education

Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Diversity, Education Leadership, Equity, Teachers

English Language Learners and Music Go Together Like Peanut Butter and Jelly

A professor shares her tuneful tips for helping ELLs learn what to expect from English.

Dr. Nancy Drescher is a professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, and has taught both children and adult English language learners (ELLs) in the U.S. and abroad. In this interview, she offers best practices for teaching these students to read, understand structure, and gain background knowledge.

The Edvocate: You believe that simply teaching English vocabulary words and grammar is not the best way to go about teaching ELL students. If that’s not the best way, then what is?

Dr. Nancy Drescher: When it comes to teaching English to a non-native speaker, you first have to build context for the words in the learner’s mind. Rather than teaching a list of standalone words, it is more effective to teach vocabulary using collocations, idioms, and other common phrases. Being a good reader comes from knowing what to expect.

For instance, you would never ask someone for a jelly-and-peanut butter sandwich. It has all the right words, but a native speaker would never phase it that way. It would go against their expectations.

Since ELLs have no pre-built expectations for the language they’re learning, reading becomes a much longer process. They have to stop and process each word and its context individually instead of being able to view a text as a whole. Learning phrasing and how words fit within context helps ELLs build these expectations and facilitate their reading experience.

The Edvocate: So you’re saying this is necessary for reading, too, not just for speaking?

Dr. Drescher: Yes. Students coming from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds can have difficulty with reading because they are used to a different set of expectations, both in terms of how words go together and background experiences. Students who have grown up using standard English (that is the English expected in school) at home and who have experience similar to what teachers expect and naturally build on in their classrooms are at a distinct advantage when it comes to learning to read.

Building these expectations is a normal process of learning to read for any child, not just language learners. Adults often groan when their child asks to read the same book over and over again, but doing this is actually an important part of the process of building these language expectations. Hearing the same book over and over is comforting when children are in the midst of figuring out those expectations. Teachers then build on that initial experience with language structures, but when students come to school with different initial experiences (whether that is a completely different language or a non-standard variety) and their previously learned language doesn’t match that of the classroom and of books, it is much harder for teachers to make those connections and for students to make that transition.

One way teachers and students can make that transition a little easier is narrow reading. Narrow reading involves reading many books on one topic or in a series. The repetition builds expectations by way of building vocabulary and structures in context. This concept is applicable for language learners and for struggling readers in general. If a person reads 10 different books on a topic or in a series, each one will get progressively easier as students gain familiarity with the language and conceptual expectations related to that topic. Another way to build this language repetition is through music.

The Edvocate: Tell us a little more about how using music can help build these expectations you’re talking about.

Dr. Drescher: Educators have been using music in language teaching for years. Music can enhance a student’s ability to read, understand structure, and gain background knowledge. It also adds another learning style, which broadens the reach of the lesson being taught.

The Edvocate: How can music help enhance reading?

Dr. Drescher: Connecting music, language, and books makes language easier to remember. The repetitive nature of songs helps set linguistic expectations. An especially catchy song will remain in students’ heads long after the lesson has ended, enabling them to hold on to the information in an enjoyable format.

Music and songs can also make language learning enjoyable. This is especially helpful for younger children, but also true for adult learners. Songs don’t feel like a grammar drill. Music is something people do for fun, and every culture and group has its own songs. Music brings people together in a fun and engaging way.

The Edvocate: What sort of curriculum is necessary for teaching ELLs?

Dr. Drescher: A lot of times there isn’t a curriculum already in place for ELLs. The current push is to have inclusive classrooms, where ELL students and teachers integrate with mainstream classrooms. This makes it all the more important to find additional scaffolds and supports for students in these types of classrooms. These scaffolds will help everybody, but they are completely necessary for language learners.

The Edvocate: Are there any particular scaffolds you’d recommend?

Dr. Drescher: A few years ago, I started working with Cantata Learning. They create picture books and corresponding songs with educational content for pre-K–3 students. Cantata’s materials benefit language learners, but also mainstream students. Inspired by Cantata, I wrote a few connected lessons geared towards English language learners. The songs integrated well into lessons, and it was easy to find a song about a particular unit. That is the sort of thing I recommend.  If we can bring in multiple ways for students to engage with the language we hope they will be able to use and the content we want them to learn without drilling and killing their love of books and learning, I think we will find the most success for all kids.

The Edvocate: What do you think is the key to teaching English language learners?

Dr. Drescher: You have to keep in mind, learning any language is challenging, but our culture sometimes treats these challenges differently depending on the language being learned. For instance, a child learning English as a second language is often seen as having a deficit when compared to other children. However, when a native English speaker is learning a second language, or is enrolled in a second language emersion school, this is often viewed as an impressive feat.

It’s important to remember that English language learners do have knowledge and experience in their own language and in the world. By learning English, they are taking on a second language in addition to the one they already know. They are used to a different set of expectations, and so ELL lessons need to meet learners where they are in order to build on what they already have.

 

 

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

Ineffective assessments, part VI: More digital access needed

 Click here to read all of the articles in our Ineffective Assessments series.

All facets of education are being impacted by the rapid evolution of technology and assessments are not immune. Not only should educators be able to tap into digital resources for assessment preparation, but students should be able to take assessments using the technology that makes them most comfortable. In other words, we need to ditch the Scantron forms and No. 2 pencils and give our kids access to the right technology to make them the most comfortable with the tests they are taking and to streamline the process for scorers. I do think that there is value to the handwritten word, but I also know that this generation of K-12 students will not be handing in business reports or notes scribbled with pencil on college-ruled paper. Our kids should be typing early and using the wide array of technology at their fingertips for the learning process. Assessments should reflect that shift, too.

To those outside the educational community, the idea that students should be able to take tests through computers and other pieces of technology that make them comfortable is a no-brainer. Within the educational community, there is always some fret when it comes to anything related to technology, or change. For decades, classroom assessments have always been done in quiet classrooms with individual test packets and students filling in bubbles on scan sheets with sharpened pencils. In recent years, there have been added sections for free thought that exists outside of multiple choice responses, but the tests are virtually the same boring layout that they were when many of us took our standardized tests as K-12 students.

Changing the format of how these tests are delivered is a scary proposition for many lawmakers and administrators and certainly, one that does not come without a hefty price tag. When you add in the consortium (albeit a small one) of educators who are leery when it comes to any technology takeovers in classrooms, it isn’t difficult to see why there is so much hand-wringing when it comes to updating the way that assessments are delivered. I would challenge our educational community, from classroom teachers to those sitting on national education committees, to move beyond these fears though and find a financial way to make the technology of assessments possible.

