education

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Will “school choice on steroids” get a boost under a Trump administration?

A policy that Betsy DeVos, a voucher and charter advocate, might favor as education secretary

This article was written by RACHEL MONAHAN

The signature issue for Betsy DeVos, nominated to be the next U.S. Secretary of Education, is giving parents freedom of choice, either to choose charter schools or to use vouchers to buy an education at any school they like, public or private.  The logical extension of such policies – permitting students to take individual courses wherever they wish, by using online options – has already begun to take root in about a dozen states.

It’s called “Course Access” or “Course Choice.” Under such plans, the funding for a course taken by an individual student goes to the school or online company offering the course, often away from the student’s local district. In Nevada, in fact, parents can spend state education dollars any way they please — on private, public, online, part-time and full-time schools, on tutoring and extra books — through education savings accounts, which an advocate for them calls “the purest form of educational freedom.”

As they have emerged in some states, these programs have been assisted by conservative groups such as Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change and the Koch Industries-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It remains to be seen whether a Trump Administration will boost them further, using federal policy.

The growth of “Course Choice” initiatives in various states was chronicled in depth by The Hechinger Report last year, in this story from our archives.

— The editors

Thanks to a relatively new state policy, all spring Clarke went to the school library during second period for an online sociology class.

“It was very cool,” said Clarke, noting it lived up to his psychology teacher’s description: “It was a very interesting topic with some things that will tie back to psychology.”

This initiative, often called “Course Choice” or “Course Access,” is, as one proponent described it, like “school choice on steroids.”

Proponents count at least 10 states that have adopted a collection of policies they began promoting as Course Access — policies that allow students to take classes part-time online (and sometimes in other off-campus classrooms) by choosing from a variety of providers, including charter schools and other districts, instead of being limited to their local course offerings or to one state virtual school. And the Course Access movement is gaining momentum as it expands across the country, with eight states adopting or considering such laws in just the last four years, according to a comprehensive report on Course Access sponsored by the conservative group the Foundation for Excellence in Education and the lobbying firm EducationCounsel.

For Clarke and other students, online schools mean options, but for school district officials, they can mean less revenue, as education dollars flow toward charter schools or other districts that offer the online courses.

And, not unlike what often happens with charter schools and vouchers, the Course Access policies can set up a competition for limited education dollars.

States generally allocate money per student to districts, but in states with Course Access, districts have to share that funding based on the number of courses a student takes elsewhere. Much of the money can end up in the hands of for-profit companies that supply the curriculum, directly provide the classes or run the online schools in which students enroll part time.

“What is possible is the exploding wiring — if you will — of money across district lines or even state lines,” said Patricia Burch, associate professor of education and policy at the University of Southern California. “That can have a very immediate funding implication for a district.”

“It is a significant cost,” said Randy Paulson, Chatfield High’s principal. His school, with 400 students, can manage it partly because no more than 40 students a year are taking an online class. In Chatfield’s case, nearly all the classes are provided by the Minnesota Virtual Academy, run by the Houston Public School District about 40 miles away, with help from the for-profit company K12 Inc.

“What we want to do is serve our own students the best we can,” said Paulson, noting that adding an online class or two sometimes helps keep students in school. “We don’t want to lose students. If we lose students, we’re not able to provide students those opportunities.”

Similar to efforts to open charter schools or offer vouchers for private schools, Course Access aims to allow students (usually in high school) and their families to make choices — in this case, about where to go for individual classes. Advocates believe that the programs have the potential to appeal to all students, even those who would never consider leaving their local schools or don’t have the option of a charter school.

“We think the market is infinite,” said Mary Gifford, senior vice president of education policy and academic affairs at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school operator, which provides the curriculum and some management for the school where Clarke and his classmates enrolled. She said that although no more than 1 or 2 percent of U.S. students will ever enroll in virtual schools full-time, the company is now working closely with districts to help them start online programs as part of Course Access policies.

So far, only a tiny fraction of eligible students have enrolled for online classes. For example, in Minnesota, which began allowing part-time online enrollment in 2006, roughly 1 percent (5,520) of the state’s secondary school students enrolled during the 2013-14 school year, according to the Minnesota Department of Education.

But the policy has powerful backers, including at least three Republican presidential candidates — former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker — along with conservative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC, the Koch Industries-backed association of state legislators and businesses), not to mention allies in the for-profit education business.

“If you rewind and go back to the last election cycle, you had at least two governors campaigning on Course Access,” said John Bailey, vice president of policy at the Jeb Bush-founded Foundation for Excellence in Education, referring to governors Bruce Rauner of Illinois and Greg Abbott of Texas.

And the reform-minded group Chiefs for Change, also founded by Jeb Bush, is pushing to include a provision in the update to the federal No Child Left Behind Act to set aside 5 percent of Title I dollars to be used, among other things, for Course Access. (The House version of the bill already sets aside 3 percent, or roughly $410 million, mostly for outside tutoring services; changes could be made when the House and Senate versions are reconciled in conference committee.)

Many of these backers prefer the term Course Access to Course Choice, to distinguish it from school choice and the controversies surrounding it, and also as a way of indicating its focus on addressing many schools’ lack of course offerings.

As states around the country try to prepare more students for college and careers, they are working to provide more students with access to advanced classes, particularly in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The widespread lack of access to some key courses — only half of all high schools nationwide offer calculus and just 63 percent have physics — has become a rallying cry for Course Access supporters.

“Having a high-quality education must no longer depend on location,” wrote Jeb Bush in the introduction to last year’s Course Access policy brief. “For the next generation of students, the international stakes are too high to restrict access to great courses based on ZIP code.”

Yet at least so far, the program may not be living up to its promise of creating greater access for the very kids who might need it most. The students using the program in Texas are wealthier and whiter overall than the public school population as a whole, suggesting that gaps in access persist online. Data on the Florida Virtual School show a similar trend; in Utah, a stunningly low 6.15 percent of students participating in the state’s Course Access program are officially listed as poor enough to qualify for a fee waiver, though officials said course providers might not be filling out the information correctly.

Utah — the model legislation and its aftermath

When Utah passed the law creating a Course Access program in 2011, school districts panicked over what it would do to their budgets.

“We were fearful because those who were pushing it were pretty intense,” said Ken Grover, now the principal of Innovations Early College High School in Salt Lake City, describing billboards that advertised free online courses.

The program — officially called the Statewide Online Education Program — has been phased in over time. High school students this fall will be able to take up to five classes online during the school year while remaining enrolled in their local high school. This past school year, when students could take four classes online, it cost districts up to $366 per student per semester, according to the Utah State Office of Education.

