Education officials will re-examine standardized testing in the U.S. due to growing complaints from the public. The general consensus is that students pre-kindergarten to 12th grade are taking too many exams.
Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools recently said, “Testing is an important part of education, and of life. But it’s time that we step back and see if the tail is wagging the dog.” The Council of Great city schools represents 67 urban school systems.
The Council of Chief State School Officers, which represents education commissioners in every state, has also joined in on the effort.
Teachers have always administered tests; but exams became a federal mandate in 2002 under the No Child Left Behind Act. It requires states to test students annually in math and reading, starting in grades 3 through 8 and ending with high school.
In the past two years, four states have delayed or repealed graduation testing requirements. Four other states, including Texas, where the idea of using these tests began, have reduced the number of exams required or decreased their consequences.
In addition to federally required tests, states have added on more assessments, many that mandate exams such as an exit test to graduate high school.
On average, students in large urban school districts take 113 standardized tests between pre-K and 12th grade.
The number of standardized tests that U.S. students take is too high. While I feel that the idea to use tests to hold schools accountable is a good one, the frequency and redundancy of standardized testing has gone too far. It is essential to measure student achievement, but I hope that further analysis of standardized testing will lead to ways to relieve some of the burden that these tests bring to our students.
When are children “ready” for school? There is much debate about when the transition between play-based pre-school and the start of “formal” schooling should begin. The trend in the UK primary school curriculum over recent decades has been towards an earlier start to formal instruction, and an erosion of learning through play.
But the evidence from international comparisons and psychological research of young children’s development all points to the advantages of a later start to formal instruction, particularly in relation to literacy.
Among the earliest in Europe
Children in England are admitted into reception classes in primary schools at age four; in many cases, if their birthdays are in the summer months, when they have only just turned four. This is in stark contrast to the vast majority of other European countries, many of which currently enjoy higher levels of educational achievement. In Europe, the most common school starting age is six, and even seven in some cases such as Finland.
European Commission. EURYDICE and EUROSTAT 2013. * Although education is not compulsory until six in Ireland, approx. 40% of four-year-olds and almost all five-year-olds are in publicly-funded primary schools.
From the moment children in England enter the reception class, the pressure is on for them to learn to read, write and do formal written maths. In many schools, children are identified as “behind” with reading before they would even have started school in many other countries. Now the government is introducing tests for four-year-olds soon after starting school.
There is no research evidence to support claims from government that “earlier is better”. By contrast, a considerable body of evidence clearly indicates the crucial importance of play in young children’s development, the value of an extended period of playful learning before the start of formal schooling, and the damaging consequences of starting the formal learning of literacy and numeracy too young.
Importance of play
A range of anthropological studies of children’s play in hunter-gatherer societies and other evolutionary psychology studies of play in the young of mammals have identified play as an adaptation which evolved in early human social groups, enabling humans to become powerful learners and problem-solvers.
Some neuroscientists’ research has supported this view of play as a central mechanism in learning. One book by Sergio and Vivien Pellis reviewed many other studies to show that playful activity leads to synaptic growth, particularly in the frontal cortex – the part of the brain responsible for all the uniquely human, higher mental functions.
A range of experimental psychology studies, including my own work, have consistently demonstrated the superior learning and motivation arising from playful as opposed to instructional approaches to learning in children.
There are two crucial processes which underpin this relationship. First, playful activity has been shown to support children’s early development of representational skills, which is fundamental to language use. One 2006 study by US academics James Christie and Kathleen Roskos, reviewed evidence that a playful approach to language learning offers the most powerful support for the early development of phonological and literacy skills.
Second, through all kinds of physical, social and constructional play, such as building with blocks or making models with household junk, children develop their skills of intellectual and emotional “self-regulation”. This helps them develop awareness of their own mental processes – skills that have been clearly demonstrated to be the key predictors of educational achievement and a range of other positive life outcomes.
Longer-term impacts
Within educational research, a number of longitudinal studies have provided evidence of long-term outcomes of play-based learning. A 2002 US study by Rebecca Marcon, for example, demonstrated that by the end of their sixth year in school, children whose pre-school model had been academically-directed achieved significantly lower marks in comparison to children who had attended child-initiated, play-based pre-school programmes.
A number of other studies have specifically addressed the issue of the length of pre-school play-based experience and the age at which children begin to be formally taught the skills of literacy and numeracy. In a 2004 longitudinal study of 3,000 children funded by the department of education itself, Oxford’s Kathy Sylva and colleagues showed that an extended period of high-quality, play-based pre-school education made a significant difference to academic learning and well-being through the primary school years. They found a particular advantage for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Studies in New Zealand comparing children who began formal literacy instruction at age five or age seven have shown that by the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups. But the children who started at five developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later.
This evidence, directly addressing the consequences of the introduction of early formal schooling, combined with the evidence on the positive impact of extended playful experiences, raises important questions about the current direction of travel of early childhood education policy in England.
