edreform

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

5 Years Later and We Are Still Waiting for Superman

By Matthew Lynch

Recently I viewed the documentary, Waiting for Superman, for the umpteenth time, and I noted that almost 5 years after the film’s September 24, 2010 U. S. premiere, the American educational system is still not living up to its potential. Sure, education reform was the phrase on the tip of everyone’s tongue, but after a year most of the fervor and commitment to educational change that was initially exhibited has all but subsided.

The comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is still falling behind academically. The cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are many our school systems of such a low caliber, and further falling behind?

Statistics and common sense born of observation tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman put it, “the dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.” Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvements are being made to the system itself. Of course, everyone seemingly wants to improve America’s education system; they just do not seem to know or agree on how to do it.

The American public must believe that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. It is understandable that, in today’s economy, people are primarily concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although important to most, can hold a low priority in the mind of the average American, who is mostly concerned with keeping a roof over their head. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough in an economy such as ours, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the local (and global) marketplace. The education system is where people turn to acquire these skills.

Furthermore, enhanced skills and technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle towards sustaining a dynamic 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler — in fact, it is just the opposite. Along the same lines, workers down the road will need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. If American students and workers find themselves in an educational system that cannot fulfill these necessary, required functions because it is sub-par, not only will these individuals and their families find little success in an economy that has left them behind; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.

Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teacher’s unions, placing the blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. Nevertheless, the film shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools; the sadness of the lottery system; and the general hopelessness that some express about our educational system and its future.

One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This scene shows, in a metaphorical sense, that while our students seem to have confidence, many do not have the skills to actually succeed.

A year later, Waiting for Superman still serves as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been. The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet many appear to simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.”

America needs to view this film as a public call to action, where each of us is summoned to be a Superman (or Superwoman, as the case may be), or at least to lend a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, we should strive towards getting every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system, and to work together to fix them.

What is most important is that we understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and strictly forbid placing blame — which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children. Collectively, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our education system.

The future must be planned for; now. It certainly will not be an overnight process. However, by taking positive, productive steps, one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years. If we simply work together, we can restore the U.S. educational system to its former preeminence, and give our children the bright futures they deserve in our great country and aboard. We must become the Super-citizens that we have been waiting for.

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

5 Reasons Why Teachers Can’t Do It All

You are probably familiar with the concept of the “superstar teacher,” 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.

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

Necessary Shifts: A Change in K-12 Teacher Education

In the not-so-distant past, public schools used to represent the most major building block in the education and socialization of students outside of the home. Young minds were molded by the teachers, administrators and friends they met in the confines of the school setting. Teachers had the ability to teach in much more isolated circumstances, even ten years ago, than they are able to do today.

With respect to the students of the past, modern classrooms are full of sophisticated youngsters that show up with a detailed view of the world formed from more than home life experiences. Instant access to knowledge from the age a child can press a touchscreen on a Smartphone and widespread socialization from as young as six weeks old in the form of childcare atmospheres mean that kids arrive at Kindergarten with less naivety than previous generations. Teachers are not handed a clean slate but rather one that is already cluttered with random knowledge that must be fostered or remediated.

Teacher Education Innovation

It stands to reason that if students are changing, teachers need to change too. More specifically, the education that teachers receive needs to be modified to meet the modern needs of K – 12 classrooms. There are policy and practice changes taking place all over the world – many driven by teachers – that address the cultural shifts in the classroom. Some that show a lot of promise include:

