Edpolicy

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Superstar Teachers – The Super Cure for Closing the Achievement Gap?

As I wrote on Wednesday, I’ve spent some time lately combing through the pages of Diane Ravitch’s book The Death and Life of the Great American School. As a public school reformer myself, I appreciate her informed, unique look at the state of the P-12 system in the U.S. Considered a liberal early in her career, she was initially a supporter of reform issues considered “conservative” today like the No Child Left Behind Act and the establishment of public charter schools. She has since returned to her roots, at least enough to call herself an Independent, and attacked some of the most popular theories for reform.

I talked about the way that schools of all types (traditional public, private and charters) game the system when it comes to accountability standards in my last post – a myth that on the surface may look like learning is truly being achieved based on predetermined standards and practices like teaching to the test. Today I want to look at another myth of the contemporary P-12 system that Ravitch also dispels in her book: the myth of the Superstar Teacher.

You are probably familiar with the concept, particularly since it is perpetuated in popular culture through movies like the classic Edward James Olmos film “Stand and Deliver” and 2012’s “Won’t Back Down.” The idea is that with the right teacher – a committed, bright, in-tune, talented teacher – P-12 problems like the achievement gap and high dropout rates will cease to exist. If only every student had a standout teacher like the ones portrayed in these shows, the very P-12 system as we know it would be transformed for the better.

I do believe in the power of teachers, both positive and negative, on their students. I train educators for a living and have written books about following “the calling” to become a teacher. I do think that teachers make a difference – but like Ravitch, I cannot put all of my faith in these “superstar teachers” to reform the education system the way that is truly needed.

For one thing, the schools that desperately need some sort of superstar saviors are often unable to attract them. In a study on urban schools and poverty released by the National Center for Education Statistics, urban administrators said that they had difficulty attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. This observation, coupled with the fact that schools with higher percentages of students living in poverty had less resources available for teaching, is a recipe for disaster when it comes to counting on these “superstars” to close the achievement gap, lift standardized test scores and increase graduation rates. These urban schools are the very places that need all of those factors to happen to improve student achievement and the long-term overall quality of life in those communities. So if the answer falls solely on strong teachers, these places are in a lot of trouble.

I also think it is unfair to count on, or to blame, teachers solely for the performance of their students. Yes, they play a role in shaping the young minds in their classrooms and yes, they should be held accountable for that. It seems to me that the root of issues in classrooms that tend to cause the most problems for students (like poverty and ill-equipped or uninvolved parents) should be the target of any true reform. Teachers come and go, moving from school to school or on to different careers. Strong programs that address equality in education and focus on social issues at the root of learning challenges are what will truly make an impact on what students learn and retain, and whether those students succeed.

What are your thoughts on the roles of teachers? Are there enough “superstars” to transform the system?

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

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

3 Issues that are hurting the American Educational System

Here are some facts you may find alarming: according to data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the performance of American students as compared to their international equivalents is mediocre at best. PISA is an international study that evaluates education systems worldwide every three years. This involves testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in more than 70 participating countries/economies.

Scores from the 2009 PISA assessment reveal the U.S. performs about average in reading and science and below average in math. Some of the top performers on the PISA evaluation were Hong Kong, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Finland, Shanghai in China, Singapore and Canada. Out of 34 participating countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. These statistics are staggering.

From overcrowded schools to lack of parental involvement, there are many obvious problems within the education system that immediately come to mind when thinking of how to improve education in America. But some issues fly under the radar. Here are just three of those factors that, when addressed, could make the US more competitive on a global scale:

  1. The amount of time students spend in school

Let’s look at where American schools rank right now when it comes to days in school versus time off. Thirty states require schools to have a 180-day calendar, two ask for more than 181 school days and the rest ask for between 171 and 179 days on the official school calendar each year. Minnesota is the only state in the nation that has no minimum requirement for number of days students are in the classroom (though the state averages 175 school days). This means that in states with the lowest day requirements, students are out of school for more days than they are in it (as many as 194 days per year), a number that contrasts greatly with other developed nations.
Korea has the highest required number of school days, at 225, followed by Japan at 223 and China at 221. Canadian requirements are close to the U.S., at 188 days, and England is at 190 days. When all developed nations are considered, the international average for days in school is 193 – a full two weeks+ higher than most of the U.S.

