education

False Positives: Low Student Loan Default Scores

**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.**

Guest post by Bob Hildreth

Ask the “best” colleges about the student debt crisis and they are likely to trot out the very low default rates of their graduates, only 1 to 2 percent. Most of the defaulting students, they point out, come from for-profits. They also believe that the national default rate at 11.8 percent is at a manageable level.

But these rates hide more than they reveal. Default rates are managed to be low. It is in the best interest of everyone involved to keep them low: the government wants to keep the lid on its troubled policy, the government’s collection agents want to earn their fees by keeping debtors current, and the colleges want to keep the mother’s milk of government subsidies flowing in their direction.

The “best colleges” have little experience with debt defaults. They either don’t know or are reluctant to admit that, when it comes to the government’s loan program, colleges are all bunched together. Even for a college with zero defaults the only default rate that matters in a crisis is that of all debtors from all colleges.

The government is lenient, letting 9 months of no repayments pass before calling a student in default. Compare that to only 90 days on car loans or 3 months on mortgages. Students are also allowed to clear their defaults by switching from stricter repayment plans to easier ones. College lobbyists have convinced the government to measure default rates after only three years knowing that defaults accumulate over time. In fact, one in five students with over $15,000 in debt defaulted on his or her loan in the 10 years after graduation. That’s a 20% default rate.

The Federal Reserve of New York has created its own measure to gage student debt stress. Using consumer data the Fed measures how long students go without paying their debts. By this calculation in 2014 past due rates on student debt reached as high as 63%. 

That leaves the government like the famous emperor without clothes. If the future of our children and the solvency of our colleges were not at stake the government might have already stopped lending. But there is probably no default rate so high that the government would abandon these priorities. At the same time it is easy to guess that changes are afoot. One of the most likely targets are controls on tuition increases. That will cause a fire storm on Washington’s DuPont Circle, the home of college lobbyists. If these lobbyists can suggest a way to put clothes back on the emperor, they should speak now.

____

Bob Hildreth is the Founder and Chairman of the Board of Inversant, a Boston-based non-profit that helps families learn about, apply for and save for college without incurring student debt.

The value of student and teacher input in EdTech

**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 Garrett Zimmer

OK so I’ve been wanting to ask this question lately.  Who do we lean on for input and advice when we have to teach or create something?  Maybe advice isn’t the right word, perhaps I’d rather use perspective.

What stakeholders are we looking to for their perspective when designing a project, a lesson, a company, or technology? As teachers, leaders, or even team members do we put stake in the perspective of everyone, or are we dismissive of some perspectives simply because they don’t hold a specific degree or level of experience.  I’ve had my share of high growth leadership experiences and I’ve found some of the best results and insights seeded from the most unlikely sources.

Let me briefly share my example.  During the very beginning of my 1st career in Sales and Marketing I sat in a strange and unique position. I believed I was gifted, charismatic, intelligent, and I even outsold most of my co-workers with years of sales experience.  My youth gave me little credibility, in spite of the fact that I’d been professionally selling since the age of 7. See I grew up in a very religious organization where going door to door selling bible philosophy for hours each week was the norm.  I experienced rejection, learned and honed abilities in ice-breaking and relating to people’s needs, but my unique perspective and experience went unrecognized, till a few years in when my talents were noticed by a great manager.

See it’s very easy to seek out someone’s views if they come with a degree, or 50 years of experience, and quite honestly I think those views should hold much more weight. But are we just as apt to dismiss the views of someone else a little lighter in experience?

Let’s take a step into the EdTech and general Startup landscape though.  Market research and understanding your market is so important for startups and getting it wrong can have devastating impact.  I’ve seen and heard of countless companies fail a launch or cost themselves so much by putting out a product that just failed to meet the needs of their intended target market. I’ve also seen many companies launch a product and spend their marketing dollars targeting one segment, and a year later shift their marketing to a whole different audience because it turns out that the product is actually perfect for the later.

It’s easy to take a top level approach when designing a piece of software, a tool, or a business product and say Who’s Buying this, let me appeal to them. Who’s backing this, or investing in it, let me appeal to them. However, are we forgetting about who is using this? I remember my good friend Shawn Q, a clinical informatics specialist, told me a story of the E-Health Management system that went over budget by something like 500% because it just didn’t work for the ground floor nurses who were supposed to be using it. This is directly resulting from not keeping the end user in the loop and conversation.