In the fall of 2016, students will be able to take up to six online classes (usually considered a full load of coursework) while remaining enrolled.

Utah’s Course Access legislation also allows kids in private schools and home-schooled kids to participate through a separate funding stream.

The Utah policy was the model for what conservative backers of the program had imagined. In fact, Utah’s legislation is one of two officially approved by the Koch-backed ALEC. (The other, which contains two possible funding options, is based on a law passed in Louisiana, though later overturned by its state court, and on the law passed in Texas.)

The disaster that public school districts in Utah anticipated never materialized — partly because, within a few months, many districts in the state had established online schools to compete for dollars with the online charter schools.

Canyons School District, for example, went from having no online students in 2011 to 1,900 this past year. They are all enrolled part time, and all but 400 come from within the district, said Darren Draper, who runs what he’s been told is the largest of the district’s part-time schools, the Canyons Virtual High School.

“That’s huge,” said Draper. “If we didn’t build CVHS, we would have many students going elsewhere, without question.”

In fact, just 1,367 students in the entire state took an online class outside their district in 2014-15, according to preliminary state figures, meaning district budgets were largely spared.

In the end, advocates of the change and public school officials who balked at the measure can both claim victory in Utah — at least so far.

Course Access backers, however, claim credit for creating the competition that spurred the public schools to change.

“We changed the landscape in the state entirely,” said Robyn Bagley, board chair for Parents for Choice in Education, a Utah group that advocated for the law locally. “The amount of options skyrocketed in some form or another.”

Bagley maintains that the program has already grown dramatically in its first four years and will expand further.

But Grover said he doesn’t expect to see a spike in numbers. “Most parents want their kids to go to school,” he said. “They want them at school learning. It’s their identity.”

(In perhaps a reflection of where online learning is headed, both Bagley and Grover now run blended-learning schools that they say offer the best of both worlds — the personalization of an online school with the in-person interactions of a traditional school.)

Although rural Texas districts depend on Course Access, statewide its enrollments have dropped

Rural school districts across the state of Texas are using its version of Course Access to offer courses to fulfill basic high school requirements and even to save money.

In the tiny Dell City Independent School District, with fewer than 100 children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade, every single middle and high school student was enrolled in an online social studies class after the district’s teacher left mid-year. Algebra II and Spanish classes were also offered virtually, said Veronica Gomez, a physical education teacher who doubles as the liaison to the Texas Virtual Academy Network, as the statewide program is officially called.

“We live in a rural area; it’s out in the middle of nowhere,” she said. “We don’t have the staff. Because we don’t have the staff, we have to go online.” The district hadn’t found a good candidate to teach Spanish, she said, but added that the online program has other advantages: “It’s cheaper for us. We don’t have to pay benefits or anything like that.”

Most Texas districts, however, appear to be taking a different route — they are opting to spend money on their own schools and teachers instead of paying for online classes.

When the state originally started up the Texas Virtual School Network Course Catalog, in 2009, students could take courses online without the districts having to cover the costs; the state had allocated a separate pool of money for the program.

But after the state stopped covering the cost, the number of spots filled in the semester-long online classes dropped precipitously, from 22,899 in 2010-11 to 5,757 in 2013-14. The wording of the state law may have been a major factor.

The law says that districts can turn down a student’s request for a state-vetted online class only if their school offers a “substantially similar” class. Backers of Course Access said they think many districts are using a generous interpretation of that concept (they tried unsuccessfully this spring to get the legislature to close that loophole).

Louisiana’s new source of funding for college and career classes

In a striking innovation, Louisiana adopted a program, officially called Course Choice, that includes not just online courses but off-campus classes as well. As the law was originally written in Louisiana, for-profit companies and other outside groups could compete to directly provide the online or in-person classes, with parents and students choosing among them and funding going to the winners.

The political opposition to the program was initially fierce, and the law was challenged successfully. The state Supreme Court ruled that the funding approach was unconstitutional because it didn’t provide local school boards a say. Lawmakers revamped the program, removing the competition for resources, allowing schools to control what classes their students enrolled in and adding additional money — in essence, guaranteeing extra funding for the extra classes.

The revised program has expanded rapidly, according to the Louisiana Department of Education, with 19,068 semester-long Course Choice enrollments in 2014-15, just its second year. While the state has been championed as the model for Course Access policies, state superintendent John White said the program hasn’t lived up to his original vision.

The program was originally conceived as a way to bring new and inspiring classes to high school students preparing for life after graduation, White said, with “things that would not have existed without Course Choice.”

Although a welding program, an elite private college’s associates degree program and an ACT-preparation program have successfully flourished as prime examples of innovation under the revised program, schools across the state are most commonly using the program to prepare high school students for life after graduation, specifically allowing students to earn college credit through the state’s four-year universities, technical and community colleges. More than two-thirds (13,000) of the course enrollments have been in these so-called dual-enrollment classes.

“That’s an important thing,” White said, but added, “much of that would exist — not all of it, but much of it would exist without Course Choice.” (Significant numbers of students already took dual-enrollment classes before Course Choice ever started.) He had also hoped, with the initial bill, to put decision-making control in the hands of parents instead of school boards, and argues that the program now has less innovation as a result.

White, who heads the Chiefs for Change group, said federal funding of Course Access, if changes are made to the No Child Left Behind Act, could drive further innovation, with outside groups essentially guaranteed a chance at significant funds. “You’re going to attract a lot of actors that you wouldn’t otherwise attract — creative actors,” he said.

Despite the wide consensus that the program is now working, critics still aren’t happy about how it was originally conceived in Louisiana. “I think it was an ALEC-driven, an American Legislative Exchange-driven, initiative that Superintendent White felt would work in Louisiana,” said the Louisiana School Boards Association executive director, Scott Richard, who helped launch a lawsuit against the state program as it was initially conceived.

“I think it’s all part of the national reform, so-called reform, from the national think tanks,” he added, arguing that the new form of Course Choice had provided districts with resources to make important changes.

White said his inspiration was the online experience in Louisiana and with charter schools and school choice generally, but acknowledged that, because schools are happier with the revised version of the program, principals and teachers are collaborating with the state on everything from scheduling problems to reaching students who hadn’t had access to courses in the past.

Some proponents of Course Access now say that a program that doesn’t start off as competitive for funding may be best.

“I don’t see one system as better than the other; they’re just very different,” White said.