But are all these days considered equal?

How long are the school days in places like Korea, China and England? It varies, but it is not uncommon for Korean high school students to spend 16 hours each school day in classrooms. That is more than twice the amount of time that American students spend at school, and perhaps a bit too extreme. Yet Korean students consistently rank at the top of developed nations when it comes to subjects like math and science, vastly outpacing U.S. students. By contrast, in England school-aged children spend 6.5 to 7 hours at school – the equivalent of American students (but, remember, they spend more days in the classroom).

President Obama is in favor of more time in the classroom.

In 2009, he stated that the amount of time students currently spend in school places us at a competitive disadvantage. “Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.”

Predictably those comments have received some pushback in the years since, both from parents who believe their children are already under too much pressure at school and need every single day off they are allotted, and from teachers unions who want to know how educators will be properly accommodated for the extra time spent in classroom instruction. The idea of adding more time to student school calendars is an unpopular one – but I’m not sure that is reason enough to rule it out.

  1. The lack of respect we have for the teaching profession.

According to the Pew Research Center, Americans have a declining interest in education. Not surprisingly, the economy, job creation and terrorism are the public’s top three priorities, and there’s no question each would have grave consequences if not addressed. These topics should certainly be focal points of interest. However, some of these priorities are related to or even dependent on the quality of education in this country.

As reported by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, a recent study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suggests that if the U.S. could boost its average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years, it could lead to a gain of $41 trillion for the U.S. economy over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. Therein lies the solution to every major problem facing the American people — including the economy, job creation and terrorism awareness.

Based on research provided by Dr. Steven Paine, a nationally renowned American educator, the OECD has offered a number of simple and practical lessons to the United States. According to Paine, money is not the answer to boosting our country’s international educational status, nor will it bring about a greater classroom experience. In studying the world’s highest achievers — Finland, Singapore and Ontario, Canada — Paine suggests our lack of respect for teachers is the nation’s number one enemy of education.

Paine stated in his report to the OECD, “In Finland, it is a tremendous honor to be a teacher, and teachers are afforded a status comparable to what doctors, lawyers and other highly regarded professionals enjoy in the U.S.” The report also suggested the teaching profession in Singapore “is competitive and highly selective, [a country] that works hard to build its own sense of professional conduct and meet high standards for skills development.” The study of Ontario revealed similar findings.

Paine continued, “OECD countries that have been most successful in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so by offering teachers real career prospects and more responsibility as professionals — encouraging them to become leaders of educational reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just deliverers of the curriculum.”

  1. A lack of regard for arts education

According to First Lady Michelle Obama, an estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure. In schools such as the New York City public schools, a significant percentage of schools have no arts teachers.

The arts may not be considered as important as math and science, but it is still very important for student engagement and learning. A school in the lowest income district in all of New York participated in a four-year arts integration program that took students from basically no arts learning to multi-faceted lesson plans with arts inclusion. The results? An 8 percent improvement in Language Arts scores, 9 percent improvement in math scores and less absenteeism.

Can you think of any other little-known factors that might have an impact on the U.S. educational system?

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Teaching Strategies, Tactics, and Methods

Many low-income students use only their phone to get online. What are they missing?

Crystle Martin, University of California, Irvine

For many of us, access to the Internet through a variety of means is a given. I can access the Internet through two laptops, a tablet, a smartphone and even both of my game systems, from the comfort of my living room.

However, this access is unequally distributed. Although nine out of 10 low-income families have Internet access at home, most are underconnected: that is, they have “mobile-only” access – they are able to connect to the Internet only through a smart device, such as a tablet or a smartphone.

A recent report, “Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in low income families,” shows that one-quarter of those earning below the median income and one-third of those living below poverty level accessed the Internet only through their mobile devices.

This leads to limited access: A third of families with mobile-only access quickly hit the data limits on their mobile phone plans and about a quarter have their phone service cut off for lack of payment.

So, what impact does this type of access have on youth learning?

What changes with a computer connection

My research has explored underserved youth’s use of technology to discover and participate in content related to their interests. Having access only through their mobile devices means that low-income families and youth do not have the same access to the Internet as those with other Internet connections.