EdTech and the Education market though is so much more complex.  Education is so directly tied to every level of our lives that the stakeholders are vast and varied.  Governments, Administrators, Lobbyists, Employers, Post Secondary Institutions Teachers, Parents and Students are all Key Stakeholder groups with a public and personal interest.    Of course with so many voices in the discussion, efficiency dictates that emphasis be placed on those who pay the bills.  The Administrators, the Governments, and the Institutions.  I advocate for that voice as a strong part of the equation in the hopes that that voice resonates the needs of the rest.  But even further I support the importance of actually connecting with each stakeholder group, to make sure nothing is missing.

Some Educational tech companies seem reluctant to drive their business with Teachers and Students in mind, and instead pay homage to their own vision of what is good and right and effective. In everything from connectivity to compatibility and even down to price modeling, some still fail to match their offering to meet the needs of the people using it. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not disparaging. There are many that build Advisory Groups and speak with Teachers, and Administrators and the Thought Leaders with years and years of experience. And I do the same in my development. But how many are going to the students, to the brand new fresh out of college teachers to see what their perspective is?

What a thought Garrett, you’re CRAZY! Ask an uneducated student to give insight on a project that they can’t even begin to understand the complexity of designing, much less the complexity of the market. Wait! Ask a teacher who just stepped out of college and doesn’t understand what it’s really like in the classroom yet? CRAZY! All you would get is kids that want every game ever made loaded into the software, and teachers who want the price to be free. I say “so what!” Yes you’re going to get some of that, but you will also get a wealth of information that adds amazing value for that group. And perhaps that’s the value add, that really makes your product stand out and help millions of students and teachers.

I’m a Kid Friendly YouTube Content Creator and I can tell you 100% that there are some really amazing and intelligent kids out there who know what they want. My interactions around my own EdTech startup company with Teachers and thought leaders, both inexperienced and experienced, have yielded such amazing insights into what they need and want. By working closely with a diverse group of end users, designing for them, my product has become theirs as much as ours.  I strongly believe that by keeping all the stakeholders in the conversation, our product will solve real teacher and student concerns.

So if you’re a Teacher, an Administrator, or even an EdTech Startup yourself and are not regularly in the trenches to talk with the day to day soldiers, you’re likely missing valuable information that could make you more successful.  To reword a Famous President’s mantra:  “And so, my fellow leaders – ask not what you can do for students and teachers, ask what they can do for you.”

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

__________

Garrett Zimmer is an experienced entrepreneur, speaker, and leader with a background in business and a passion for educational leadership.  Garrett has been awarded a Parliamentary Citation from the Government of Canada and various honors for his work with educational boards and councils across Ontario Canada. He continues to advocate and work for the future of students everywhere in the educational sector.  Garrett has spent the past 10 years as an entrepreneur and runs a popular Kid Friendly Youtube Entertainment Channel called PBJellyGames.

If you’d like to learn more about Garrett or MineGage, follow him on twitter: @PBJellyGames or visit the Minegage website www.minegage.com.

STEM Learning Must Go Beyond Memorizing Facts and Theories

By Steven Korte

There is a growing global demand for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) professionals. At the same time, experts in science education are calling for students to become more “scientifically literate.” This call, however, is about more than filling jobs.

A basic understanding of scientific concepts, processes, and ways of thinking is critical for students to succeed in the world of today and tomorrow. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2014 report on the results of the international PISA 2012 science assessment, “An understanding of science and technology is central to a young person’s preparedness for life in modern society.”

This means that students must go beyond memorizing science facts and theories; they must gain experience with the tools and practices of science. Technology can help. While technology alone does not create scientific understanding, it represents a key tool for promoting inquiry investigations.

A substantial body of research confirms the positive impact of inquiry-based instruction on students’ understanding of science, including substantially higher learning when compared to traditional instruction. Further, education experts specify that technology is most effective in supporting student learning in science when it is used in an inquiry context. Indeed, blending technology into data collection, analysis and visualization as part of inquiry-based instruction has been shown to deepen students’ understanding, and increase their motivation and interest in science.