There are a few schools of thought when it comes to what kids should be learning in our K-12 schools, particularly our public ones. Some believe all activities should be focused on getting students ready for the real world and should point to career-readiness programs. Why waste time in the classroom on lofty ideas or flighty benchmarks that have no adaptation to real life, and the ultimate goal of all Americans: a better economy and way of life. Other believe that there should be at least some inclusion of intellectual pursuits just for knowledge’s sake. Not everything learning in a K-12 classroom needs a direct relationship with something in the real world that will benefit our students monetarily down the road. Some learning is simply important to developing better humans who pass along that cultural knowledge to the next generations.

I’m not an anti-intellectualist by any means, but I do believe that where technology is concerned, educators should fully support the first school of thought. It is our job to ensure students have adequate access to and mastery of the technology that will be part of their everyday lives as adults. Wherever possible, technology should be incorporated into our lesson plans and used in our classrooms because it will make a difference in how well-versed this generation of students will be across subject dividing lines.

Consider the rapidly advancing technology of just the past few years. A Pew Research report found that 56 percent of Americans in 2013 owned smartphones – up from just 35 percent the year before. The rapid integration of smartphone culture into the Western world took only a few years, and with the dawn of smartwatches and augmented reality devices, it seems that two years from now, our technology norms will be completely changed once again.  Think ahead to the year 2027, when this year’s Kindergartners are crossing the stage to receive their high school diplomas. What will the technology look like then? Will we, as educators, have done everything within our power to get them career ready to use it?

Integrating higher levels of technology in assessments, whether the state-mandated versions or even just in-classroom ones, will have two positive results. The first is that they will reinforce students’ use of technology by asking them to implement it to take the actual tests. The second is that assessments will make more sense in the grand scheme of classroom learning, that is already much more interactive than the traditional test-taking process that is still used in standardized assessments. Students who take tests on computers or tablets will be more comfortable with the material at hand, and it will feel like more of an integrated process. To remain a world leader when it comes to the fast-pace of technology, we as educators need to insist that technology is part of not only the teaching process but also of assessment policy too.

 

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

Ineffective assessments, part V: More critical thinking needed

 Click here to read all of the articles in our Ineffective Assessments series.

Everyone can agree that applied knowledge is crucial to the learning process,, so standardized tests need to do better when measuring it. Every child needs to be able to articulate what he or she knows, not just repeat it. While it may not be as efficient to grade answers that go beyond filling in a bubble, these are the questions students need to answer to apply their knowledge in real-world applications. Instead of simply finding the answer, students need to explain their answers.

So what exactly is critical thinking and how does it play into our K-12 classrooms? Do educators understand the concept? According to Richard Paul in a piece for CriticalThinking.org, most educators do not understand what critical thinking entails and are therefore unable to teach it to their students. He says that the best definition lies in his book Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life and includes these points:

  • analyzing and assessing reasoning
  • identifying strengths and weaknesses in thinking
  • identifying obstacles to rational thought
  • dealing with egocentrism and sociocentrism
  • developing strategies that enable one to apply critical thinking to everyday life (I’d argue this is the most vital of all)
  • understanding the stages of one’s development as a thinker
  • understanding the foundations of ethical reasoning
  • detecting bias and propaganda in the national and international news
  • conceptualizing the human mind as an instrument of intellectual work
  • active and cooperative learning
  • the art of asking essential questions
  • scientific thinking
  • close reading and substantive writing
  • and grasping the logic of a discipline.

“Critical thinking is the art of thinking about thinking with a view to improving it. Critical thinkers seek to improve thinking, in three interrelated phases. They analyze thinking. They assess thinking. And they upgrade thinking (as a result),” he writes.

Paul speaks specifically to the lack of critical thinking in college classrooms and how faculty there are often unable to teach it adequately (and sometimes to even identify that there is a problem) – but as we all know, the students who show up in college classrooms are products of our K-12 ones. Young adulthood is too late to teach the basic tenets of critical thinking. For one thing, students by then have already figured out all of their academic shortcuts. Many have figured out the academic system and how to rig it in their favor. It makes sense, really, particularly in an assessment culture that relies on final answers as truths without much concern for how the student arrived at the answer. By college age, students have mastered the K-12 structure that earned them a high school diploma and are eager to apply those habits in higher education. So asking college faculty to not just use critical thinking activities, but to teach many of their students to use critical thinking principles for the first time, is a stretch. Asking those college graduates to apply those critical thinking points in their careers is even more laughable. The skills need to be taught and properly assessed long before that first college course and well before college graduates are in the workforce.

An bonus of more inclusion of critical thinking options is that it improves writing and communication skills in the process. Remember those companies I mentioned earlier in the chapter that say they can’t seem to find employees with proficient writing skills? By ensuring that more critical thinking and explanation standards are written into assessments, teachers are guaranteeing that students can explain what they know both in the classroom and out in real life too.

One of the most difficult tasks toward really changing our K-12 classrooms into critical thinking hubs is the traditional teacher-student model. Historically, classroom learning has been a one-way conversation where students were talked “at” and not “with.” Students have always been expected to sit politely, behave and do the work asked of them – without much in the way of questions in return. A student who questions the presented material can be viewed as disruptive or even mean-spirited. While there are certainly students who act out in class simply to garner attention or avoid their schoolwork, this traditional set-up has caused students to be less active participants in their educations. It has taken learning empowerment away from students who are conditioned to simply believe what they are told, complete the work and keep their heads down.

There are certainly pushes in education to break free of this mold and the classrooms of today are much more interactive than they were even a decade ago. Still, the “teacher knows best” mentality lingers and gets in the way of students taking an active role in what they are learning and how they are learning it. When you factor in high-stakes testing and its implications for the careers of teachers, funneling vast amounts of information in that one-way conversation style often seems like the only viable approach for teachers – and I get it. I was a public school teacher for many years in a state that suffers from low test scores year after year. For many teachers, the way that they want to teach and the way that they are forced to teach vary greatly, and much of that is due to unreasonable accountability standards that include student performance on standardized tests.