  • Subject-specific recruiting by colleges and universities. The book Teaching 2030, written by 13 experts in K-12 classroom pedagogy, calls for education schools to stop letting in any and every education major in the broad sense of the subject area. Instead, the experts suggest that colleges become more selective to meet the demand of actual student need. Young people that are interested in teaching high-demand subject areas like mathematics, bilingual education, physical science and special education should be viewed as more valuable to institutions of higher learning. This needs-based philosophy addresses actual voids in the industry and better equips schools to meet students’ needs.
  • Virtual learning options. Though colleges often get all of the attention when it comes to online learning programs, K-12 education is also shifting more toward distance learning options. During the 2010-2011 school year, 1.8 million students in grades K-12 were enrolled in some type of distance learning program. That is up from just 50,000 in the 2000-2001 school year, according to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning. This is a trend that teachers-to-be simply cannot ignore. Virtual learning is not reserved for only those that can afford it; 40 U.S. states have state-run online programs and 30 of those states provide statewide, full-time K-12 schools. The University of Central Florida is one of the only schools to offer a virtual-school emphasis for education majors that lets students apprentice with Florida Virtual School instructors.
  • Continued classroom learning for administrators. Since the people at the top are generally the decision-makers, they should be required to return to the field every now and then. On the other hand, the teachers that are actually in the student trenches should be empowered to help change educational policy based on the reality of the modern classroom. The Center for Quality Teaching supports a “teacherpreneur” program that would “blur the lines… between those who teach… and those who lead.” Actionable strides toward closing the public education gap between teachers and administrators are necessary for real, effective change to take place in K-12 classrooms.

Public education in America needs teachers that are better trained to meet the needs of specific student populations, those that understand the necessary role of distance learning, and those that are willing to speak up to facilitate classroom change. Without these teachers, effective reform to meet global demand is not possible.

How have the roles of teachers changed over the years in your opinion? What is the single greatest obstacle that teachers face that stands in the way of maximum K-12 student achievement?

 

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

 

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

The Four Biggest Factors In Teacher Turnover

Teacher turnover is a major problem in education that affects student, teachers, and administrators alike. But what’s behind the massive migration and exodus of new teachers? And what’s to be done about it? Researchers have identified four major factors that should be addressed to reduce teacher turnover and to retain them for a longer duration in the profession.

1. Compensation

Some studies suggest that, contrary to popular belief, salary is not the number one reason for teachers’ leaving the profession, although sufficient evidence indicates that it plays a significant role. Those who teach in-demand subjects like mathematics and science are more likely to quit because they receive more attractive offers for opportunities outside the teaching profession. While salary is a major factor in attrition among young teachers who are beginning their careers, it also acts as a deterrent to the retention of experienced and well-qualified teachers.

2. Working Conditions

According to a national survey, teachers place a lot of importance on their working conditions and consider it a key factor in their decision to leave or continue in the teaching profession. Good working conditions include administrative support, availability of professional resources, freedom to express their opinions on matters related to their profession, and the empowerment to influence policy in their schools.

Research studies reveal that the teachers who work in affluent and advantaged communities experience better working conditions than those who work in low-income communities. These conditions include lesser numbers of students to teach and more decision-making power in their schools. Teachers who work with disadvantaged students experience less appealing working conditions, with limited administrative support, fewer textbooks and supplies, and larger student groups to handle. Thus, it is evident that working conditions play an important role in a teacher’s decision to continue or leave the teaching profession, and that they contribute significantly to high teacher attrition rates.

3. Teacher Education

It is evident from several research studies that better prepared teachers stay in teaching for longer periods of time. This is especially true for those who complete traditional teacher education programs, as compared to those who are trained for a few weeks before being released into the student community.

Not all alternative pathways are ineffective or poorly conceived. Some well-designed post- baccalaureate programs enable students to acquire the same high standards as those who graduate from traditional teacher education colleges. This is accomplished by combining traditional coursework with a well-established fieldwork training experience.

However, alternative routes that do not provide adequate training and mentoring to prospective teachers add to the “revolving door” syndrome that currently plagues the teaching profession.

4. Mentoring

Without good mentors, new teachers can feel lost, frustrated, and stuck. It’s much harder to get out of a problem not faced before without the guidance of someone who already knows the solution. It’s also much easier to keep making the same mistakes without the wise word of an outside perspective. Learn more about the importance of mentoring in reducing teacher turnover in future articles!

Are you interviewing for a new placement? Ask your prospective employers what they’re doing to reduce teacher turnover. Are you already working at a school? Ask your administrators what steps are being taken to address turnover at your site. If there’s no plan in place, look over the list above and come up with some suggestions of how to tackle the four big problem areas within your district!