Districts transitioning to or implementing STEM programs should consider the following points:

  • Lab investigations and technology tools should be connected with classroom experiences, including lectures, readings and discussions. Lab experiences and technology are much more effective when fully integrated into the curriculum and the flow of classroom science lessons.
  • Whether teachers choose to use a structured, guided or open inquiry format, lab activities should give students the opportunity to apply the scientific process to their learning. These activities should allow them to question and investigate; make predictions; collect, analyze and interpret data; refine their questions; and engage in argumentation from evidence. This builds problem-solving and higher-order thinking skills, as well as “soft skills” such as communication and collaboration.
  • Inquiry-based investigations inside and outside the classroom should engage students in real-life scientific and engineering practices. Students should also have the opportunity to use real-world tools to make data meaningful for them while they “do” science.
  • Traditional labs can be time-consuming and classroom sets of industry equipment can be prohibitively expensive. Be sure that lab investigations and technology tools are specifically designed for instructional use to save time and money, and reduce frustration. For example, traditional cell respiration labs are typically complex and inaccurate. In a respiration lab activity built to facilitate student understanding, the setup for a carbon dioxide or oxygen gas sensor should be simple, so accurate data can collected in minutes with minimal frustration.
  • To maximize your technology investment, make sure tools such as sensors and probes are compatible with any classroom environment and work on a variety of platforms, including iPads, Chromebooks, Android tablets, Mac and Windows computers, and netbooks. In addition, make certain the tools match the ability levels of your students.
  • A key part of the scientific process is the sharing, analysis and discussion of data. Consider how students’ data will be transmitted from tools, such as sensors, to their computer or tablet. Will it be done via a USB or wireless connection? Will the data be transmitted directly to the student’s device or will it go to the cloud first? Can students do this themselves or will they need teacher assistance? Allowing students to get their data faster gives them more time for analysis and discussion, which is key to building scientific understanding.
  • When possible, consider investing in multi-measure sensors that allow for the collection of multiple, simultaneous measurements in a single sensor, e.g. for areas such weather, advanced chemistry, or water quality. This not only helps keep costs down, but also helps conserve instructional time by reducing the time it takes to set up sensors and collect the data.
  • If inquiry-based instruction is new to your district, conduct professional development workshops that guide teachers to begin with more highly-structured activities and then move students, over time, to open-ended investigations where they take more responsibility for planning their activities. Each stage of this transition should informed by teachers’ assessments of students’ readiness to complete learner-led investigations.
  • Instructional resources and professional development workshops should also provide suggestions on ways to scaffold student capabilities. This will ensure that teachers can provide multiple levels of guidance and support for investigations. It will also help teachers to select the level of support that best matches their students’ skills and experiences, so they can accomplish challenging tasks.

Across the country and around the world, teachers are effectively implementing inquiry-based science instruction that takes advantage of technology tools for collecting, analyzing and visualizing data. When students “do” science, rather than simply read about it, they deepen their understanding, they develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills, and they retain more content knowledge. They are also more motivated to learn and to continue building their science literacy. This is not only critical for students who decided to pursue STEM careers, but also for life in the modern world.

Steven Korte is the CEO of PASCO Scientific, a developer of innovative teaching and learning solutions for K–12 and higher education since 1964.

Another Failed Charter: Do These Schools have a Future?

In February of 2013, the Einstein Montessori School in Orlando became a casualty of the charter school experiment. State officials closed the school that had 40 students ranging from third through eighth grade. The school promoted itself as a specialty institution for dyslexic students but teachers told media outlets that there was no curriculum in place, no computers and no school library. Despite these and other red flags the school remained in operation longer than it should have because Florida law currently only allows for immediate school closures for safety, welfare and health issues.

Of course parents of the students at the school are outraged but so are taxpayers. Einstein Montessori received close to $165,000 in state money for operations – money that cannot be recovered or redirected. That number is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the total $287 million in state money that four failed Orlando-area charter schools received in recent years. Consider what that number looks like on a state scale. Now consider it on a national level. With stories like the failure of Einstein Montessori in the headlines, it is no wonder parents and other community members angrily attend charter school meetings and protest against their opening.

Despite this negativity, I’m on the proponent side of charter schools. Katie Ash recently posted the results from a charter school research study out of Stanford that found 63 percent of charter schools outperformed public school counterparts in mathematics. The report looked at schools in New York City but similar results exist across the country. I think that in addition to providing quality education overall, the competitive vibe that charters bring with them elevates the performance of all public schools. Traditional district schools are faced with more pressure to perform in order to keep the brightest students and this translates to higher levels of innovation by administration and teachers. I think that the future of K-12 learners is brighter as a result of the inception of charter schools but only if these schools are continually monitored for quality, strength in management and prioritization of student needs.