Which is why the assessments need to change to include more room for critical thinking. As the testing changes, so too will the classrooms. We should reach a point where teachers are no longer afraid to stop and take questions on a certain topic or to entertain a counter view on a topic from a student for the sake of classroom discussion because there won’t be a fear of losing time on the test-related material. A student who not only masters material but has evaluated it for himself and come to his conclusions on it and how it will impact his life is one that should pass any assessment with flying colors. We just need to decide as an educational community that critical thinking components are vital to the learning process and taking the time to include them in our testing process does the world more of good to our students than simply filling in a multiple choice bubble. Teaching our students that it is okay to question, and doubt, and take the time to agree with the answers will go a long way towards future generations of critical thinkers and it’s something that needs a higher priority ranking in our assessments.

So what should critical thinking options look like in assessments? The Common Core Standards adopted by more than 40 states already emphasize more of a hands-on approach to classroom learning and those values are then reflected in accompanying tests. A good example of a critical thinking exercise for a third grader, for example, would be to not just simply rehash the plot of a story but to draft an email that one character would likely to write to another.  In this example, the student is taking the knowledge presented and then extending it to include his thoughts on the story. In the reading portion of assessments, activities like this should be asked of the test-takers. Comprehension is still important, of course, but alongside the basics of what is read should be proof that the student truly did understand the material and can not only regurgitate it but can interpret it beyond what is on the page.

In areas like math, critical thinking is also important. Numbers on a page tend to feel somewhat removed from the human experience. Critical thinking exercises should breathe new life into those numbers and find a way to incorporate them into daily life. A student will not just show her work but should be able to explain why a certain solution was reached and what math concept it demonstrates. There also needs to be more cohesion between different areas of math to show that it is not as cut and dry as it seems and that all of the concepts are interrelated. Our math assessments need to reflect more of the process of reaching math goals and have less emphasis on the final answer.

Language arts and math are just two areas of assessment, of course, and the critical thinking element needs to spill over into all other subjects too. Traditionally the assessment process has been heavy on answers and light on the processes to get there. That is starting to change toward a fuller grasp of critical thinking processes, and that change is necessary to the improvement of K-12 classrooms and the next generation of adults.

 

 

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

Ineffective assessments, part IV: Greater focus on HOW to obtain knowledge

By Matthew Lynch

 Click here to read all of the articles in our Ineffective Assessments series.

In this vast digital age, there is more information available than can ever possibly be processed, and the way that students vet this data is incredibly important. While the internet has opened up the world in amazing and beautiful ways, it has also skewed the way information is obtained. Instant knowledge, or perceived knowledge, is available as soon as kids are old enough to type in a computer password or swipe the lock screen of a tablet or smartphone. The internet has eliminated the information exploration process in many ways, with search engine providers racing to spoon feed people the exact answers they need with the fastest speed.

For those of us who grew up in the pre-internet days, the idea of simply Googling the answer for our homework is mind-boggling. If computers were used in classrooms pre-1995 or so, they had specific educational programs preloaded. There was no wandering from one website to the next, and even academic databases were clunky in nature and still took significant time to navigate. Half of the learning battle was to find the right information after digging through a lot of the wrong material first. The payoff, of course, was finding that perfect reference or piece of information that fit the assignment. The skills developed finding that nugget of knowledge were retained for the next search. Those of us who went on to college, and grad school and even pursued even more advanced degrees continued to implement those search-and-find tactics to reach our goals. We had built the foundation early in our K-12 learning careers and knew how to find and implement reliable knowledge.

Now fast forward to a baby born today. This child will likely be the star of an entire Facebook photo album before she is even one day old. Her milestone moments of early childhood will be plastered on the Facebook, Twitter and Instagram feeds of her doting parents and by the time she is a toddler, there will be at least a few smartphone or tablet apps that belong to her on her parents’ devices. Her life will be an open book in many respects, chronicled for her own parents’ posterity but also shared with a world of close friends and not-so-close acquaintances. By the time she starts Kindergarten, she will have spent thousands of hours staring at screens – whether they be the computer, tablet, television or otherwise. Technology won’t be exciting or new but will be a pretty mundane part of life.

There is no way to take away the technology experiences that kids have before they even enter our public K-12 classrooms, and we shouldn’t want to do that anyway. It does change the way this generation of K-12 students will approach the pursuit of knowledge though, and it is vastly different from previous ones. Perhaps just as important as the facts our students learn is making sure they are confident and correctly obtaining that knowledge. Assessments are one way to check up on this goal.

Assessments of the future will need to ask more questions about the how of knowledge and not just focus on the what. There is no longer one set of books that answer a particular set of questions, and even materials as traditional as U.S. history books are coming under scrutiny for being too one-dimensional.

These truths are perhaps most evident in Texas, where a battle wages on regarding the inclusion of alternative versions of American history textbooks in high schools. More than 50 organizations and a coalition of Hispanic-American educators in the state petitioned the Texas State Board of Education to allow alternative history as an elective for high school students. The petitioners were not asking to change the traditional textbooks, but merely to add more perspectives to the learning process for those who elected it. The petition was denied officially for cost concerns, but certain board members admitted that they feared the leftist ideals that could be infused into the textbooks that could disrupt the order of things when it came to learning about history in Texas classrooms.

Politics aside, the debate in Texas brings up some other interesting points as they relate to how exactly this generation of K-12 students obtains knowledge. Simply disallowing the alternative histories in classrooms does not cut off student access from them, it just directs them to unauthorized versions that can be created, and posted online, by anyone. This is true for any topic. Students have all of the information they will ever need at the tips of their fingers, and they will grow up never knowing what life was like pre-Internet. They don’t need to go to the library, or check a few sources before determining the true answer – they just need a smartphone. This presents a slippery slope for educators, who have been told to embrace the very technology that often misinforms their students. Not all free information, particularly online, is created equal. More than ever, educators need to show students how to find the answers on their own.

