k12

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

The Top 5 Unexpected Benefits of Early Childhood Education

A trend is emerging when it comes to P-20 education: optional preschool is becoming a thing of the past. As a nation, we’re finally beginning to accept that preschool is beneficial—even necessary—for the success of most American children. It’s why Obama has invested billions in early childhood education, and Presidential hopefuls such as Hillary Clinton are emphatic about preschool’s importance.

As someone who has extensively written about preschool-related initiatives on this site, I’ve seen enough to uncover some unexpected benefits that come from early childhood education, and I want to share a few of them with you:

1. More preschool means a child is more prepared for Kindergarten.

A study has found that children who attend all-day preschool are much better prepared for Kindergarten than children who go to half-day programs.
Researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs studied 1,000 3-and 4-year-olds enrolled in 11 Chicago schools. Students who attended preschool seven hours a day were compared to those who attended three hour programs, then tested at the commencement of preschool to see if they were socially and academically prepared to begin kindergarten.

The study found 59 percent of the students enrolled in the half-day program to be ready compared to 81 percent of the all-day preschool attendees.

2. Even better, preschool means a child is more prepared for life.

Research shows that students who start the formal education experience, even one year earlier than Kindergarten, fare better long term in their academic careers.

3. Preschool may be one key to correcting the achievement gap.

Remember the study mentioned in point #1? Well, in that same study, researchers discovered that 78 percent of white students were prepared to enter kindergarten compared to 74 percent of black children and 62 percent of Native American and Hispanic students.

Last year, Minnesota contributed $40 million in funding for pre-K scholarships for low- income families. Thanks to those dollars, 5,800 students were able to attend preschool. About 15,000 more students still need access to pre-K scholarships, but Minnesota made an important stride.

4. Preschool can help the most at-risk ethnic group, Native Americans, achieve better success.

In education circles, we talk a lot about the way black and Latino students struggle in K-12 classrooms through a combination of cultural circumstances and inequality.
But the reality is that American Indian K-12 students are the most at-risk of any minority group for either dropping out of high school or never making it to college. The American Indian Fund reports that American Indians who earn a bachelor’s degree represent less than 1 percent of all of these degree earners. It is not shocking then to realize that 28 percent of American Indians lived in poverty compared to 15 percent of the general population, according to 2010 U.S. Census figures. A college education opens doors for a higher quality of life.

However, the path to college starts long before the application process.

Fortunately, the American Indian College Fund’s Early Childhood Education program recognizes this. They sponsored a meeting which brought together 45 representatives from four American Indian tribal colleges who discussed strategies for better early childhood education and family involvement in the community.

The representatives looked at how the American Indian community can better prepare children for long-term academic success, targeting learning opportunities from birth to 8 years of age.

5. Crime rates could drop in cities like Detroit—if more children went to preschool.

Jose Diaz of the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation conducted the study “Cost Savings of School Readiness Per Additional At-Risk Child in Detroit and Michigan” where the findings appear. The research was commissioned by the Max M. and Marjorie S. Fisher Foundation and it suggests that investing in early childhood education could cut Detroit’s crime rate and save taxpayers in the state millions of dollars, according to a story on the study by The Detroit News. The story says that Detroit taxpayers would save around $96,000 for each child who was enrolled in a quality early education program and Michigan taxpayers would save $47,000 for each child.

The figure was derived from adding cost savings to special education, public assistance, childcare subsidies, the victims of crime and the criminal justice system. The majority of the savings would come from the criminal justice system.

Currently, only 4 percent of prisoners in Michigan under the age of 20 years old graduated from high school.

As it is right now, thirty eight states offer free, voluntary preschool learning programs and nearly 1.6 million low-income families receive assistance from the federal Child Care Development Fund to pursue early childhood education. And imagine this: that fund is just one portion of President Obama’s $75 billion plan to expand early childhood learning in order to give American student a stronger foundation going into Kindergarten.

Granted, not everyone agrees with the idea of concentrating so much energy on early childhood education. Some critics think that universal preschool, for example, is just a way to add more education jobs (especially since some proponents want to insist that states accepting federal preschool dollars pay preschool teachers at the same rate as elementary ones).

But overall, I expect that in the next decade, our terminology will change from K-12 to PK-12 when we talk about student benchmarks. More states will lobby for pre-K funding and more families, from low- to high-income, will seek out early learning options to set their kids up for academic success.
So what do you think? Will preschool ever be considered as necessary as kindergarten through twelfth grade? What are some benefits (or even drawbacks) of increasing the number of early childhood education programs?

As usual, I am interested to hear from you, so please leave a comment.

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

We Need to Talk About BYOD

The BYOD Listening Project asks: In the rush to control students’ devices, have we overlooked the ‘moment of teaching’?

By Sharon Price Campbel

If you’re a teacher in the U.S., you have likely bumped into BYOD (bring your own device). Especially in recent years, school districts are rushing to “leave no device behind” and education technology companies are coming up with myriad new products and services to deliver the promise of BYOD Nirvana. At conferences and in district offices, educators are spearheading many iterations of teaching and learning opportunities.

