Strategy involves decision-making aimed at shaping the direction of an organization. In a school, creating strategy takes time, three to five years and beyond. Strategy also includes considering broader core issues and themes for development in the school, instead of day-to-day issues.
It’s no secret that teachers in the United States receive little recognition and a salary below their abilities, and that their training after hire consists of professional development that rarely leads to much growth. There is also little incentive for teachers to strive to earn more because pay isn’t based on excellence, but on time on the job. This can lead to quality teachers feeling burned out, with no recourse for better pay for their efforts.
But with a little creativity, this truth can be reversed—even for districts on a tight budget.
Without further ado, here are some things to consider so that teachers can get paid what they’re worth, whether funds are abundant or limited:
1. Rethink the “teachers on an assembly line” mentality. There is a tendency for American teachers to be treated like factory workers. The No Child Left Behind program holds teachers entirely responsible for their students’ performance on state achievement tests, regardless of the many variables that influence students’ performance on these tests. For example, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prepare a sixth grade student reading at a second grade level to perform well on a state achievement test. It is no wonder that standardized testing has caused schools and teachers to panic.
2. Put it into perspective: remember that school principals and other administrators receive comfortable salaries. In addition to concerns about job security, low compensation, and student performance on high stakes test, teachers must also worry about subpar principals who are overcompensated for the successes of teachers. Although administrators deserve to be fairly compensated for their work, their pay does not seem equitable compared to that of teachers. If administrators are to be compensated fairly for the job performed, then teachers, too, should be fairly compensated.
3. Prioritize paying teachers more, and question the assumption that this has to be expensive. When considering these issues, a major mistake made by reform groups is to table efforts at improving teacher salaries because the expenditure does not fit into the school budget. If children are America’s most precious commodity and the focal point of the nation’s educational system, then the lack of funding is no excuse to forgo efforts. Many school reform efforts are cost-effective and can be implemented by resourceful educators. When there is a lack of money, change is contingent upon the faith and commitment level of the faculty and staff. Money should not be wasted on model programs and unsubstantiated trends.
4. Think about the indirectly related factors that will help teachers. Considering factors such as teachers’ professional development, while at first may seem unrelated, can be a key factor for successfully improving teaching salaries as well. When analyzing budgets, it is important to set aside money to hire teachers with the ability to create and teach in-service professional development programs. The ability to train the staff and educators internally will save the school money, and will give the teacher/expert a feeling of usefulness. For instance, a teacher with 30 years of experience and a demonstrated ability to obtain amazing results from her specific teaching strategies might create a professional development seminar to share her expertise. This saves the school an enormous amount of money, and saves the administrator the trouble and cost of hiring a consultant. These savings can then be passed on to the teachers, perhaps in the form of bonuses, etc.
In the end, schools operating with limited funds to support reform efforts will need to be both resourceful and creative in order to affect positive change and strive toward equitable pay for superior teachers. Forward thinking leaders, committed and imaginative teachers, and a supportive community can contribute to change that improves the working environment of our teachers – and their salaries too.
I am sure that you also have some interesting insights on how to pay teachers what they deserve, even on shoestring budgets. So share your thoughts below in the comments.
Oakland, Calif. — Oct. 12, 2016 — With Build English Fast™, neuroscience-designed software from Scientific Learning Corp. (OTC PINK:SCIL), K-12 schools are taking advantage of the latest research on how the brain learns and the latest technology to accelerate English language acquisition for English language learners (ELLs). Of course, students who are not familiar with English idioms, cultural references, and vocabulary may need extra support when learning the language. To help teachers provide targeted support, Scientific Learning has released the Build English Fast Offline Resources for English Learners.
Offline Resources
The Build English Fast solution is a combination of Fast ForWord®, the top-ranked intervention for English language development on What Works Clearinghouse™, and Reading Assistant™, which uses speech recognition technology to listen to ELLs as they read aloud. Unlike other interventions, this combination addresses three critical steps for English language proficiency: preparing the brain to “hear” the sounds of English; providing intensive practice in English vocabulary, grammar and reading skills; and giving students the opportunity to practice speaking and reading aloud with real-time corrective feedback.
