As educators, we talk a lot about the role of teachers in the lives of students and debate the best ways to strengthen the classroom experience for students from all backgrounds. There is only so much a teacher can do, though, particularly with large class sizes and limited resources. Even teachers in the best of circumstances are limited when it comes to hours in the day and the amount of material that must be covered. As K-12 academic standards become more rigorous, parents are becoming an even more integral piece of a student’s success.
The timing couldn’t be worse though, from a cultural standpoint. A report released in February by Stanford University that found that the number of U.S. households with two working parents nearly doubled from 25 percent in 1968 to 48 percent in 2008, and that doesn’t even factor in parents who have part-time jobs, health issues or other children that vie for their time. Sending children off to school is a relief for many parents who need a place for their children to go and put their faith in the school to make those hours productive ones.
Asking parents to pick up some of the “slack” for teachers is often perceived as a burden and not as the legitimate parental duty it actually is. If you look at students living in poverty, whose own parents may not have played an active role in their own K-12 learning, the chance of parental involvement in the education process is even slimmer. No teacher would argue the fact that parents ARE needed to maximize student success – so how can educators, and society as a whole, make it so?
The parental difference
The most obvious benefit of parental involvement is more time spent on academic learning, with direct results in student performance. There are other benefits too, though, like:
Parents being aware of what is taking place at the school and getting involved.
Parents better understanding where their children may struggle, and not just hearing it secondhand at a teacher conference.
Better attendance and participation for kids who follow the enthusiasm and good example of their parents.
Parent-child bonding over a common goal (and what better one than education?).
Schools doing it right
Teachers reading this are likely shaking their heads as their frustration builds. Yes, parents are needed! Yes, students perform better if their parents are involved in their academics! But HOW do we get the message across to parents?
Every school district and community will have a difference approach but here are a few places that have figured out some great ways to trigger parental interest in what happens at school:
Sunnyside Schools, Washington: This school district has designed a pilot program that will engage parents and investigate what methods best keep parents involvement in education of children the highest. Regular, informal meetings are part of the plan and a family advocacy group is working with the school district to find the best solutions.
Chicago Public Schools: In June 2013 Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett unveiled a five-year action plan to help kids get ready for their college, career and life. In that plan, she discussed the importance of holding adults accountable as indispensable allies and says they must enforce homework, turn off the television and make education a priority. To help parents keep children on track, her action plan promises to launch city-wide “Parent Universities” that help parents learn more about appropriate expectations of their children, how to build academic skills and ways to support their college plans. Parents can also learn more to help better their own lives.
Getting parents to the right level of participation will take at least a generation of K-12 students but it is a must for future academic and life success.
How have you been successful at getting parents more involved in their children’s schooling?
**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**
A guest post by Brooke Chaplan
Not everyone is able to spend four years and tons of money to earn a bachelor’s degree. You may be limited by circumstance, finances, family, and many other factors. Some students are tactile, hands-on learners, who may not thrive in a university environment. If you still want to improve you education, but aren’t looking for the traditional route, you may enjoy one of these five degrees.
Electrical Technology
Electricians traditionally complete a two-year degree at a technical school, and then transfer to a sponsored apprenticeship that takes four to five years to complete. During this time, most apprenticeship programs require attendees to take continuing education courses related to safety, regulations, and specific products or techniques. Students who study electrical technology will learn advanced math, electrical theories, code requirements, and first-aid practices. Apprenticeships are available through local unions, contractor associations, and state employment agencies.
Dental Hygienist
Dental hygiene is an excellent entry-level health care job that only requires a two-year degree and advanced training. In fact, some programs only require two years’ worth of related college coursework without an actual degree. The work environment is relaxed, the hiring outlook positive and the income levels good. Dental hygiene is considered an excellent academic choice for students starting their career over, and almost all states require dental hygienists to pass regional and national board exams to obtain the proper licensure.
Paralegal
Most companies hire paralegals fresh out of college with a program diploma, or those with extensive legal experience. Paralegals are attorney assistants who perform in-depth research, investigate facts, and prepare legal documents. Paralegal diploma programs often take one year to complete and will teach students how to properly conduct legal research, formulate defenses, and initiate legal actions. The median pay for paralegals is excellent and the work environment is intense, yet very professional.