Other options besides Course Access

Of course, for many advocates of Course Access, the program represents just one possibility for changing the public education system — their goal is to put more power in the hands of students and parents to decide where state education dollars are spent.

Nevada passed a law in June that allows parents to spend state education dollars any way they please — on private, public, online, part-time and full-time schools, on tutoring and extra books — through education savings accounts, or “vouchers on steroids,” as they were called in one news story about the legislation. (Four other states have similar laws, but they limit the savings accounts significantly — to students with special needs, in foster care and/or from high-poverty households.)

“I think Course Choice is sort of evolving, just as a policy area, into what you may know as an educational savings account,” said Lindsay Russell, the director of the ALEC Task Force on Education and Workforce Development. “We’re evolving as a country, and I think students continue to need to be competitive, not only within the United States, but globally as we continue to slip. I think educational savings accounts are the purest form of educational freedom.”

Course Access in its current form, while seemingly less radical than Nevada’s approach, appeals to some of its more conservative backers because it can be set up to pay schools and other course providers only when students complete a course (or potentially pass an outside exam).

Proponents call this a step toward accountability and paying for the right thing — results, instead of student attendance, especially given the dismal completion rates for online classes. (In Louisiana and Utah, providers of courses receive half on enrollment and half when the course is completed, for example.)

“Nevada is the poster child for seeing a different way to approach this,” said Michael Horn, co-founder and executive director of the Clayton Christensen Institute. “We need to step back and start learning what policy environments work in terms of incentivizing the right behavior. Course Access is this intriguing place to play with a lot of policies that move away from seat time toward competency-based learning and measuring individual student growth and things like that.”

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Read more about blended learning.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying

Simply punishing students for bullying will not address the problem

Emily Suski, Georgia State University

The spring legislative season is well underway, and, as has been the case for the last several years, a number of states are again considering and passing amendments to their anti-bullying laws.

This year, Florida and Kentucky, for example, saw amendments to their anti-bullying laws introduced in their general assemblies. Florida’s bill, which has been signed into law by Governor Rick Scott, requires schools to review and revise their anti-bullying policies at least every three years. And Kentucky’s bill has come up with a clear definition of bullying so schools better recognize bullying when it occurs.

These changes to anti-bullying laws are good first steps, but recognizing the problem is not sufficient. Schools also need to know what to do about it as well. States’ anti-bullying laws can and should guide and require schools to implement interventions that truly address the causes and effects of bullying.

My research on bullying has focused on anti-bullying laws – what they do, what they don’t do. The truth is these laws can both help and hurt students.

Simply punishing bullies does not work

All 50 states and the District of Columbia now have anti-bullying laws. However, bullying continues to be a widespread and pernicious problem.

Prohibiting and penalizing bullying does not work. Terry Freedman, CC BY-NC-ND

The most recently published data from the National Center for Education Statistics show that in 2011, 37 percent of sixth grade students reported experiencing some form of bullying.

Bullying can have significant and sometimes tragic effects. Bullying can lead to decreased academic performance, increased school dropout rates, increased depression and even suicide in some extreme cases.

Yet very few of the states’ anti-bullying laws effectively address the problem.

Indeed, the vast majority of these laws call for nothing more in response to bullying than punishment of the bully. Often, this means the bully will face suspension or expulsion from school.

For example, when Montana became the last state to pass its anti-bullying law last year, it simply prohibited bullying.

Montana’s law states,

Bullying of a student enrolled in a public K-12 school by another student or an employee is prohibited.

Idaho’s anti-bullying law goes further in its efforts to be punitive. The anti-bullying law is part of its criminal code. So the punishment for bullying in school means facing criminal penalties.

As a result of the lack of guidance or mandates that schools do more than simply punish the bullies, it is likely that schools are treating bullying in the same way as they treat most other serious student disciplinary problems – by suspending and expelling students.

Across the country, the number of suspensions has more than doubled in recent decades. In 2009-10, the most recent year for which statistics are available, more than 3.3 million students were suspended and over 100,000 were expelled from school. While statistics do not disaggregate on the basis of bullying, they are indicative of schools’ overall response to serious student disciplinary problems, of which bullying is one.

Why doesn’t punishment work?

Punishing bullies may seem like the obvious, natural response to the problem. But it does not truly address it.

Social scientists who study bullying have found that “there is limited evidence that mandatory suspensions are effective at curbing aggressive or bullying behavior.”

Simply punishing students does not improve their behavior. Working Word, CC BY-ND

While sending students home from school does communicate that the bullying behavior is unacceptable, it does little to teach them how to improve their behavior. When students are suspended or expelled from school, they typically sit home with nothing to do. This is unlikely to stop bullying.

Moreover, such studies also suggest that students who bully may have behavioral or emotional problems that require intervention in order to address the root cause of bullying.

If schools were to focus on effective early intervention for bullies instead of waiting to punish bullying behavior after the fact, it is likely they would see a decrease in bullying and suspensions and expulsions. In addition, it could prevent some tragic consequences of bullying.

Interventions that do help

Social science researchers have found that interventions that focus on building a broad range of social skills are effective at curbing bullying behavior.

One such program, known as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education, has been found to be effective. Its effectiveness stems in part from its basic model, which allows for the use of multiple intervention models, ranging from school-wide training to individualized interventions, that can be integrated in the school setting.

States’ anti-bullying laws can draw on such social science research to call for schools to use interventions that do work, but very few of them actually provide support for such strategies. As a result, most schools are left to incorporate them only as far as their notoriously strapped budgets and resources allow.

There are, however, some notable exceptions.

For example, Florida’s new law mandates schools to address student bullying behavior at the same time as continuously reviewing and revising their policies with an eye toward improving responses as needed.

Nevada’s example

Nevada has gone a step further.

In 2015, Nevada revised its anti-bullying law to call for, among other things, hiring social workers to provide services to address the bullying problem and its effects. Even better, it funded the law.

Stopping bullying will involve a comprehensive program. Ken Whytock, CC BY-NC

It allocated nearly US$16 million to support the hiring of the social workers devoted to working on bullying problems. These social workers work on building social skills and empathy development programs in schools.

Nevada passed the law due in no small part to the advocacy of Jason Lamberth, father of Hailee Lamberth, who was a student in the Nevada public schools. Hailee committed suicide in December 2013 as the result of bullying in school.

In her suicide note, Hailee asked that her school be informed of the reasons she committed suicide so that the school would prevent bullying from harming other students in the future.

