Uncategorized

With skyrocketing costs, budget crises, inconsistent curricula, poor standardized testing scores, and poor morale among teachers, administrators, and students, the need for sustainable and pervasive educational change is greater now than ever before. The numbers of questions related to the quality of the U.S. educational system from multiple sectors of society is at an all-time high. Many American parents have seen reports that American schools rank well below schools in countries such as China and Japan, or have heard President Obama declare a “dropout crisis” in the USA. An abundance of news reports and discouraging case studies has created panic among education stakeholders, who want to know why American school systems are failing. However, many insist on playing the “blame game,” which in most cases is counterproductive.

Many Americans believe that only a small percentage of leaders understand the complexities of the school system, and that individuals who do understand the intricacies of the system use their knowledge to justify the mediocre performance of our teachers and students. The American school system is the best-financed system in the world, but is one of the lowest performing. The American school system as a whole has an appalling performance record. For children living in urban environments, the story is even more alarming. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are often educated in dilapidated schools where the too many educators lack the credentials and skills necessary to perform their duties adequately. High student-to-teacher ratios are found in most urban schools, and these schools often lack the resources to deal with the diverse challenges they face, including unruly student behavior. Education has been called the great equalizer, but for students living in poverty-stricken urban areas it is little more than a babysitting service and a place to get a hot meal.

Many question whether the No Child Left Behind Act has contributed to achieving academic success. Although NCLB was well intentioned, it has not lived up to the hopes of government or schools. In the eyes of some, NCLB has actually contributed to subpar academics becoming even worse.  If American educators and school personnel do not make a concerted effort to develop effective measures to hold schools accountable for the education of all of our children, then the education crisis will continue.

There is an exception to every rule: some urban school systems are providing a quality education. Unfortunately, however, only a small number of school systems meet the state and federal government student performance requirements. For underperforming urban school systems, the problem usually lies with the inability to sustain existing reform efforts and initiatives. Mayors and school superintendents in these areas often concoct grandiose reform plans that are merely political devices meant to beguile voters into believing they genuinely care about educational reform. The idea that politicians create school reform to gain popularity and votes is sad and sobering. It is discouraging to realize that our children’s futures might be used as a political device to win elections.

Politicians are not the only people at fault for the shoddy education American children are receiving, but no one will take responsibility for subpar educational environments. If administrators were asked who was at fault, they might point to a lack of parental involvement and too few quality teachers. If teachers were asked who was at fault they might also cite a lack of parental involvement and ineffective administration. If parents were asked who was at fault they might blame teachers and school administrators. Society in general seems to conclude that the lack of quality teachers, effective administration, and parental involvement are all factors contributing to educational failure.

Whatever the reason, Americans have become the laughing stock of the free world when it comes to K-12 education. The solution, of course, is for the country to unite and work together to carry the responsibility of enriching and continuing America’s future via educational excellence without playing the “blame game.”

Edpolicy, edreform, school reform, put kids first,

When considering school reform, it may be advantageous for administrators to think of their schools as businesses. If the structure of the school were to reflect the business model, we would work from the assumption that students in the school system are customers, schools are the businesses, teachers are the employees/supervisors, and the administrators are the CEO’s.

In any business, the customers needs always come first. The reputation for customer service is the best advertising a business can receive. Keeping this savvy business strategy in mind, the business of the school should be to create learning opportunities that lead to greater academic achievement. If educators make lessons fun while adhering to the curriculum, the graduation rate will increase dramatically. If children feel safe and entertained, they will want to come to school. It is the educator’s task to make sure students learn to love to learn, while it is the administration’s task to support their efforts.

The most critical question administrators must confront is: where do we begin? Beginning reform by tackling several goals at once is noble, but not recommended. When trying to start reform in a complex environment such as a school, administrators need to focus on one task at a time. When making decisions, the administration needs to be sure to complete all steps of the reform in sequential order, using a strategic way of thinking.

In some cases goals can be independently accomplished. Departments will be able to achieve short-term goals while accomplishing the larger goals. In education, the improvements that matter the most are those that directly concern children. In order to create the necessary improvements, school districts must be reformed in ways that will sustain change. The ability of a school district to sustain reform should be of the utmost importance to the superintendent and the board of education.