With the new offline resources, teachers now have another tool to help move ELLs to proficiency. The core of the resources are individual, leveled lessons that supplement the Fast ForWord and Reading Assistant programs. The lessons are based on the SIOP® Model, with added differentiation for the Fast ForWord exercises. Many of the lessons provide writing tasks, including work with graphic organizers and flash cards to support vocabulary development. While each lesson is written for a 10- to 30-minute mini-lesson or class session, teachers can adapt them as needed to meet students’ or scheduling needs.
In addition to ELLs, the offline resources can be used with any Fast ForWord or Reading Assistant student who might benefit from extra practice, including students who are new to the programs, students needing extra support to advance more quickly, or students being considered for or receiving special education services.
For more information, visit www.scientificlearning.com.
###
Media Contact:
Hallie Smith
Director of Marketing
Scientific Learning Corporation
(619) 888-0887
[email protected]
Fun runs are popular these days and bake sales are taking the back seat, partly thanks to the changes from a “smart snacks” provision in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. In addition, regulations that ban the sale of junk food during school hours went into effect last summer as part of a nationwide push by Michelle Obama.
The result of this push means that schools are gravitating toward healthy fundraising too.
Many parents appreciate this, especially in a society where sugary snacks and sodas seem to plague child-centered social events.
However, some states aren’t taking the news without a fight. South Carolina’s state superintendent of education Molly Spearman points out that fundraisers provide vital income and wants waivers from the smart-snack requirements for fundraisers.
Similarly, Ted Poe of Texas is working to push a bill to keep the “federal food police” from schools. His bill would prevent nutrition standards under the 2010 law from being applied to fundraisers.
I like that the First Lady recognizes the importance of good nutrition in schools and surrounding school events. Teaching and supporting healthy eating from a young age sets children up for healthy eating for the rest of their lives. I think that fundraisers that sell unhealthy, sugary-and calorie-laden snacks do not help students really, even if they do raise money. Selling these treats really doesn’t help anyone.
The last few years have been a period of change in public school meal programs with Michelle Obama in the driver’s seat. She has been instrumental in making changes for the better and I hope we see acceptance of the requirements around the country.
**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 Michael J. Ryan
During this season of public school awards and recognition ceremonies, I am reminded of a middle school principal who at one awards ceremony finger-wagged at families. She first thanked everyone for attending. Then, with obvious disappointment, she highlighted that she had not seen most of the adults at all during the school year.
The conversation involving charter schools often includes debatable issues regarding the quality and/or treatment of the teachers, the dedication to sustainable continuity of teaching staff and whether or not charter schools live by the same rules as traditional public schools. However, one aspect that is never debated is many charter schools, which are public schools, demand parents sign a “contract” to volunteer.
Some doubt that these contracts or covenants are fully enforced and others point to imaginative methods to allow “volunteer” hours for parents who live some distance away. However, the act of signing a contract obviously means something.
As a former PTA president, I understand the significant challenges in getting families to successfully cross the threshold of a school. We know, however, once families volunteer or engage, they quickly learn that family engagement in the school environment generates positive benefits for their own children and for the school environment at large.
You don’t have to be an accomplished educator or a Nobel-prize winning economist to understand the benefits of familial engagement in education. Imagine the dollars saved if more families volunteered for projects involving our schools, the benefits of having more people to read, tutor and mentor and the positive long-term economic boost from smarter, more successful students which, in turn, would strengthen public education.
However, sadly, familial engagement in our public schools is not always what it should or could be. When did it become acceptable for parents and guardians to never engage in their child’s school?
Fully-funded, free and equal public education is a constitutional right that must be protected and can never be denied. Schools recognize some households are struggling, working multiple jobs with challenging hours or raising children alone. Others may have difficulty volunteering often or feel they have little to offer. Language differences can work to undermine confidence in the benefits of engaging in a school.
We know, as a result, we cannot generate a mandatory volunteer policy in public education that is fully enforceable against those who refuse to engage. At the same time, we can’t rely on more community meetings to solve this familial engagement crisis.
For municipalities who do not control education, the lack of familial engagement is not something to ignore. We know that strong schools support vibrant neighborhoods, which translates into safer and more economically stable communities. While implementing municipal-based solutions when schools are governed by a separately elected board of education is challenging, the impact of failing to try directly and negatively impacts municipal governments.