It is impossible to sort out the good, accurate websites from the bad ones, so students need to be able to think for themselves when it comes to misinformation and information overload. In other words, we need to be educating our learners about how to obtain the BEST knowledge from the pool of available options. This process of finding information should vary from school to school to adjust to the populations using it but should contain these features:

  • An online vetting process. How can students know if what they are reading is reliable? This starts by considering the source through a short list of trustworthy websites and publications. Government publications, large trusted nonprofit names, and some newspapers should make this list. Since some editorial content is now going the way of paid content, otherwise known as native advertising, sites with interest in making money (including some “news” publications) should be examined with a close eye, too. As advertising online continues to evolve, so too should the way we examine the content we consume – and students should be a part of that process. Students should know how to spot unbiased, reliable information and separate from misleading content. That skill starts with vetting the source and looking for clues in the content that point to reliability, instead of simply taking what is presented at face value.
  • Instruction in the basics. I’m not going to take this moment to bemoan the decline of brick-and-mortar library necessity. It is what it is. While needing the actual books on the shelves may be on its way out, the information housed in our school, university, and public libraries is still an incredibly important cornerstone of learning, particularly when students are searching for information. Our students should know what the difference is between a Wikipedia page online and a peer-reviewed article on the same topic. They should understand reference books and where to find the information contained within them, whether that is still a physical library shelf or a specific website. In other words, when our students are at the beginning stages of researching something they should not start with a Google search; they should go a little deeper to find the best sources on any topic and teachers should instruct them on how to do it.
  • Investigating multiple sources. The instant gratification of the internet has provided a shortcut for today’s students when it comes to research and obtaining knowledge. Answers are quite literally right at the tips of their fingers and easy to insert in any assignment. Students should question what they read, however, even if the sources seem reliable. A benefit of the internet is that there is more than one side to every story, which means that today’s students should be handing in well-rounded work that contains more than one piece of info. Even the “facts” surrounding our Founding Fathers and other pieces of American history are scrutinized more closely, in part because of the vast reach of the internet, and students should be encouraged to seek out more than one avenue when it comes to the learning process and should use that information to formulate a well-rounded response to any assignment.
  • An understanding of internet-related ethics. Today’s students do not need to write answers on the insides of their hands or pay another student to write their research papers to cheat academically. In many cases, all they need is a cell phone, a search engine and sometimes a credit card. With so much information available at the touch of a button, student understanding of what is cheating, what is shady and what is perfectly acceptable when it comes to finding answers is a little bit murky. A Common Sense Media survey discovered that at least 35 percent of the student had cheated on assignments via cell phone – though many of those respondents were unaware that what they had done was ethically questionable. Some ways that students cheat to find their answers include texting answers to other students, storing notes on their cell phones, rewriting information found online that requires no further research, using virtual assistant programs to find answers and flat-out paying online companies to write papers or complete assignments for them. In a lot of cases, it may not even occur to the students that they are doing anything unethical. To them, they are just finding the answers to the questions presented in the most efficient way. This reliance on the quickest, most accessible information is dangerous to the academic futures of K-12 students though, and educators should fight against it through policy, discussion and yes, assessments. This requires, in essence, students unlearning the information gathering tactics that they have built in from birth.

But then how do we assess this information gathering process? It is one thing for teachers to align their lesson plans with these methods, but it is another thing to be able to tell which students have mastered them. I would suggest a separate assessment that focuses solely on the process of information seeking – whether it is in included in assessments that are already written, or given as a test at certain benchmarks in the K-12 career.  As it stands now, 4th and 8th grade seem to be popular time frames for other assessments, but I’d suggest mid-way through the elementary career (say 3rd grade) and then again at the end (6th). Then again after 9th grade and in the second semester of 12th. The very best way to test these skill sets is by having individually written tests per school, per district, or at the very least per state. These tests should not be sent off to a large-scale scoring publisher but should be graded individually by each teacher. Adding another requirement to a teacher’s agenda may come with its set of groans, but I’d argue that these information skills are so integral to creating lifelong learners who can think for themselves that this needs to be part of the assessment process.

Instead of an actual “test,” these skills could also be assessed in the way of a class project. Research papers and other long-term projects are certainly not new to a teacher’s agenda, but the “assessment” side of this information gathering would have specific requirements for the intended outcomes, listed above. Guiding the way our students obtain knowledge will impact every other fact or piece of knowledge and needs to be a required piece of K-12 learning – and then tested.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Campus Security, Higher Education

Why the guns-on-campus debate matters for American higher education

Steven J. Friesen, University of Texas at Austin

As of Aug. 1, 2016, a new law allows concealed handguns in college and university buildings in Texas.

It’s already had an impact on me as professor of religious studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Thanks to this law, I set foot in a federal court building for the first time.

And I was not alone. The courtroom was packed. Other citizens were there as well to support three professors who are suing the state’s attorney general and the University of Texas for the right to ban guns from their own classrooms.

Why are these professors taking the extraordinary step of suing the state of Texas and their own university?

In order to understand the situation, we need to consider the political tensions between the legislature and the university, the ideological struggle over the goals of higher education and the possible dangers of bringing more guns to campuses.

Campus carry law in Texas

Until this year, Texas law allowed anyone with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) to carry a loaded hidden gun on campus, but not inside buildings. This restriction kept down the number of people carrying weapons legally on campus.

During the 2015 legislative session, a majority of Republicans pushed the idea to allow guns on campus. University administrators, faculty, faculty council, staff, undergraduate and graduate students and campus police overwhelmingly opposed the idea.

University of Texas campus. Larry Miller, CC BY-NC

However, in spite of campus opposition, in May 2015, the proposed law, known as Senate Bill 11 (SB 11), was approved. So, as of Aug. 1, 2016, anyone with a concealed handgun license can carry a loaded, semiautomatic pistol into most offices, classrooms, hallways, public spaces, cafeterias and gyms at state universities. All that they need: four hours of training and a score of 70 percent accuracy on a shooting test.

Supporters argue that Americans have a constitutional right to protect themselves and carry weapons with as few limits as possible. Carrying guns into classrooms, they say, is part of that right.

Clash of ideologies

For many of us, however, this conflict is about a larger ideological battle over the goals and character of higher education in Texas, with one side emphasizing obedience to authority and the other the need to critique authority.

Let’s consider these two views of education.

The ideology of higher education in the U.S. has historically focused on critical thinking, and faculty overwhelmingly see this as the primary goal (see especially Table 3) of college and university classes. According to this view, universities and colleges are encouraged to question orthodoxy. In other words, higher education should subject all truth claims to intense scrutiny.

The goal of this process is not to tear down society but to make it better, to allow us to develop our full potential as individuals and as a nation in the pursuit of liberty and justice.

Will guns on campus allow critical thinking? Joeri van Veen, CC BY-NC-ND

But here is where the conflict comes in. As the discussion below shows, the campus carry movement has, it seems, a different ideology for higher education. The underlying motivation is that traditional authority must be maintained and, in the end, disagreement is resolved by force, not by debate. For this ideology, critical thinking is a potential threat to authority.