What can we learn from the previous megatrends in education technology? The first small wave of technology occurred when computers were installed in public school offices. They were not to be touched by the likes of teachers, but by trained office professionals only. It took another decade for computers to become available to educators in the teacher’s lounge. By the turn of the millennium, computer-literate teachers began to ask for, beg for, and write grants for computers in the classroom.

A flood of federal money available for technology purchases created the second wave, the Educational Technology Tsunami. To cash in on the gold rush, business suppliers slapped “education friendly” labels on business equipment. Manufacturers racing to get their share of the federal bucks cut corners on research, design, and quality control to get products into the marketplace. Classrooms became a nightmare of unsupported, unreliable hardware and buggy software. Classroom teachers who had been enthusiastic became concerned about job security. They feared reporting faulty equipment and feared that they had inadequate computer skills. When the federal funding ended, school districts found themselves unable to financially support their technological machines and dreams.

Riding the same surge was the “No Child Left Behind” legislation. Its unattainable expectations, on top of education’s first attempt to merge onto the digital freeway, nearly crashed education.  Systems had been too quickly adopted and inadequately designed, and were incapable of the tasks they were purchased to perform. School districts became the graveyards of metal hulks and husks of educational technology—and federally-driven, data-based, student failure.

Since then, we have learned and improved. Manufactures and legislators are beginning to include educators in the conversation about expectations and realistic outcomes for tomorrow’s teaching tools. Teachers are getting very good at forming their own independent learning communities, and ideas are spreading faster than ever before. It was during this hyper-connected, surging wave of mobile device integration into all aspects of life that we ushered in BYOD.

It will take work. Early concerns about device security/privacy, unrestricted web access, and the potential for distractions in the classroom have driven the marketplace toward an obsession with control. There are now dozens of device management products that offer instructors and districts varying levels of control over student devices; however, these products don’t serve the fundamental purpose of BYOD in education, which is to improve instruction, empower students for self-directed learning, and leverage this generation of students’ technological prowess to turn the current model of instruction on its head.

In the rush to control students’ devices, we have overlooked the “moment of teaching.” Very few teachers are able to accomplish ordinary tasks, such as grabbing a picture from a document camera and getting it to each student device, without having to halt instruction and fiddle with far too many steps to integrate into teaching. So why is instructional software so clunky when we need it the most? The answer is that most companies making this software rarely set foot in an actual classroom. They are so focused on features and functions that they overlook how the product is used in the classroom during instruction. If one of the purposes of device management is to minimize distractions, shouldn’t the product just work and require no active management on the part of the teacher? Yet most device management products require that the teacher be behind his or her computer to share learning resources or to monitor and control student devices.

We can’t rely on product developers to just deliver brilliance. Rarely through history have major innovations been the result of one person or team, instead they have been the result of teams building on the work of or listening to others. The BYOD marketplace should be listening to the visceral and rational experiences of teachers, administrators, and students to make better products.

EXO U is sponsoring the BYOD Listening Project to strike up a dialogue between teachers, students, parents, administrators, and the marketplace, with the goal of pinning down and solving the increasing challenges that teachers and students face when attempting to integrate devices into a daily classroom teaching. I am serving as a moderator for the project, and we’re asking for your perspective on mobile devices in the classroom. What works? What doesn’t? Where are the significant pain points or problems at the interface of mobile devices and learning?

The BYOD Listening Project is asking for your engagement and in return, we will analyze, collate, and report themes and major takeaways. Our aim is to provide highly useful data and models for BYOD implementation that improve that moment of teaching.

Sharon Price Campbel has taught in Napa County Juvenile Offender programs, an alternative high school, and Youth Employment programs. For the last 28 years she has been a middle school teacher. In 2009, she was named a California School Master, the oldest, most prestigious California education award.

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

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

What fewer women in STEM means for their mental health

Jennifer Drake, University of Toronto

“You’re in engineering!?! Wow, you must be super-smart…”

It has been over 10 years since I was a first-year engineering undergraduate student; but when I remember the time a fellow female student made this comment, I can still feel a visceral, bodily reaction: my muscles tense, my heart rate increases, my breath quickens.

Comments like these on the surface appear as compliments. But when unpacked, they reveal subversive attitudes about women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).

As I think back to this encounter, there are two aspects that stay with me. First was the surprised, skeptical tone of the other student’s voice that conveyed it was surprising and unusual (or, to put it more crudely, freakish) that I was in engineering. Second was the attitude that since I was in engineering, this could be explained only if there was something exceptional or outstanding (or, once again, freakish) about me. Women remain an underrepresented group in STEM. In Canada, women account for 23% of engineering graduates and 30% of mathematics and computer graduates. In the United States, women are 12% of the engineering and 26% of the computing workforce.

The reality is that STEM professions are most commonly male and it remains surprising when these professional roles are held by women. The large gender imbalance means that women may naturally feel they’re outsiders at school and at work. This situation is often uncomfortable and mentally demanding, when even just showing up and doing your job comes with constant social stresses and anxiety. Ironically, the difficulties that they (we) encounter often dissuade the next generation of women from joining us. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that we need to break.