For charter schools to succeed in the future, there needs to be more transparency. States have long held a somewhat laissez faire approach to charters, allowing them freedom to operate how they see fit and not stepping in until mistakes are beyond repair. For charter schools to fulfill their mission – which I believe is to add value to the traditional public school system and raise the educational bar for all K-12 students – they need to consider their presence a partnership with the state. Since the first charter schools began sprouting up in Minnesota in 1991, the battle to find balance between accountability and innovation through autonomy has existed; stories like the ones out of Orlando show that not enough progress has been made in this regard. Educators and legislators need to realize the success of each depends on the other and approach charter school goals with this mentality.

For charters to achieve optimal success for students, the public also needs more information on what these schools actually are and how to heighten the public school education experience. While most educators recognize charter schools as public entities, community members often confuse charter schools with for-profit educational management organizations, or EMOs. This leads to an automatic feeling of resentment as students are viewed as a business opportunity. These misconceptions mean that charter schools are often viewed in a negative light for the wrong reasons. As more parents, students and community members understand the benefits of well-run charter schools, better outcomes for all are possible.

 

Economy Improves, School Spending Continue to Fall – So What Gives?

As the news headlines regarding the current U.S. economy continue to improve, there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. A report this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.

In practical terms, these findings make sense. Property taxes pay much of public education costs and that revenue source is still low. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before. Furthering the problem is the fact that while states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees.

Loss of federal aid to states is also a problem. Even if a state does not need emergency federal funds for specific education needs, they must use school money to cover the cost of natural disasters or other projects that are no longer receiving aid from the federal government.

In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas. Take a look at some of the most-telling numbers from the CBPP report on school spending:

14. This is the number of consecutive quarters state revenues have increased, despite stagnant or reduced school spending.

1.3. This is the percent that state funding fell for elementary and secondary schools from last school year.

20. This is the percent that Oklahoma and Alabama have sliced on student spending since the recession began in 2008.

13. This is the number of states, including Wisconsin and California, that have cut school spending budgets by more than 10 percent since the recession began.

15. This represents the number of states that have lower school spending budgets than they did one year ago.

72. This is the amount in dollars that New Mexico increased its per student spending for the current school year. It may seem like a bright spot, but barely dents the $960+ the state has cut per student in just the past five years alone.

20,100. This is the number of teaching jobs that were added in August – but that figure is still over 320,000 less than education jobs in 2008.

12. This is the percent that funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010, from $17 billion to $15 billion.

11. This is the percent that special education funding has been slashed since 2010, from $13.5 billion to $12 billion.

57. This is the amount of administrators that believe they will need to reduce class sizes this school year to offset budget cuts.

16. This is the number of states that cut pre-K educational per student funding in the 2011 – 2012 school year and 27 had to reduce enrollment numbers.

What do the numbers all mean?

The fact that state revenues are on the upswing but K-12 spending is still at recession-levels is disheartening. It seems that a reprioritization needs to take place in the 34 states that are still in the red when it comes to per student spending today as opposed to 2008. Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.

If we cannot find the funding for our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

Why do you think that per student spending is still falling?

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

School Community Collaboration and Peer Observation as Levers to Student Success

A guest post by Mark D. Benigni, Ed.D., Thomas W. Giard III, and David Levenduski

Meriden Public Schools, Connecticut

We are in an unprecedented era of accountability, a new teacher evaluation and development system, the Common Core State Standards, Smarter Balance Assessments and increased scrutiny from big business, the press and public. Our public schools face decreasing financial resources and additional federal and state mandates. Therefore, creating opportunities for our educators to work together in meaningful ways needs to be a priority for every district. School districts must create systems that encourage our educators to observe, reflect, collaborate, and enhance their instruction.

In Meriden, our deliberate and thoughtful steps to promote peer collaboration at the district and school levels has been a five year journey working with our teachers’ union to design and implement true teacher support programs. Together, union and management are breaking down the barriers that have isolated educators from their colleagues and peers. We first developed a comprehensive approach at the district level to begin having teachers spend time in each others’ classes as a strategy towards instructional improvement. The development and implementation of three distinct programs took shape: our Peer Coaching Program, our Learning Walks Program, and our Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team.