Republican Party principles

Evidence for this comes from the ideas expressed in the Texas Republican Party platform, a formal declaration of the principles on which a party stands and makes it appeal to voters.

The 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform took an explicit stand against “critical thinking skills and similar programs…that focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

Subsequently, the 2016 Texas Republican Platform stepped back from that extreme statement. But it still asserted that parents or guardians – not the government – should have ultimate control over the education of their children.

In the 2016 platform, both guns and religion are discussed in the section on education. Here is what it looks like:

The section on education supports the radical position that all law-abiding citizens should be able to carry guns anywhere without restriction. It says,

“We collectively urge the legislature to pass ‘constitutional carry’ legislation, whereby law-abiding citizens that possess firearms can legally exercise their God-given right to carry that firearm as well. We call for the elimination of all gun free zones. All federal acts, laws, executive orders, and court orders which restrict or infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall be invalid in Texas, not be recognized by Texas, shall be specifically rejected by Texas, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in Texas.”

Another paragraph in the education section discusses “safeguarding religious liberties.“ This one begins by saying,

“We affirm that the public acknowledgment of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity, and strength.”

It goes on to denounce “the myth of separation of church and state,” and it supports the right of businesses to refuse service to anyone based on religious conviction.

What this does is to reaffirm the ideology of the Republican Party of Texas – that education should be governed by traditional authorities of family and conservative forms of Protestant Christianity and not by critical inquiry.

In other words, religious commitment of individuals is more important than civil rights. Furthermore, according to this traditionalist view of authority, liberty and safety are preserved not so much by critique and analysis as by encouraging everyone to carry a gun.

Views from ground zero

This raises the question of how this ideology affects students and professors in the classroom.

As the political battle raged in the Texas legislature in spring 2016, I taught a science and religion class in which we spent the semester analyzing the volatile debates in the U.S. about human evolution and creationism.

I asked my students how they would feel about the possible presence of guns in classrooms.

One student self-identified as having a concealed handgun license and did not have trouble with the presence of guns. But most others thought that it would make them more cautious and less forthright in class. One student said she would be vigilant about how other students were acting. Another said she would censor her opinions.

Protests on campus against campus carry.Katie Labor, CC BY-NC-ND

The sentiment they expressed was confirmed in anonymous polling I conducted before our discussion. Two students (11 percent) were in favor of concealed carry on campus as demanded by SB 11, while 13 (68 percent) thought guns should be completely illegal on campus except for law officers. Only three students (16 percent) felt that SB 11 would make them safer, while 11 (58 percent) expected that the law would make campus less safe.

While one class is hardly a representative sample, these numbers reflect discussions I’ve had with my classes over the last few semesters. The numbers also match a variety of conversations I’ve had on campus.

What might change on campus?

As a professor, I have other concerns for my students beyond the classroom. We work with students at a difficult time in their lives as they work through the transition to adulthood. Some of them also face serious emotional issues. When I have to deal with failed exams, missed assignments and occasional plagiarism or cheating, I sometimes worry about how they will respond.

So far I have not encountered physical threats to my own safety, but I know faculty who have. While waiting in line for the security screening at the federal courthouse, I learned of two more examples. One was a professor of computer sciences who told me about the time when he was physically shoved and verbally abused by a student who got a B rather than an A.

He decided not to press charges. But when the legislature passed the campus carry law, he retired rather than face the possibility of legal weapons in university buildings. Another faculty member told of the time she had to convince her dean to drop a student from her class midsemester for anti-Semitic remarks the student made about her.

Systematic studies point toward other problems that await us if we increase the number of guns on campus. We can expect more accidental shootings, more successful suicide attempts and perhaps even an increase in sexual assaults. In the event of an actual active shooter event, we can expect that an armed civilian will make no difference or even make the situation worse.

Will guns change the character of higher education?

The ideological struggle will continue. Polling early in 2015 showed that Texans were divided on campus carry: 47 percent were in favor, 45 percent were opposed and 8 percent were unsure (this included 22 percent strongly supporting and 32 percent strongly opposed). Campus protests and a satirical student campaign against SB 11 are planned.

What’s the difference that the new law will make? Gun image via www.shutterstock.com

Supporters of the law have filed a formal complaint with the attorney general’s office to make the law stronger by preventing faculty and staff from banning guns in their own offices. Legal papers filed by the University of Texas and the state attorney general have stated that professors would face disciplinary measures if they barred guns from classrooms. There is significant political pressure and special interest money to expand gun rights.

If the lawsuit of the three professors is not successful, we will begin to find out fairly soon what difference SB 11 will actually make in real lives – in the classroom, in the relationships of students, faculty and staff – and in the character of higher education in an American setting.

The actual difference will not be abstract or theoretical. Both opponents and supporters of SB 11 claim that the struggle over guns on campus is a matter of life and death.

The Conversation

Steven J. Friesen, Professor, Louise Farmer Boyer Chair in Biblical Studies, University of Texas at Austin

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

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

Ineffective assessments, part III: Why Common Core fails

Click here to read all of the articles in our Ineffective Assessments series.

Setting uniform standards for students from South Dakota to New York City sounds like a smart plan in theory. In order to compete in the future world economy, American students need to master certain subject areas and be on the same page with them. The standardization of learning also helps feed the college system more readily, ensuring that students are learning at a heightened level and not being taught remedial skills that should have been mastered before high school graduation. As you may have guessed, the way that these blanket, Common Core standards are measured for effectiveness is through assessments. Once again, each state has its own brand of assessments but those that have adopted Common Core standards must adhere to a heightened level of questioning.

The problems with Common Core standards and their accompanying assessments lie below the surface, however, and reflect the larger problem with K-12 testing in America. No two students are the same, and will not learn effectively in the same way as the person sitting right next to them. When you factor in things like environmental and socioeconomic differences, as well as regional environments, there really is no way that any one curriculum standard or set of tests can cover an entire nation of K-12 learners (or even a majority of them, based on the states that have adopted the standards).

Assessments turn living, breathing students into machines, of sorts, who must be programmed to spit out the right answers at the right time in order to further the value of an American education.