Fight or flight, designed for quick response

Because of their underrepresentation, women in STEM often regularly question their place in these professions. When things feel uncomfortable – like when I was confronted with that comment a decade ago – our brains can overinterpret the situation as an imminent threat. And there’s an evolutionary reason for that physical response.

Stress is an adaptive response to perceived threats. It’s how the body reacts to these situations. Anxiety is stress that lingers after the immediate threat is gone; it’s experienced as a feeling such as embarrassment, fear or worry.

Fight-or-flight is a physiological response.
Jvnkfood, CC BY-SA

This stress response evolved in human beings to help us navigate a wild, dangerous and unpredictable world. When faced with imminent danger, like a pouncing tiger, our bodies have evolved an automatic reaction to help us react fast. Stress hormones are released, the heart beats harder and faster, breathing becomes rapid and muscles tense, ready for action.

This automatic response prepares our bodies for possible actions: fight or flight! From the perspective of evolutionary adaptation, it’s in our best interests NOT to distinguish between life-threatening and non-life-threatening dangers. Act first, think later. In the African wilds in which early humans roamed, the consequence of underreacting could mean death.

Good during lion attack, less good during daily life

In modern life, we don’t have to worry much about attacks from lions, tigers or bears. But adaptive mechanisms are still very much a part of our brain’s biology.

The flight-or-flight response is intended to be short-term. The problem comes in when stress becomes a daily part of life, triggering a physiological response that’s actually detrimental to health over the long term. Repeated and long-term releases of the stress hormone cortisol cause changes in brain structure that leave individuals more susceptible to anxiety and mood disorders, including depression. When exposed to long-term stress, the brain structure called the hippocampus shrinks, affecting one’s short-term memory and ability to learn.

Subtle cues can make female students feel marginalized.
World Bank Photo Collection, CC BY-NC-ND

Messages you don’t belong can be stressful

These physical stress responses can unfortunately run at a constant low level of activation in people who are made to feel like they don’t belong or aren’t good enough – such as women in STEM. Social situations like my undergraduate encounter – and their ramifications – are a part of day-to-day life.

The effects of stress on women in STEM fields are often already obvious during their undergraduate studies. A study of women in engineering at the University of Waterloo has shown that female students tend to have lower overall mental health. Women in STEM fields are more likely to report higher levels of stress and anxiety and higher incidences of depression.

Sadly, the percentages of women working in these fields have remained stagnant for decades. In 1987, women represented 20% of the STEM workforce in Canada. In 2015, their numbers remain unchanged at 22%. In the United States, the reality is very similar, with women representing 24% of the workforce. Confrontational reactions like “You’re in engineering!?!” communicate the message that as a woman, one may not belong in the social group of engineering. The brain perceives these kinds of social interactions as threatening, dangerous and stressful.

The social cues that women may not belong in male-dominated STEM fields can often be subtle. For example, researchers have shown that the presence in labs of objects considered stereotypical of computer science, such as Star Trek and video game posters, are perceived as stereotypically masculine and can dissuade women from expressing interest in topics like computer programming.

Moreover, seemingly complimentary “Wow, you must be super-smart!” comments also communicate an even more troubling possibility that, in order to belong in this group (of men), as a woman, one must be exceptional. Women + Engineering = Super Smart.

But what if a female student is not exceptionally intelligent? What if she is only ordinarily smart? Or, even more troubling, what if she does not believe that she is smart at all? In her mind, she becomes a sheep in wolf’s clothing, an impostor who has tricked those around her into accepting her into a group where she does not belong. From the brain’s perspective, this is literally interpreted as being in the lion’s den.

Women can flourish in STEM, but it can mean shutting out the noise.
USAID Asia, CC BY-NC

STEM should welcome everyone

So what can be done? If we are to increase the participation of women in STEM fields, we must make workplace and educational environments inclusive. In order to thrive, female students need to believe that they belong in technical professions, in both academia and the private sector.

The social marginalization caused by gender imbalances in STEM programs can be mitigated. Targeted intervention programs that foster social belonging and coping mechanisms to deal with stress and threat can help women develop skills to handle the mental challenges caused by gender inequality and help women integrate into their male-dominated environment.

Connecting female students with female professional role models such as mentors or instructors has also been extremely effective at improving women’s self-concept and commitment to STEM.

Finally, campaigns like the #Ilooklikeanengineer hashtag disrupt our common stereotyping of STEM professionals and help support a cultural shift.

The rates of female representation in STEM will not change overnight. It will probably be at least another generation before parity becomes an achievable target. But it’s through changing these attitudes and stereotypes that we will reduce some of the social stresses on women in these fields, helping women choose STEM as a career path, stay in these fields, and most importantly, remain healthy and happy.

The Conversation

Jennifer Drake, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto

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

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership

K-12 education: The art of the flop

“**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 column by Bruce Deitrick Price

If you try to find something intelligent going on in the public schools,  you’ll probably end up frustrated. Like Diogenes looking for an honest man.