Peer Coaching Program

Our peer coaching program provides educators with an opportunity to observe other educators in action. The premise of our program is that our best teachers are our best teachers and that educators can help educators improve student learning. The major roles of a peer coach are to collaborate, provide beneficial feedback, share effective teaching strategies, and reflect on teaching and learning. Peer coaches are matched with peers by grade level or content area with someone outside their building. Peer coaches receive training from the National School Reform Faculty and use an established protocol to share honest and open feedback with their peer coach and to guide their reflections regarding what they learn from each other.

The program expectations include peer coaches spending a minimum of one full day in the peer’s classroom. While the minimum is one day in the peer’s classroom, many do more and many have formed lasting professional relationships that continue long after the one year in the formal peer coaching program. Over the last five years, we have sent a clear message to the teachers that this is important work and vital to their own growth as an educator.

Learning Walks Program

Three years ago the district launched a learning walks program in all twelve schools. The learning walks program involves having teams of teachers, with an administrator, observe classroom instruction in their own building using an evidence-based protocol for data collection and debriefing. We collaborated with The Connecticut Center for School Change to develop a model, based on instructional rounds, which could be adapted to the building level and inclusive of teacher teams as opposed to simply teams of administrators. Two teams of four to five teachers visit up to six classrooms for about 15-20 minutes each, using a descriptive evidence data collection strategy. The classroom visitations are centered on a problem of practice or focus area and teachers are there to observe teacher and student actions. Teachers use data collection sheets that ask them to observe within the context of these three questions: What is the teacher saying and doing and to whom? What are the students saying and doing and to whom? What is the content/task? These data-gathering questions are used in a comprehensive debrief process of the classroom observations. Data is shared as common instructional patterns observed, not individual teacher critiques.

Our teachers constantly tell us that the learning walks debrief is an exceptional professional development experience. The debrief is a three-step process. It starts with an individual debrief where the teachers review their classroom evidence in the context of the focus area and select key pieces of evidence from each of the rooms visited. Evidence may only contain what they actually saw occurring in the classroom and cannot include any judgment or assumptions. Teacher names are not used. The second step of the debrief process entails having teachers share their evidence with their team and evidence is organized into patterns by the two respective teams.

The third step in the debrief process is each team reports out to the whole group and evidence is discussed, challenged, and reflected upon by all teachers in attendance. The whole group then answers three questions that will be shared with the faculty at a future meeting. The questions answered by the teachers are: What did your group observe as strengths? What did your group observe as possible areas for growth for our school? What questions/suggestions can you pose that will help our school move instruction related to our focus area to the next level? Are their implications for future professional development? Any teachers observed on a learning walks day become part of the learning walks classroom visitation team next time. This process helps us promote an atmosphere and cycle of continuous improvement in our schools.

Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team

As Meriden rolled out their new teacher evaluation and development process, a commitment was made to provide educators with additional development and growth opportunities. As a result, union and management created the Meriden Teachers Sharing Success Team (MTSS) to recognize our exemplary educators and to provide support and growth opportunities for teachers. MTSS team members are tenured Meriden Public School teachers who open their classrooms for peer visitations and avail themselves for discussion and reflection with their peers who visit.
At the elementary level, MTSS teachers are educators who have led their students to substantial student growth for four consecutive years. We have MTSS teachers at all grade levels from kindergarten through grade 5. At the secondary level, our major instructional focus has been on creating student-centered learning environments. Secondary MTSS teachers are teachers who are effectively implementing student-centered learning in their classrooms. These teachers are identified by their principals and are vetted by a group consisting of central office administration, teachers’ union leadership, and administrators’ union leadership. All MTSS teachers are trained by the National School Reform Faculty to assist their colleagues in their continual growth process.

Teachers can self-select to go observe an MTSS teacher or it might occur after a conversation with a coach or supervisor about how best to enhance their classroom instruction. Regardless of how a teacher decides to observe an MTSS teacher, all who take advantage of this program have shared that it has improved their instructional practice.

The School-Based Launch

Initial conversations: There are two words that can have a negative impact on educators, and leave any good idea or intention on the cutting room floor: initiative and mandate. In the dynamic world of education, initiatives and mandates are thrown at educators with the speed and fury of a tsunami. Wave after wave of expectations crash in from legislators, state departments, districts and administrators. If these initiatives and mandates are not carefully presented with connections to improvement in practice, they are doomed from the onset.

