k12

Matthew Lynch published in Bullying December 5, 2016

Simply punishing students for bullying will not address the problem

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

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

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

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

Simply punishing bullies does not work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montana’s law states,

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

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

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

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

Why doesn’t punishment work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interventions that do help

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

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

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

There are, however, some notable exceptions.

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

Nevada’s example

Nevada has gone a step further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education December 3, 2016

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

This article was written by Michelle Grattan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The panel has produced a detailed set of recommendations to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, EdTech & Innovation, First Year Teachers, Parental Involvement, Special Education, December 3, 2016

Here’s why kids fall behind in science

Paul Morgan, Pennsylvania State University

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science achievement gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s what our study shows

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

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

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

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

Our analyses of these data yielded three surprising findings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing these gaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Morgan, Associate Professor of Education, Pennsylvania State University

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

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform December 1, 2016

Our Kids Deserve Better: The Push For Bipartisan Education Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Education Leadership, First Year Teachers, Teachers December 1, 2016

Why teachers are unable to stop bias-based bullying

SeriaShia J. Chatters, Pennsylvania State University

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

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

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

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

Response to bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullying by teachers

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

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

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

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

When teachers think they are outsiders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Training teachers

So how can schools respond to bias-based bullying?

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Elementary Education, First Year Teachers, Higher Education, Special Education, November 28, 2016

Understanding Three Key Classroom Management Theories

By Tricia Hussung

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement November 27, 2016

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

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

A guest post by Anica Oaks

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

Benefits of Public Education

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

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

Advantages of Private Education

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

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

Finding the Best Fit for Your Child

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

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

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

___

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

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education November 25, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

Mental health on college campus

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

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

What about mental health issues of community college students specifically?

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

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

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

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

Here are the community college data

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

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

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

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

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

Are students getting help?

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

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

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

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

Additionally, community colleges offer significantly fewer campus services.

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

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

Here’s what can be done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation November 21, 2016

10 Ways to Incorporate Music into Your Classroom

A teacher librarian shares her best practices for tuneful teaching

By Shannon McClintock Miller

“Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” ~Plato

One of the most important gifts we can give to our young children is a healthy foundation for lifelong learning. We want to capture their excitement, bottle their enthusiasm, and give life to their imagination. As educators, we look for resources that support and enhance these magical learning experiences. As shown in the Learning With Music infographic above, music stimulates and connects the different areas of the brain. For our youngest learners who are at a crucial time of development, this is an essential building block for their future.

In the article Music and Learning: Integrating Music in the Classroom from John Hopkins School of Education, Chris Boyd Brewer touts the benefits of using music throughout the day. “The intentional use of music in the classroom will set the scene and learning atmosphere to enhance our teaching and learning activities,” he writes. “Plus, using music for learning makes the process much more fun and interesting.”

Let’s look at 10 ways to incorporate music into your classroom, instruction, and library collection.

Bookend your day with music. Music promotes listening and focus as we get started with our morning and as we end activities in the afternoon. This is also important with focusing children at home. At school or at home, songs can remind kids to wash their hands for snacks or clean toys up at the end of the day.

Use music to establish a positive learning space. The right music creates the atmosphere you want for a given lesson, contributes to the community of the classroom, and builds rapport. The new series School Time Songs from Cantata Learning sets a fun tone for everything you do.

Cantata’s books combine stories, illustrations, and songs to captivate young learners, build literacy skills, and instill a lifelong love of reading. In the back of each book there is a CD that contains the song. You can also find all of the music online by scanning a QR code included three places within each book.

Inspire your students to release energy and tension throughout the day. Whether for one student or a gym full of kids, brain breaks fueled by music motivate kids to get some healthy exercise and help them refocus on learning.

When you kick off a new topic or lesson, really hook your students with music. Music will reinforce new information. It can be paired with other resources, such as non-fiction and research, to provide guiding questions and bring new concepts to life.

Use music to enhance imagination. We all know that kids love to dream about who they might be someday. With the new STEM series from Cantata Learning, they can do just that by taking a closer look into science, technology, engineering, and math information, careers and interests.

Engage students’ brains to learn and memorize. Kelly Benge, who is a 5th-grade special education teacher in Iowa, uses the Read, Sing, Learn…Songs About the Part of Speech series to teach her class to identify the parts of speech. Benge said, “The music engages the brain to learn and memorize in ways nothing else can. The songs draw in the interest of students, especially those who get easily distracted.”

Teach students to be more receptive and sensitive to understanding things differently. The Mad Monkey, from the Songs About Emotions series, takes a look at the social emotional aspect of children. It will help them understand others’ emotional perspectives, too.

Use music as a collaborative tool among teachers. One of my favorite new series is Fairy Tale Tunes. Just think how perfect these are for a “fractured fairy tale” unit! This is an important piece of the curriculum which holds lots of potential for collaboration among teachers within the classroom, art, music, and library.

Facilitate a multisensory learning experience in a musical makerspace. Heather Fox, who is a teacher librarian in Iowa, set up a musical makerspace in her library by placing Cantata Learning book covers in a display and having students use iPads to scan the QR codes to listen, read, and sing. As part of the multisensory learning experience, they could also create musical instruments in a station she set up out of recycled goods.