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

Who Owns Knowledge? A Look At Curriculum.

The central focus of every curriculum is imparting knowledge in the best way possible. But who decides what “the best way possible” really is?

The K–12 curriculum is often referenced in abstract ways, with many schools and districts claiming to want to teach the “whole child.” But what does that actually mean in the context of contemporary classrooms? Not every student exposed to the same information will achieve the same success and life outcomes. Just what is actually considered knowledge is interpretive, at best. Educators must narrow information to the learning materials that will make the biggest positive impact on a particular group of students.

K–12 schools have four kinds of curriculum. Official curriculum is outlined by governmental or educational bodies as the framework for every student. Taught curriculum is what teachers actually pass on to the students under their care. Tested curriculum is what is examined in standardized and graded testing materials. Learned curriculum includes those items that may not show up on testing results but are integral to student development and the learning experience. Depending on whom you ask, any one of these categories of curriculum may be considered the strongest, while others may measure as weak or unnecessary.

Though there is some federal oversight on curriculum choices and the funding accompanying them, curriculum is generally chosen on a local level. Some of the factors that go into curriculum choices are the personal belief systems of the decision makers and their overarching worldviews. Some things are considered “absolute”—like the rules of grammar or the way math equations are solved. Many other parts of K–12 learning are interpretive and are influenced by the individual educator or by imposing views on a global scale. Even the “facts” of history may be presented in differing ways based on the type of curriculum believed correct by officials. Often what is left out of curriculum is just as telling as what is included.

When educators are involved in the role of choosing curriculum, there is an assumption that the best interests of a student population and its achievement are at heart. For the most part, this perception is true. There is a reason why teachers and administrators require degrees and continuing education courses to obtain and keep their licenses; a lot of expert thought goes into the material that is chosen for students. In recent years parents have started to become more of an influential force in curriculum choices of K–12 schools. A law passed in 2012 in New Hampshire allows parents to object to any course material presented in public schools, provided that they can recommend a suitable alternative. While this law affects a very small subset of the national student population, it represents a trend in all schools to cater to students, and more specifically to parents, as customers. If public K–12 schools are to remain equalizers, however, the demands of small, fringe groups cannot be met. While parents may believe they know what is best for their own children, curriculum decisions for the collective student body are best reserved for objective, expert educators.

As an educator, it’s your job to thoroughly understand the reasoning behind any curriculum you implement. Know the pros, so you can defend what you’re teaching, if necessary. But know the con’s, too, so that you’re prepared to explain how you’re handling or working around those. Be realistic. Be informative. Be a teacher.

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

Becoming Superman: How Americans Can Save the Nation’s Educational System

As referenced in the recent documentary, Waiting for Superman, the American educational system is not living up to it’s potential. Comparisons with other developed countries show that the strongest nation in the world is falling behind academically.  Even with the tremendous changes taking place since No Child Left Behind was enacted, serious problems still exist. For example, the cost per pupil in the U.S. has soared to five times the level in the 1950s, after adjusting for inflation. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are our school systems in the state that they are? This is a common problem with any bureaucratic monopoly.

Statistics, and common sense born of observation, tell us that the biggest crisis in our schools is finding ways to educate students in low-income areas. However, as Waiting for Superman illustrates, our educational problems are not limited to poverty-stricken areas alone. As Lesley Chilcott, producer of the Waiting for Superman documentary put it, “The dirty little secret… is that middle- and upper-class communities are suffering as well. When we talk about U.S. students ranking twenty-fifth in math, we’re not just talking about underserved communities, we’re talking overall.”  Yet, despite decades of knowing that these problems exist, little improvements are being made. Of course, everyone wants to improve our system; they just do not seem to know how to do it.