Is it really so bad?

I think so. Our Education Establishment, which is far more ideology-driven than most people realize, has been tossing out content willy-nilly for decades. That’s the simplest way to advance their Progressive (i.e., collectivist) agenda. Kids who don’t know much will be easier to manipulate. (This first point is impossible to refute. All surveys reveal that American citizens no longer know even the most basic things: how many stars are on the flag, how many quarts are in a gallon, where Texas is on a map—the sort of easy information that children should learn by middle school.)

Just as destructive, our Education Establishment works systematically to undermine those habits of mind which schools, for thousands of years, tried to encourage: precision, promptness, industriousness, attention to detail, concentration, self-discipline, etc.

Our schools are abandoning much of what was once designated by the word “education.” Our K-12 schools prefer social engineering and psychological manipulation. So, we see the education commissars arrogantly scheming at the dark intersection of sabotage, surrender, and thespianism.

In sports, they have the perfect term for what is happening: the flop.

That’s when a player, particularly in basketball or soccer, pretends to be bumped aggressively. Picture perfectly healthy athletes, not hit hard, reeling over backward in order to create the illusion that they have been knocked down.

Typically, a single athlete flops. Occasionally you see two flopping in tandem. But imagine you have what would, in the Olympics, be a new event: synchronized flopping. That’s what we have  in education. Every facet is flopping simultaneously. Content is dismissed. Proven methods are deliberately ignored. Memorization is scorned. Discipline is systematically undercut. Ambition is stigmatized. Ennobling goals are mocked. Everything except grand but empty platitudes is flopped and dropped.

Everybody— from Obama and Arne Duncan down to superintendents and principals and all the way to administrators and teachers—knows how to flop. They lie on the ground, grunting and grimacing, Oh, the pain of a school system that never seems able to stay on its feet. Alas, constant flopping is its destiny. Its chosen destiny.

Realize that virtually all the literacy “experts” in America endorse gimmicks that are known not to work. Consider that the entire Education Establishment cheered for New Math and Reform Math, even though all the scores went down. Reflect that Common Core embraces so many bad ideas it can probably be summed up in four words: “biggest flop in history” (in both senses).

There is a long list of things that kids need to focus on and did focus on, once upon a time. Nowadays, the Education Establishment encourages children to wander pointlessly in their own personal voids. Education is an afterthought. I suggest that flopping is the main activity throughout the public schools and has been for at least a half-century.

John Dewey and all his friends (let’s say the top 500 people) had PhD’s in Education, Psychology or Sociology. Basically, these were new fields without any solid content except the raging desire to tell everybody else what to do and how to think. These nouveau intellectuals viewed themselves as world-changers, much like President Obama with his pretentious notion he’s going to fundamentally transform the country.

John Dewey circa 1900 thought exactly the same thing. He and his gang were going to fundamentally transform America. They would do it by flopping –- that is, pretending to fail –-  in every aspect of  traditional K-12 education. It would be failure by careful design. It would be failure by dramatic acting. We are still living with the wreckage and decline caused by this synchronized flopping.

It’s hard not to think in terms of comedy, Ponzi schemes, bank scandals, absurd frauds. Remember when the Mafia robbed the JFK airport in the 1970s (the robbery depicted in Goodfellas). One night, the bad guys just walked in and took what they wanted. That’s what has happened in our public schools. The people in charge turn their backs and let thieves and shysters sneak in and loot the place.

Apparently, an upper echelon degree in education today is a degree in flopping. You learn how to underperform in all of your duties.

Teach children to read? Oh, of course. You will give this task everything you’ve got and somehow make sure that millions of children are still illiterate in the eighth grade. That’s the art of the flop.

_____________

Bruce Deitrick Price’s ed site is Improve-Education.org. (His new novel is The Man Who Falls In Love With His Wife, romantic drama set in Manhattan. Info and e-book here. )

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

Building professional learning communities: Social media, ed camps, and meetups

**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 Madison Payton

Teachers sit in front of a sea of papers that must be graded. Curriculum needs to be mapped out and constantly revised to meet the needs of their scholars.  We attend meetings about how to bring rigor, engagement, and how to create Common Core aligned assessments to prepare scholars for state exams which determines our effectiveness as teachers. If the day to day, week to week, month to month tasks do not frustrate you, then we are placed in the role as counselors, social workers, surrogate parents, mediators, coaches, and advocates; and this is not just for a couple of scholars but practically all of them.  The system that was meant create learning communities has actually destroyed all that we have left as educators. Schools can’t possibly create and foster positive learning environments for scholars if the educators in front of them lack their own community to develop as effective and compassionate educators.

If we as communities are supposed to foster a positive culture among our scholars we must do the same for the teachers within these environments.  The answer is sometimes difficult to find within the school because we can turn into the gossip kids in the cafeteria focusing more on the problems then actual solutions. As teachers we have to think outside of the box and seek professional learning communities outside of our schools so that we can be critical of our practices and find solutions that can be applied throughout our schools.  Professional learning communities are essential to development of any educator because they enable the educator to engage and collaborate with a specific community that recurs in cycles of inquiry and actions that are grounded in research in order to better the academic and social development of the scholars they teach.