We must begin by altering the expectations for a parent or guardian and families in a quality public education system. Public education is a collective commitment intended to build future success for our children and our society involving the entire community, including, not excluding, families.
Schools need to develop a true, sustained and supported customer service model, like we see in businesses who must compete, to overcome fears and preconceived notions, as well as blunt negative past experiences. Schools must embrace the notion that some families may be intimidated or may have had experiences in the past where the school was not as welcoming as it could have been. Directly communicating a customer-friendly atmosphere can be a challenge since not every “customer” comes to the school, but it is not impossible. It starts, perhaps, in the car loop and the front desk, and progresses outward to those who do not come to the school.
Next, schools must understand that not all families will have someone who will be able volunteer inside the school or as part of the curriculum. So, developing a menu of opportunities to engage must include at home projects and potential in-kind efforts.
Additionally, if engagement is the goal, let’s re-think what engagement in education means. Since we recognize that not all families can volunteer or will have the confidence that they have something to offer, changing the definition of engagement offers opportunities to achieve compliance with overall educational goals. Maybe re-define engagement to include meeting with the teacher or administrator to learn about how the student is doing in school, reading to the student at night, going over the homework assignments or attending a school wide event or meeting.
Start with that level of engagement, track it, praise it and encourage different types of engagement. Set a baseline expectation of 1 hour per week, which is roughly 40 hours per school year. Then, watch the hours grow through a visible tracking system communicated to the community.
While we recognize benefits to the students should be enough incentive, developing other incentives for parents or rewards to students for engagement can help as well. Of course, we must be mindful the system of incentives does not operate to punish students who cannot find a family member to engage.
Municipalities which do not control education have an important role to play in addressing the crisis of familial engagement. Prioritizing engagement in schools as a theme in meetings with community, inter-faith, and business leaders sets the tone. Establishing the benefits to the community at large helps to generate a gravitational pull towards the school if for no other reason than self-interest in an economically stable community.
In the end, it is time to have all families sign a covenant, or contract, to engage in their respective schools. The act of signing a “contract” or covenant means something. Even the lack of enforcement options generates only marginal incremental increases in engagement, in whatever form defined, we can no longer ignore the current familial engagement crisis. We owe it to ourselves and our young minds to try something.
_____________________
Michael J. Ryan is a partner with the Fort Lauderdale law firm Krupnick Campbell Malone Buser Slama Hancock & Liberman, a former president of the Parent-Teacher Association at Sawgrass Elementary School and former chair of the City of Sunrise Education Advisory Board. Mr. Ryan also currently serves as Mayor of the City of Sunrise, Fla.
By Brandon Wilmarth
As an English teacher in Oklahoma’s Moore Public Schools, I was recruited by some textbook providers to help them create content. It was a lot of fun, and I was happy to make some extra money doing it. But there are so many teachers in our district who are much more talented than I am. If I was developing curriculum materials that school systems across the nation were purchasing, they certainly could be doing this, too.
So when I became a technology integration specialist for the district, one of my long-term goals was to leverage the expertise of our teachers in creating high-quality digital content.
Teachers are already scouring the web for videos, articles, and other free instructional resources, then pulling these together into coherent lessons and adding their own valuable context to help students understand the material or promote deeper lines of inquiry.
My thought was, why don’t we take some of the money we’re hemorrhaging on expensive, print-based textbooks that aren’t interactive and don’t effectively capture students’ imagination—and use it to pay our teachers more money for their efforts instead?
Our vision is to create a central repository of exemplary digital content that is developed and curated by teachers, for teachers in our district. All teachers would have access to these shared instructional materials. Not all teachers would be required to contribute, but those who do could receive a stipend for their work if it’s approved as a district-vetted lesson or unit.
This would allow us to use our most powerful assets—our teachers—to their fullest potential, while also recognizing and giving value to teachers for the lesson planning and content creation they already do so well.
That’s important, because in Oklahoma, our teachers are among the lowest paid in the nation—and many leave the profession after only a few years. Honoring their talents and contributions could help stop this mass exodus of young teachers as well as veteran content experts and keep them in our schools.
To realize this vision, we needed to have a technology platform that would support teachers in creating and sharing digital lessons. We found this platform in Ogment, which helped us create curriculum by making it easier to grab digital content, including what we found on the web, and turn that into useable lessons for our classrooms.