Bring fun to learning! Karyn Lewis, who is a teacher librarian in Texas, wrote, “I invited the pre-K and kindergarten English language learner students to the library once a week to work on vocabulary using several of the Cantata Learning ebooks and songs. We couldn’t help but sing, clap, and dance along to the books we read together! They requested to play the song again and again.”

Music will bring noise to classrooms and libraries, but ultimately it creates lifelong learners through stories, movement, curiosity, collaboration, rhythm, and fun!

Shannon McClintock Miller is a teacher librarian, international speaker, consultant, and author. She is a recipient of the 2014 Library Journal Mover & Shaker Award and the 2016 ISTE Make It Happen Award. Follow her on Twitter at @shannonmmiller.

Matthew Lynch published in Early Childhood, Education Leadership, Elementary Education November 21, 2016

Stressed out: the psychological effects of tests on primary school children

Laura Nicholson, Edge Hill University

Some parents are so angry with the testing regime facing their children that they have come together in an attempt to boycott primary school exams. Preparation by teachers for these standardised achievement tests (SATs) in England have involved a narrowing of the curriculum, including a specific focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Parents believe that their children should be stimulated instead by more enriching activities and projects. There is also a worry that the tests may cause undue stress and pressure on their young children to perform well. These beliefs are widespread: more than 49,000 parents have signed a petition to abolish SATs altogether.

An awareness of pressure

Teachers are under considerable pressure for pupils to perform well on SATs. Performance-related pay and position in school league tables depend on test results. Parents believe that exam results will have a bearing on their young child’s future and understandably want them to do well.

But the children are also well-aware that their performance on the SATs is important to their teachers and parents. Teachers may unwittingly transmit the stress they are under to their pupils. Children can also pick up on their parents’ attitudes and associated behaviour and feel under pressure to make them proud.

Too much, too young? Shuravaya/www.shutterstock.com

This pressure from parents is perhaps the largest source of stress for children aged ten to 11 who are working towards their Key Stage 2 exams. One Year 6 pupil my colleagues and I interviewed described the source of the pressure he felt:

You want to get them [SATS questions] right because other people want you to get them right and, like, you don’t want to disappoint people.

Test anxiety

Stress and pressure about forthcoming exams can result in what education researchers have termed “test anxiety”. This can present itself via a number of symptoms.

Children can suffer from negative thoughts such as: “If I don’t pass this test, I will never get a good job”. They can also suffer physiological symptoms such as tight muscles or trembling and distracting behaviours such as playing with a pencil. The effects of anxiety during a test can influence the child’s ability to process and understand test questions and perform at their best.

It is well established that pupils with high levels of test anxiety perform more poorly in their exams. The overall prevalence of test anxiety in primary school children is on the increase and it is fairly common for children at the end of primary school. Year 6 pupils report experiencing anxiety either some or most of the time when asked two weeks prior to their exams.

But there are differences in how SATs are viewed by different children. Some perceive them to be stressful, while others view them as a challenge. As well as pressure from parents, pupils in Year 6 have cited the demands of the testing situation as a cause of stress. This includes completing exams under timed conditions and having no contact with classmates or teachers. There are also concerns about exam results being used to influence which set a child will be put in at secondary school. Another Year 6 pupil my colleagues and I interviewed said:

You look at your booklet and you’ve got like loads of questions left and you’re like, ‘I can’t do this’. You just want to just sit there and go ‘I can’t do this’ and walk off.

The extent to which children aged six to seven, working towards Key Stage 1 exams, feel test-anxious, is unclear. Very little research has been conducted exclusively with them. Some younger children, however, have been found to display clear signs of anxiety or stress during the period leading up to the SATs.

Reducing the pressure

How resilient a child is can reduce the negative effects of test anxiety on performance. Specifically, children who believe they can succeed, trust and seek comfort from others easily and who are not overly sensitive, can be better at combatting the problems associated with test anxiety. Parents may therefore help their children by attempting to nurture and boost their resilience.

Keeping SATs “low-key” is crucial to minimising anxiety and stress among children. Parents should reassure their children that results are not critical and that the most important thing is that they try their best. In the classroom, teachers should direct time and effort towards familiarising children to the format and procedures involved in standardised testing. For instance, practising with past test papers while children sit at individual desks, could help.

Both parents and teachers could also keep a conscious check of how they may subconsciously transmit feelings of stress or tension to young children. Pupils who display signs of test anxiety require more space and understanding, both at school and home – this includes increased tolerance during the testing period.

These strategies may go some way to reducing the pressure of tests on young children. It is essential that schools and teachers take the time to focus on the social, emotional and mental health and development of children.

Laura Nicholson, Researcher, Faculty of Education and Associate Tutor, Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University

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

Simply punishing students for bullying will not address the problem

Simply punishing bullies does not work

Why doesn’t punishment work?

Interventions that do help

Nevada’s example

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

Here’s why kids fall behind in science

Science achievement gaps

Here’s what our study shows

Closing these gaps

Our Kids Deserve Better: The Push For Bipartisan Education Reform

Why teachers are unable to stop bias-based bullying

Response to bullying

Bullying by teachers

When teachers think they are outsiders

Training teachers

Understanding Three Key Classroom Management Theories