Nevada had an anti-bullying law in place at the time of Hailee’s suicide that, much like the vast majority of states’ anti-bullying laws, called for schools to investigate and impose discipline for bullying. That law obviously did not help prevent Hailee’s bullying or her resulting death.

Jason Lamberth’s advocacy led Nevada to pass a law that holds the promise to do what Hailee asked schools to do: prevent and address the underlying causes of bullying.

Using punishment of the bullying as the primary or sole intervention for addressing bullying cannot address the complicated causes and effects of the problem.

As other states look to amend their laws, they should look at Nevada’s example and make their laws meaningful and not just well-intentioned. And they should not wait for another tragedy to make those changes.

The Conversation

Emily Suski, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Georgia State University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Prospective higher education students need better information about admissions process: Shergold report

This article was written by Michelle Grattan

More students than ever before have the opportunity for higher education but their choices are being undermined by a confusing admissions system in much need of reform.

This is the conclusion of a report to Education Minister Simon Birmingham, which points to “a paradoxical situation”.

“Entry into universities has become more equitable. Yet there is evidence that families with less experience of higher education, which are economically disadvantaged or live in regional Australia, are less able to understand how admissions processes operate.”

The report, “Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions” is from the Higher Education Standards Panel, chaired by Peter Shergold, a one-time head of the Prime Minister’s department, and will be released by Birmingham on Wednesday.

It says the increasing diversity of admissions criteria for higher education is not well enough understood. Media focus is on the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) but in 2014 more than half the students admitted to higher education courses were admitted on other criteria. These included previous study and mature age provisions.

“Diversity is good. Varied entry standards and pathways are giving greater numbers of students the opportunity to benefit from higher education than ever before.

“More students from disadvantaged families, who in previous times would not have been able to gain entry to higher education, are now able to do so.

“However, choice is being undermined by information about the system’s operation that is confusing, ambiguous, misunderstood and unevenly distributed.”

Problems include: no common language to describe entry requirements; the ATAR calculation differing in each jurisdiction; information not being provided in a readily accessible way that facilitates comparisons; the ATAR focus leading many prospective students to assume that is the only path; and the danger that some higher education providers might make exaggerated claims about ATAR requirements, in an effort to boost their prestige.

There is consensus that the autonomy of higher education providers to set their own admission criteria should be upheld, but the panel says the emphasis should be on a student-centred approach.

The panel has produced a detailed set of recommendations to:

  • achieve more transparency by using common language and publishing consistent information about admissions processes;
  • widen the accessibility of information to prospective students;
  • improve the comparability of information from providers about admission processes and entry requirements;
  • make providers more accountable for the information they give;
  • ensure providers are subject to common reporting requirements, and
  • give students, parents, teachers and career advisers the knowledge and capacity they need to navigate admissions policies and processes.

Releasing the report at a higher education summit in Melbourne, Birmingham will support the recommendations’ intent and promise an official response within weeks. The government will get input from the sector and states and territories.

“Admission policies should not only empower students to make wise, well-informed choices but should also create levels of transparency and accountability that, coupled with optimal financial incentives, help to ensure that higher education providers make enrolment decisions that are genuinely in the best interests of students and the nation,” Birmingham will say.

“That shift towards greater transparency is why the Turnbull government has been such a strong advocate of the QILT [Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching] website – giving students better information about institutions and course quality, as well as graduate employment outcomes.”

The site has received about 490,000 visits. Enhancements to QILT would be part of the government’s response to the report and broad higher education reform, including better information for postgraduate students and greater use of universal data sources, Birmingham will say.

“We also require better understanding of whether students are moving between sectors or institutions within sectors or moving in to work or from a bachelor course of study to a diploma or advanced diploma in the same or another institution. Those students are currently being counted as non-completions.”

The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

New partnerships are needed to arrest economic malaise in South Africa

This article was written by Steve Koch

South Africa’s Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan presented his 2016 mid-term budget on the back of a crisis in higher education funding characterised by widespread national student protests. The Conversation Africa’s business and economy editor Sibonelo Radebe asked Steve Koch to weigh the minister’s speech.

What is your reaction to the minister’s statements on funding higher education? Could he have done better?

The minister’s statements were well calculated, measured, and responsible in the current climate. The additional increase in National Student Aid Financial Scheme funds should go quite some way towards improving access to post-school education.

Assuming “better” means finding money to fund “free education for all, immediately”, the answer is no. Despite what student activists would like to believe, free education for all is pro-rich. This is because, disproportionately, students who qualify for post-school education come from richer households.

The answer is a more nuanced “maybe” if “better” means finding more money to help poor students fund their tertiary education. There are options, not necessarily palatable to all, such as privatisation of state-owned enterprises, which might raise revenue and reduce pressure on the fiscus. But changes of that nature would not be made in a medium-term budget. They would more likely feature in the State of the Union Address.

What should be done to address the higher education crisis in the long term?

There appear to be two components to this crisis. The one that appears to have driven the initial #FeesMustFall movement is that post-school education is relatively expensive and, even though funding for post-school education is one of the fastest rising budget items, student numbers have risen faster.

The bigger problem is that the economy has not grown fast enough to absorb workers for far too long. Students or their parents are left with potentially crippling debt and yet limited prospects to repay. Dealing with this will require some creativity, and a willingness to experiment to engender positive change in the economy. In my view, positive change requires opening up space and creating funding opportunities for entrepreneurs and businesspeople, while working to limit “rent-seeking”. Corruption, bribery and collusion are common forms of rent-seeking, which is the use of a position of power (political, economic or otherwise) to further your one’s own interests.

But one of the undercurrents of the current crisis is political, not economic. There is a desire for change, period. Thus, we see the rejection of democratically elected student council representatives, the rejection of current curricula and the rejection of socially accepted rules of engagement, among other things. Dealing with this will have to go far beyond the structures of a medium term budget.

What do you think credit rating agencies are taking out of this budget?

The medium term budget did not signal any big changes in policy associated with either large increases in budget deficits or long-term debt. And the minister was adamant that South Africa was able to control its own destiny.

These were important pronouncements because they underscored a commitment to budget sustainability.

The credit rating agencies are likely to take solace from this. But the minister is not capable of changing the economy overnight. And there are international risks, as well as local economic and political risks, beyond his control that remain important factors in credit rating decisions. Politically, uncertainty surrounding the minister’s continued appointment, as well as any potential replacement’s commitment to sound fiscal management, remains. Similarly, uncertainty surrounding the US Presidential elections, and the US’s continuing commitment to either free trade or Africa cannot be discounted. Economically, Brexit and the resultant relationship between Europe, the UK and Africa create further uncertainties about South Africa’s growth potential.