The American public must feel that educational reform is a top priority issue in these times of severe economic troubles. Today, people are concerned about their jobs and putting food on the table. Upgrading education, although theoretically important, can hold a low priority to the more pressing problems of keeping a roof over their heads. The paradox here is that this is precisely the time to make that investment into education. When times are tough, workers need to improve their skills to compete effectively in the marketplace. Education can provide those skills. Furthermore, those enhanced skills and improved technological talents are going to be desperately needed in the future as America continues to struggle in the 21st century labor force. Production is not getting easier and simpler. In fact, it is just the opposite. The skills needed in the world marketplace require a better education and improved, and more advanced abilities. Planning to turn out workers for the factories of today is a crucial element, but those same workers also need to be able to adapt to technologies that are just now being developed. Workers taught in an educational system that is subpar will not only hurt them and their families; it will cripple America’s competitiveness.

Educational reform will occur once we decide that enough is enough and make the commitment change happen no matter what it takes. When America realizes all children deserve a stellar education regardless of where they are from, whom their parents are, or what their socioeconomic status is, we will be able to reform our educational system. Americans have to stop treating minority students in underperforming urban environments like collateral damage. The disheartening reality is that America has billions of dollars to fight a two-front war, but cannot or will not properly educate its children. If a hostile country attacked America, it would take less than 24 hours for American troops to be mobilized into battle. However, we seem unable to mobilize a sea of educated teachers and administrators to wage war against academic mediocrity, which is a bigger threat to our national security than Iran or North Korea.

Waiting for Superman has been criticized as being against teachers unions, placing blame too squarely on the shoulders of educators, and misrepresenting educational statistics. However, the film also shined a bright spotlight on the harsh reality of our educational system, showing the exodus of middle and upper class children from our public schools, the sadness of the lottery system for what are perceived as the best schools, and the general hopelessness that some have about our educational system. One segment of Waiting for Superman illustrates American self-confidence through an image of kids doing daredevil bike stunts, and then crashing. This shows that while our students seem to have confidence, they do not have the skills to actually succeed. As a nation we rank behind more than 20 other developed countries when it comes to teaching math and science. Our own deep probing into our educational system has repeatedly revealed serious problems; yet, perhaps we did need such a documentary to bring it back to the forefront of people’s thoughts. Certainly, Waiting for Superman has served as a stark reminder of just how bad our educational system has become, and just how ineffective most of our efforts at improving it have been.

The American educational system has reached a turning point, a time when things seem at their most dire, and yet some simply sit idly by “Waiting for Superman.” What America needs is to view this film as a call to action, where each of us is called upon to be Superman, or at least to have a hand in saving our educational system, perhaps without the flashy heroics and cape. Rather than waiting, every educator, educational leader, government official, parent, and citizen needs to educate themselves about the problems that exist in our educational system. Each of us needs to understand the deficiencies in our educational system, and stop placing blame. Rather, we must come together with an understanding that “Superman” is not coming to save our children, and it is up to us to work together to find innovative ways to rise to the challenge of fixing our educational system. The future must be planned for now! It certainly will not be an overnight process; however, by taking steps one at a time, an enormous amount of ground can be covered in the coming years.

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

Do school vouchers improve results? It depends on what we ask

Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University

A set of reports on Louisiana’s statewide school voucher program recently revealed a number of important features of that program’s operation and overall performance.

The most startling of these reports indicated that students who used school vouchers performed much worse on standardized tests than those who remained in traditional public schools.

This result echoes evidence presented last month from a separate team of scholars, who found negative impacts after one year of voucher use in Louisiana. The latest study not only confirmed that finding, but showed the pattern persisting – albeit less severely – after two years of voucher use as well.

School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools. And these reports provide the first evidence that participating in such a system may harm kids’ academic achievement, at least in math.

As a researcher who studies both vouchers and other forms of school choice such as charter schools (independently operated public schools) I believe the new Louisiana studies are important to longstanding debates over the extent to which such choice enhances academic outcomes.

It may be tempting to use this news as an argument against vouchers, especially because the evidence is drawn from the most sophisticated research tools available to scholars who study these programs. However, it should be stressed that test scores provide only one indicator of program success or failure.

Impact of vouchers

The motivation for school voucher programs dates back to the 1950s, when the economist Milton Friedman began to argue that parents should have opportunities to choose between different providers of education for their children.