So the school principal presented the idea in a way that connected the practice to what was being implemented across the district, and explained how staff can improve and learn from each other. Prior to beginning to have teachers observing one another, every opportunity, from faculty meetings to data team meetings to individual conferences, were used to emphasize and highlight the importance of collaboration and sharing of best practices. Beyond data teams, the principal worked in conjunction with the staff to develop an intervention and enrichment system which increased opportunities to collaborate to plan instruction, and allowed teachers to share students and begin to blur the lines regarding who “owned” the students. Their own data was utilized to build confidence and exhibit the instructional strengths that were being cultivated within the school. Staff came to realize that they did not need to always look outside the school for professional development opportunities; the professional expertise was among them. These conversations built the foundation for the next stage; creating the system.

Creating the system: With the foundation laid to enable staff to increase collaboration, peer observations as a supportive tool for strengthening instructional practices was a natural extension of our efforts. The next step was to share the idea of utilizing an observation to connect a teacher who shows a strength in an area to a teacher who exhibits a weakness in that particular area; all based on student achievement data and on the premise of supporting, not evaluating. These conversations were accomplished through the district’s process of goal setting meetings, which occur at the beginning of the year when student-achievement goals are set for the school year. These meetings became the catalyst to connect teachers for observations with an instructional focus in mind.

With building leadership’s support, time was re-engineered to create opportunities within the schedule for the teachers to conduct their observations. A reflection sheet, which the observer used to document the experience and reflect on what they observed and how the observation would impact or influence their future instruction, was developed. Then came the light bulb moment at a state-run professional development workshop regarding adaptations to the data team process during which a new mandate was presented for developing a SMART goal for the teachers. While other districts and schools expressed concern, the staff conferred and decided that instead of adding another mandate or initiative to teachers’ already full plates, the peer observations would be used as the new mandated adult SMART goal.

It was at this point that peer observations became “officially mandated”. This was viewed in a positive light by the staff because it involved the utilization of a practice which had already begun instead of adding yet another initiative or mandate. The system for peer observations was now created and in motion, and the teachers were supportive because they were involved and part of the decision to mandate the practice.

Releasing Responsibility: The overall goal was to begin a practice that would ultimately become a natural part of our professional routine. Through the creation of a schedule in the office where teachers could sign-up for times to observe others, we quickly began releasing responsibility to the teachers. Securing sub coverage at the beginning of the year assured a successful release of responsibility to the teachers. Another change that provided momentum was the adoption of a new district evaluation plan. Like the teacher SMART goal that was originally linked to the peer observations, the new evaluation plan contained a professional practice goal for teachers. This goal required the teacher to collect and present artifacts and evidence which connected to the identified practice the teacher selected. The peer observations and accompanying reflection sheet served as valuable artifacts for this professional practice goal.

Culture of Collaboration: A wonderful transformation began to unfold as the staff progressed; teachers were not only scheduling times for the peer observations, but teachers were also conducting observations on their own during preparation periods. The teachers were now viewing the peer observations as important for improving their instruction, and were using their own time to conduct them. The school was also beginning to see improvements in student achievement, which provided tangible evidence of improvements in practices. The staff was also becoming much more comfortable with the practice of observing each other to improve their own teaching practices. It was not “taboo” for teachers to admit they had areas for growth, and more importantly they realized there were available resources in their own building to assist. In essence, the school was fast-becoming a learning community. As the school was progressing with its own internal observation system, staff saw the connections to the district’s initiatives of MTSS and learning walks, and the value in their own internal peer observation system. The connections between the district initiatives and the school-based observation initiative provided a level of comfort with opening classroom doors that did not exist previously.

Moving Forward: As the journey of sharing best practices through professional collegiality and peer observations continues, the plan will be to have all teachers within a grade level conduct “vertical” observations. This would include visiting and observing instruction of classrooms one grade below and one grade above the grade they teach. This will allow the teachers to understand the rigor of instruction at those grade levels, and how it impacts their own instructional practice at their grade level. Wherever the school proceeds to next with observations, the idea is to build upon the level of trust, support and collaboration that has been established. The “culture of collaboration” has been instrumental in improving the way the staff operates on a day to day basis, and the results seen in student achievement and teacher development have validated the efforts.