One-fifth of families who access the Internet only through their mobile devices say too many family members have to share one device. This means that the amount of time each individual has to access the Internet is limited.

This can be a barrier to learning for young people. It can limit their access to resources to complete their homework, as well as create barriers for other learning. Thirty-five percent of youth who have mobile-only access look online for information about things they are interested in. But this goes up to 52 percent when young people have access to an Internet-connected computer.

When young people have access to an Internet-supported computer, it facilitates their learning.
leah, CC BY-NC-ND

When young people have their own access to the Internet, they have an opportunity to engage in connected learning – learning that is based on interest, is supported by peers and has the potential to offer better opportunities for the future.

A 2014 paper on the use of digital media as a learning tool highlights how learning around interests can be supported through online resources.

The paper tells the story of Amy, a participant in an online knitting community, Hogwarts at Ravelry, which combines both interest in knitting and the Harry Potter series. Amy finds inspiration in the vast knitting pattern library of the group and receiving support from others in the community. She begins to develop, design and write patterns of her own. And, as a teenager, she begins selling her patterns online.

Amy’s access to a stable Internet connection and her own dedication allowed her to dive deep into the activities of the community. Over time, it allowed her to become more active and engaged in knitting.

Another example of what youth can accomplish online comes from my 2014 research on a professional wrestling fan community, a set of forums where professional wrestling fans get together virtually to discuss the many facets of professional wrestling.

Maria, a professional wrestling fan, seeks out an online community because she lacks local support for her interest. Through her participation, she realizes her deep enjoyment of writing. She carries this back into her English class and the school newspaper. This eventually leads her to take creative writing as a second degree in college.

Maria spent hours on her computer carefully crafting her narratives while participating on the forum. With a mobile-only access, she would not have had the amount of time online, or the amount of bandwidth, required for this work. This is supported by the fact that only 31 percent of children with mobile-only access go online daily as compared to 51 percent of those with other Internet access.

How low-income youth get left behind

Mobile-only access to the Internet can create serious barriers for youth who want to access content and educational supports.

As part of my research, I have been conducting workshops in libraries located in low-income communities, using an online coding program that is not yet available on mobile devices. In one of the workshops, students needed to work on projects outside of the sessions.

Because of the limited technology access at home, the librarian held additional open hours so the youth participating in the workshop could work on their projects outside of the workshop hours. A few youth had access to their own computers, but the majority had only mobile access.

Young people who have computer access create may better projects.
Jeff Werner, CC BY-NC-SA

The youth with computer access at home created more complex projects. This was partly because they had more time to develop, modify and problem-solve their projects. But it was also because the coding program was available to only those with computer access. These youth also seemed to develop a deeper interest in coding potentially due to this greater level of exposure.

Need for better understanding

What becomes evident from the data from “Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in low income families” and from the examples from research is that having access to the Internet only through a phone can have an impact on young people’s access to learning opportunities.

Designers, educators and researchers need to be aware and continually create more equity through mindful decision-making.

Amanda Ochsner, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern California who studies how underrepresented groups of young people engage with games and digital media, argues that when designers and developers take the time to understand young people’s digital lives, they are ultimately able to make better tools. As she said to me:

In offices where the most recent models of laptops, tablets, and iPhones are abundant, it’s far too easy for those of us who develop educational tools and technologies to misjudge the technological realities of the young people the education tools and technologies are designing for.

Just how young people access online, in other words, matters – a lot.

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

The Conversation

Crystle Martin, Postdoctoral Researcher , University of California, Irvine

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

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

4 Factors to Consider about Teaching Jobs and School Reform

School reform is never easy. When sweeping changes are decided upon and implemented, everyone must fully participate in order for students to benefit from the changes and certainly not to suffer during the transition. Part of providing that stability for students is through a strong front of teachers that remain at the school during the sometimes turbulent reform process.