Given the prevailing political environment do you think the finance minister will achieve what he has set out to do?

One way to define the minister’s job description is that he has the responsibility to pay – sustainably – for activities that government would like to fund. He spoke about the realities of the local and international economic situation. He also restated the importance of creating a South Africa that was different (and far better) than the one inherited in 1994.

The reality is that government’s ability to directly fund new activities has decreased. But if business and civil society become more involved, government’s need to directly fund new activities will decrease.

For me one of the key takeaways was the message that the country’s full potential requires not just the government, but also the efforts of the private sector and civil society. If I’m reading this correctly it could herald the beginning of positive change in the economy and society.

It remains to be seen whether this theme permeates future government policy actions, or whether business and civil society begin to work with government and each other to achieve positive change. But the minister’s efforts are likely to open fiscal space, and, therefore, could help achieve what is required.

The Conversation

Steve Koch, Professor of Economics, University of Pretoria

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, EdTech & Innovation, First Year Teachers, Parental Involvement, Special Education,

Here’s why kids fall behind in science

Paul Morgan, Pennsylvania State University

Globally, the U.S. is at risk of declining economic competitiveness due to its continuing lower levels of educational attainment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The U.S. currently ranks 44th according to the quality of its mathematics and science education.

A “leaky STEM pipeline” – in which factors such as lower expectations, discrimination, and a lack of interest make it less likely that racial or ethnic minorities, women or those from low-income families will pursue STEM careers – makes many adults less likely to be employed in these types of positions.

Yet STEM positions are often high-paying and provide greater economic well-being and employment stability, especially as the U.S. transitions to a knowledge-based economy.

Efforts that increase schoolchildren’s science achievement – particularly those from diverse, traditionally marginalized populations – could help provide children with greater future employment opportunities while ensuring that the U.S. remains economically competitive.

The question is, when should these efforts begin? That is, how early do leaks in the STEM pipeline begin to occur?

Science achievement gaps

My research seeks to understand why some groups of children are more likely to struggle academically in U.S. schools. To date, I have been reporting on factors that increase children’s risk for lower achievement in reading and mathematics.

Early on, racial and ethnic minorities fall behind in science. NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, CC BY-NC-ND

Researchers have found that large science achievement gaps occur within the U.S. These gaps are very large by middle school, and they are disproportionately experienced by children who are racial or ethnic minorities, English Language Learners (ELLs), and those from lower-income families.

For example, 63 percent of U.S. eighth graders who are black display “below basic” (that is, less than partial mastery of knowledge and skills necessary for grade level work) levels of science achievement. The contrasting percentage for white children is 20 percent. While 52 percent of low-income children display below basic levels of science achievement, only 20 percent of higher-income children do so.

Yet why these science achievement gaps are occurring has been unclear.

Very few studies have examined children’s science achievement across time. Most studies have used samples of middle or high school students. As a result, when science achievement gaps begin to occur has not been well understood.

Here’s what our study shows

To better understand these science achievement gaps, we analyzed a nationally representative sample of U.S. schoolchildren as they entered kindergarten and then continued through elementary and middle school.

The data were collected by the U.S. Department of Education, and designed to be representative of the population of children who entered U.S. kindergarten classrooms in 1998-1999.

The data included children’s reading and mathematics achievement, their classroom behavior, and many characteristics of their families and schools. Such characteristics included the quality of the children’s parenting, their family’s income, and the racial segregation of their schools. From third grade to eighth grade, the surveys included a measure of children’s science achievement.

During kindergarten and first grade, the surveys assessed children’s general knowledge about their natural (e.g., the seasons, the lunar phases, erosion) and social worlds (e.g., what a fireman does, what planes and trains have in common).

Our analyses of these data yielded three surprising findings.

The gaps exist when kids enter kindergarten. PRONavy Hale Keiki School, CC BY

First, we found that very large gaps in general knowledge were already evident among children entering kindergarten classrooms in the U.S. For example, about 60 percent of black children scored in the bottom 25 percent on the general knowledge measure. The contrasting percentage for white children was 15 percent.

About 65 percent of low-income children entered kindergarten with low levels of general knowledge. Only 10 percent of high-income children did so. The general knowledge and science achievement gaps in kindergarten were even larger than the reading or mathematics achievement gaps.

In other words, leaks in the STEM pipeline were originating “close to the tap.”

The second surprising finding was that general knowledge gaps by kindergarten strongly predicted science achievement gaps by third grade. For example, of those whose general knowledge was in the lowest 25 percent during kindergarten, 62 percent, 60 percent and 54 percent had levels of science achievement in the lowest 25 percent at the end of third, fifth or eighth grade, respectively.

This suggests that children who are already struggling with low levels of general knowledge in kindergarten are likely to still be struggling in science throughout elementary and middle school.

Children’s general knowledge was a stronger predictor of third grade science achievement than race/ethnicity, reading or mathematics achievement, classroom behavior or family income.

Both the general knowledge and science achievement gaps were very stable over time.

Children who are racial or ethnic minorities, English Language Learners or from low-income households displayed lower levels of science achievement by third grade and typically continued to lag behind throughout elementary and middle school. Girls displayed relatively lower science achievement than boys in third grade.

Closing these gaps

Our third finding was more encouraging. We found that we could explain most of these general knowledge and science achievement gaps. And this could help inform efforts by parents, practitioners, and policymakers to close these gaps.

For example, we were able to explain 75 percent of the third grade science achievement gap between black and white children as well as 97 percent of the gap between low- and high-income children.

Early interventions could help.NASA HQ PHOTO, CC BY-NC-ND

Factors that helped explain science achievement gaps included children’s reading and mathematics achievement, their behavior and, most importantly, their general knowledge.

Helping young children to be more knowledgeable about their physical and social surroundings, as well as to be better at reading and mathematics, may increase their science achievement as they grow older.

Asking children questions about their surroundings while encouraging and extending their initial explorations could help them improve their general knowledge and science achievement.

Encouraging policies that lead to high-quality childcare for children most at risk could reduce these gaps. Policies that counter the racial segregation of U.S. schools might also be helpful.

It is never too late to help children grow to be successful. But if we are really serious about their as well as our nation’s future opportunities, we will do more to help all children begin kindergarten already knowledgeable about their natural and social worlds.

Collective, coordinated, and sustained efforts by parents, practitioners, and policymakers during children’s early school careers could make all the difference.