Web Development
Web developers rarely have a formal degree. Instead, they have thousands of hours of personal time invested in creating, analyzing, and developing websites. Web developer programs take one to two years to complete and teach students how to analyze user needs, create content, and modify the performance of websites. Some also learn how to integrate websites with other software programs or convert audio and video elements between different standards.
Safety Occupational safety degreesand emergency management programs are becoming more popular as employees, the government, and the public in general realize the benefits of safety planning and emergency response. For example, state safety programs need their own OSHA inspectors to ensure the occupational well-being of workers. Emergency management is a growing profession because the need for public safety professionals is rapidly increasing.
Human Resources
Another option for students who want to quickly complete their degree is human resources. Many HR professionals start out their career with only college coursework and industry standard certification.
Going to college isn’t for everyone, but furthering your education can be. With these ideas you can still get a degree and more education without sacrificing four years of your life.
_______________________________
Brooke Chaplan is a freelance writer and blogger. She lives and works out of her home in Los Lunas, New Mexico. She loves the outdoors and spends most her time hiking, biking and gardening. For more information contact Brooke via Twitter @BrookeChaplan.
College presidents must be able to multitask. Though not in the official job descriptions, these administrative leaders must be figureheads, court the general public, delegate effectively and always keep an eye on the horizon to guide their ships to bigger, better waters. It is a tough job and like many high-profile ones, comes with its share of scrutiny in the public eye.
As the latest wave of college presidents looks towards retirement, the higher education community has the opportunity to promote a more diverse presidential core. The next five years will set the tone for college leadership at the highest level for the coming decades and really for the entire student population too.
Just the Facts
• 61. Average age of college presidents in 2011.
• 92. Percentage of college presidents aged in the mid-50s to mid-70s.
• 14. Average number of years retiring college presidents first serve in the role.
• 40. Normal number of new college presidents in the American Association of State Colleges and Universities every year.
• 109. Actual number of new college presidents from April 2011 to August 2012.
• 6. Number of new college presidents this school year in the California State system alone.
• 13. Percentage of college presidents who are racial or ethnic minorities, as of 2012.
• 14. Percentage of college presidents who were racial or ethnic minorities in 2006.
• 26. Percentage of women college presidents.
Qualified Prospects
In the past, college presidents from other schools and college vice presidents have most often ascended the ranks to fill empty presidential seats. While this still happens about 19 and 25 percent of the time, respectively, other leaders like provosts and deans are increasingly being considered to fill the college president vacancies. Some schools even search outside the college community to find leaders from other industries that fit the bill. There is really no hiring formula that applies to all college president spots and a “qualified” candidate could feasibly jump several levels of hierarchy to claim the spot.
Encouraging Diversity in Presidential Ranks
The first step to building diversity at the highest college administrative level is simply recognizing the opportunity at hand. American institutions of higher education often consider how a diverse student, and even faculty, population should look but do not extend that to top-tier leadership roles. Colleges need to rethink that strategy. I believe the trickle-down diversity effect works well in college settings. Instead of starting with the largest group (students), start cultural change at the top of the pyramid. If a school has a well-balanced student population already in place, chances are that the faculty and administration reflect that fact too.
The next step is to actively include diversity in the search process. I’m not saying that white men with the right qualifications should be excluded from the running; I just mean that colleges with open president seats should make sure the short list of candidates has some variety in experience, ethnicity, sex and race. The Rooney Rule, established in 2003 by the NFL, mandates that at least one minority candidate be interviewed for all head coaching spots. I think colleges need to do that same with their academic leaders.
Those in lower to middle-level leadership roles in colleges that have presidential aspirations should get ready now. Make sure your name is associated with talks about the future of the college by getting yourself involved in the action. Get published. Envision yourself on the same plane as the college presidents that went before you but realize that you have a unique voice to lend to the college community you want to lead. Embrace the turning tides. Be an active part of the changes in college administration and you will in turn be part of the progress.
Just about everyone agrees that the Common Application, whose founding mission in 1975 was to simplify and streamline college admissions and level the playing field, has made US college admissions more centralized, but not simpler. The massive tech failure of the new version of the online Common App in 2013 pushed various groups to explore other options.