There are several ways we can build professional learning communities: searching on various social media platforms, professional meet-ups and content specific organizations, and summer PDs. Before you begin to spread your wings to build your network, make a list of specific objectives that incorporate your interests and needs that you wish to address from building and connecting with professional learning communities.  Once objectives are crafted then create strategies and benchmarks that will help you reach those objectives. Having a plan is important when diving into the world of building your professional learning community; it is not about working harder, it is about working smarter.

Below are some ways teachers can effectively build their own professional learning communities.

Twitter

Twitter is an amazing tool to use when you are trying to connect with educators from across the country. My wife showed me that if you are strategic you are always receiving a steady flow of information specific to your interests and needs.  Some cool features of twitter are specific chats that occur weekly or monthly. Some of the popular ones are: #edchat, #edtechchat,  #satchat, #engchat, #sschat, #digchat, etc. The more active you are in these chats usually means that you develop more connections that can build your professional learning community. You can also create lists specific to your interests and connect with like-minded educators. The benefit of having a list is that it allows you to specifically see what those educators are tweeting and allows better engagement. Again, the more specific you are about what you want and need the better these lists will be.

You can find more detailed information about each of these chats here: http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/09/23/13-twitter-chats-for-educators.aspx

Professional Meetup groups

These are the new rage because they are usually free and they connects educators with similar passions. It is important when building your professional learning community that you are engaging with people who are like you and who are not like you. The common ground is that we are in it to develop as educators and we can learn from different perspectives and methodologies of how to teach our scholars.

For more information go to www.meetup.com and search for groups of your interests. Here are my favorite groups:

Conferences and fellowships

These are great opportunities to be away with a group of professionals for a few days talking about real solutions to the problems that plague education. After these events are over you can stay in touch and reinforce best practices that were learned and maintain connections. These experiences also provide socio-emotional support that helps ensure the success and retention of good teachers like you. Programs are affordable or free depending on your interests and the competitiveness of the program.  A brand new program that I have been recently accepted into is the Stanford University Hollyhock Fellowship.  It was designed to give early career teachers the support needed to stay in the profession of education. The program is unique because it is competitive, free for participants, provides a $1000 stipend per year, and consists of yearlong professional development with mentors. This is a perfect place to grow your professional learning community because the fellowship already filters the applicant pool, which means fellows are passionate educators like you. After the conclusion of a fellowship or conference, your task is to just keep those contacts going and maintain your newfound relationships.

For more information about the program visit the following website: https://cset.stanford.edu/fellowships/hollyhock

Professional learning communities save our profession from dying and can renew educators’ commitment to the field. There is no better investment than diving into the world of self-reflection, challenges and exponential growth to be a better educator. After all, we can only be better educators for our scholars if we are actively engaged and learning just like we expect from those who are learning from us throughout the year.

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

_____________

Madison Payton is an ELA educator at Eagle Academy For Young Men II located in Brownsville. His passions are professional development, reading and writing. He is establishing his school’s first writing center this fall, which he is really excited about all of the possibilities this resource can provide for his school community.
  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Teachers

Why don’t kids speak up about bullying?

**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 Jennifer Fraser

We keep telling kids they must not be bystanders, but what really happens when students speak up about bullying? Why are they so afraid?

Not only do they risk becoming the bully’s next target, but it seems that all too often when students report on bullying a reversal occurs and they become the ones who are in trouble. They are seen as a problem. If the bully is a teacher or a coach, these students might even be shamed or humiliated for daring to jeopardize the adult’s reputation.

If we truly do want students to report on peer bullying and report on abuse by adults in caregiver positions, then we need to change the way in which these complaints are handled in schools and in the law. The first thing a lawyer will ask a bullied child – whether it is by peers or teachers – why didn’t you transfer schools? Expecting the victim to leave suggests that the victim is at fault. If my house is robbed twice, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t move. If I’m sexually harassed at work, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t find another boss. So why do lawyers ask students bullied at school why they didn’t leave?

In Rod Mickleburgh’s Globe and Mail article, written after Amanda Todd’s suicide as a result of bullying, he consulted with another family whose son, Ashkan Sultani, also committed suicide after being bullied. Sultani’s father pointed out that both his son and Amanda were vulnerable because they had learning disabilities. Rather than be accorded special care, as the Ministry of Education documents state educators and administrators must use, Ashkan’s father found that there was a reversal: bullies were exonerated and victims were held accountable: “Too often, [Ashkan’s father] said, school officials become defensive when approached by parents with concerns their child is being bullied. ‘They don’t want to admit there’s a problem. Or, the first thing they do is try to find out what is wrong with the person getting bullied. How come he doesn’t fit in?’”[1]

This reversal is intensified when students report on teacher or coach conduct.