The Conversation

Paul Morgan, Associate Professor of Education, Pennsylvania State University

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

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

Our Kids Deserve Better: The Push For Bipartisan Education Reform

After spending a decade and a half in the field of education, and much to my chagrin, not much has changed. K-12 schools are still underperforming, losing the global war for intellectual supremacy year after year. The power to counteract this is within our grasp, but we are too busy fighting political battles over state and parental rights. Our kids deserve better.

The bottom line is that most valuable commodity that we have is our children, and the future of the United States is inextricably tied to them. Unless we provide our children with a world-class education now, we will suffer later, when they are unable to lead or compete in the global economy.

Let’s stop fighting these petty turf wars. Who cares if Common Core is tied to President Obama or not? Flawed as it may be, it has the potential to ensure that all children graduate with the skills that they need to become productive citizens. It could be a game changer, but many of us reject it because it feels too much like a nationalized curriculum, or because we simply don’t understand the potential benefits. I brought up Common Core because it’s a divisive issue, driven more by politics than practicality.

It’s funny how we say that it is all about the kids, but at the end of the day, education policy makers create laws based on what is best for stakeholders. They don’t want to upset educators, teachers unions, parents, business, etc. Who cares about what upsets kids?

Take ten minutes out of your day and talk to a high school dropout. Ask them why they dropped out? The answers that you get will give you valuable insight into what is wrong with U.S. Education system. Instead of listening to the feedback from students, we would rather do a deep dive into the data, or pay a consultant six figures.

Our kids deserve better. They deserve access a quality education regardless of where they live in this country. The only thing standing in our way is us. If we could learn to focus on what matters most, our children, then and only then will we be able to reform the U.S. education system and secure our children’s future.

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Education Leadership, First Year Teachers, Teachers

Why teachers are unable to stop bias-based bullying

SeriaShia J. Chatters, Pennsylvania State University

State and local lawmakers have put policies in place to address and prevent bullying. Many schools too have implemented interventions to improve school climate to reduce bullying behaviors.

Despite these efforts, in my research and experiences in schools as a counselor educator and school counselor, I have found bullying based on bias continues to be an issue in school settings.

“Bias-based” or “identity-based” bullying, defined as students being bullied specifically based on their race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, socioeconomic status or weight, is far more difficult to recognize or address when compared to traditional forms of bullying.

Teachers too may fail to notice and address such behaviors and, at times, may even be involved in them.

Response to bullying

Bias-based bullying incidents involve explicit and implicit forms of racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice or discrimination. They are not only harmful emotionally, socially and psychologically to students, but are also a violation of a student’s civil rights.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights urges schools to be vigilant in the identification and prevention of bias-based bullying and provides guidance on specific laws that prohibit bias based harassment such as Title IX, a federal law, that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, Section 504 or Title II, which protects individuals with disabilities, and Title IV, which protects individuals from harassment based on religion, ethnicity or shared ancestry.

Bias-based bullying behaviors can go unnoticed. Twentyfour Students, CC BY-SA

Despite this protection, however, bias-based bullying behaviors persist and can go unnoticed, or even be endorsed, by teachers in the field.

For example, a recent study investigated physical education teachers failing to respond to bullying behaviors against students being targeted due to their weight. Studies have also highlighted teachers failing to respond to students being bullied due to their sexual orientation.

Failure to recognize bias-based bullying behaviors can lead to tragic consequences.

Ryan Halligan, a 13-year-old student who committed suicide in October 7, 2003, was targeted primarily with homophobic slurs. A more recent case was that of Kennedy LeRoy, a teen who committed suicide in June 2015 after he was bullied partly due to having Asperger’s syndrome.

Bullying by teachers

Worse still, some students report being victimized not just by their peers but by their teachers as well.

In a study titled The Youth Voice Project published by my colleagues, Charisse Nixon and Stan Davis, students in special education testified that their teachers were more abusive toward them than toward their peers in general ed.

Although this information may seem surprising, teacher involvement in bullying students extends beyond special education settings to general and alternative education settings.

A 2011 study, for example, by researchers Christine Zerillo and Karen F. Osterman indicates that, although teachers were aware of colleagues who bully students, they felt more accountable to report peer bullying.

When teachers think they are outsiders

Although most schools are preparing educators and staff to recognize and respond to bullying, behaviors that are based on bias are often overlooked.

The results of a study I conducted indicated that educators may lack the knowledge of and skills to respond to bias-based bullying.

I investigated perceptions of undergraduate students in teacher education programs. I asked participants about their perceptions of their role when faced with a situation involving bias based bullying.

Most people consider themselves outsiders and do not respond to bullying. Denise Krebs

Approximately 50 percent of participants considered themselves to be outsiders or not involved in situations involving bias-based bullying. Additionally, participants believed that they lacked the knowledge and skills to respond to situations involving bullying and prejudice.

There was one encouraging finding, however. After participating in a full-day workshop that included bullying prevention and prejudice reduction, participants reported significant changes in attitude. Their knowledge and skills to respond to situations involving bullying and prejudice improved. And they also changed how they perceived their role – from considering themselves to be outsiders (57 percent pre-workshop, 20 percent post-workshop) to defenders of victims of bias based bullying (20 percent pre-workshop; 78 percent post-workshop).

Training teachers

So how can schools respond to bias-based bullying?

School administrators can include questions regarding bias-based bullying on their school environment, assessments and evaluations. This can help schools gain a better understanding of what forms of bias-based bullying are most common in their schools. Training teachers to recognize and respond to bias-based bullying could also improve the likelihood that they would intervene when they saw bullying.

These initiatives can be effective when implemented as a part of an intervention that includes the whole school, parents and the community.

The Conversation

SeriaShia J. Chatters, Assistant Professor of Education (Counselor Education) , Pennsylvania State University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Elementary Education, First Year Teachers, Higher Education, Special Education,

Understanding Three Key Classroom Management Theories

By Tricia Hussung

How teachers manage their classrooms is an important part of achieving an effective learning environment. Educators know that all students learn differently, and choosing the right instructional style can mitigate behavioral issues and make good instruction possible. According to the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, a significant body of research also demonstrates that classroom organization and the ability to effectively manage student behavior “significantly influence the persistence of new teachers in teaching careers.” Within this context, it is clear that instructional theory and classroom management strategies are among the most important aspects of teacher education.

While classroom management theory is constantly evolving, there are three key theorists who stand out when it comes to modern education. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, experts like B.F. Skinner, William Glasser and Alfie Kohn revolutionized the ways that teachers deliver education. Understanding their theories can help educators define their own classroom management methods and make decisions about how to best approach interactions with students.