Common Core standards single-handedly thrust the issue of what should be learned, and how that material should be tested, into the national spotlight again. While educators had never abandoned this discussion, and likely never will, the general public seemed to awaken abruptly and passionately regarding what K-12 students should be learning. This has set the stage for a thorough reimagining of assessments in U.S. classrooms and has presented an opportunity for public support of change.

So where do we start?

 

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

Ineffective assessments, part II: Where assessments stand today

 Click here to read all of the articles in our Ineffective Assessments series.

Assessments of K-12 students are state-developed and mandated at this point, but there is still plenty of federal oversight. While the federal government cannot tell a state what exactly to cover in an assessment, it can make certain subjects and benchmarks more attractive. Federal funding through programs like the Obama administration’s Race to the Top are tied to assessment scores in specific areas, like math or science learning. So the states that choose to include these federally-friendly standards do so with financial incentives in mind, at least partially. States are rewarded based on the students who achieve standards in areas that the federal government sees as priorities.

Having national standards is not exactly the problem. Incentivizing those standards is the problem. We all learn from a young age that every person is unique and that no two people are alike. Educators learn that students have different learning styles, and different strengths when it comes to those learning styles. A place like America, established on the principles of individual liberties and life goals, should be especially open-armed when it comes to nuances between the students in its public schools.

Yet assessments seem to take these basic ideals and throw them right out the window, blanketing all students with a set of standards to which they must adhere. Not only must students all be on the same page when it comes to this learning, but their teachers must treat them as one when it comes to the education process. Based on the ideology alone, standardized assessments are flawed. When they are then put into practice, their true weaknesses are revealed. How can all students be measured with the same yardstick – and how can punishments and rewards be handed out using such a scale?

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has long been criticized for its automation of student outcomes. NCLB has been simultaneously accused of setting impossible standards and “dumbing down” classrooms for the sake of the herd.  After over a decade of a life in the educational policy spotlight, though, NCLB may actually be losing its position center stage. Enter Common Core Standards. Perhaps no education policy and reform on a national scale has more effectively taken the attention away from NCLB as the recent implementation of Common Core Standards in over 40 states of the union. Though Common Core benchmarks were developed through a consortium of states, their perceived association with national politics is heightened.

The basics of Common Core standards are this: more critical thinking requirements, a higher emphasis on math and science proficiency and better career-readiness initiatives in all pursuits.

Officially, Common Core standards are:

  • Research and evidence based
  • Clear, understandable, and consistent
  • Aligned with college and career expectations
  • Based on rigorous content and the application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
  • Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
  • Informed by other top-performing countries to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

The way that these standards are assessed is, as predicted, through standardized testing. In the case of Common Core, it is through the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, testing. These results are used to determine progress and outline areas for improvement in K-12 schools. Basically every educational initiative should be examined and weighed based on its contribution to the future college and career goals of the student at hand. The lingering question then becomes: are learning experiences not directly related to college placement and career advancement irrelevant?

Teachers find themselves stuck in a no-win situation with Common Core and NCLB standards where they must reach certain benchmarks to receive recognition and funding, but they have to forsake learning in wider scopes to make it happen.

The standards-based Common Core approach to education reform has already been attacked for its disconnection with what kids should really know and what they are simply required to regurgitate for the sake of a test – sort of a déjà vu from the early days of NCLB. Parents who see their children struggling with the heightened intensity of the standards have taken to social media and blogs to complain, and conservative groups that believe states are overstepping their educational power have petitioned their governors to withdraw their states from the standards.

To be sure, there are a lot of misnomers floating around about Common Core standards, their origination and states’ roles in administering them. To understand what these standards and any future standards with a national push mean, we first have to know exactly what they are.

Contrary to what many may think, Common Core standards were not developed by the federal government, or any particular Presidential administration. Common Core standards are the creation of the Governor’s Association and were developed with input from many states before they were finalized. From there, states could decide whether to implement the standards or not – there was never a mandate to accept them. Nearly every state (40+) was on board to implement Common Core when they were first released, and for good reason. Some states has since lost that fervor, with Indiana being the first one to go back on its original decision and opt out of Common Core after just one year of its implementation. South Carolina quickly followed suit, and so did Oklahoma. The reasons behind these flip-flops were cloudy, at best. Officially the governors of these states said they decided to go with state-based standards instead that better addressed the needs of their specific student bodies. Unofficially, critics of the governors’ moves said they were simply political actions intended to gain favor with constituents who were anti-Common Core, and particularly those who felt that the standards were associated with President Obama (which they never were).

Regardless of why states decided against Common Core, either at the outset or after implementation, they remain in the majority of classrooms across the country. So what exactly ARE the Common Core benchmarks, and why are they viewed as being so groundbreaking and controversial?

In a nutshell, the Common Core standards put a stronger focus on areas where American students typically fall behind – think math, science and engineering pursuits. They set a higher bar for learning in these areas, along with language arts and critical thinking. And while the federal government played no implementation role, it did back the standards to the point of offering financial incentives for states that adopted them (Race to the Top is an example of this). By agreeing to the standards set forth by Common Core, states were in essence agreeing to the nationalization of learning benchmarks for the betterment of the K-12 student population as a whole.

 

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

Why science and engineering need to remind students of forgotten lessons from history

Muhammad H. Zaman, Boston University

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion highlighting the need for incorporating social sciences in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines in order to foster creativity, increase empathy and create a better understanding of the human condition among scientists.

Unfortunately, however, all this talk hasn’t changed the reality on the ground.

As a researcher and teacher in biomedical engineering, looking at the fundamental functions of the human body, I feel that we in engineering (as well as other sciences) have done a disservice to our students. We have failed to connect them to the history of science through stories of scientists.

Our students, these days, have little knowledge about the giants on whose shoulders we all stand.

And yet there is strong evidence that students are more likely to develop an interest in science and pursue science education when engaged through narratives that tell a story.

Research also shows that such stories enable students in STEM disciplines to better understand and apply their classroom knowledge in real-world settings.

Missing piece in science learning

In one of my engineering classes, I discuss how fluids, such as air and blood, flow in the human body. These processes are critical to our health and well-being.

As I do that, I also discuss the associated discoveries made by many leading scientists. The seminal work of scientists such as Joseph Fourier, Daniel Bernoulli and Isaac Newton has transformed our world and tremendously improved our quality of life.

What do students know about Newton? cea +, CC BY

However, beyond the most famous anecdote about the falling apple leading to the discovery of gravity, I find that students in my class know little about Newton’s contributions. While students in my class may have a rich understanding of the Fourier transform (a fundamental mathematical relationship that forms the basis of modern electrical engineering), they literally know nothing about who Fourier was.