When the Coalition for College Success presented its new plan to transform the college admissions gateway at NACAC, there were naysayers in many camps. The Common App’s virtual monopoly, however flawed, patched over a quagmire of inconsistencies that admissions stakeholders are reluctant to give up or to thoroughly think through: one size fits all vs. holistic admissions criteria; admissions favoring the few who can afford to pay for college vs. a level playing field; where students get in vs. what they can afford among them.
These vital discussions around our admissions gateway are part of a much larger rethinking of the role of and pathways through higher education in the 21st century. In that larger context, there are three big ideas in the Coalition’s model that offer fundamental improvements for low-income students:
The portfolio model
This shift in admissions criteria from one standard (transcripts, test scores, diploma) to a “portfolio” model that includes all aspects of coursework, career exploration and community engagement is the most significant change. The Coalition shifted, almost immediately, from calling this a “portfolio” to a “locker,” but the shift is nonetheless substantial and helpful for all students, and especially low-income students from under-resourced schools:
Using the International Baccalaureate model, students reflect on their work each year.
They develop summative work around their core learning as is common in many European high schools.
Students will be able to document real learning outside of school, including summer programs, online courses, work, internships and community service.
They will be able to build a collection of materials–coursework, self-assessments, videos, their own blogs and articles–that more broadly reflect what they have learned and where they are going.
Many schools encourage student reflection and self-assessment throughout high school, as a valid and positive aspect of students’ overall academic record. And as there are more and more opportunities for learning separate from traditional schools, this new model provides a framework to capture pre-college learning in all its forms.
Financial transparency and college completion
To be in the Coalition, private colleges must meet a student’s “demonstrated financial need” and commit to 70% graduation rate for all students in six years or less; public universities must commit to low in-state tuition and offer need-based financial aid.
In a critical article in the Washington Post, Jon Boeckenstedt, associate vice president of enrollment management and marketing at DePaul University, argued that some private college members of the Coalition are among the worst in admitting low-income students, and several of the public university members have very poor graduation rates: “It is one of the dirty secrets of higher education that the most selective and prestigious private universities carry far less share of the load when it comes to enrolling low-income students, especially in light of the enormous wealth they collectively hold.”
But if students are admitted to college without the financial aid or courses and support services to graduate, it doesn’t help them much in the long run. So, yes, the Coalition’s bar is high–aspirational even for many Coalition members–but the basic promise that college must be both affordable and completable for all students is the most significant of the Coalition’s foundational assumptions and one we should all embrace, hard as it may be to implement.
Admissions officers serving as college advisors
The Coalition’s third big idea–that college and university admission officers will step into the breach left by too few college counselors in most public high schools–is another bold step in a good direction. Most people in admissions love high school students; many of them were first-generation students themselves. The more time they spend in local high schools–as teachers, counselors and mentors–the better, so long as they remember that the point of education is not just getting into college, but learning how to learn, innovate and solve problems.
I would argue that the Coalition’s shifts are a solid start in the right direction, but it will take much bolder collective action to change the game of college–to make it both affordable and completable. This is especially true for low-income students. Until there is one fair and shared system for all–one that serves students and families rather than colleges and consultants–let’s extend the Coalition’s bold promises and figure out ways to get more colleges on board.
Dr. Carol Barash, founder and CEO of Story2 and author of Write Out Loud, has been building digital communications tools for over 20 years, and through Story2 teaches the art and science of storytelling to expand college access and career readiness. Have questions about storytelling, college admissions, and life choices? Ask her anything on Twitter @carolbarash.
America has a love-hate relationship with its eight Ivy League universities. For the majority, these elite schools are seen as unattainable places, reserved for those with superhuman high school transcripts and the deep pockets to afford to attend. Graduating from one is generally viewed as writing the ticket to a comfortable life, though, and you’d be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn’t be impressed with your framed Princeton or Columbia degree.
Ivy Leagues are the butt of jokes where snobs are the punchline and often considered out of the league, in both price and performance, for the average American high schooler. Ivy Leagues are viewed as places for already-rich, white Americans to pat each other on the back on their way to acquiring even more wealth. As with most things that are generalized and over-simplified, Ivy Leagues have more complexity in student, faculty and alumni diversity than is often portrayed.