Three conditions must be present in order to sustain reform. First, administrators must come to an agreement concerning the issues that have made it necessary for school reform to take place. They must be open and honest and refrain from blaming others for the issues that exist. All individuals directly and indirectly involved in the school reform must share a common vision.

Administrators should try to come to a consensus regarding the purpose of education and the roles of the faculty and staff.  They also need to agree on the rules and guidelines that will support the implementation of the reform, while respecting cultural beliefs of the faculty, staff, and students. Finally, administrators must communicate the current issues of the school and the vision for the future to stakeholders. Those who support and participate in reform need a clear vision of the common goal. Administrators must paint a reform picture that alleviates fears, and entice all to buy into the vision.

Communication is the key to running and sustaining a successful school when creating concrete reform. All participants and key administrators must agree to communicate with each other their understanding of the school reform, including their concerns. The administrators and participants must have a shared understanding of the issues the district faces, as they must learn to articulate, analyze, and explain the issues in a similar way.

There needs to be a common vision concerning students, schools, and the allocation of resources. Administrators must also anticipate new trends and issues preventing reform. Once the obstacles have been identified, it is the duty of the administrator to articulate these trends and issues to the powers that be, i.e., superintendents and school board members. Finally, the most important communication between administrators and staff is how to create reform that provides a quality education for all students.

Communication must also take place among the school district, superintendents, and the board of education in an intentional and ongoing manner. They must continuously reflect in an open and honest way on the effectiveness of the reform, and successfully communicate between departments in the case of promotions, retirements, or sudden resignation.

When creating school reform, administrators should consider communicating with community members. Community members and parents have a lot to contribute when it comes to school reform and they should be encouraged and allowed to do so. Parents and educators undoubtedly have a genuine concern for the needs of students. Why not place the important decisions concerning our students in the hands of the people that have the children’s best interests at heart?

Administrators should also consider teachers as a major part of school reform. Reform is considered a success or a failure based on the students’ performance, but teacher performance is inextricably linked to student performance. Through positive teacher-student relationships, genuine learning can take place in the classroom. Teachers know their students and the educational practices that work best in their classroom.

In schools across the nation, the people in the best positions to create positive outcomes have little to no control over the changes that are made and how they are implemented. Too often, the most critical decisions concerning the educational system are made by people without the capacity to understand the inner workings of the individual school and what it takes to ensure no child is left behind.

It is obviously hard to institute sustainable school reform when much of the reform undertaken in schools is the result of constant policymaking and changes mandated by incoming district administrations or temporary measures. Sustainability does, though, require changes to happen, as a “lack of change” speaks more of conservatism than reform. Essentially, sustainability means that improvements should be ongoing.

The evolution of transportation provides an instructive example. Transportation did not stop with the invention of the wheel. In the intervening centuries, transportation mediums were being developed, refined, and improved upon until they evolved into the industry we know today. The process has not stopped, nor should it. Innovation is always taking place, which means improvements are occurring. Our schools should emulate this type of process—school improvement should never end.

Let us consider five key points to sustaining school reform. The first of these is a substantial level of commitment, which stems from the belief that change is possible. There is, in fact, a great deal of power to be found in belief. Belief is what gives disadvantaged people the will to try to succeed and minorities the will to prosper. Conversely, the lack of belief can impede the success of reform efforts, regardless of how promising the proposed content of the reform may be.

If the will is not there, reform will not happen. Belief is just as important in school reform as in any other areas of life. If support, belief, and commitment are missing, then schools can paper over the gaps in the short term, but without the commitment of staff and faculty, the reforms lack stability. The likelihood of successful reform is, therefore, dependent on faculty and staff members embracing the implementation process of reform and sticking to it.

Reforms that originate outside of schools (e.g., reforms initiated at the district level) are by no means doomed to fail. Even so, district or other administrators need to make special efforts to assist teachers and other school staff in developing a feeling of ownership of the project in order to foster commitment and a belief in the efficacy of the reform.

Sustainable reform depends on the development of capacity. As our knowledge of cognitive science grows, we learn more about the ways individuals take in and process information. This knowledge has led to greater focus on how effective learning environments are built. Schools and districts are somewhat restricted in how they operate due to political, financial, and practical concerns, but they can still use their increasing knowledge to develop practices relevant to student learning needs and to structure learning environments to more effectively support these needs.

