mobile learning but one that makes the teaching AND learning process less cumbersome. In addition to less loose papers, mobile technology limits the amount of textbooks and other hard class materials that need to be carried around and stored in classrooms.

Anything that makes educators’ jobs a little easier, without sacrificing student achievement, benefits K-12 learning as a whole. The discussion of mobile technology in classrooms as it relates to students is vital but the teaching aspect matters a lot too. Schools need to provide resources for teachers to feel comfortable teaching though in mobile technology formats. This needs to happen in order for educators to really notice the positive impact it makes on their jobs.

In what ways will mobile technology positively change the teaching profession?

The latest international report on student knowledge and success worldwide once again paints U.S. students in a bad light. This is not the first time American students have lagged behind their peers on the OECD PISA global education survey that tests and compares student outcomes in areas like math, science and reading. The results are really just more of the same.

While I take issue with particular parts of the test (leader China reportedly only tested students in elite schools in Shanghai), it is a wake-up call nonetheless. When it comes to American K-12 student achievement, it is not enough to be a big fish in a little pond. To really make a splash and gain international footing, a few things need to change in U.S. K-12 education. Here are just a few:

Teacher support. This starts from administration in individual schools and extends into the community at large. Parents must also respect the role of teachers in order for kids to follow suit. Unfortunately many times teachers are pitted as servants, and not put on the pedestal they deserve. Perhaps I’m biased but what is more important than imparting knowledge to our next generation? Today’s best teachers are not simply reciting facts and expecting their students to regurgitate them; the teachers in contemporary classrooms are “showing their work” so to speak by imparting the life skills necessary for students to find answers on their own and be successful citizens in other ways.

Teachers need backup from the other people in their students’ lives and from their own colleagues and superiors. Traditionally high-performing PISA countries like Sweden, Australia and Japan all have one thing in common – high levels of community support for teachers and involvement from teachers in the course of instruction and curriculum. When new initiatives are handed down in the U.S., like the Common Core standards, teachers should have access to resources to help them reach goals. Teachers need more input in decisions, more access to continuing education resources and more faith from the administrators and families impacted by their classrooms.

STEM emphasis. There seems to be a general societal consensus that science, technology, engineering and math subjects are somehow boring, or uncool. A lot of attention has been placed lately on young women and finding ways to encourage them in male-dominated STEM fields, but I’d argue that young men need the same opportunities. Overall, more American students need to take an interest in STEM topics if we want to be able to compete on a global scale. The rapidly changing field of technology makes this part of U.S. K-12 education even more pressing. As the digital age continues to modify life as we know it, the students in today’s classrooms must have the tools to lead the country in discoveries, inventions and communication technology the coming decades.

Equal opportunities. In country that claims to be based on equality for all, there are still too many achievement gaps in our classrooms. While it should be a non-issue, the color of a student’s skin does seem to impact his or her academic achievement. It is not a direct effect, of course, but still something that needs even more focus to overcome. The best work on closing the achievement gap is in individual schools and I think that makes the most sense. No blanket national program will be able to answer all of the intricacies of why an achievement gap exists in a particular place or school. From a federal standpoint, however, schools should be encouraged to develop programs for eliminating achievement gaps and reaching individual students where it is most effective – their own classrooms.

Why do you think American students lag the rest of the world? What would you add to my list?

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