Part of the problem is not the lack of resources, but rather the overabundance of resources. Every teacher knows how much great content exists online—but managing it all can be a nightmare. Ogment has let our teachers clip videos, articles, games, and other internet resources and put them into lessons or presentations with a simple drag-and-drop process. Then, they can embed questions within a lesson to check for students’ understanding or prompt further discussion—and they can easily share their lessons with other teachers.
Our teachers have used the service to “flip” their classrooms and even personalize instruction. For instance, Tiffany Truesdell, a math teacher at Westmoore High School, says she has used Ogment to make customized lessons for her students.
“I can assign a lesson that presents all the material, and as students go through the lesson, I can have questions that check for their understanding just as if I were presenting the material in class. I can pull videos from any website to enhance the lesson, and if I only want a small section of the video, Ogment lets me assign just that portion of the video in my lesson,” she says.
“Ogment also allows me to differentiate a lesson. For example, if I have a student on an IEP who needs multiple choice, but I want the other students to have a free response question, I can create the lesson once but with differentiated questions. When the questions come up, it will give the IEP student the multiple choice question instead.”
Mrs. Truesdell’s example shows that with the right technology, our district can build a shared repository of lessons that is truly usable. More importantly, a system like this allows our teachers to apply their talents and reignite their passion for creating great content.
We are working toward a model in which we pay teachers extra for the content they create and share through this tool. We’re not there yet; we’re still trying to free up the funding to be able to do this.
But when we come up with the funding to realize our vision, we’ll be able to pay our teachers extra for creating and sharing top-notch lessons—rewarding teachers for their work and restoring professionalism to the field.
Brandon Wilmarth is a technology integration specialist for Moore Public Schools in Oklahoma.
Susan M. Snyder, Georgia State University; Jennifer E. O’Brien, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and Wen Li, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
Problematic Internet Use is now considered to be a behavioral addiction with characteristics that are similar to substance use disorders.
Individuals with PIU may have difficulty reducing their Internet use, may be preoccupied with the Internet or may lie to conceal their use.
A recent study that I coauthored with UNC Chapel Hill doctoral students Wen Li and Jennifer O’Brien and UNC professor Matthew O. Howard examines this new behavioral addiction.
Perhaps not surprisingly, individuals with PIU have been found to experience several negative mental health problems which could include depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hostility, social phobias, problematic alcohol use, self-injurious behavior and trouble sleeping (i.e., sleep apnea, nightmares, insomnia, and struggling to stay awake during the daytime).
Our study is the first to look at how PIU affects family relationships among U.S. university students. Intriguingly, we found that college students with PIU report effects that are both negative and positive.
To better understand PIU, we focused on students whose Internet use was excessive and created problems in their lives.
Study participants were undergraduate or graduate students enrolled at UNC Chapel Hill. We required that participants be individuals who were spending more than 25 hours a week on the Internet (time that was not related to school or work). Additionally, participants had to report experiencing at least one health, relationship or emotional problem due to PIU.
To recruit our participants, our team sent out an email on a Friday evening. We were not sure if this would be a good time to reach students, but we were surprised that within two hours, 39 students responded. Of those who responded to our email, 27 students attended our four focus groups and completed our questionnaires.
Roughly half (48.1 percent) of our participants were considered “Internet addicts.” These participants answered “yes” to five or more of our eight questions (e.g., preoccupation; inability to control use; lying about use; depressed or moody when trying to stop).
Half of the participants of the study were considered to be Internet addicts.
Southern Tier Advocacy & Mitigation Project, Incorporated, CC BY-NC-ND
Another 40.7% were considered to be “potential Internet addicts.” These participants answered “yes” to three or four items. All of the participants met the criteria for PIU using the Compulsive Internet Use Scale, a 14-item scale that included items like difficulty stopping; sleep deprivation; neglect obligations; feelings of restlessness, frustration or irritation when Internet is unavailable.
We used focus groups, which are group conversations guided by a facilitator, to discuss shared experiences or knowledge regarding PIU. Each focus group had six to eight participants.
Three key themes emerged in the conversations: (1) family connectedness, (2) family conflict/family disconnection, and (3) Internet overuse among other family members.
We had examples of positive connections. Some participants reported that the Internet connected them to their families. For example, participants discussed using Skype, Facebook or email to maintain relationships with family while they were away at college.