There is an equally substantial body of evidence concerning the worrying increase in stress and mental health problems among children in England and other countries where early childhood education is being increasingly formalised. It suggests there are strong links between these problems and a loss of playful experiences and increased achievement pressures. In the interests of children’s educational achievements and their emotional well-being, the UK government should take this evidence seriously.
Hard Evidenceis a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest questions.
David Whitebread, Senior Lecturer in Psychology & Education, University of Cambridge
The recent horrifying spectacle of a disturbed student fatally stabbing his teacher in front of his classmates in Leeds has spurred a national dialogue about how schools should address violence.
Perhaps the most controversial measure under consideration is expanding the use of knife arches – known in the US as walk-through metal detectors. Given metal detectors’ longevity in some US schools (since 1992 in Chicago’s high schools), the number of studies that have assessed their effectiveness is abysmally low.
In the UK, teacher union leaders and the deputy prime minister have rejected the idea of more knife arches. Their opposition to this expensive technology is understandable given that armed violence is extremely rare in UK schools. Responsible policy-making is driven by patterns and sound cost-benefit analysis rather than the uproar over single tragic incidents.
But such a proposal may resonate in the minority of schools where the risk of violent threats and victimisation are more than remote. Some students in these schools reportedly arm themselves for protection and their next minor altercation could (but rarely does) escalate into serious violence.
In these jurisdictions, police and school officials may employ knife arches in order to signal that safety is a top priority, while raising awareness about the dangers that knives pose. But do knife arches promote the aims that matter most to students, parents, and teachers? Do they make schools safer? Do they alter the school climate in a manner that promotes students learning?
The answer to these questions surely depends, in part, on how the knife arches are employed. Arches, when deployed in the UK, are used sporadically – around one day, gone the next. Confronted with this temporary barrier, most knife-toting students will either ditch the weapon or ditch school (assuming smuggling the knife through a window or side entrance is not a realistic possibility). These potential assailants can be quite confident (and their potential victims reasonably concerned) that no knife arch will impede their next attempt.
Lessons from US schools
Whereas the limited capacity of sporadic knife arches to act as a deterrent seems obvious, you can reasonably predict that more frequent use would substantially enhance this capacity.
In the USA, as in the UK, opposition to metal detectors is intense and largely successful across the socio-economic spectrum. But there are some schools – predictably comprised largely of urban youth of colour – where the lockdown environments feared by campaigners in the UK are a daily reality.
In 2010, an exhaustive meta-analysis of studies on metal detectors, either deployed alone or combined with other fortification strategies, uncovered no studies that compared student outcomes before and after installation.
Among the five studies that compare student safety measures (all self-reported) in schools with and without metal detectors, only one reflects positively on metal detectors. This 1992 study involved students who attended three sampled New York City high schools that scanned their students at random with hand-held metal detectors approximately once a week. They were 43%-49% less likely than students of twelve other high schools to report carrying weapons inside or en-route to school (even though they were equally likely to carry them at other times).
Fear remains
But reducing weapons possession is of limited benefit unless it translates into reduced violence or fear. Collectively these five studies and a subsequent one from Rutgers University suggest that metal detectors fail to reduce threats, fighting, fear, and perceptions of violence and disorder. Injuries and deaths resulting from smuggled weapons are so uncommon that any benefits are likely to elude statistical detection.
The apparent failure of metal detectors to reduce fear is especially disappointing, because fear reduction is the most promising pathway through which metal detectors may improve academic performance.
Frequent and effective scanning requires a large investment of time and money, and it inevitably widens the net of surveillance. The thousands of hours that students collectively spend waiting in line to be scanned are hours that could have been spent engaging academically.
The money spent on arches and their operation is money that could have been spent on programmes that address the needs, struggles, fears, and hopes that students carry through the school doors, gates, and arches each day.
Malala Yousafzai was shot by the Taliban in 2012 for speaking out in support of girls’ education in Pakistan. Since then, based in the UK, she has continued her advocacy. She is the youngest-ever Nobel laureate: when it was awarded last year, she was just 17.
No doubt, then, that Malala, who grew up in Pakistan’s Swat valley and went on to inspire the world, is a truly remarkable young woman. But He Named Me Malala tells her personal story, whilst also shining a light on the wider global issue of the systematic exclusion of children, and especially girls, from education.
David Guggenheim’s documentary captures Malala’s everyday life as both a young teenager and a global activist through poignant and often humorous interview scenes. Malala is followed around her home, through school, to television interviews and global summits to spread her message of educational equality.
There are also hard-hitting clinical reconstructions of Malala’s emergency surgery in the UK after she was shot, brashly juxtaposed with the animated depiction of her upbringing in the Swat Valley. The dreamy style of these animations works well to capture the nostalgia of a life to which Malala and her family can no longer return.