Here are a few things to think about when evaluating school reform:

  1. Reform just isn’t possible without a united front of educators and administrators. A shared vision is challenging to create and maintain without stable leadership, and a supportive culture from the staff.  It is a simple fact of life that high staff turnover can create instability and have a negative impact on efforts to establish a consistent learning environment for students. High staff turnover is also quite costly, particularly when the recruitment of teachers, and then the training of new teachers in the intricacies of the reform effort are considered.
  2. More effort and support needs to be given to the recruitment process for teachers at the outset as schools and districts initiate reform efforts. Hiring teachers who “fit” reform goals will likely reduce teacher attrition.  Still, more support needs to be available for new teachers. Even teachers who ostensibly have the skills and attitudes that align with reform goals will need mentoring and other supports as they begin their jobs. Every attempt must be made to reduce the debilitating rate of turnover.
  3. Most efforts now are centered on how to make the most of current funding and utilizing money effectively in order to maximize the positive impact of reforms, rather than how to access untapped resources. Despite the dearth of new money, it is possible to free up cash through alternative means of spending. An extreme proposal to accomplish this is to reduce staffing to the absolute minimum. For example, a school with 500 students would have 20 teachers and 1 principal. Approximately $1 million could become available, depending on how many education specialists (regular and categorical) and instructional aides worked within the school. This is radical option, and there are other, less extreme ways to change the way money is spent, to include increasing class sizes, spending less on upgrading technology, and eliminating some programs.
  4. Sometimes, spending money on non-essential areas does support school reform efforts. Prioritizing what money is spent on does not automatically mean cutting all non-academic projects. What gets cut will depend on the goals of individual schools. This should be a workable situation, as long as the school is still accountable to the state and the district for shifts in expenditures. An understanding that cutting teaching jobs can actually be detrimental to reform is important though, instead of just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper.

What do you think? Is an austerity approach (trying to have as few teachers as possible) better than one that places a higher importance on the teachers than on the budget?

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

Garden-Based Learning: A Return to Simpler Food in K-12 Schools

The idea that nutrition and educational performance are directly related is nothing new. Free school breakfast and lunch programs are often credited with higher levels of student achievement in the schools where they exist. Non-profit children’s hunger programs intended to feed at-risk students on the weekends are sprouting up all across the country. There is a connection between what a child eats and how that child performs academically.

This idea extends beyond simply filling a child’s belly though. An understanding of food and its role in lifelong physical and psychological health is also important because it addresses more than the immediate. Quality of life and longevity are impacted by food lifestyle and healthy eating habits that are formed early in life. In a culture where children grow up with a skewed concept of where food originates, it is up to schools to step in and provide guidance. With very limited resources for academic basics, though, how can schools find the time, money and expertise to root students in smart food knowledge?

One way is to have actual gardens on school property, however small. The Center for Nutrition in Schools at UC Davis found that garden-based learning does more than just improve nutrition knowledge. Students who participate in garden programs on school grounds have higher overall academic achievement and experience elevated self-esteem and social skills. These findings show that getting out of manufactured classroom and  setting/digging into the dirt makes quite the positive impact on K-12 students. The benefits of gardening extend beyond the fruit in hand.

Many schools that have embraced student-led gardening programs rely on inspired parents to run them though. The award-winning gardening program at Surfside Elementary on Florida’s Space Coast is the personal project of school mom Erika Maier who admits to spending about 25 hours or more every week on holistic food initiatives. Teachers who can tear themselves away from teaching FCAT requirements for a half hour each week are able to take their kids outside to get dirty planting their own food in the ground. When the plants reach fruition, the kids help harvest and eat them.

The School Garden Project of Lane County, Oregon boasts 30 gardens at K-12 schools in five districts. Over 800 students are taught to “create, sustain and use onsite gardens” every year.” By simply showing the basics of food growing, students have an informed approach to eating without an official lesson in “healthy eating.” For many K-12 students, working in a school garden is the first time they are making a real-life connection between the items they see in the grocery store and their original location.

Organizations like the Edible Schoolyard promote the principle that food is an “academic subject” and that it is the responsibility of schools to develop sustainable farms with whatever resources they have available. Those crops should then be used in school lunches and classroom celebrations. The theory is that students who are empowered to grow their own food will then be more connected to what they eat and have the ability to make smarter choices.

These fringe movements are becoming increasingly main stream. Though not a mandated portion of K-12 curriculum, a cultural return to proactive approaches to good health – like smart eating habits – is evident. The more educational technology improves, the bigger the need for garden-based learning and other back to basics programs. Like so many other facets of happy, healthy living, K-12 students need the knowledge to make informed choices.