A student we call Hannah explained:
But like using Skype helps keep you connected and also when we are at home we watch a movie together, it’s like family time, you know. And um, like you know, if we read the same, like article, then we can talk about it on Skype.
Another student, Lisa said:
I hate talking on the phone. So, that allows me a way to stay connected and especially with my mom who would… Normally, I would just not respond to her at all, but now we have an email dialogue going. That helps us stay more connected.
Despite the positive consequences that participants discussed, we found that across the focus groups, participants spent more time talking about the negative consequences of Internet use.
For these participants, Internet use caused family relationships to disconnect or become conflicted.
Instead of interacting with their family when they were at home, participants reported that they were “on the computer the whole time.” One participant described ignoring her family during her visits home as a result of her Internet use:
My grandma and my parents will complain about my Internet use because I will be sitting in front of the TV and I’ll have my laptop and so will my little sister. We’ll be sitting in front of the TV on our laptops not talking to each other. So, my parents will complain about that.
Andrew said,
I think for me, this year I went home and one of the reasons was just was to have more family time, but what I ended up really doing was staying on my computer pretty much the whole time, which was kind of defeating the purpose of actually going home.
Steve described how his Internet use affected a visit with his brother and his friends at a sports bar:
At one point we’re all watching the basketball game, and all four because we’re all on our phone, and he looked at us and he said, ‘Really guys, I am here for two days, you all just wanna [sic] be on Twitter and Facebook?’ So, while it can enhance with setting up social situations, it can also detract from them once you were actually in them…Yeah, he was very just like…He flew out for the weekend. You know he spent US$300 on an airplane ticket just to sit there and watch me on Facebook.
It may not be surprising that college students with PIU reported that members of their families also overuse the Internet.
Some participants expressed frustration at the lack of boundaries or rules in place for their younger siblings or other relatives. A participant we called Melissa shared about her little brother:
He just turned four, but they got him an iPad. Like, which I don’t agree with. I think it’s so stupid, but he is always, always on it. He gets really defensive if you try to take it away or put boundaries on it or something like that.
Small children are getting addicted to their devices as well.
Tia Henriksen, CC BY
Hannah, for example, described a cousin whose Internet gaming has impaired his vision, but he is unable to stop playing:
My cousin, he is addicted to video games. And he’s like, I think he is like 10, 12, something like that, I don’t remember. I feel like it’s a stupid game, there’s no deepness to it. You kill someone. They die. You get killed, it starts over again. He can play that for eight hours straight without moving. His eyes are really bad right now. He can’t control himself.
Participants described their parents’ PIU as well. Several participants described their parents as “constantly checking email” for their work. Others described their parents as regularly on computers, phones or iPads “on Facebook” or “browsing.”
Sarah likened her Internet use to her mother’s:
It’s not just the students who are addicted.
Chris Owens, CC BY-NC-SA
My mom talks about me using the phone at the table when we’re eating, cause like if there’s a break in conversation, ‘Oh, Facebook opportunity’ [others laughed and she laughed too]. And then, like, somehow in my mind [the] conversation is over, but it’s really not. So then she’s like ‘You’re always on your phone, what are you doing?’ But then, like two minutes later, she is checking the weather. So I don’t know [she laughed].
A few participants shared that they were the only ones in their family with PIU.
Cindy explained that her family was from another country, which may explain their low Internet use,
I find that I don’t really have family members with an Internet problem, and I am the only one who grew up here. So, that might be…
Gina said,
My parents are technophobes. They don’t even know how to turn on computers.
Although our sample size is small, we followed rigorous approaches to ensure that we obtained the best possible data. We conducted focus groups until we achieved data saturation, which means that when we reviewed the final focus group no new themes were discovered.
The conclusions come through loud and clear. PIU exists and it affects family relationships. While those effects may be both positive and negative, those who suffer adverse consequences from PIU may have difficulty addressing their PIU because of requirements to use Internet for classes via online assignments (e.g., writing blogs), online courses and materials accessed online.
All names have been changed to protect identity.
Susan M. Snyder, Assistant Professor of Social Work, Georgia State University; Jennifer E. O’Brien, Ph.D. Student, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and Wen Li, Ph.D. Student, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here.