In the articles I have read about Assistant Coach and Whistleblower Eric Murdock, whose contract was not renewed after he went public with his concerns about basketball coach Mike Rice’s abusive conduct, there is a glaring lack of a proper process in place for reporting on bullying or abuse. Although Mike Rice yelled in apparent fury when coaching games, it was actually his conduct at practices that got him fired. As reported by Steve Eder in the New York Times, there were all kinds of warning signs that abuse was occurring and the administrators were already aware prior to video footage hitting the news:

There was the upperclassman who earlier in the year had come forward to say that he felt bullied. There was an outburst during a game that led to Mr. Rice’s ejection. And there were the months of allegations from a former assistant, who repeatedly claimed that Mr. Rice was abusive.

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director, knew all of that and had repeatedly tried to rein in Mr. Rice, according to a 50-page report that Rutgers commissioned outside lawyers to prepare. He personally reprimanded him, attended Mr. Rice’s practices and even assigned the university’s sports psychologist to work with the team, the report said.[2]

Note that the University commissioned a legal report, but they do not appear to consult Human Resources personnel in terms of the whistleblower’s vulnerable position nor do they consult experts in student health to assess the harm being done to student-athletes.

I acted as Whistleblower once at an independent school. Being Whistleblower is the adult version of not being a bystander and from my experience, I understand why students do not speak up. Just like it seems to do for bully victims, a reversal happened: I was treated as if I was a problem employee. The Headmaster exonerated the teachers about whom 14 students gave testimonies detailing bullying conduct and allowed a toxic environment to emerge around me so that I ultimately resigned.

There wasn’t just one student who came forward to say he was feeling bullied, there were 14. There was a Lawyer/ parent’s report informing the school that “child abuse” was occurring in 2011. There were at least thirty parent complaints in 2012 alone. There were many warning signs. It seems that at best, institutions like Rutgers and my former school lack the necessary processes for handling abuse situations; at worst, they have significant conflict of interest in themselves investigating student concerns. There is clearly work that needs to be done in terms of Human Resources, record keeping, anonymous reporting, proper oversight and so on if we truly do want students to not be bystanders.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic psychologist, Dr. Joseph Burgo studies the power of reversal whereby the abuser positions himself as the victim and he uses cyclist Lance Armstrong’s conduct as an example. Witnesses who first spoke up about Armstrong’s performance enhancing drug-use were humiliated by the cyclist in the press: “To shore up his winner status, Armstrong wanted to make his detractors appear like contemptible losers; he tried to turn public opinion against them, enlisting the support of his many fans.” In Canada, disgraced Canadian musician, writer, and former CBC radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi presented himself on Facebook as being the victim after being accused of sexual assault: “I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”[3] He has since been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains:

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: “I am a winner because you are a loser” [emphasis in the original].

The Headmaster and Board of Governors of my former School responded to students and parent reports of abusive behavior by the adult involved by publicly discrediting them in a report written by a lawyer that said the students were telling manufacturing evidence and lying.

This is why students do not speak up. This is why Whistleblowers are so rare. We can keep encouraging students to report bullying and more importantly abuse, but they won’t do it until they actually know that they will be respected and protected. At present, that is not the case. For further discussion, please see my forthcoming book: Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

[1] Rod Mickleburgh, “Before Amanda Todd, the Sultani family suffered silently,” The Globe and Mail, October 23, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/before-amanda-todd-the-sultani-family-suffered-silently/article4633468

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sports/ncaabasketball/rutgers-officials-long-knew-of-coach-mike-rices-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

[3] Staff, “Full Text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook Post Why He Believes CBC Fired Him,” Global News, Oct 2014: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-he-believes-cbc-fired-him/

____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Teachers

Why don’t kids speak up about bullying?

**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 Jennifer Fraser

We keep telling kids they must not be bystanders, but what really happens when students speak up about bullying? Why are they so afraid?

Not only do they risk becoming the bully’s next target, but it seems that all too often when students report on bullying a reversal occurs and they become the ones who are in trouble. They are seen as a problem. If the bully is a teacher or a coach, these students might even be shamed or humiliated for daring to jeopardize the adult’s reputation.

If we truly do want students to report on peer bullying and report on abuse by adults in caregiver positions, then we need to change the way in which these complaints are handled in schools and in the law. The first thing a lawyer will ask a bullied child – whether it is by peers or teachers – why didn’t you transfer schools? Expecting the victim to leave suggests that the victim is at fault. If my house is robbed twice, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t move. If I’m sexually harassed at work, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t find another boss. So why do lawyers ask students bullied at school why they didn’t leave?

In Rod Mickleburgh’s Globe and Mail article, written after Amanda Todd’s suicide as a result of bullying, he consulted with another family whose son, Ashkan Sultani, also committed suicide after being bullied. Sultani’s father pointed out that both his son and Amanda were vulnerable because they had learning disabilities. Rather than be accorded special care, as the Ministry of Education documents state educators and administrators must use, Ashkan’s father found that there was a reversal: bullies were exonerated and victims were held accountable: “Too often, [Ashkan’s father] said, school officials become defensive when approached by parents with concerns their child is being bullied. ‘They don’t want to admit there’s a problem. Or, the first thing they do is try to find out what is wrong with the person getting bullied. How come he doesn’t fit in?’”[1]

This reversal is intensified when students report on teacher or coach conduct.