But do schools have the resources to be part of the movement, or will they need to rely on volunteers to make it happen?

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

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

Has education failed at “no bullying” programs?

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

A guest column by Judith A. Yates

On September 5, 2015, a 14-year-old high school girl stood before bullies and drove a kitchen knife into her own heart to fall dead at her tormentor’s feet. The little girl’s name is Sherokee Harriman. Some of her peers and family members report Sherokee was, in part, hopeless due to the school district’s lack of protection from these bullies. The bullying has not stopped as people (her peers suspect students) are now destroying the memorial placed, where Sherokee fell, in a La Vergne, Tennessee Public Park.

“Even in death,” says one student, “they disrespect her.” Her mother demands an answer: “Why do they continue to try to hurt her?” Has the education system’s “No Bullying” programs failed these kids?

According to the Suicide Prevention & Resource Center, suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people ages 12–18. Other factors are contributed to suicide, yet “Bullying is associated with increases in suicide risk in young people who are victims of bullying (and) increases depression and other problems associated with suicide.” This encompasses both the bullies and the children being bullied. (SEE CITE 1, below, for source)

Friends, classmates, and students in other schools, who knew Sherokee Harriman personally or marginally, report there are in-house programs to report bullying at all their schools. They also explain why so many students do not trust the programs. “They (the administration) don’t do anything” when bullying is reported and “if you report, then you are (called) a snitch (by other students),” creating more problems for the victim, the students who want to report, and the program. “So, it’s not worth it” one student says blatantly. Sherokee’s parents call the “Zero Tolerance for Bullying” program in their child’s school district “a joke;” her mother assisted Sherokee in completing multiple “Bully Reports” in both junior high and high school, supporting her with long talks, and trying to follow up. The last time they completed a report, it never went through the system because Sherokee was in her grave.

These are opinions of a handful of students from classrooms across the U.S. and anguished parents, but one student in fear of the school hallways and one parent let down by the education system is too many. Despite all of the “No Bully Zone” and other similar programs, the system appears to be failing students who feel unsafe in the school … and students who are bullies. Why?

One of the suspected barriers in preventing the success of “Stop Bullying” school programs is lack of funding. In 2013, the United States public school system reported an outstanding debt of $415,238,582.00 (For some information on this report see below link labeled CITE 2). The funding to create and keep school programs may look impossible with a school system that scrambles to afford basic supplies while meeting all budget demands. “We have to pay for so much classroom supplies,” says one Nashville, Tennessee high school teacher. “How are they going to find money to keep a new program running?”

Another suspected barrier is what teachers can do versus what the system demands. In 2001, “Secretary of Education Arne Duncan … reported 82 percent of U.S. schools may be failing by 2013” explains researcher / author Ron Berler. “… On paper, idealistically, No Child Left Behind was a wonderful thought, but it wasn’t put out there with any practical thought … (education needs to) reduce and adjust the amount of standardized testing” (source see CITE 3 below). It appears learning now focuses on tests; the system seems more concerned with teaching to a standard rather than combining compassion, education, and social etiquette.

How does the education system create “Stop Bullying” programs that meet faculty, students, and parents’ goals for a safe school environment while fitting the budget, with a place in the overall curriculum? The effort cannot be deemed impossible or useless to try.

It is far too late for students like Sherokee Harriman and the kids who bullied her; who, somewhere, all became lost in the mix of programs, budget demands, and education system requirements. They slipped through those cracks to fall dead in the grass, to face potential criminal charges at the age of 14, and to trash a child’s memorial.

The Society for the Prevention of Suicide offers free information for educators. It includes education, books, training, and provides a free toolkit. Learn more here:
http://www.sptsusa.org/educators/

SOURCES;

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/Suicide_Bullying_Issue_Brief.pdf

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/11/why-excessive-standardized-testing-is-causing-american-schools-to-fail

____

Judith A. Yates is currently completing a PhD in Criminal Justice. She has taught at several schools, within the field of law enforcement; has worked as trainer, attended classes across the country, and has been a mentor in several programs. Her website can be found at judithayates.com.

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

New Models and Trends in Resource Allocation

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.

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

Ask An Expert: Closing the Achievement Gap

Question: Dr. Lynch, what are your thoughts on the achievement gap? What do we need to do to close it? Lisa K.