According to research, schools that make a positive difference in the learning levels are led by principals who make a positive contribution to staff effectiveness and students under their charge. In the 1980s, instructional leadership was often depicted as “hands-on” leadership in classroom matters. The majority of recent studies report that the involvement of principals in classroom instruction are indirect, and carried out through building a school culture and leading by example.
However, most scholars now find that a principal’s impact on student learning is small, but has an important place in statistical data. Even marginal impact is vital to acheiving desired outcomes, because policy makers still use these findings to justify their emphasis on the selection and training of school leaders as a strategy for school improvement. The role of the principal in shaping the school’s vision and mission is described as the most influential “avenue of effects.”
School context has been found to have a significant effect on the success of a principal’s instructional leadership. Instructional leadership effectiveness should be viewed as an independent effort, but also as dependent on the learning environment.
Successful instructional leaders work with other stakeholders to shape the school to fit its mission. Instructional leaders directly influence the quality of school outcomes by aligning the school’s academic standards, timetables, and curriculum, with the school’s mission. Leaders are more effective when they are clear about missions, and manage activities that fall in line with practices needed for effectiveness.
The lack of clarity of the role of the principal in instructional leadership has been a problem. Instructional leadership has rarely defined practices and behaviors that the principal should model, making it hard to determine what needs to be considered for effective instructional leadership. Assigning clear duties to principals will help to ensure instructional leadership is carried out properly. Once principals and school leaders understand their roles, they can begin the task of leading their schools toward higher success.
I’ve recently delved into The Death and Life of the Great American School by Diane Ravitch. It has been on my reading list for some time now and I finally decided it was time to really give it the attention it deserves. I consider myself an education reformer, and an advocate for reforming the current public school system, so Ravitch’s works speak to me, even if I’m not always completely in the same school of thought.
In educational discourse, Ravitch is an interesting figure. She served as the assistant secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush, though she has never been a Republican and is an Independent today. She was once a supporter of the No Child Left Behind Act and even the formation of charter schools, but in recent years has spoken out against these initiatives, saying that she is now disillusioned with them. In her eyes, and those of her supporters, the idea of standardized testing as a measure of a school’s worth and competition as a way to improve public education are not valid avenues to reform, and will indeed lead to an education system more flawed than the current one.
Ravitch discusses the many ways that school districts that include public, private and charter schools within their realms game the system to reach standardized testing and other accountability benchmarks. She talks in depth about the transformation of New York City public school district 2, an area that has undergone reform with support from deep pockets, like those belonging to billionaire Michael Bloomberg. In this particular instance, New York City schools are under mayoral control for all intents and purposes – and as such, have accountability standards that read more like a white paper on business efficiency than suggestions for actually teaching human beings.
The problem with these standards, of course, is that with stringent, subjective targets for learning, schools are able to game the system to make it work in their favor. In other words, these schools are looking for ways to meet a specific, narrow goal – think of it like a salesperson closing a deal – and then they are rewarded for that piece of shallow success. The flip side of this is that the schools that do not manage to meet these standards are then punished, in true NCLB style, even if the details of their teaching methods actually have some merit. Teachers and administrators at schools that are deemed “failures” or even just mediocre by the established system then must bow to the pressure in order to stay relevant and away from the target range when it comes to adding “competitive” school choices.
Places like New York City are not the first to bring in sweeping reform ideas intended to aid student success – they are simply re-debuting ideas that have already existed in other parts of the country. It is fair to note that by many accounts, areas with public charter and magnet school choice do not fare any better (and are sometimes worse) than the traditional neighborhood schools in the area. Yet, sometimes these schools DO work – at least on paper. I’ve mused before about how my home state of Mississippi would look if there were to be more choice in the state when it comes to P-12 education. As it stands now, student achievement gets a failing grade consistently in Mississippi and the public schools are not improving under the current system. Based on the success of choice programs in other areas, is it worth a try? Or will those schools be developed in ways that “game the system” and take away the true measure of learning: well-rounded, educated students?
On Friday, I’ll take a look at the idea of superstar teachers tackled in the book and if they really are the cure for all educational reform ailments – or if they even exist.
Have you read The Death and Life of the Great American School? What are your thoughts?