One absolutely vital aspect needed to sustain school reform is the time to accomplish it. It is a commonly reported issue that one of the most challenging issues schools and districts face is the need for time to plan and implement reform that would lead to improvements. No matter how successful the leadership of a school happens to be, leaders only have the same number of hours in a day as everyone else. Nonetheless, they likely have more demands on their time, which places them under pressure to maximize how their overcommitted time is used.

This issue often separates effective from ineffective leaders: the best ones will make much better use of their time, and have more control over it. Naturally, they will still come up against obstacles they can’t change, but they also have strict time management processes and will constantly evaluate how effective they have been in their use of time.

Sometimes the result of leader’s evaluation of time use will help them realize they are stretched too thinly.  Effective leaders are able to delegate some of their leadership responsibilities to other staff members who can perform those functions with support.  They also make sure that all the activities they undertake – particularly those relating to reform – will be structured around teaching and learning. Effective leaders will also make sure that their processes are efficient and that their actions will always work to further the goals of the school.

The actions of effective leaders may leave some staff or stakeholders feeling a little neglected or angry that they have not been given sufficient time with their leader. Ultimately, however, nothing comes without a cost, and it’s a case of weighing the benefits of spending time on reform against the costs of not focusing on other duties. The aim is to minimize the cost of actions while maximizing their benefit. This means that good planning and implementation are vital in order to manage time effectively.

Once an educator has thoroughly examined their own cultural beliefs, values, and biases, she is ready to begin learning about other cultures.  Researchers have theorized that diverse cultures demonstrate common patterns of thought and community behavior.  In order to explore these cognitive and behavioral patterns, an educator must be willing to spend a great deal of time reading about and observing the standards and practices of various cultural groups that they will be dealing with in the classroom.

Attaining a thorough base of knowledge is among the most critical steps that a teacher must take in order to educate students in a culturally responsive fashion. Prospective educators should become familiar with the cultural values, traditions, communication styles, learning preferences, contributions to society, and relationship patterns of their future students.  While some of this education can be achieved by simply reading about cultural diversity, it is difficult to truly substitute for genuine interaction and discourse with members of students’ cultures.

While book knowledge about diverse cultural groups can come in handy to a certain extent when designing lesson plans and educational materials, one of the most important reasons for truly learning about the cognitive patterns of cultural groups is so that the interpersonal attitudes and behaviors of diverse students can be effectively interpreted in terms of the culture that they’re entrenched in.  Traditional teaching environments force students from those and other groups to modify their thought and behavior patterns to fit standard European-American norms or else face academic and behavioral consequences.  In a culturally responsive classroom, the onus is instead placed on the instructor to learn about and adapt to the cultural intricacies of the students that they teach.

At first blush it appears difficult to apply knowledge about cultural patterns of thought and behavior to the classroom without falling into the twin traps of over generalization and stereotyping.  In order to avoid these problems, the educator’s next task is to engage in a rigorous examination of the general cultural practices of their students. This is the beginning of the personal dimension of culturally responsive pedagogy: learning about the specifics of students’ cultural backgrounds and how those cultural patterns and beliefs can be most positively expressed in a real classroom setting.

This can only be accomplished by viewing each student’s culture as a dynamic and individualized concept.  A person’s culture represents the sum of many spheres of influence, including context within history, gender, age, religion, family relationships, group memberships, cultural beliefs and practices, historical context, and level of education; to avoid stereotyping, the educator must view each student as possessing a personalized culture instead of as a member of a homogenous group. At first blush this may appear to be a daunting task, but in practice there are a variety of methods that can be employed to learn more about a student’s cultural heritage and identity.

If used cleverly, classroom assignments can provide a primary window into a student’s cultural beliefs.  Writing assignments can play a significant role in gathering information about student thought patterns and tendencies.  Interviews with family members, assignments asking students to write about learning experiences that occur outside of school, and assignments involving family stories and traditions all can play a significant role in unearthing information about a students’ cultural heritage.  Students’ parents can often be solicited as sources of useful personal information and visiting the neighborhoods where diverse students live can help give educators an idea about the level of social support present and the types of challenges that the student might face outside of the classroom.