Answer: Thanks for your question Lisa. I have researched the achievement gap for over 9 years and this is what I have learned. Our political leaders have finally begun to recognize the importance of education to the survival of individuals and societies in the 21st century. The other aspect of this conversation is all too familiar: while our children do learn, not all of them are learning as much or as well as they should to meet the demands of the new century.

In the United States, there are low levels of achievement among students from low-income backgrounds and students of color. This is in contrast to the fact that students in educationally supportive states and those from advantaged backgrounds easily rival students from across the world. To put this into context, nine year-olds from White, advantaged backgrounds read as well as thirteen-year-old Black and Hispanic students. In addition, even though funding has increased, it has done so unequally and the achievement gap has grown.

Typically, schools that serve a large number of “minority” students face big issues, which put them at a disadvantage when compared to other schools. They have to deal with lower budgets, larger classes, and often less qualified teachers and school leaders. The effect of this has been to create an “educational debt” that negatively affects the students in these communities. Major efforts are needed to address this issue. Recruiting great teachers is important, but it is not the whole answer. Systemic elements are needed to support the work of talented educators. It is not the people who are at fault: it is the system that needs an overhaul.

As Ted Sizer once put it, “The people are better than the system.” We have come a long way in understanding how to create more effective school leaders and build a national commitment to educational leadership. However, we are not there yet. We need leadership to forge all of the various elements of school reform today into well-functioning systems that make sense for those working hard to achieve results for students. If this is accomplished, we will begin to close the achievement gap.

 

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

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

Tenure: 3 Groups Fighting Against Bad Teachers

The war against underperforming teachers is in full swing, with proposed laws created to prevent them from negatively impacting their students. One of the many ways we tend to address this is by targeting teacher tenure. Teacher tenure protects teachers from the many threats to their jobs—but does it also make them complacent and keep them from doing their best? Taking this even further, do the worst teachers benefit from tenure?

Some people believe so, and they’re fighting back by tackling tenure in their proposed laws. Here are three institutions that have taken measures to protect their students by going after teacher tenure.

  1. Teach Great proposed an amendment that would get rid of teacher tenure in Missouri.

In Missouri, instead of tenure, teachers would get renewable three-year contracts. Test scores would also become the chief factor in teacher evaluations.

However, an overwhelming number of teacher groups, statewide education associations and school boards fought against the amendment. Teach Great, the group that drove the proposal, even backed off before the vote admitting that the timing was off. The group hoped this system would reward good teachers.

Andy Hosmer, Springfield Public School Board vice president said, “I’m thrilled the voters saw through this blatant attempt to influence education across Missouri. This was a situation where no one thought this was a good idea.”

Had the proposal passed, tenure would no longer have existed. Students would have taken more tests and bargaining over teacher evaluations would have been prohibited. Teachers’ salaries would be based on the performance of their students with over 50 percent of teacher evaluations based on standardized testing.

Teachers felt that the proposal would have forced them to “teach to the test.” The testing also would have cost Missouri millions of dollars.

Luckily for teachers, the statewide efforts to spread the word about the negative consequences of the proposal proved to be triumphant.

  1. Students Matter sued to change the status quo of teaching in California.

Nine public school students in the state brought on this case and challenged a set of laws – one of which gives teachers in California tenure as soon as 18 months into their careers. Another requires layoffs on a last in, first out basis without taking into consideration the quality of the teacher.

Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled in favor of the group, Students Matter, and against teachers unions in a decision that may turn over how the state’s teachers are both hired and fired in California.

Students Matter believes the laws allow ineffective teachers to stay on board and that low-income, minority students suffer as a result when less-desired educators make their way into their classrooms. Judge Treu agreed and found that five California statutes violate the constitutional protection children have in the state to equal education opportunity.

Economist Raj Chetty calculated that the one year of exposure to the worst performing teachers actually might cost a classroom of children $1.4 million in lifetime earnings. These findings were from a study that looked at data on 2.5 million students’ grades three through eight between 1989 and 2009 and compared their test scores in English and math to tax records as adults.

Chetty went on to say that students who had higher quality teachers for even one year were more likely to attend college, less likely to have teen pregnancies and more likely to have higher adult earnings.