School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools.
401(K) 2012, CC BY-SA

The first school voucher program began in 1990 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Over the years since, especially in the last decade, voucher or voucher-like systems have spread to 24 states, all of which differ individually on some key details such as the number of children who will be eligible for participation and the maximum amount of tuition available to these students.

In Louisiana, policymakers introduced vouchers in 2008 in New Orleans as part of a series of reforms following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the city and the city’s school system. In 2012, vouchers became available statewide.

As with many public programs, policymakers turn to researchers to help determine how well school vouchers work. This is true not only in Louisiana, but elsewhere as well.

And part of what makes the Louisiana results so newsworthy – but also why voucher critics should pause before leaning too heavily on the latest reports – is that many of these studies conducted in other locations, such as Charlotte, Milwaukee, Washington, D.C. and New York City, for example, found the opposite pattern. In these studies, students who used vouchers to attend private school tended to have higher test scores as a result.

The answers are not that simple

The question is whether test scores are the only way to judge schools and school performance.

It is true that public schools have to test their students, so using a similar metric is a reasonable, relative comparison between public and private schools. But test scores, while important, do not necessarily provide an absolute appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of voucher programs in a large education system.

What is the best way to judge schools’ performance?
woodleywonderworks, CC BY

First, we know from earlier studies that student attainment levels – high school graduation or enrollment in post-secondary education – may be higher among voucher users even when test score differences between them and their public school counterparts are nonexistent.

Whether this means that private schools are especially good at preparing kids to graduate and attend college or that they simply prioritize such success more than other outcomes is still unclear. But we see similar patterns in charter schools too: a number of studies have shown that charter school students have a higher chance of high school graduation or college enrollment even when their test scores do not differ on average from their traditional public school counterparts.

In the Louisiana context, the researchers also found more nuanced results when they posed a number of other questions.

When researchers examined, for example, whether competition from private schools pressed nearby public schools to improve performance, they found that the test scores of students in these competing schools did indeed increase, albeit modestly.

When they asked whether the declines in voucher users’ tests scores were present in noncognitive student outcomes (such as grit, self-esteem, and political tolerance), they found both public and private school students had similar levels on those indicators.

Each of these questions provides a different way of assessing the overall impact of the voucher program both on students who use them and on students in the surrounding communities as well.

Weighing other factors

More generally, it’s important to remember that voucher programs operate differently in different places.

In Louisiana, for example, one prominent explanation for the negative test scores is that heavy regulation of private providers keeps the best schools in that sector away from offering seats to voucher users. But in Wisconsin, we know that some regulations, such as requiring private schools to publicly report the academic performance of their voucher users, actually increased test scores.

Other state laws determine who’s eligible to use a voucher in the first place. In some states, vouchers exist expressly for kids with special academic needs; in others, low-income families are eligible as well.

Again, this implies that we have to be very careful. It is not as simple as taking evidence from one state and expecting the same results, good or bad, in another.

Little is known about teachers in schools that accept vouchers.
EarthFix, CC BY-NC

Apart from differences between states, there are other things to consider about the way voucher programs operate.

We know surprisingly little about teachers in schools that accept vouchers. State oversight of private school teachers is far less – in some places practically nonexistent – than for public school teachers.

Researchers are beginning, for example, to devote considerable effort to understanding who teaches in public charter schools. Answering that question in different voucher programs will help explain differences in students’ outcomes between private and public schools, both within and between different states.

Finally, we need to consider not only which students accept and benefit from a voucher, but also the extent to those who do attend private school – or any nontraditional alternative – are actually able to do so over the long term.

The evidence we have from places like Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. suggests substantial turnover in voucher programs, with minority students and students with the lowest test scores leaving private schools.

All of this is to say that when it comes to educating kids, what we know about school vouchers depends on what we ask. And what we ask should be informed not only by traditional academic outcomes, such as test scores, but also by a new understanding of the many different ways that schools can contribute to student success.

The Conversation

Joshua Cowen, Associate Professor of Educational Policy, Michigan State University

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

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

School Security: Just Smoke and Mirrors?