Look at our own President – a minority Harvard graduate who married another minority Harvard grad, made a name for his down-to-earth approach to politics, and went on to become the leader of the free world. Is President Obama an extreme exception, or are we missing the story of true diversity at these stereotypically elite schools?
The truth is somewhere between the extremes. With the right direction, however, Ivy Leagues could really make some headway in improving diversity on their campuses in the next half-decade and could set the example for the rest of America’s university landscape.
Smart recruitment
Ivy League schools aren’t just waiting for minority, first-generation and other disadvantaged future applicants to come to them – they are reaching out, and early. Every Ivy League school is a member of the Coalition for Access, Affordability and Successwhich offers a portfolio-type program for college admittance. This portfolio is intended to start in 9th grade and is often accompanied by guidance from university officials on high school academics and additional items that will boost their final file for consideration.
These portfolios are about more than test scores and report card grades. A “locker” portion allows room for creative work, like visual art and essays. By allowing this application system, Ivy Leagues are setting the stage for students early in their careers, giving them a better chance at earning admittance when the time comes.
It will be a few years before this portfolio system is proven to work, at Ivy Leagues and the other 70+ schools that implemented its use in 2015. The fact that these schools have pinpointed the need to approach and guide students so early in their high school careers is important though. It shows that the schools in the coalition are serious about being proactive in diverse recruitment and are willing to put in the work to make get more disadvantaged students on their campuses.
The reality stands
For all their apparent strides to be more diverse, Ivy Leagues can’t deny the facts of where they stand today. First, there is the issue of money that simply can’t be ignored. Admitting students without concern for whether they can afford the school or not is a luxury of Ivy Leagues, whose alumni giving dwarfs that of typical universities. They can afford to pay the tuition of students who could otherwise not find the money to attend, giving them an advantage when it comes to diverse recruitment.
Even with all that additional money, though, Ivy Leagues are still mainly made up of affluent students. Nationally, 38 percent of undergraduate students earn Pell grants, earmarked for students from low-income families. Only 12 percent at Yale and 13 percent at the University of Virginia received Pell grants in the 2013-2014 academic year.
It’s not all bad news though. Brown University has some promising stats when it comes to its ability to recruit and graduate more diverse students. In its class of 2019, 59 percent of Brown’s accepted students went to public schools. All 50 states are represented, along with 85 nations. Sixty-one percent will need some form of financial aid to afford Brown attendance, and 45 percent identified as African American, Latino, Asian American or Native American (which still means it is a Predominantly White Institution, but not by much).
Cornell’s class of 2019 includes 700 first-generation students, 45 percent female and 48 percent who identify themselves as students of color.
So what will the class of 2025, 2030 and beyond look like at Ivy Leagues? Will new recruitment methods finally bridge the gap between the ideal of diversity and the reality on campuses?
What do you predict will be the future of diversity at Ivy Leagues?
According to a new study publishedby the University of Pennsylvania, black students make up nearly 40 percent of students suspended in Florida.
“The study details how black students in 13 Southern states receive school punishments disproportionate to their enrollments. In Florida, for example, black youngsters make up 23 percent of the public school population but 39 percent of those suspended.”
That number, unfortunately, matches with the trend of how many black men and women are sent to prison. Making up just 13 percent of the population, people of color make-up about 60 percent of the nation’s prison population. The school-to-prison pipeline is real, even if it is uncomfortable to admit. There IS a correlation between the way behavior issues are treated in our P-12 schools and the people in our prisons.
The Sentencing Project projects that 1 in 3 black men will likely see the inside of a prison cell at some point in their lives.
If that trend continues, suspending more black students will nudge them towards a path of incarceration.
But the studynotes that black students are suspended and expelled more due to “unfair discipline practices” and appearing as “disrespectful or threatening.”
While the numbers for the state are bad, it gets worse in Orange County. Making up just 27 percent of the county’s public school population, black students represents 51 percent of the students suspended.
It’s much easier to learn while at school than away from it, and if schools are placing an unfair and undue burden of punishment on black students, our future workforce will suffer because of it.