As a district, we are moving forward together with a foundation of trust and open-mindedness. We are a collaborative team that has created a unifying vision for our district. We believe that every child is entitled to a high quality education, that teachers and leaders impact every child’s achievement, and that collaboration improves student learning and sustains our mission to see our students make positive progress.

Just this past year, we achieved the highest scores in district history in grade 3 reading, grade 5 science, grade 6 math, grade 7 reading, and grade 8 reading and writing. Our school climate data were equally impressive. Since 2010–2011, suspensions have decreased by 58%, expulsions are down 88%, and school-based arrests have been reduced by 77%. In the Meriden Public Schools, we know that in this era of accountability, our approach has to be more than simple compliance; we have to create a professional learning community where teachers learn from one another. We must create schools where students and staff want to be.

___

Mark D. Benigni, Ed.D. ([email protected]) is Superintendent of Meriden Public Schools and is Co-chair of the Connecticut Association of Urban Schools Superintendents. Dr. Benigni also serves on the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) national Governing Board.

Thomas W. Giard III ([email protected]) is Assistant Superintendent for Personnel and Staff Development of Meriden Public Schools and is an adjunct professor at Sacred Heart University in the Educational Leadership Program.

David P. Levenduski ([email protected]) is Principal at Ben Franklin Elementary School in the Meriden Public Schools and is the architect of Meriden’s school-based peer coaching model.

___
Resources:
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional Rounds in Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Govindarajan, V. & Trimble, C. (2010). The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kelly, M. (2007). The Dream Manager. New York, NY: Beacon Publishing

Sinek, S. (2009). Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. (2011 ed.). New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Teitel, L. (2013). School-Based Instructional Rounds: Improving Teaching and Learning Across Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional Learning in the United States: Trends
and Challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Wong, K., & Nicotera, A. (2006). Successful Schools and Educational Accountability: Concepts and Skills to Meet Leadership Challenges. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Ask An Expert: Working with Homeless Students

Question: On yesterday, I received a new student in my classroom. His mother brought him to school on the first day and informed me that they were homeless. She said she doesn’t want her son’s education to suffer because of her family’s predicament. To my knowledge, I have never had a student in my room that was homeless. How can I support this child’s unique educational, behavioral and emotional needs, etc.? Kathy G.

Answer: Thank you for your question and for taking a proactive approach to this situation. Homelessness is another step down on the ladder of poverty and it is a very real problem faced by 1.5 million children in the United States. Many homeless families live in shelters in rural or urban areas. With one income, high rent and living expenses, many families are just one emergency away from disaster. As a result, even children who still have a home to go to could lose it in a heartbeat.

For instance, a single mother trying to make ends meet cannot go to work because her child gets sick. She must be with her child, as she has no one to help. On top of this, she has medical bills piling up. Even if she has a job to return to, she may not be able to afford her rent.

Homeless children still need to receive an education. Yet, when they get to school each morning, they are often hungry and tired. Like many children living in poverty, homeless children move frequently, and are exposed to drugs, violence, crime and more. Also, transportation might be an issue for some homeless children and they miss a great deal of school.

When they are able to attend school, they may be teased for the clothes they wear and the fact they fall asleep in class. They may have difficulty making friends or a fear of participating in an activity in front of the class. Although many homeless children are with their families, older homeless children may be runaways or may have been kicked out of their homes. Many have been abused sexually and/or physically.

Teachers who have homeless children in their classroom need to know how to help and support children without a permanent home. Homeless children may be needy emotionally and due to lack of access to bathtubs or showers and little food, they may be unclean and unfed. Teachers can be an anchor for homeless children by showing them compassion and understanding.

It may also be a challenge to communicate with parents who don’t have regular access to a phone. Of course, the most important thing for homeless children is that their families find a home. Teachers might be able to help by working with local agencies, children, and their families to find a solution to their problem.

Homeless children deserve a quality education just like all students. Teachers are the first line of defense but we all have to pitch in and do what we can to ensure that all of our country’s children have the chance to lead happy, healthy lives. If you implement the strategies that I have outlined in this column, you will have no problem working with homeless students and their families.

How to Choose the Right Childcare Center

**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

Leaving your child and going to work is one of the most difficult things that a parent must do. There are always horror stories of daycare centers and home care providers that don’t treat the children how they should. There are ways you can make sure that your child is in good hands by doing a bit of homework.