References

Culturally responsive teaching is a theory of instruction that was developed by Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of her work on culturally responsive teaching and other topics, click here to visit her Amazon.com page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many investigators have requested new methods to determine expenditures as a means for better understanding priorities, organizational investments, proposed strategies, and as a tool to quantify the deployment of resources across subunits. Completely new expenditure models have been pioneered by manufacturing theorists that include costs that are activity and program-based, and which assist in forming fiscal data to further broaden its comparability to strategic decision-making. In education, several reports have demanded new methods of expenditure recordkeeping as a means to modify district strategy; mostly toward ensuring the real expenditure involved in individual schools, programs, or services is duly identified.

Though the models demonstrate some differences regarding the terms of the categories used, all of them propose assigning a larger percentage of costs to specific types of students and schools. For those having an interest in resource data in relation to the context of educating students, it makes sense to review central and indirect costs that are associated with joint district resources, as well as resources that are typically school-based. Costs that have less relevance are associated with district leadership, other operations, and services of a non-educational category: e.g., transportation, food services, school facilities, and maintenance systems.

Reforms relating to accountability have placed a focus not only on performance inequalities between white students and students from minority group backgrounds, but also between students having differing determinable needs that result from disability, poverty, or limitation in English proficiency. Many policymakers stress that the first stage in tackling these achievement gaps is to align fiscal policy with student needs. But as policymakers refurbish their established funding formulas to fulfill the needs of different students, they do so without evidence. In the first instance, there is little explanation of the way resources are currently aligned to different subgroups.

Basically, for a state policymaker attempting to assign an allocation to particular student types, no baseline data exist on current expenditure in regard to each type of student within their own districts or other schools within other districts. School districts in most states do not fully track costs by student type or to the school level. Even where these data are tracked, they are not accessible from published works for policymakers attempting to pin answers down.

Equally challenging is the difficulty in accessing comparisons from other states regarding spending. Accurate ways of defining or reporting expenditures influenced by student needs are not available, which makes it impossible to compare data between states.  Furthermore, policymakers have not yet determined how to flow funds from one level of government to the next. For example, funds may be designated by the federal government for students living in poverty, with the goal of enhancing expenditures at schools having high concentrations of poverty.

However, by the time funds are dispersed through state and local allocation streams, they may not reach their intended target. Finally, only limited documentation exists on different decisions for structuring assigned allocations and the way those decisions relate to policy aims. Put in other terms, allocations meant for students having limited English proficiency (LEP) might be realized as a fixed dollar amount per LEP student, reimbursements for the spending on bilingual education services, apportionment of staff full-time equivalents (FTEs) to high-needs schools, or as funds for other areas. Research has not yet delineated the ways these different decisions influence either what is finally spent per pupil or how efficiently that funding reaches the intended students.

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

As the focus on the improvement of learning becomes more central, what educational leaders are expected to do and accomplish through the allocation of resources has changed. Historically, supporters of education were more concerned with the dollar amount allocated per pupil, and they spent much of their political capital advocating for increases from one year to the next.

Educational leaders were responsible for creating balanced budgets with the dollars they had available and accounting for expenditures in a responsible manner– a complex task in large school districts. Little attention was paid to how resources were related to performance or what type of performance was expected. The standards-based reform movement of the past several decades changed the situation fundamentally, by prompting new questions about what the learning standards should be and how educators should be held accountable for improved performance.

In response, educators have become more focused on results, while taking the stance that higher performance cannot be accomplished without adequate resources. Thus, a sea change has occurred, prompting educational leaders to consider how resource allocation is related to building high-performing systems that work for all students. As they take seriously the charge to become more learning-focused, leaders critically examine the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of existing resource allocation policies and practices and make decisions regarding ways in which resources might be reallocated in more productive ways.

This resource reallocation challenge is as important in the present era of standards-driven reform and accountability for results. Given the considerable variation in the needs, capacities, and contexts of schools, it is striking– though not surprising– that for the most part, resource allocation patterns in K–12 education are relatively uniform.