Teachers’ groups who firmly believe that removing their job protection will not help students find greater success dispute the conclusions.

  1. The Senate in North Carolina wanted to increase teachers’ pay in exchange for tenure—by they changed their minds.

Senate leaders in North Carolina proposed an 11 percent pay increase for teachers. Senator Harry Brown introduced this proposal and pointed out that the budget plan would boost North Carolina to 27th in pay ranking for teachers in the U.S. Teachers in North Carolina will be ranked at 37th in pay though if the House’s plan is approved instead.

Representative Brian Holloway says he is glad to see that the Senate would no longer make pay raises contingent on whether or not teachers give up tenure, but also pointed out that the Senate wants to pay for the plan with the money gained through the elimination of teacher assistants.

Brown and Senator Bob Rucho defend the plan stating that since the teacher assistant model was put into place in classrooms, reading proficiency among children in North Carolina has not increased. In fact, proficiency has actually decreased. It was also noted that TA’s have no positive effect on student achievement and are not an essential classroom investment.

Senate leaders also proposed the idea of increasing the lottery advertisement budget to pay for the 5 percent increase in teacher salaries.

Representatives from the House’s plan are unwilling at this time to increase the lottery advertising budget.

I am interested to see whether the Senate or House proposal is passed. I do like that the Senate is offering an 11 percent pay raise to these teachers, but I do not like that the increase in pay is partially funded based on the elimination of Teacher Assistant positions.

The bottom line is this: teachers should be held accountable for their actions. Tenure shouldn’t protect the educators who aren’t making an impact in our students’ lives. We also need high quality teachers in our schools and no matter how many years a teacher has been on board, he or she should be held to the same expectations as the newest ones. With all that said, however, I do not think that scrapping tenure completely is the best way to increase the quality of teaching in our public schools.

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

8 Reasons Common Core Will Ultimately Fail

By Matthew Lynch

Since their initial implementation, national Common Core standards have caused quite a stir. It seems that everyone from politicians to parents have an opinion on these learning benchmarks and their corresponding testing systems. Everyone is throwing his or her two cents into the Common Core discussion and it has all led to a firestorm of questions surrounding the future of K-12 education in the U.S. and whether one streamlined goal program can really be effective with all students.

As a disclaimer, I actually support a lot of the components of Common Core and believe that heightened, more focused teaching toward subjects like math and science are necessary for this generation of K-12 students to survive and thrive in the future world workplace. Despite my personal feelings on the heart of Common Core standards, however, the initiatives are misdirected in more ways than one and will be rendered ineffective in the end. Here are just a few of the reasons I feel this way:

  1. Common Core is tied to President Obama.

Even though President Obama did not draft or implement Common Core standards, he is inextricably linked to them. This is due in part to the fact that his Race to the Top program connects federal funding with states that have Common Core standards in place and who excel in the testing of the material. The President has certainly put his weight behind the ideals of Common Core standards and has always been vocal about his belief that streamlined learning benchmarks and continued teacher accountability is necessary for the future of the nation’s economy and knowledge base. He did not, however, come up with the idea for Common Core standards nor approve them upon completion. The bi-partisan National Governors Association did that. Still, people who already dislike President Obama seem to think that passionately disliking Common Core is just another way to show their disapproval of his administration. While this specific group is certainly not large enough to topple the standards alone, it is influential, particularly when it comes to politicians that are looking for an easy way to please constituents. Which brings me to my next point…

  1. Politicians are using Common Core as a platform.

Republican governor of Indiana Mike Pence was once a supporter of Common Core initiatives, and so was Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Yet both are now some of the most prominent politicians to speak out against Common Core standards – and in the case of Pence, he has since withdrawn Indiana from the program (and then replaced the standards with eerily similar “state developed” ones). It seems that Common Core is becoming a platform for politicians looking for their next news byte or front-page photo op. It’s not limited to politicians in office, either.

In April, Republican Rob Astorino of New York, a gubernatorial hopeful, made a public announcement that his own children would not be taking state assessments based on Common Core benchmarks. The spotlight-stealing is not limited to Republicans, of course. Just this month Virginian democrat Adam Ebbin who hopes to replace long-time Senator Jim Moran said he does not support Common Core standards (which Virginia has so far opted out of using). Politicians from both sides of the aisle are seeing the fiery side of their constituents and looking for a way to push that passion in their own directions.