Ask Tons of Questions

Even if you are being a bit annoying, be sure to ask plenty of questions to the person in charge. Find out what their backup plan is when people call off work and request the child-to-adult ratio they use. It is not being nosy when your child is concerned. Be sure to ask them about the daily routine and what type of things they will be teaching. A daycare center that puts a child in front of a television set all day long is not good for the child’s development.

What Kind of Workers Do They Have?

All workers should be drug tested and have a background check performed before they can be around children. Make sure that the daycare center has this policy in force. Do they hire educated people or just anyone who is 18 years of age? Some centers, like Youthland Academy, only hire the best of the best to work with the children entrusted to their care. If the center doesn’t have a great group of employees, look elsewhere.

Don’t Make the Decision Based on Money

The old saying “you get what you pay for” certainly applies here. If you only care about the financial aspects of the center, you will miss the big picture. Sure, you need to be able to afford the daycare center’s rates, but you also would pay an extra $10 or $20 a week if it meant your child was safe from harm. While money is important, safety and good quality employees are even better.

Tour the Facility: Give the White Glove Test

Before making a decision on a daycare center, tour the facilities. Ask to see even the simple things like the diaper changing area. Look for safety violations and issues that might cause problems with the child’s safety. Don’t ever feel bad to question the health and safety of your child. Look at the restrooms, lunchroom, and the napping center. Make sure the toys are not broken and play areas are divided by age.

 

You want to make the right decision regarding a daycare center. While most of the centers are really good, there are still those certain few that make a bad name for everyone else. For the sake of your child, an investigation is warranted.

___

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.

Whose responsibility are sexual predators on college campuses?

Recently President Obama announced his “It’s On Us” campaign that calls on all college-aged men to step up their efforts when it comes to protecting women on campus. The program also calls on colleges that receive federal funding to take a tougher stance against sexual assault and to have prevention programs in place.

The President has the backing of some celebrity faces to bring his plan some attention, including Kerry Washington and Jon Hamm. It seems like a winning plan on its own, but set against the context of the changing college landscape, some people are crying foul.

Less men are enrolling in college classes than they did even five years ago, as the number of women continues to rise. Several lawsuits have been brought by young men against their colleges alleging discrimination when it comes to assault cases — and some young men have won. There are over 30 cases still in the court system now, which represents a 400% increase in just 4 years. Some are claiming that young men are the actual victims because they are facing unfair judgments from colleges that are afraid of losing funding without making an assault statement.

All sides of these issues should be considered of course, but I think that President Obama is on the right side of the debate with his new campaign. Asking peers to watch out for each other, and step up when something seems awry, is a smart way to prevent a lot of the lawsuits in the first place. Colleges cannot control their student body outside learning hours and drinking on campus is not going away any time soon. So placing the responsibility to prevent sexual assault on the students themselves is an effective solution.

What do you think? Are young men getting a bad end of the deal when it comes to increased anti-sexual assault policies on college campuses?

Are new student amenities boosting the cost of tuition?

As described by insidehighered.com, new student amenities such as lazy rivers are “bad for optics” when talking about the cost of college. The article explores the notion of luxury amenities on college campuses driving up the cost of tuition.

Because New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren have criticized these high-priced student enhancements, they may be unfairly correlating these spending projects with the cost of tuition.

With student loan debt spiraling out of control and tuition continuing to spike, both lawmakers believe that these types of amenities aren’t needed.

But according to insidehighered.com’s article, tuition isn’t rising because of a lazy river. The price of higher education is going up due to cuts in state budgets.

“These lazy rivers are not the reason why student debt is soaring seemingly out of control. The big problem that higher education faces today, at the public side, is cuts in state spending,” said Professor of Economics at the College of William and Mary, David Feldman to insidehighered.com.

This certainly is an interesting antecedent when looking at college costs. As mentioned earlier, adding lazy rivers and climbing walls is “bad for optics” when discussing how colleges charge students for their education. In this case, LSU is in the process of upgrading its student recreational facilities by installing a lazy river and other amenities.

While tuition isn’t impacted by the cost of the upgrade, which is $85 million, student fees were effected. That decision to increase student fees was granted by the school’s student government, not leadership brass.

If anything, this just seems like a popular talking point for politicians gearing up for the 2016 election season. The cost of college and student loan debt will be hot butting topics for voters nationwide, and to hinge “lazy river” and “rock climbing wall” onto the rising cost of college will simply add fodder to the conversation.