In the articles I have read about Assistant Coach and Whistleblower Eric Murdock, whose contract was not renewed after he went public with his concerns about basketball coach Mike Rice’s abusive conduct, there is a glaring lack of a proper process in place for reporting on bullying or abuse. Although Mike Rice yelled in apparent fury when coaching games, it was actually his conduct at practices that got him fired. As reported by Steve Eder in the New York Times, there were all kinds of warning signs that abuse was occurring and the administrators were already aware prior to video footage hitting the news:

There was the upperclassman who earlier in the year had come forward to say that he felt bullied. There was an outburst during a game that led to Mr. Rice’s ejection. And there were the months of allegations from a former assistant, who repeatedly claimed that Mr. Rice was abusive.

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director, knew all of that and had repeatedly tried to rein in Mr. Rice, according to a 50-page report that Rutgers commissioned outside lawyers to prepare. He personally reprimanded him, attended Mr. Rice’s practices and even assigned the university’s sports psychologist to work with the team, the report said.[2]

Note that the University commissioned a legal report, but they do not appear to consult Human Resources personnel in terms of the whistleblower’s vulnerable position nor do they consult experts in student health to assess the harm being done to student-athletes.

I acted as Whistleblower once at an independent school. Being Whistleblower is the adult version of not being a bystander and from my experience, I understand why students do not speak up. Just like it seems to do for bully victims, a reversal happened: I was treated as if I was a problem employee. The Headmaster exonerated the teachers about whom 14 students gave testimonies detailing bullying conduct and allowed a toxic environment to emerge around me so that I ultimately resigned.

There wasn’t just one student who came forward to say he was feeling bullied, there were 14. There was a Lawyer/ parent’s report informing the school that “child abuse” was occurring in 2011. There were at least thirty parent complaints in 2012 alone. There were many warning signs. It seems that at best, institutions like Rutgers and my former school lack the necessary processes for handling abuse situations; at worst, they have significant conflict of interest in themselves investigating student concerns. There is clearly work that needs to be done in terms of Human Resources, record keeping, anonymous reporting, proper oversight and so on if we truly do want students to not be bystanders.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic psychologist, Dr. Joseph Burgo studies the power of reversal whereby the abuser positions himself as the victim and he uses cyclist Lance Armstrong’s conduct as an example. Witnesses who first spoke up about Armstrong’s performance enhancing drug-use were humiliated by the cyclist in the press: “To shore up his winner status, Armstrong wanted to make his detractors appear like contemptible losers; he tried to turn public opinion against them, enlisting the support of his many fans.” In Canada, disgraced Canadian musician, writer, and former CBC radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi presented himself on Facebook as being the victim after being accused of sexual assault: “I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”[3] He has since been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains:

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: “I am a winner because you are a loser” [emphasis in the original].

The Headmaster and Board of Governors of my former School responded to students and parent reports of abusive behavior by the adult involved by publicly discrediting them in a report written by a lawyer that said the students were telling manufacturing evidence and lying.

This is why students do not speak up. This is why Whistleblowers are so rare. We can keep encouraging students to report bullying and more importantly abuse, but they won’t do it until they actually know that they will be respected and protected. At present, that is not the case. For further discussion, please see my forthcoming book: Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

[1] Rod Mickleburgh, “Before Amanda Todd, the Sultani family suffered silently,” The Globe and Mail, October 23, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/before-amanda-todd-the-sultani-family-suffered-silently/article4633468

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sports/ncaabasketball/rutgers-officials-long-knew-of-coach-mike-rices-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

[3] Staff, “Full Text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook Post Why He Believes CBC Fired Him,” Global News, Oct 2014: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-he-believes-cbc-fired-him/

____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

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

Will Congress ever fix America’s education system?

U.S. News and World Report recently sat down with Senator Lamar Alexander, chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee to talk about the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and higher education.

In the interview, Alexander talks of slicing the FAFSA application down to just two questions in an effort to encourage more students to apply, and he wants to expand school choice so that more students have the ability to exercise variety in their education.

But perhaps one of the more interesting antecedents of the interview was Alexander’s grade on how Congress has performed on NCLB.

“We’ve been stuck for seven years. We should’ve reauthorized it. If students were this late on homework, they’d get an “F.””

If we could go lower on a grading scale, I’m sure many would give Congress something much worse. NCLB expired nearly ten years ago and many states are still operating under waivers because Congress can’t seem to agree on how to move forward.

Luckily, Alexander, who’s a Republican, has taken a bipartisan approach to getting the law reauthorized. He said that Senator Patty Murray, the Democratic ranking member of the committee, has worked well with him to push the bipartisan effort through.

Nothing earth shattering regarding the future of education, or Congress’ attitude towards it, was revealed. There is still a lot of work left and there is no guarantee that the reauthorized will pass through this time around. Meanwhile as time passes, more and more students are suffering the repercussions of Congress and its slow pace.