**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**
By Lisa Mims
Karen Fitzgibbons, a teacher at Bennett Elementary in Wolforth, Texas, wrote that she was, in all-caps, “ANGRY” over the officer’s resignation, blaming “the blacks” for causing “racial tension,” according to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. “I guess that’s what happens when you flunk out of school and have no education,” she continued. “I’m sure their parents are just as guilty for not knowing what their kids were doing; or knew it and didn’t care. “I’m almost to the point of wanting them all segregated on one side of town so they can hurt each other and leave the innocent people alone. Maybe the 50s and 60s were really on to something. Now, let the bashing of my true and honest opinion begin….GO! #imnotracist #imsickofthemcausingtrouble #itwasatagedcommunity” As an educator, when I read Ms.Fitzgibbon’s quotes, all I could think, well after my initial thought of, “What an idiot!”, was about the children of color who had the misfortune to be in her class.
Didn’t anyone know how she was? How could she have hidden it so well? Maybe she didn’t. Maybe she didn’t have to. The teacher’s Wall of Silence is just as pervasive as the police. You usually have to do, or say, something horrible, for another teacher to expose you. (If you see something, say something!)
After I did some research, I realized she probably posted it because she thought she could. After all, Wolfforth, Texas is a red state, less than 2% of the school is African-American, and the population of the town is 2.5% black. Worrying about how others would respond probably wasn’t a priority.
If Ms.Fitzgibbons had chosen to speak to her friends privately about her #imnoracist viewpoint, she would have been fine. She would have continued to go to work, views packed away on a “need to know” basis. But, I guess she was so ANGRY, she was going to let the world know how she felt,(By the way, if you #imnoracist, you probably are), damn the consequences.
I don’t believe she really thought there would be consequences.She could say what she felt about “the blacks”, and everyone would cheer her on. Kudos to those who called her out, and kudos to her district for firing her!
Ms.Fitzgibbons, maybe you should have read your district policy before you posted your vitriol.
Here’s the thing, Ms.Fitzgibbons is not alone. In a world where the majority of public school students are children of color, and their teachers are white, there are one or more in many schools around the country. The only difference is, most have enough sense not to post it on Facebook. They save it for the Teacher’s Lounge, or vent in the privacy of their homes.
These “Karen FitzGibbons”, destroy children of color, one day at a time. Put-downs, insults, and sarcasm are their weapons of choice.They label them Special Education at the drop of a hat, dole out multiple suspensions, advise parents, (although they have no medical degrees), to medicate their children, keep them out of gifted programs and AP classes, and/or tell them they cannot go to college.
It’s not difficult to get away with these attacks, because, for many reasons, parents of children of color, do not, or have no idea how to, advocate for their children.
So, it continues.
Reread Ms.Fitzgibbons’ views, they are so full of hate. What type of influence did she have on her students’ views toward people of another race? What chance would a student of color stand in her classroom? Do you think a teacher like Karen Fitzgibbons is a fluke?
Diary of a Public School Teacher is a blog where Lisa Mims shares her thoughts about any aspect of the teaching profession. She is a DEN (Discovery Education Network) STAR Educator! She loves writing and has contributed posts to Free Technology for Teachers, Edudemic, TeachHub, GoAnimate, Edutopia, etc.
A trend is emerging when it comes to P-20 education: optional preschool is becoming a thing of the past. As a nation, we’re finally beginning to accept that preschool is beneficial—even necessary—for the success of most American children. It’s why Obama has invested billions in early childhood education, and Presidential hopefuls such as Hillary Clinton are emphatic about preschool’s importance.
As someone who has extensively written about preschool-related initiatives on this site, I’ve seen enough to uncover some unexpected benefits that come from early childhood education, and I want to share a few of them with you:
1. More preschool means a child is more prepared for Kindergarten.
A study has found that children who attend all-day preschool are much better prepared for Kindergarten than children who go to half-day programs.
Researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs studied 1,000 3-and 4-year-olds enrolled in 11 Chicago schools. Students who attended preschool seven hours a day were compared to those who attended three hour programs, then tested at the commencement of preschool to see if they were socially and academically prepared to begin kindergarten.
The study found 59 percent of the students enrolled in the half-day program to be ready compared to 81 percent of the all-day preschool attendees.
2. Even better, preschool means a child is more prepared for life.
Research shows that students who start the formal education experience, even one year earlier than Kindergarten, fare better long term in their academic careers.
3. Preschool may be one key to correcting the achievement gap.
Remember the study mentioned in point #1? Well, in that same study, researchers discovered that 78 percent of white students were prepared to enter kindergarten compared to 74 percent of black children and 62 percent of Native American and Hispanic students.