The uniformity of leaders’ responses to these varying needs may simply signal a safe course: the most easily defended set of decisions in a context of competition for scarce resources. Beneath the surface of this course of action, however, conflicting expectations, tensions, and barriers may be impeding leaders’ ability to think more creatively about how to organize and allocate limited resources and act strategically. These barriers exist at all levels of the educational policy system.

In such a situation, leaders might wish for definitive understanding about the impact of particular investments on student learning, yet the state of knowledge here is incomplete. The highly contextual nature of schools, the variations with which any particular improvement strategy is implemented, the motivational conditions that are present, and the need to adapt strategies to fit specific circumstances all interact with the resources brought to bear on learning improvement goals.

For districts wishing to commence anew with student-weighted allocation systems (whereby funds are allocated on the basis of student types), offering clear-cut guidance on what increments should be assigned to each student type is a crucial first step. However, a definitive response plainly cannot exist in the current state of fiscal allocation policy. The difficulty here is that currently there is no efficient resource allocation system whereby an answer can be reliably extrapolated.

Policymakers are consequently forced into determining fiscal policy without information relating to expenditure on student types. They are forced to do so with no understanding of the workings of allocation policies at different levels (federal, state, and local) either together or in conflict. Policymakers have little clarity on expenditure for different student types at the school level, nor awareness of the types of policies that would be more effective in guaranteeing that dollars reach students in the proposed ways.

School finance today works in opposition to the focused and effective utilization of resources that promote improved education of students. Just as an archaic computer can no longer function properly in a technological environment inundated with the latest software, this nation’s school finance system frozen by a combination of unrelated expenditure policies and administrative plans can no longer serve the needs of an educational system calling for reform.  A new model is required, to do one thing– ensure that every child receives instruction for his or her needs in order to become an involved citizen having total participation in this modern economy.

Current school finance systems fund programs, uphold institutions, and offer resources and staff employment so the school and district administrators can fully execute the multitude of laws and regulations that have become part of public education. However, the methods employed by today’s school finance systems– deploying expenditure levels based on habit and not need, covering up funds’ actual allocations, supporting institutions whether they are viable or not, hypocritically addressing equity, spending resources flippantly, attempting to make adults accountable by compliance and not by results– confuses the links between resources and academic aims that make finance relevant to student performance.

The school finance system evolved in a era in which programs were funded, and students passed or failed without much regard paid to the role of funding in student performance. This pattern was sustainable then, as jobs were available for people with low skills, and the vast majority of workers were not required to be well educated in order to maintain a healthy economy. Unfortunately, that legacy has proven unworkable in today’s highly technological, information-based economy, where low-skilled workers cannot rise above the poverty level and overseas workers are able to compete effectively in the market for skilled jobs, once available solely to Americans.

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

Public schools can play a significant role in the general improvement of their respective communities, and can operate as a major platform for enhancing child welfare in the community. Social reformers, politicians, and educational leaders have utilized various initiatives in the past to strengthen the relationship between schools and communities to achieve the common purpose of improving child welfare, and learning conditions for all children.

These initiatives suffer obstructions similar to those experienced by schools when they are focused on the work of educating. Detrimental poverty, racial and ethnic differences, socioeconomic differences, inactive families, low or no parental involvement, and insufficient political willingness and support for improvement all impact the efforts to advance the welfare of children. Any of these factors may obstruct the learning process of a child, and also may make it difficult to enhance the child’s overall well-being.

Historically, schools have played a significant role in helping communities evaluate issues concerning child welfare and eliminating situations that impede children’s progress. During the Great Migration of 1880–1924, a huge number of impoverished children moved into the schools of American cities. The majority of immigrants were poor and undereducated.

Social reformers and policy makers pressured public schools to work toward improving children’s lives. Many schools devoted themselves not only to educating poor children, but also to providing them with proper nutrition and other amenities required for healthy living. Teachers devoted their time to teaching English to immigrant students. Many schools offered non-academic services, including school nurses, gyms, playgrounds, and mid-time meals or lunches for poor students.

Some schools also started offering night classes for parents to help them learn English and other important parental skills that could assist them in caring for their children. Many schools encouraged teachers to improve school-parental ties by visiting students’ homes and instructing parents on how to offer a better learning environment for children at home. However, such initiatives faced a certain degree of opposition from parents who were not ready to leave their ethnic and racial identities.