  1. Parents think common core standards are too rigorous.

The heightened concepts of learning and retaining Common Core materials means that some students will get left behind. The aggressiveness of the learning campaigns, however, make it difficult for teachers to spend extra time on subjects or circle back to them once most of the class has retained them. In a perfect world, this is where the parents would step in and fill the gap, or at least hire a tutor to do it. Ever since No Child Left Behind legislation, however, the assumption is that public schools are responsible for the total learning process of all their students. Parents who find that Common Core is leaving their own children behind find it easier to point the finger at the standards instead of initiating a way to make them work for their kids.

  1. Parents don’t understand the material.

Particularly when it comes to math, some of the new-fangled methods that Common Core implements are foreign to parents. Moms and dads who remember excelling in elementary school math are suddenly befuddled by the homework questions their second-graders must figure out. Parents, even the very young ones, did not use many of the tactics now in place in K-12 classrooms and certainly were not required to learn as many complicated subjects at such a young age. This lack of comprehension translates to lack of confidence – and causes parents to become defensive about the materials their children are expected to learn.

  1. Parents are growing wary of the testing culture.

Parents are a finicky bunch when it comes to education. They want the best career opportunities for their kids but resent the idea of teaching too specifically for the simple sake of scoring higher on an assessment test. The items on state assessment tests, more than ever, are designed to test the knowledge set deemed appropriate for the future economy (in part, at least). Though parents want the best job opportunities for their kids, they don’t want knowledge to be so narrowly dispersed. The truth is that no teacher has enough time to teach everything to his or her students. Some of that learning must happen at home and in other real-world applications.

Standards are a calculated guess as to what learning materials should be prioritized among U.S. students – not an end-all-be-all list. Parents see items that they deem “important” missing from Common Core standards and believe it signals a complete dysfunction of the benchmarks. The growing movement to protest or even eliminate standardized tests is being driven mostly by parents. Though it’s unlikely that they will ever truly succeed on this front, their outspoken concerns about Common Core will eventually aid in dismantling the standards – particularly if their political representatives are listening.

  1. American students are diverse.

It seems everywhere you look, we celebrate diversity in this country. From skin color, to language spoken, to sexual preferences, the national message seems to be “Be you. Whatever that looks like.” Except when it comes to measuring a “good” education. It’s widely accepted that students learn in different ways and customized learning initiatives are a trend fueled by in-classroom technology. HOW students learn is varied, but WHAT they are learning is somehow expected to fall into some neat, standardized package. Laying down countrywide rules of sorts for learning, and attaching those to funding, is an easy way to check off boxes on a spreadsheet but not an effective way to teach each student exactly what he or she needs to know based on career paths, interests and life circumstance

  1. It doesn’t recognize the differences among states.

It’s true that the world is becoming smaller and that the differences that once divided K-12 students by geography are shrinking. Still, there are some learning standards that just make more sense in one area over another. The benefits of learning a foreign language should be shared on a national level, but the specifics of those benchmarks should be considered. A state like Arizona or Texas, for example, with a high percentage of Spanish-speakers could benefit from more curriculum customized to that population, and in a much more effective way than a state like Iowa or Maine. Common Core is not a curriculum set, of course, but I use the language example as a way to show the difference between students and how where they live really does impact what they really should know. Industry specific learning is also a consideration when it comes to what should be taught more heavily, not as a way to pigeon-hole students but as a way to set them up for the best chance at career success. Considerations for subject areas that have been weak in a particular region should also be thought about and given priority.

  1. There is not one model student.

The idea that all U.S. K-12 students should know exactly the same things, and graduate from high school with the same shared learning experiences is flawed. Of course no one expects any two students to be identical in their learning outcomes, but the implication of Common Core standards are that there should be a cookie-cutter which every district and every teacher uses. Such an educational model goes against every other American ideal – like innovation, creativity and individuality – yet is prevalent throughout the public school system. If there were one leading flaw in Common Core requirements, it would be this: it allows no wiggle room for letting students be the people they were meant to be.

Hopefully, proponents of Common Core will read this piece, correct its deficiencies, and prove me wrong.

  • no reactions
0
Share