Last year, Minnesota contributed $40 million in funding for pre-K scholarships for low- income families. Thanks to those dollars, 5,800 students were able to attend preschool. About 15,000 more students still need access to pre-K scholarships, but Minnesota made an important stride.
4. Preschool can help the most at-risk ethnic group, Native Americans, achieve better success.
In education circles, we talk a lot about the way black and Latino students struggle in K-12 classrooms through a combination of cultural circumstances and inequality.
But the reality is that American Indian K-12 students are the most at-risk of any minority group for either dropping out of high school or never making it to college. The American Indian Fund reports that American Indians who earn a bachelor’s degree represent less than 1 percent of all of these degree earners. It is not shocking then to realize that 28 percent of American Indians lived in poverty compared to 15 percent of the general population, according to 2010 U.S. Census figures. A college education opens doors for a higher quality of life.
However, the path to college starts long before the application process.
Fortunately, the American Indian College Fund’s Early Childhood Education program recognizes this. They sponsored a meeting which brought together 45 representatives from four American Indian tribal colleges who discussed strategies for better early childhood education and family involvement in the community.
The representatives looked at how the American Indian community can better prepare children for long-term academic success, targeting learning opportunities from birth to 8 years of age.
5. Crime rates could drop in cities like Detroit—if more children went to preschool.
Jose Diaz of the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation conducted the study “Cost Savings of School Readiness Per Additional At-Risk Child in Detroit and Michigan” where the findings appear. The research was commissioned by the Max M. and Marjorie S. Fisher Foundation and it suggests that investing in early childhood education could cut Detroit’s crime rate and save taxpayers in the state millions of dollars, according to a story on the study by The Detroit News. The story says that Detroit taxpayers would save around $96,000 for each child who was enrolled in a quality early education program and Michigan taxpayers would save $47,000 for each child.
The figure was derived from adding cost savings to special education, public assistance, childcare subsidies, the victims of crime and the criminal justice system. The majority of the savings would come from the criminal justice system.
Currently, only 4 percent of prisoners in Michigan under the age of 20 years old graduated from high school.
As it is right now, thirty eight states offer free, voluntary preschool learning programs and nearly 1.6 million low-income families receive assistance from the federal Child Care Development Fund to pursue early childhood education. And imagine this: that fund is just one portion of President Obama’s $75 billion plan to expand early childhood learning in order to give American student a stronger foundation going into Kindergarten.
Granted, not everyone agrees with the idea of concentrating so much energy on early childhood education. Some critics think that universal preschool, for example, is just a way to add more education jobs (especially since some proponents want to insist that states accepting federal preschool dollars pay preschool teachers at the same rate as elementary ones).
But overall, I expect that in the next decade, our terminology will change from K-12 to PK-12 when we talk about student benchmarks. More states will lobby for pre-K funding and more families, from low- to high-income, will seek out early learning options to set their kids up for academic success.
So what do you think? Will preschool ever be considered as necessary as kindergarten through twelfth grade? What are some benefits (or even drawbacks) of increasing the number of early childhood education programs?
As usual, I am interested to hear from you, so please leave a comment.
The BYOD Listening Project asks: In the rush to control students’ devices, have we overlooked the ‘moment of teaching’?
By Sharon Price Campbel
If you’re a teacher in the U.S., you have likely bumped into BYOD (bring your own device). Especially in recent years, school districts are rushing to “leave no device behind” and education technology companies are coming up with myriad new products and services to deliver the promise of BYOD Nirvana. At conferences and in district offices, educators are spearheading many iterations of teaching and learning opportunities.
What can we learn from the previous megatrends in education technology? The first small wave of technology occurred when computers were installed in public school offices. They were not to be touched by the likes of teachers, but by trained office professionals only. It took another decade for computers to become available to educators in the teacher’s lounge. By the turn of the millennium, computer-literate teachers began to ask for, beg for, and write grants for computers in the classroom.