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

Why abstinence-only sex ed simply doesn’t work

By Matthew Lynch

When I first saw the headline, I thought it was too ironic to be true: Texas school teaching abstinence-only sex ed suffers chlamydia outbreak.

I would’ve probably even laughed if I hadn’t realized quickly that it was not only true, but that it meant dozens of kids now had to deal with the discomfort and potential long-term harm of a sexually transmitted disease. These are kids that were clearly not practicing abstinence and were ill-prepared for real-life sexual encounters. It isn’t the fault of these kids, either.

It is irresponsible of school systems to teach abstinence-only sexual education and it should be illegal in public schools.

Should abstinence be taught as the only sure way to avoid things like unplanned pregnancies and STDs? Of course it should because it IS the only absolute way. But that abstinence extends beyond basic sexual intercourse. Students need to understand exactly all the ways they can be harmed by unprotected sex and then given the power to protect themselves.

The argument that parents should be the only ones to talk to their kids about sexual options just doesn’t cut it because it is elitist. It only works for students whose parents have the time or concern to actually sit down with their kids and have that talk. It leaves out the many students whose parents won’t actually have this talk with their kids or the ones who will preach abstinence-only. Schools have the responsibility to educate to their best of their abilities, and let’s face it: abstinence-only sex ed fails that mantra miserably.

What do you think? Should public schools be required to teach safe sex practices?

 

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

Leadership Practices That Directly Influence Teachers’ Emotions

The emotions of teachers are an often ignored, but very important part of a school’s learning climate. With each decision or policy they put in place, school leaders have an effect on the emotions of their teachers. Leadership practices that have emotional consequences reflect four sets of “core practices” for effective leadership. These practices form a major part of what most successful school leaders do, in many different organizational and cultural contexts. Due to their transformational bias to leadership, these core practices involve:

1. Direction-setting – The practices of school leaders geared at building an inclusive sense of purpose in the school, and a grasp of the specific goals often leads to success, and broader school purposes are also accomplished. Most successful school leaders set higher expectations for their own performance as well as those of their teaching staff and students.

2. Focusing on helping teachers improve professionalism – The development of teachers’ capacities includes most of the principal practices that influence teachers’ feelings. These practices include: being genuinely friendly, considerate, supportive, attentive to teachers’ ideas, and mindful of teachers’ welfare. School leaders who provide individualized consideration and learning opportunities build the teachers’ need to accomplish their own goals as well as those of the school. Success in building capacity is also achieved by reducing distractions to instructional work, as well as modeling values and practices that are aligned with the teachers’ core purpose.

3. Redesigning the organization – This entails building a culture that is supportive and collaborative in teaching and learning, and creating and sustaining school structures that complement such a culture. In this context, successful principals nurture productive relationships with parents and the entire community, to influence future policies and prevent situations that might affect the school.

4. Managing the instructional program – This aspect of leadership basically requires instructional knowledge. It includes efforts by school leaders to ensure that their schools have highly competent staff, to observe the progress of students and the school improvement, to monitor teachers’ instructional practices, and to provide supportive, helpful feedback to their staff.

Based on the extensive research carried out in both educational and non-school contexts, it is evident that emotionally responsive practices are closely associated with social assessment abilities. These abilities enable one to appreciate the emotional states of others, find out what those states entail in complex social situations, respond in helpful ways , and manage one’s own emotions.

Transformational leaders are known for their emotional capabilities and are prepared to include it in their professional life, despite the fact that it may involve breaking the traditions of professional culture and norms to maintain and repair relationships. They realize that building trusting relationships is vital for a cooperative culture.

One common element in both emotional intelligence and social appraisal skills is the understanding of others’ emotional experience. Empathy is used to sense what people are feeling, and look at things from their point of view. However, there is a risk involved when a leader assumes that he or she knows what followers are feeling. Such a belief is often mistaken, since it is easy to misinterpret others’ feelings. This is because we often try to imagine how we would feel in their situation.

Engaging in respectful and thoughtful conversations is important for finding out if what we have “sensed” is accurate. In light of the evidence provided, it is clear that leaders who have emotional wisdom avoid assumptions about what others are feeling. Instead, they commit themselves to building emotional meaning with relevant parties. These leaders also recognize the importance of emotion in professional discussions, private reflection, and strategic analysis of situations. This kind of collaborative consideration of emotions is a step ahead of present leadership practice, emerging as the key element for nurturing learning communities in the true sense of emotional leadership..

Emotional leadership is said to be “future” leadership, because the research in schools exploring the particular connection between leaders’ success and their social appraisal skills is still in its early stages. However, evidence from the non-school settings show that these skills do make a significant contribution to leadership success. Nevertheless, the magnitude of contribution varies in strength based on the job description. When they seek to understand and respect the emotions of their followers, leaders are bound to experience positive results. Followers feel validated and appreciated when their feelings are not pushed aside, leading to a more positive, productive working environment for everyone.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share