In theory, parents and educators would do anything to keep students safe, whether those students are pre-Kindergartners or wrapping up a college career. Nothing is too outlandish or over-the-top when it comes to protecting our kids and young adults. Metal detectors, security cameras, more police presence in school hallways, gated campuses – they all work toward the end goal of sheltering students and their educators and protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens.

Emotions aside though – how much does school security really increase actual safety? And do school security efforts actually hinder the learning experience? It sounds good to taut the virtues of tighter policies on school campuses but is it all just empty rhetoric?

Recently the University of Kentucky came under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union for plans to install 2,000 security cameras on campus. Representatives at UK say the move is a response to the increasing randomness of school violence at all levels of the learning process and a way to better ensure student safety. The ACLU says it is a blatant violation of privacy.

I say it is money wasted because all the security cameras in the world would not have prevented the largest school tragedies of recent history, from Sandy Hook Elementary to the Virginia Tech massacre. Security cameras and other monitoring devices give us a false feeling of security and an actionable course when there are no answers to pointless questions.

While extreme, UK’s camera monitoring plans are in sync with what is happening in K-12 schools across the nation. In the 2009 – 2010 school year, 84 percent of high schools had security cameras for safety monitoring. Over half of all middle and elementary schools had them too, with 73 and 51 percent respectively. Despite this, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the percentage of high schools with controlled access to school buildings during normal hours is lower than that of middle and elementary students. Though not expressly stated in these findings, it would seem that in the case of high schools, cameras are more of a way to catch rule-breakers after the fact than a way to prevent violence and other criminal activities.

Students are not the only ones who are the subjects of safeguards like surveillance cameras. Teachers, administrators and other staff are also vital when it comes to putting school safety into place – and in the case of teachers, they are on the front lines of what is going on with students. Limited access to K-12 campuses is meant to protect outsiders from harming the many people who are supposed to be there. But what about student-versus-student violence, or student-versus-teacher physical altercations? In 2011, 12 percent of high schoolers reported being in a physical fight at school that year. Nearly 6 percent reported carrying a weapon, like a gun or knife, onto school property in the month preceding the survey. By the time a security camera picks up on the fact that a student has a knife or gun, is there really any timely way to prevent the inevitable.

Given the fact that state spending per student is lower than at the start of the recession, how much should schools shell out in the way of security costs? Perhaps the best investment we can make to safeguard our students and educators is in personal vigilance. Perhaps less reliance on so-called safety measures would lead to higher alertness.

What role should school security play on K-12 campuses, and should it be a financial priority?

 

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

Ask An Expert: A Change in K-12 Teaching Education

Question: For 22 years I have been a elementary school principal in Minnesota. With each passing year I notice that our students are changing, as they gain more and more access to information prior to starting school. However, the teachers that we employ seem to be evolving at a slower pace. What can be done to better train our teachers? Lilith P.

Answer: Modern classrooms are full of sophisticated youngsters that show up with a detailed view of the world formed from more than home life experiences. Instant access to knowledge from the age a child can press a touchscreen on a Smartphone and widespread socialization from as young as six weeks old in the form of childcare atmospheres mean that kids arrive at Kindergarten with less naivety than previous generations. Teachers are not handed a clean slate but rather one that is already cluttered with random knowledge that must be fostered or remediated.

It stands to reason that if students are changing, teachers need to change too. More specifically, the education that teachers receive needs to be modified to meet the modern needs of K – 12 classrooms. There are policy and practice changes taking place all over the world – many driven by teachers – that address the cultural shifts in the classroom. Some that show a lot of promise include:

• Subject-specific recruiting by colleges and universities. The book Teaching 2030, written by 13 experts in K-12 classroom pedagogy, calls for education schools to stop letting in any and every education major in the broad sense of the subject area. Instead, the experts suggest that colleges become more selective to meet the demand of actual student need. Young people that are interested in teaching high-demand subject areas like mathematics, bilingual education, physical science and special education should be viewed as more valuable to institutions of higher learning. This needs-based philosophy addresses actual voids in the industry and better equips schools to meet students’ needs.