A flood of federal money available for technology purchases created the second wave, the Educational Technology Tsunami. To cash in on the gold rush, business suppliers slapped “education friendly” labels on business equipment. Manufacturers racing to get their share of the federal bucks cut corners on research, design, and quality control to get products into the marketplace. Classrooms became a nightmare of unsupported, unreliable hardware and buggy software. Classroom teachers who had been enthusiastic became concerned about job security. They feared reporting faulty equipment and feared that they had inadequate computer skills. When the federal funding ended, school districts found themselves unable to financially support their technological machines and dreams.
Riding the same surge was the “No Child Left Behind” legislation. Its unattainable expectations, on top of education’s first attempt to merge onto the digital freeway, nearly crashed education. Systems had been too quickly adopted and inadequately designed, and were incapable of the tasks they were purchased to perform. School districts became the graveyards of metal hulks and husks of educational technology—and federally-driven, data-based, student failure.
Since then, we have learned and improved. Manufactures and legislators are beginning to include educators in the conversation about expectations and realistic outcomes for tomorrow’s teaching tools. Teachers are getting very good at forming their own independent learning communities, and ideas are spreading faster than ever before. It was during this hyper-connected, surging wave of mobile device integration into all aspects of life that we ushered in BYOD.
It will take work. Early concerns about device security/privacy, unrestricted web access, and the potential for distractions in the classroom have driven the marketplace toward an obsession with control. There are now dozens of device management products that offer instructors and districts varying levels of control over student devices; however, these products don’t serve the fundamental purpose of BYOD in education, which is to improve instruction, empower students for self-directed learning, and leverage this generation of students’ technological prowess to turn the current model of instruction on its head.
In the rush to control students’ devices, we have overlooked the “moment of teaching.” Very few teachers are able to accomplish ordinary tasks, such as grabbing a picture from a document camera and getting it to each student device, without having to halt instruction and fiddle with far too many steps to integrate into teaching. So why is instructional software so clunky when we need it the most? The answer is that most companies making this software rarely set foot in an actual classroom. They are so focused on features and functions that they overlook how the product is used in the classroom during instruction. If one of the purposes of device management is to minimize distractions, shouldn’t the product just work and require no active management on the part of the teacher? Yet most device management products require that the teacher be behind his or her computer to share learning resources or to monitor and control student devices.
We can’t rely on product developers to just deliver brilliance. Rarely through history have major innovations been the result of one person or team, instead they have been the result of teams building on the work of or listening to others. The BYOD marketplace should be listening to the visceral and rational experiences of teachers, administrators, and students to make better products.
EXO U is sponsoring the BYOD Listening Project to strike up a dialogue between teachers, students, parents, administrators, and the marketplace, with the goal of pinning down and solving the increasing challenges that teachers and students face when attempting to integrate devices into a daily classroom teaching. I am serving as a moderator for the project, and we’re asking for your perspective on mobile devices in the classroom. What works? What doesn’t? Where are the significant pain points or problems at the interface of mobile devices and learning?
The BYOD Listening Project is asking for your engagement and in return, we will analyze, collate, and report themes and major takeaways. Our aim is to provide highly useful data and models for BYOD implementation that improve that moment of teaching.
Sharon Price Campbel has taught in Napa County Juvenile Offender programs, an alternative high school, and Youth Employment programs. For the last 28 years she has been a middle school teacher. In 2009, she was named a California School Master, the oldest, most prestigious California education award.
“You’re in engineering!?! Wow, you must be super-smart…”
It has been over 10 years since I was a first-year engineering undergraduate student; but when I remember the time a fellow female student made this comment, I can still feel a visceral, bodily reaction: my muscles tense, my heart rate increases, my breath quickens.
Comments like these on the surface appear as compliments. But when unpacked, they reveal subversive attitudes about women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).
As I think back to this encounter, there are two aspects that stay with me. First was the surprised, skeptical tone of the other student’s voice that conveyed it was surprising and unusual (or, to put it more crudely, freakish) that I was in engineering. Second was the attitude that since I was in engineering, this could be explained only if there was something exceptional or outstanding (or, once again, freakish) about me. Women remain an underrepresented group in STEM. In Canada, women account for 23% of engineering graduates and 30% of mathematics and computer graduates. In the United States, women are 12% of the engineering and 26% of the computingworkforce.