A major hurdle was the economic impracticability of sustaining such child welfare activities. Most of these initiatives were criticized as “socialistic,” but many children enjoyed the benefits of programs intended to improve the overall situations of children and their families. Children not only experienced better living conditions; they also gained many opportunities to rise out of poverty. As a result, more immigrant children started coming to school regularly.

Ever-increasing fiscal burdens on schools created by child well-being initiatives caused political opposition and social criticism. In order to reduce costs, many state governments withdrew funding for social services offered by public schools. As a result, the upsurge of underprivileged children in the late 1980s and early 1990s was met with reduced and nonexistent services emanating from schools.

The depressed socioeconomic conditions of underprivileged families were responsible for undermining the learning process and academic achievement of many children. Teachers again tried to find innovative ways to help students and tried to support their local public school systems by assisting in improving social conditions and creating better learning opportunities.

Social reformers began making better use of schools to improve socioeconomic situations in different communities. Many full-service school programs were introduced to bolster the relationship between schools and communities, with the main objective to improve situations and provide better environments for children, their parents, and the community overall.

Most of these experimental policies for child welfare and social reform suggested that the efficiency of school-community relationships and their positive impact could be maximized by increasing parental involvement in schools. By encouraging parents to take an active role in the education system, policymakers tried to improve school services by making schools more accessible to parents. This also helped schools improve their relationship with parents, and helped them improve students’ performance.

Many researchers set out to substantiate analytically that parental involvement strengthened the school-community relationship by improving social conditions of students. Educational researchers suggested that parental involvement could positively improve the academic achievement of children. Studies revealed that those students whose parents were involved with their learning process were performing better, attended classes more regularly, and scored higher on school examinations than students who were lacking parental support and involvement in their learning.

Studies also suggested that low-performing schools could help failing students by trying to engage parents in the educational process of students. Researchers confirmed that schools could help students who have learning disabilities, or who belong to families from low socioeconomic backgrounds by interacting with and training their parents how to help these students with their learning and schooling processes.

In order to increase parental involvement, many schools use strategies such as inviting parents for open meetings with other parents, arranging social programs, asking parents to volunteer during school social and sports events,  issuing regular newsletters, connecting with parents through phone calls, and arranging for parent and teacher conferences.  These strategies may seem manipulative, and often fail to involve parents in the educational system. Still, school administrators and teachers may use these types of initiatives to increase parental involvement, while excluding parents from serious decision-making processes.

Often school administrations do not allow parents to raise their concerns about ineffective administrative policies, substandard teaching, and faulty grading systems. Regulated initiatives by schools to involve parents in the learning process of their kids often remain lopsided and ineffective because such activities restrict parents from interacting with the education system in a meaningful way.

School administrators and teachers often exploit regular parent-school collaboration methods by providing limited and biased information. They rely on parents being unquestioning and passive, and believe that only education professionals can truly improve student learning. Often they ignore the rights and abilities of parents to make decisions, as well as the ability of parents to contribute information and suggestions for improving the schooling process. Additionally, some administrators are unwilling to make accommodations for parents unable to take part in regular parent-teacher meetings and similar activities because of their work schedules.

Many schools do not engage in unprincipled measures to restrict parental involvement. Most genuinely value the input parents potentially provide. In order to improve parent-teacher collaboration, many have experimented with innovative ideas and have open door policies which allow individuals to observe school processes. Parents can visit at any time to scrutinize teaching methods, and how their children perform within the school structure. Such initiatives demand a flexible structural bureaucracy that allows parents to play a meaningful part in the decision-making process.

Educational systems across the globe serve as the foundational bedrock for preparing future generations to lead, innovate, and contribute meaningfully to society. However, education’s indisputable importance has made it a natural arena for political contestation. When educational policies and curricula become entangled with partisan ideologies, the principle of a neutral and balanced education is compromised, potentially shaping young minds towards particular political leanings rather than fostering critical and independent thinking.

The politicization of education can manifest in several ways. It may occur through the establishment of history curricula that selectively interpret historical events to favor a particular viewpoint or the introduction of science standards that might align with specific religious or ideological beliefs rather than widely accepted scientific consensus. Debate over school book lists, teaching materials, discussions on climate change, sex education, and even the regulation of school meals often reflect broader ideological convictions rather than pedagogical considerations.

Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach:

1. **Promote a balanced curriculum:** Ensure that education boards and committees are composed of members from varied backgrounds who collectively strive for balanced perspectives in curricula. This diversity can provide checks and balances against overt political bias.

2. **Enforce academic freedom:** Teachers and educators must have the freedom to teach content based on academic studies and empirical evidence without fear of political repercussion or censorship.

3. **Engage all stakeholders:** Parents, educators, community leaders, and students themselves should have a voice in discussions about educational content to avoid the imposition of top-down political directives.

4. **Foster critical thinking:** Rather than teaching students what to think, the focus should be on how to think. Education should enhance critical thinking skills, making students able practitioners of discernment.

5. **Encourage open dialogue:** Schools should be safe havens for robust discussion on a variety of topics enabling learners to encounter and engage with differing viewpoints respectfully.

6. **Avoid partisan policies:** Policymakers must refrain from using education as a tool for political gain or ideology propagation; educational policies should primarily aim at holistic development and unbiased knowledge dissemination.

7. **Transparency in decision-making:** A clear justification for curricular changes or textbook selections should be mandated, with an open invitation for public scrutiny and input from experts in respective fields.

8. **Continuous teacher training:** Educators need ongoing professional development opportunities to understand how to present complex topics objectively and manage their own biases within classroom settings.

9. **Review mechanisms:** Establish independent bodies responsible for reviewing educational materials regularly to ensure they remain politically neutral and inclusive.

Combatting the politicization of education is neither quick nor simple but it is essential for safeguarding intellectual freedom while nurturing informed citizens capable of sustaining democratic societies. The aforementioned strategies connote a commitment not just to education but also to maintaining an open society wherein learning is cherished not as a means of indoctrination but as liberating knowledge.

Introduction:

The Revolutionary War is an important part of American history that played a crucial role in shaping the nation we have today. Teaching children about this significant event can spark their interest in history and help them better understand the foundations of their country.

These 15 websites and activities will engage kids’ interests and make learning about the Revolutionary War both educational and entertaining.

1. Liberty’s Kids (YouTube) – This animated series focuses on events during the American Revolution and delivers history lessons through engaging storytelling.

2. National Park Service (Revolutionary War Parks): Take a virtual tour of various national parks dedicated to preserving the memory of Revolutionary War events and participants.

3. Interactive Revolutionary War Map: An interactive map that helps kids explore battles, forts, and other significant locations from the war.

4. Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum: Participate in a virtual tour of the Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum, where kids can learn about this historic event.

5. George Washington’s Mount Vernon: Children can explore George Washington’s home both virtually or through field trips, learning about his role in the Revolutionary War.

6. Time For Kids: Revolution! – A comprehensive collection of resources covering all aspects of the American Revolution, including articles, videos, photos, and timelines.

7. American Revolution Timeline Activity: Help kids create their timeline to visualize key events leading up to and during the war.

8. Making Wartime Recipes: Encourage children to cook recipes from the era to learn more about daily life during wartime.

9. Colonial Williamsburg Kids Zone – Engage kids in numerous games related to 18th century colonial America.

10. Revolutionary Soldier’s Costume: Provide instructions for kids to create their soldier costume or uniform from the era for dress-up play.

11. Spy Decoder Game – Teach kids code words and secret messages used during the war with this fun, interactive game.

12. Scholastic’s The First American Revolution – A collection of educational resources, including articles, photos, and videos with comprehension questions to engage kids further.

13. Letters from the Revolutionary War – Explore real letters from soldiers during the war and help kids understand the emotions and experiences these people endured.

14. Betsy Ross’s Sew a Star: Children can learn about Betsy Ross and her role in creating the first American flag while learning to sew their star.

15. Revolutionary War Reenactments: Attending a local reenactment event immerses kids in real-life experiences and helps them better understand the challenges faced by individuals during this historical period.

Conclusion:

With these 15 websites and activities, children will not only gain knowledge about the Revolutionary War but also develop a deeper appreciation for the sacrifices made by those who fought for America’s freedom. Introducing them to various aspects of this important event, such as battles, key figures, and daily life during the era, will spark their curiosity and encourage further exploration into history.