Research suggests that context and history play a strong role in connecting science and engineering theory with practice.

But despite studies highlighting the importance of storytelling and historical case study approaches, impersonal PowerPoint presentations dominate classrooms. Historical perspectives and rich stories are missing in such presentations.

Why it matters

As educators, we face tremendous pressures to pack technical materials into our courses. So why should we include history in our lesson plans?

First, history provides a compelling perspective on the process of scientific discovery. We have known through research that historical references can help students clear up common misconceptions about scientific topics, ranging from planetary motion to evolution.

Looking at the story of science over centuries enables students to understand that research and discovery are continuous processes. They can then see that the laws and the equations that they use to solve problems were discovered through long and sometimes painful processes.

The findings they arrive at today, in other words, are the fruits of the hard work of real people who lived in real societies and had complex lives, just like the rest of us.

Second, a sense of history teaches students the all-important value of failure in science. It also highlights the persistence of the scientists who continued to push against the odds.

Recent research suggests that by discussing the struggles and failures of scientists, teachers are able to motivate students. Indeed, the discussion of struggles, obstacles, failures and persistence can lead to significant academic improvement of students, particularly for those who may be facing personal or financial difficulties or feeling discouraged by previous instructors and mentors.

Learning from history

This dose of inspiration is particularly valuable for STEM students who face barriers in their academic work, either due to lack of financial resources or due to their gender or race.

The stories of past scientists are a reminder to them that history is an opportunity. Not all great discoveries were made by people who were at the very top of the socioeconomic pyramid.

Connected to the process of discovery and innovation is the fundamental notion of the multidisciplinary approach.

Students need to understand that this approach is not a creation of the 21st century. People have used the multidisciplinary tools of their time for hundreds of years. Johannes Gutenberg, for example, combined the flexibility of a coin punch with the mechanical strength of the wine press to invent the printing press, which created a profound global impact in disseminating knowledge.

The Gutenberg Press replica.Casey Picker, CC BY-NC-ND

Finally, a fundamental goal of modern engineering education is to create socially conscious engineering practitioners who have a strong sense of ethics.

Following an engineering education, individuals could go on to develop medical technology for resource-constrained settings, or work on stem cells or genetic engineering. The importance of ethics in any of these areas cannot be underestimated.

Case studies and history could be immensely valuable in teaching ethics. History provides strong evidence of how the environment around scientists was equally important in shaping their lives and discoveries. Lessons from history could provide insights into how to make ethical choices related to technology or engineering principles.

History, heritage and a holistic view of learning

The goal, in the end, is not to compromise on the rigor, or to focus exclusively on history and personalities, but to make the material more accessible through story-telling and connection with our common heritage.

By making students realize that they are part of a grand tradition of learning, success and failure, we might find that the goals of retention, inspiration, access and rich engagement with the material are closer than we realize.

The Conversation

Muhammad H. Zaman, HHMI Professor of Biomedical Engineering and International Health, Boston University

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

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

How Did We Get Here? Part IX: A Melting Pot of Educational Ideology 

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

When looking at the public school systems of today there seems to be a marked return to the roots of the U.S. education system in the late 1700s. Students are once again being corralled into career paths and being prescribed the best course to reach workforce goals in the fastest way possible. Children as young as Kindergarten are being enrolled in specialty schools for math, or science, or performing arts and quarantined off from their peers on other specific or general paths.

It has somehow become the job of parents, and teachers, to discover for their students exactly what they should do with their working lives a full 12 years before those careers start and to lead them down the paths that will get them there eventually. Children who are left to their own devices when it comes to important life choices like how to earn a living must belong to irresponsible parents, or below-par school districts. The economy, it seems, is the only point to public education and really to private education too. If schools aren’t prepping their students to ace assessments, get into colleges and end up in the perfect career that fits their talents, than what good are they anyway?

This teach-to-career specificity has infiltrated even the highest ranks of American society. President Obama’s Race to the Top program links federal funding to states following a point system that relies heavily on assessment of the materials deemed most important for U.S. students to be learning – much of which is determined by the increasing need for math, science, technology and engineering occupations in the U.S.

The President has also been vocal about his support for stronger teaching to technology programs to meet the expected explosion of computer science and related field jobs in the next half decade. His “Educate to Innovate” campaign is designed to move U.S. students from the middle to the top of science and math achievement in the next decade. This initiative relies on interactive games, private partnerships with organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and national science competitions with visits to the White House as prizes. According to the White House website, Educate to Innovate is about “increasing STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) literacy so all students can think critically in science, math, engineering and technology; improving the quality of math and science teaching so American students are no longer outperformed by those in other nations; and expanding STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including women and minorities.” Schools that make a commitment to the program will earn extra brownie points when it comes to Race to the Top fund allocation.

So what is so wrong with trying to strengthen areas like technology, science, engineering and math? We hear at least once every month on the news that U.S. students lag significantly behind other nations when it comes to these subjects. We should be doing something to fix that, shouldn’t we? In the eyes of Americans, the country should never be behind other nations in well… anything. We should erect the biggest buildings, have the highest gross domestic product and know the most about everything. When something threatens our “best” mentality, we worry. What will become of us? What will happen to our way of life? What sort of second-best (or worse) country are we leaving to our children?

The problem with this fear is that learning is forsaken in the process. Sure, our kids learn some things but what about the other items that are left off the priority list? In another decade, when Americans lag in language arts and critical thinking skills, will federal school funding be linked to programs that stress these subjects above all others?

For all of the strides Americans have made since post-Revolutionary days, we seem to have the same archaic mindset when it comes to our schools – specifically our publicly-funded ones. Education is inextricably tied to our perception of what it will earn individual students and the economy as a whole and not to the pursuit and furthering of learning as a nation.

There is still a lot to love about public schools, though. In a world that often seems fraught with unfairness and discrimination, public schools are the true equalizers. Do they always provide the same qualities of education to student of differing socioeconomic backgrounds? No, not always. But the principles are there. Do public schools prepare all students adequately for the college and the workforce? Not by a longshot. Public schools do serve as the main agent of positive change between one generation and the next, though, and bring the right of an education to students exactly where they are.