The reality is that STEM professions are most commonly male and it remains surprising when these professional roles are held by women. The large gender imbalance means that women may naturally feel they’re outsiders at school and at work. This situation is often uncomfortable and mentally demanding, when even just showing up and doing your job comes with constant social stresses and anxiety. Ironically, the difficulties that they (we) encounter often dissuade the next generation of women from joining us. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that we need to break.
Fight or flight, designed for quick response
Because of their underrepresentation, women in STEM often regularly question their place in these professions. When things feel uncomfortable – like when I was confronted with that comment a decade ago – our brains can overinterpret the situation as an imminent threat. And there’s an evolutionary reason for that physical response.
This stress response evolved in human beings to help us navigate a wild, dangerous and unpredictable world. When faced with imminent danger, like a pouncing tiger, our bodies have evolved an automatic reaction to help us react fast. Stress hormones are released, the heart beats harder and faster, breathing becomes rapid and muscles tense, ready for action.
This automatic response prepares our bodies for possible actions: fight or flight! From the perspective of evolutionary adaptation, it’s in our best interests NOT to distinguish between life-threatening and non-life-threatening dangers. Act first, think later. In the African wilds in which early humans roamed, the consequence of underreacting could mean death.
Good during lion attack, less good during daily life
In modern life, we don’t have to worry much about attacks from lions, tigers or bears. But adaptive mechanisms are still very much a part of our brain’s biology.
The flight-or-flight response is intended to be short-term. The problem comes in when stress becomes a daily part of life, triggering a physiological response that’s actually detrimental to health over the long term. Repeated and long-term releases of the stress hormone cortisol cause changes in brain structure that leave individuals more susceptible to anxiety and mood disorders, including depression. When exposed to long-term stress, the brain structure called the hippocampus shrinks, affecting one’s short-term memory and ability to learn.
These physical stress responses can unfortunately run at a constant low level of activation in people who are made to feel like they don’t belong or aren’t good enough – such as women in STEM. Social situations like my undergraduate encounter – and their ramifications – are a part of day-to-day life.
Sadly, the percentages of women working in these fields have remained stagnant for decades. In 1987, women represented 20% of the STEM workforce in Canada. In 2015, their numbers remain unchanged at 22%. In the United States, the reality is very similar, with women representing24% of the workforce. Confrontational reactions like “You’re in engineering!?!” communicate the message that as a woman, one may not belong in the social group of engineering. The brain perceives these kinds of social interactions as threatening, dangerous and stressful.
The social cues that women may not belong in male-dominated STEM fields can often be subtle. For example, researchers have shown that the presence in labs of objects considered stereotypical of computer science, such as Star Trek and video game posters, are perceived as stereotypically masculine and can dissuade women from expressing interest in topics like computer programming.
Moreover, seemingly complimentary “Wow, you must be super-smart!” comments also communicate an even more troubling possibility that, in order to belong in this group (of men), as a woman, one must be exceptional. Women + Engineering = Super Smart.
But what if a female student is not exceptionally intelligent? What if she is only ordinarily smart? Or, even more troubling, what if she does not believe that she is smart at all? In her mind, she becomes a sheep in wolf’s clothing, an impostor who has tricked those around her into accepting her into a group where she does not belong. From the brain’s perspective, this is literally interpreted as being in the lion’s den.
Women can flourish in STEM, but it can mean shutting out the noise. USAID Asia, CC BY-NC
STEM should welcome everyone
So what can be done? If we are to increase the participation of women in STEM fields, we must make workplace and educational environments inclusive. In order to thrive, female students need to believe that they belong in technical professions, in both academia and the private sector.
The social marginalization caused by gender imbalances in STEM programs can be mitigated. Targeted intervention programs that foster social belonging and coping mechanisms to deal with stress and threat can help women develop skills to handle the mental challenges caused by gender inequality and help women integrate into their male-dominated environment.
Connecting female students with female professional role modelssuch as mentors or instructors has also been extremely effective at improving women’s self-concept and commitment to STEM.
Finally, campaigns like the #Ilooklikeanengineer hashtag disrupt our common stereotyping of STEM professionals and help support a cultural shift.
The rates of female representation in STEM will not change overnight. It will probably be at least another generation before parity becomes an achievable target. But it’s through changing these attitudes and stereotypes that we will reduce some of the social stresses on women in these fields, helping women choose STEM as a career path, stay in these fields, and most importantly, remain healthy and happy.