1200x75-classroommngment-subheader1-huss

B.F. Skinner’s contribution to learning theory can’t be overstated. His work is based upon the idea that learning is a function of change in overt behavior. According to Skinner, changes in behavior are a result of individuals’ responses to events, or stimuli, that occur in their environment. When a stimulus-response (S-R) pattern is rewarded, the individual is conditioned to respond similarly in the future. The key to Skinner’s theory is reinforcement, or anything that strengthens the desired response. This could include praise, good grades, a reward or even a feeling of accomplishment. Of course, negative reinforcement occurs when a stimulus results in increased response when it is withdrawn. The central tenet of Skinner’s work is that positively reinforced behavior will reoccur. This is why information is presented in small amounts. Responses can be reinforced, and reinforcement will be applied to similar stimuli.

Skinner’s work in operant conditioning has been integrated into both classroom management and instructional development. When applied to programmed instruction, the following should occur:

  • Practice should occur in a question-answer format that exposes students to information gradually through a series of steps.
  • The learner should respond each time and receive immediate feedback.
  • Good performance should be paired with secondary reinforcers like praise, prizes and good grades.
  • Instructors should try to arrange questions by difficulty so the response is always correct, creating positive enforcement.

There are many obvious ways that Skinner’s work has been directly incorporated into modern school systems. Though rewards were utilized for good behavior long before Skinner, many behavior management systems utilized in today’s classrooms are influenced by his theories. Teachers utilize immediate praise, feedback or rewards when seeking to change problematic student behavior, and some even use “token economies” to reward students in a systematic way.

1200x75-classroommngment-subheader2-huss

William Glasser coined the term “choice theory” in 1998. In general, this theory states that all we do is behave. Glasser suggests that almost all behavior is chosen, and we are driven by genetics to satisfy five basic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun. In choice theory, the most important need is love and belonging because connectedness with others is required as a basis in satisfying all other needs. The classroom should therefore be a needs-satisfying place for students.

Glasser’s work impacts learning theory in a variety of ways. It has been utilized in schools across the globe and has changed the ways that teachers deliver instruction.

First, Glasser identifies teachers as managers who need to work effectively if they want to successfully teach their students. The role of teachers as managers requires them to guide students in understanding that working hard and being obedient is worth it and will have a positive influence on their lives. Teachers can achieve this through developing positive relationships with students and creating active, relevant learning experiences that enable students to demonstrate mastery and success.

When it comes to developing lessons, teachers who practice choice theory work to make sure that student classroom activities are designed to satisfy the students’ needs. This allows learning to increase while diminishing disruption. Students are able to “connect, feel a sense of competence and power, have some freedom, and enjoy themselves in a safe, secure environment,” according to Funderstanding. There are three common characteristics of classrooms and schools that apply choice theory:

  • Coercion is minimized because it never inspires quality. Students aren’t “made” to behave using rewards and punishments. Instead, teachers build positive relationships with their students and manage them.
  • Teachers focus on quality. They expect mastery of concepts and encourage students to redo their work and try again until they have demonstrated competence and high-quality work. The emphasis is on deep learning through application.
  • Self-evaluation is common. Students are provided with helpful information and take ownership of their learning by evaluating their own performance. This promotes responsibility and helps students reach goals while becoming skilled decision-makers who are actively involved in their own education.

1200x75-classroommngment-subheader3-huss

Alfie Kohn’s work critiques many aspects of traditional education, namely the use of competition or external factors as motivation. Kohn maintains that societies based on extrinsic motivation always become inefficient over time. He questions the hierarchical structures at work in mainstream education. Positions of authority are “unnaturally scarce,” and such systems assume that all people have a competitive nature. He argues that positive enforcement only encourages students to seek out more positive enforcement, rather than truly learn. Kohn believes that the ideal classroom emphasizes curiosity and cooperation above all, and that the student’s curiosity should determine what is taught. Because of this, he argues that standards should be kept very minimal and is critical of standardized testing. Kohn also argues that a strict curriculum and homework are counterintuitive to student needs. When it comes to classroom management, Kohn believes that most teachers rely too heavily on extrinsic motivation rather than more intrinsic factors. He suggests teachers keep cooperation in mind because when curiosity is nurtured, rewards and punishments aren’t necessary.

To implement Kohn’s approaches in the classroom, teachers can allow students to explore the topics that interest them most. Students “should be able to think and write and explore without worrying about how good they are,” he suggests. In general, Kohn believes that there is too much emphasis on achievement rather than the learning process. He emphasizes that not all students learn at the same pace, and standards do not take this into account. In general, Kohn believes in classrooms where the student is at the center of everything. Ideally, such a classroom would feature:

  • Multiple activity centers with various classroom structures for group work
  • Displays of student projects
  • Students exchanging ideas
  • A respectful teacher mingling with students
  • Students excited about learning and actively asking questions
  • Multiple activities occurring at the same time

In terms of modern school systems, Kohn’s approaches are more consistent with those used in elementary classrooms. The key element is a “shift from a quiet, well-managed classroom to one that is lively and features an emphasis on student learning,” explains Thomas Hanson on OpenEducation.net.

1200x75-classroommngment-subheader4-huss

When educators are able to focus on classroom organization as a means of behavior management, they achieve better results for students. If you are interested in education topics like this, consider the online Master of Education from Husson University. Graduate-level education is ideal for teachers looking to advance their career and become leaders in the classroom and beyond. In addition, this degree program is ideal for individuals interested in becoming curriculum/instructional specialists, corporate trainers, course designers, education policy developers or adjunct faculty members.

Regardless of your professional focus, Husson’s program helps educators develop successful learning techniques through an inquiry-based approach. You can learn more about this fully online program here.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement

Public vs. Private: What Education Is Right for Your Kids?

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

A guest post by Anica Oaks

While there is a current push toward private education in many circles in today’s society, the reality is that there are many happy, well-rounded, and well-educated children from both private and public institutions. It really does come down to choosing what’s best for your child. However, that choice isn’t an easy one. As you weigh the decision of private versus public, it’s important that you consider the advantages of each as well as your child’s actual needs. You should also ask some important questions before making the decision so that you are fully informed.

Benefits of Public Education

The news is often touting the shortfalls of the public school system; however, it actually offers a number of benefits that you might not otherwise recognize. If you’re considering private versus public education, be sure to include these benefits in your deliberation:

  • More qualified teachers: Teachers in the public sector are more likely to have master’s degrees and to have spent more hours pursuing continuing education courses.
  • More time on core subjects: A national report found that students in public schools actually spend an additional three hours every week studying the core subjects of English, math, social studies, and science compared to their private school counterparts.
  • More diversity: Public schools are available to students of any race and socioeconomic status, which creates more diverse student population.