With the right tweaks to the system, public schools in America can continue to educate their students from all life circumstances and backgrounds and in ways that are better than ever. It will take some work though, from all of us. It is not enough to simply accept the shortcomings of today’s public schools, or abandon them in search of other choices. In order to ensure coming generations are ready to keep America at the global forefront, and enjoy their freedoms with responsible citizenship, public schools are a necessity. They are the only places that can effectively reach the majority of generations with the same messages about the value of learning, importance of equality and vitality of preserving the American way of life. For these reasons and many more, public schools need to not only be preserved but supported and constantly improved. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership

Want great teachers? There’s no one-size-fits-all solution

Gerald K. LeTendre, Pennsylvania State University

Most of us know the difference a good teacher makes in the life of a child. Many global institutions working to improve access to education, such as the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Education International agree that “teacher quality” is the critical element in whether or not an educational system succeeds.

The United Nations has even called for

“allocating the best teachers to the most challenging parts of a country; and providing teachers with the right mix of government incentives to remain in the profession and ensure all children are learning, regardless of their circumstances.”

It is clear we need good teachers, but just what makes for “teacher quality”? And can quality be systematically improved by public policy?

For 30 years I have been studying cultural expectations for what makes a good teacher, beginning with field work in a Tibetan refugee school and an ethnographic study of Japanese and American public schools conducted some years later. More recently, my colleague Alex Wiseman and I have been working on what researchers from around the world consider to be “teacher quality.”

The consensus is that teacher quality entails much more than just the way teachers deliver lessons in the classroom. Teacher quality is strongly affected by a teacher’s working conditions. Teachers working long hours, with low pay, in crowded schools cannot give each individual student the attention they need.

Simply raising the requirements for teacher certification, based on what has worked in some high-performing countries, is not effective. An effective policy requires changes at the level of teacher recruitment, teacher education and long-term support for professional development.

Quality is more than certification

Around the world, more than a dozen nations have recently engaged in efforts to rapidly reform their teacher education and certification systems. The United States, along with nations as diverse as France, India, Japan and Mexico, has sought to improve its educational system by reforming teacher certification or teacher education.

Borrowing from other models is not effective. World Bank Photo Collection, CC BY-NC-ND

Usually, governments try to do this by passing laws that list more requirements for teachers to get their teaching certificate or license. Often they look for models in countries that score well on international achievement tests like Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) or Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) such as Finland, Singapore or South Korea.

It is true that a teacher’s qualifications, experience, personality and instructional skills all play a role in contributing to “quality.” Teacher quality covers what teachers do outside the classroom: how responsive they are to parents and how much time they put into planning lessons or grading papers. Teaching certificates can make a difference toward ensuring teacher quality.

But that does not make for an effective policy. And here’s the problem: One, merely focusing on standards like certification is not enough. Two, the effect can vary by grade level or because of student background – so borrowing models from other countries is not the best strategy.

In the U.S., for example, a key part of the important legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was to put a “qualified teacher” in every classroom. The law emphasized certification, a college degree and content specialization, but failed to identify teachers who knew how to implement reforms and who promoted critical thinking skills in their classrooms.

The most recent law addressing teacher quality, the Every Student Succeeds Act, had to roll back these requirements allowing each state in the U.S. to experiment with different ways to identify quality teaching.

The law allows states to experiment with different types of teacher training academies and with measures of student progress other than just standardized tests.

Goal of American teachers different from Japanese

Moreover, teacher quality is context-dependent: What works in one country may not work in another, or even for another group of students.

Let’s take preschool or early elementary teachers as an example. At this age, many parents would look for teachers who are warm, caring and understand child development. But this, as we know, would change for high school students.

In high school, especially in college preparation courses, students and parents would expect teachers to focus on the lesson. The quality of their teaching would be judged by how well their students score on tests, not how well they are developing socially or emotionally.

Classroom goals vary: First grade English class in session in Japan. Colin Ryder, CC BY-NC-ND

Other than the age of the student, goals of the educational system would matter too. For example, American, Chinese and Japanese teachers take very different approaches to caring for small children and helping them learn basic academic skills. In their book, “Preschool in Three Cultures,” educational anthropologist Joe Tobin and others showed that Japanese preschool teachers are comfortable with classes of 20 students, and tend to tolerate noise and disorder that most American teachers would find uncomfortable.

By contrast, American teachers place great emphasis on one-on-one interactions between children and adults, especially in helping children learn to express their feelings. It is possible that a competent, “high-quality” teacher from Japan would likely feel incompetent and confused in a U.S. school, even if she was fluent in English.

Countries have their own challenges

That’s not all. National conditions impact teacher quality. In some nations, it is a struggle to retain good teachers and distribute them evenly.

For example, many low-income countries face challenges related to poverty, illness and labor shortages that create teacher shortages. Peter Wallet, a researcher at UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics, shows that in many countries, national governments struggle to find enough teachers to staff their schools. He writes:

“The impact of HIV and AIDS in Tanzania for example meant that in 2006 an estimated 45,000 additional teachers were needed to make up for those who had died or left work because of illness.”

The loss of so many teachers places many children at risk of having no access to quality teachers. This basic lack of qualified teachers has been identified by UNESCO as the major barrier to providing access to quality education for all the world’s children.

Even in wealthy nations, sometimes the most qualified teachers are concentrated at certain schools. For example, in the U.S. there is a very unequal distribution of teachers between high- and low-income school districts. Scholar Linda Darling-Hammond sees this unequal access to teachers as one of the greatest challenges facing the U.S.

The point is not to borrow

The fact is that teaching is complex work. Teachers must build trust, increase motivation, research new methods of teaching, engage parents or caregivers and be adept at the social engineering of the classroom so that learning is not disrupted.

Effective teacher policy has to have at least three levels: It must provide clear goals for teacher education and skill development, it must provide “support to local institutions for the education of teachers” and it must address national demands for high quality education.

And in order to develop teacher quality, nations need to do far more that “borrow” policies from high-scoring nations. Nations can learn from one another, but this requires a systematic exchange of information about sets of policies, not just identifying one promising approach.

The International Summit on the Teaching Profession, an annual event that began in New York in 2011, is one example of this kind of global exchange that brings together governments and teacher unions for a dialogue.

To be effective, reforms need to have the support and input of teachers themselves. And, national and global leaders need to create more ways for teachers to provide suggestions, or criticism, of proposed reforms.

The Conversation

Gerald K. LeTendre, Professor of Education, Pennsylvania State University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share