• Virtual learning options. Though colleges often get all of the attention when it comes to online learning programs, K-12 education is also shifting more toward distance learning options. During the 2010-2011 school year, 1.8 million students in grades K-12 were enrolled in some type of distance learning program. That is up from just 50,000 in the 2000-2001 school year, according to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning. This is a trend that teachers-to-be simply cannot ignore. Virtual learning is not reserved for only those that can afford it; 40 U.S. states have state-run online programs and 30 of those states provide statewide, full-time K-12 schools. The University of Central Florida is one of the only schools to offer a virtual-school emphasis for education majors that lets students apprentice with Florida Virtual School instructors.

• Continued classroom learning for administrators. Since the people at the top are generally the decision-makers, they should be required to return to the field every now and then. On the other hand, the teachers that are actually in the student trenches should be empowered to help change educational policy based on the reality of the modern classroom. The Center for Quality Teaching supports a “teacherpreneur” program that would “blur the lines… between those who teach… and those who lead.” Actionable strides toward closing the public education gap between teachers and administrators are necessary for real, effective change to take place in K-12 classrooms.

Public education in America needs teachers that are better trained to meet the needs of specific student populations, those that understand the necessary role of distance learning, and those that are willing to speak up to facilitate classroom change. Without these teachers, effective reform to meet global demand is not possible.

 

 

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

High School Dropouts: More than Loss of Money

It seems that every time the issue of high school dropouts is discussed it all centers around money. U.S. Census Statistics tell us that 38 percent of high school dropouts fall below the poverty line, compared with 18 percent of total households in every demographic. Dropouts are also 40 percent more likely to rent their residences and spend $450 less per month on housing costs than the overall population. Only around 60 percent of dropouts own vehicles and they spend over $300 less on entertainment annually than average Americans. It’s clear that a high school diploma is in fact the ticket to higher earnings, at least on a collective level

I wonder, however, if our cultural obsession with the financial implications of dropping out of high school sends the wrong message to teenagers. Earning a proper living is certainly valuable but what about all the other great reasons to finish the K-12 academic course, and potentially college-level learning following it? Money is not everything and is certainly only one piece of the value of a high school diploma. Some other areas of focus when it comes to the pitfalls of dropping out of high school should include:

Value of a career versus a job. Over 68 percent of high school graduates begin college coursework the following fall. Students who earn high school diplomas are that much more inspired to continue their academic journey and seek out a lifelong career match, not just clock hours at a “job” until retirement. The fulfillment people receive from a job they enjoy should not be underestimated. Studies have found that happier people are healthier and are even able to better fight off common illnesses like colds and the flu. Considering more time is spent working than in any other pursuit, job satisfaction plays a major role in overall happiness. The value of careers go beyond individual satisfaction, however. As a nation, everyone benefits from well-educated workers who earn a living in areas where they possess natural talent too.

Social strength. The childhood years go by so quickly and high school represents the last stage before adulthood. The social opportunities that high school provides are not duplicated anywhere else, with the exception of a college setting and high school dropouts miss out on both. What’s more, high school dropouts tend to get into more trouble than their in-school peers. The National Dropout Prevention Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. prisoners are high school dropouts. The life lessons found in the later years of high school are more valuable than they get credit for and the peer-level socialization is a vital part of late-childhood development.

Learning for its own sake. In our material society, it is difficult to explain the intangible value of things like intellectualism, particularly to young people. Until greater value is placed on obtaining knowledge for no other reason than to broaden individual and societal wisdom, students will continue to drop out of high school. After all, how can the economic importance of a high school diploma really be explained to children who have never had to earn their own living? Even those in dire socio-economic conditions do not have a grounded concept of what money means in quality of life and long-term happiness.

The negative financial ramifications of dropping out of high school cannot be denied but the way they are over-emphasized seems like a worn-out tactic to me. To really reach today’s students and encourage them to finish at least a high school education, they should be valued as learners and not simply earners.

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share