Advantages of Private Education

That being said, the private school system also offers a number of advantages to its student population. While you are likely more aware of many of the benefits of private education, it is still important to keep these in mind:

  • Smaller schools and class sizes: Statistics indicate that private schools on average are half as large as public schools. Just as schools are smaller, so are the class sizes, offering an average student-teacher ratio of 9:1 compared to 17:1 in public school classrooms.
  • Less bureaucracy: Private schools aren’t mandated by all of the state regulations that public systems are, which results in less bureaucracy.
  • High parent involvement: Parents who invest in private education typically have a strong say in their children’s educations, so private schools lend themselves to high parent involvement.

Finding the Best Fit for Your Child

It’s tempting to rely on what everyone else is saying about a school when you are making your decision. But, you truly need to focus on what is best for your child. Consider the options, which range from your typical brick and mortar public schools to more contemporary charter schools, and be sure to visit and ask questions to find what works best for your child.

As you make your decision, ask about the curriculum, student-teacher ratio, and even the school’s expectations for parents. Having all of this information up front will help you make an informed decision for your child.

Selecting the right school for your child is important. Take the time to consider the advantages of public and private options and ask questions to find the right fit for your child.

___

Anica is a professional content and copywriter who graduated from the University of San Francisco. She loves dogs, the ocean, and anything outdoor-related. She was raised in a big family, so she’s used to putting things to a vote. Also, cartwheels are her specialty. You can connect with Anica here.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Here’s another reason why many community college students do not get their degree

Daniel Eisenberg, University of Michigan and Sara Goldrick-Rab, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The growth of community colleges in the U.S. has improved access to higher education tremendously, especially for students from low-income families. However, completion rates at these schools are less than 30 percent.

Could the mental health of community college students play a role in their degree completion?

We recently partnered with researchers, nonprofits and community colleges across the country to study the mental health conditions of community college students.

Mental health on college campus

The first signs of most mental health conditions often appear during or before the typical college age range – 18 to 24 years. Symptoms can include lack of energy, loss of concentration, lack of sleep or even substance abuse, which can affect school performance. Depressed or anxious students can also feel pessimistic and lose their motivation.

In previous research, we and other research groups have extensively documented the high prevalence of mental health disorders in four-year institutions. Recent studies also indicate that mental health disorders could be increasing among the youth.

What about mental health issues of community college students specifically?

Compared to four-year schools, community colleges draw student populations with higher poverty and other socioeconomic disadvantages, which could increase their vulnerability to mental health conditions.

Community college students are more vulnerable to mental health problems. trizoultro, CC BY-ND

So in winter 2015, we conducted an online survey of a random sample of over 4,300 students at 10 community colleges across the nation, and used standard brief assessments to measure symptoms of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety.

To compare with four-year school populations, we examined these same measures from Healthy Minds Study, a national survey from the academic year 2014-2015, which included nearly 16,000 respondents from 16 institutions.

Here are the community college data

The results from our study “Too Distressed to Learn” leave little doubt that mental health is, in fact, a major concern for community college students.

Nearly half (49 percent) of community college students show symptoms related to one or more mental health condition, such as depression, anxiety, suicidal ideas, nonsuicidal self-injury or eating disorders.

In other words, approximately six million students, of the approximately 12 million students in community colleges nationwide, have symptoms of mental disorders. We found depression and anxiety to be among the most common conditions. About 36 percent students showed symptoms of depression and 29 percent had disorders related to anxiety.

For younger students ages 18-24 in community colleges, these numbers are even higher: 40 percent for depression and 33 percent for anxiety.

Furthermore, mental health conditions appear to be considerably higher at community colleges, as compared to four-year schools. Among students ages 18-24, 23 percent of community college students are experiencing the most severe frequency and number of depressive symptoms, as compared to 11 percent of four-year students.

Are students getting help?

This troubling situation is compounded by the fact that most students with mental health conditions are not receiving adequate support.

Among community college students with a mental health condition, we found only 41 percent were receiving any mental health care (counseling and/or medication) in the previous year. This number is even lower – 35 percent – among community college students in the age group 18-24. Although still not adequate, by comparison, 45 percent of students in the age group 18-24 find support at four-year schools.

There is a similar disparity in the counseling or support that students receive from non-clinical sources, such as friends and family: 60 percent among community college students, compared to 79 percent among four-year students.

The lower use of mental health services among community college students is driven in part by the fact that more of these students lack health insurance: 14 percent, compared to just 3 percent in our four-year sample.

Additionally, community colleges offer significantly fewer campus services.

Fewer community college students have access to mental health services. Joe Houghton, CC BY

For example, many community colleges do not have any mental health counselors, and among those that do, the ratio of counselors to students is 1 to 3,000, compared to 1 to 1,600 at four-year institutions.

Here’s what can be done

The reality is that improving this situation will likely require an influx of additional resources, particularly more robust campus health services and programs. So, how can institutions and other stakeholders build support for funding these resources?

For many years, four-year schools have been using data extensively to make the case for increased support of mental health services. Data from our study, which is one of the first large-scale assessments of mental health among community colleges throughout the nation, could serve as a starting point.

We know there is a relationship between depression and student retention. In fact, four-year schools have used this argument persuasively for finding more resources.

In addition, there are a number of partnership opportunities, and successful experiences at other institutions nationwide, from which institutions and students can benefit. For example, many students today are engaging in peer-led initiatives.

An example of such an initiative is Active Minds, a national organization supporting student advocates for mental health. It has chapters at over 400 campuses (including some community colleges). Campus administrators can partner with the Campus Program of Jed Foundation, which helps institutions help develop and implement a campus-specific plan to improve their support for student mental health.

Single Stop is another national nonprofit that has been assisting community college students with accessing public benefits and services; such an organization can also help students access mental health services in their respective communities.

It would be easy to view our new findings as another reason to be discouraged about the state of higher education, particularly community colleges. But we believe these findings highlight a whole new set of opportunities to improve the prospects for millions of students.

An ever-growing wealth of services and programs can treat or prevent mental health conditions. The challenge, and opportunity, is to make more and better investments in this area.

The Conversation

Daniel Eisenberg, Associate Professor of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan and Sara Goldrick-Rab, Professor of Educational Policy Studies & Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

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

  • no reactions
0
Share