As the focus on the improvement of learning becomes more central, what educational leaders are expected to do and accomplish through the allocation of resources has changed. Historically, supporters of education were more concerned with the dollar amount allocated per pupil, and they spent much of their political capital advocating for increases from one year to the next.
Educational leaders were responsible for creating balanced budgets with the dollars they had available and accounting for expenditures in a responsible manner– a complex task in large school districts. Little attention was paid to how resources were related to performance or what type of performance was expected. The standards-based reform movement of the past several decades changed the situation fundamentally, by prompting new questions about what the learning standards should be and how educators should be held accountable for improved performance.
In response, educators have become more focused on results, while taking the stance that higher performance cannot be accomplished without adequate resources. Thus, a sea change has occurred, prompting educational leaders to consider how resource allocation is related to building high-performing systems that work for all students. As they take seriously the charge to become more learning-focused, leaders critically examine the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of existing resource allocation policies and practices and make decisions regarding ways in which resources might be reallocated in more productive ways.
This resource reallocation challenge is as important in the present era of standards-driven reform and accountability for results. Given the considerable variation in the needs, capacities, and contexts of schools, it is striking– though not surprising– that for the most part, resource allocation patterns in K–12 education are relatively uniform.
The uniformity of leaders’ responses to these varying needs may simply signal a safe course: the most easily defended set of decisions in a context of competition for scarce resources. Beneath the surface of this course of action, however, conflicting expectations, tensions, and barriers may be impeding leaders’ ability to think more creatively about how to organize and allocate limited resources and act strategically. These barriers exist at all levels of the educational policy system.
In such a situation, leaders might wish for definitive understanding about the impact of particular investments on student learning, yet the state of knowledge here is incomplete. The highly contextual nature of schools, the variations with which any particular improvement strategy is implemented, the motivational conditions that are present, and the need to adapt strategies to fit specific circumstances all interact with the resources brought to bear on learning improvement goals.
For districts wishing to commence anew with student-weighted allocation systems (whereby funds are allocated on the basis of student types), offering clear-cut guidance on what increments should be assigned to each student type is a crucial first step. However, a definitive response plainly cannot exist in the current state of fiscal allocation policy. The difficulty here is that currently there is no efficient resource allocation system whereby an answer can be reliably extrapolated.
Policymakers are consequently forced into determining fiscal policy without information relating to expenditure on student types. They are forced to do so with no understanding of the workings of allocation policies at different levels (federal, state, and local) either together or in conflict. Policymakers have little clarity on expenditure for different student types at the school level, nor awareness of the types of policies that would be more effective in guaranteeing that dollars reach students in the proposed ways.
School finance today works in opposition to the focused and effective utilization of resources that promote improved education of students. Just as an archaic computer can no longer function properly in a technological environment inundated with the latest software, this nation’s school finance system frozen by a combination of unrelated expenditure policies and administrative plans can no longer serve the needs of an educational system calling for reform. A new model is required, to do one thing– ensure that every child receives instruction for his or her needs in order to become an involved citizen having total participation in this modern economy.
Current school finance systems fund programs, uphold institutions, and offer resources and staff employment so the school and district administrators can fully execute the multitude of laws and regulations that have become part of public education. However, the methods employed by today’s school finance systems– deploying expenditure levels based on habit and not need, covering up funds’ actual allocations, supporting institutions whether they are viable or not, hypocritically addressing equity, spending resources flippantly, attempting to make adults accountable by compliance and not by results– confuses the links between resources and academic aims that make finance relevant to student performance.
The school finance system evolved in a era in which programs were funded, and students passed or failed without much regard paid to the role of funding in student performance. This pattern was sustainable then, as jobs were available for people with low skills, and the vast majority of workers were not required to be well educated in order to maintain a healthy economy. Unfortunately, that legacy has proven unworkable in today’s highly technological, information-based economy, where low-skilled workers cannot rise above the poverty level and overseas workers are able to compete effectively in the market for skilled jobs, once available solely to Americans.
Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here.
Pedagogue is a social media network where educators can learn and grow. It's a safe space where they can share advice, strategies, tools, hacks, resources, etc., and work together to improve their teaching skills and the academic performance of the students in their charge.
If you want to collaborate with educators from around the globe, facilitate remote learning, etc., sign up for a free account today and start making connections.
Pedagogue is Free Now, and Free Forever!