Malala’s distinctiveness and bravery is reinforced by the way the film plays off the many juxtapositions of her life – voice and silence, empowerment and oppression, the triumph over tragedy. In so doing, it blends together a palpable sense of injustice with an unwavering commitment to hope. Malala speaks eloquently about everything from her favourite books and film stars to world politics. Her personal experience of suffering, however, remains wrapped in stoic silence.
Seemingly inconsequential, but touching moments of quotidian family life do well to pull you in emotionally to the heart-warming experiences of the Yousafzai family, who now live in the UK. Her relationship with her father, the “he” of the film’s title, is particularly focused on. Ordinary portraits of Malala’s giggling girlish coyness and childish banter with her brothers are a welcome reprise from the film’s prodigal tendencies. Indeed, these moments are crucial: they undercut the propensity of the film to romanticise Malala’s heroism. It is the very ordinariness of Malala’s everyday life, contrasted with the unnerving tenacity of her speeches to the UN, that pulls the rug from under our awe-inspired feet.
These touching moments are also important in the way they disrupt stereotypical imaginations of the “Islamic Other”, so often portrayed negatively in mainstream cinema and the media. The value of this simple depiction of a Muslim family being like any other family living in the UK cannot be overstated.
Malala and director David Guggenheim. 20th Century Fox
At the same time, many other wider political concerns are only hinted at. Nuggets of insight, such as Malala’s father’s claim that “the Taliban is not a person. It is an ideology”, certainly give the film a political flavour but could have been delved into in more detail.
Similarly, a 30-second clip of some Pakistani men agreeing with the Taliban’s threat to shoot Malala should she return is interesting, but also warranted more attention, particularly because it could have helped the audience better understand the everyday Pakistani perspective.
While this certainly makes for a good story, I couldn’t help but wonder about the voices of the people – in particular, the young girls – living back in Pakistan. Although the film uses Malala’s experience as a prism for thinking about the injustice of a lack of education globally, it may have been a more powerful argument for social change if the film had spent more time examining the reality of those left behind.
But despite this small niggle, He Named me Malala is a very important film. It does the crucial job of sharing the exceptional story of an exceptional young woman with a wider audience. And as an accomplished narrative of a heroic girl standing for what she believes in, it can do no wrong. But it is the moments of ordinariness that give the film real traction.
It is these moments that inspire and show us that any person, anywhere, can muster a voice. And a powerful, revolutionary one at that.
A new study has found an increase in nutritional school lunches and other meals since the implementation Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
In 2012 when the healthier food standards were implemented, naysayers voiced concern that fewer students would eat the school lunch. A new study has dismantled those ideas and found that meals have become more nutritionally wholesome and students are still eating them.
The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) was signed into law in 2010 and it called for larger portions of whole grains, vegetables and fruits. The nutritional school lunches also saw a reduction in calories found in lunches and breakfasts served at school.
Nutritional school lunches being eaten, too
In a report published earlier this month in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, a study from the University of Washington Nutritional Sciences Program found that the new, healthier meal standards have really impacted the quality of meals served at schools.
The scientists compared data collected in the 16 months before the standards went into effect with data collected in the 15 months after the implementation of the new standards. They examined the nutritional value of 1.7 million school meals that were picked out by 7,200 kids from an urban area in Washington. The findings showed that the presence of six nutrients went up: iron, protein, fiber, calcium, Vitamin A, and Vitamin C.
The researchers write that these changes can be attributed primarily to the increased servings of fruits and vegetables in the nutritional school lunch standards.
Donna B. Johnson, lead author and a professor at the University of Washington, admits limits in their research and includes the fact that the study analyzed food that students chose, not what they consumed. She points out that plate waste has not risen since the changes of HHFKA took place — a huge finding that contradicts those who say school lunches are simply not being eaten as a result of HHFKA.
Other data is expected to come forward in the next year to confirm or negate this study’s findings on nutrition progress.
Pre-recession spending levels are back in California. Well, at least California education funding has returned to pre-recession levels. Students are seeing the same funding to their schools that existed before the housing crash of 2008.
According to Sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com, “[s]oaring tax revenues have carried per-pupil education spending in California beyond where it stood before the Great Recession.”
But is California education funding really improving?
On the surface that seems to be awesome news as state legislatures had cut California education funding in the face of budget cutbacks and dwindling tax coffers.
But as information posted via Redding.com points out, the funding is still not enough. California education funding is still in the bottom 10 of states when it comes to adequately resourcing students and schools. Getting back to pre-recession levels is nothing to celebrate; it’s just a starting point for what needs to be funding reform for the education in the state.
It will also be interesting to watch how quickly funding could expire as economies continue to grow. The marker is that California’s tax revenue seems to be healthy again, but we’re basing that off of money accumulated nearly 10 years ago. If we adjusted the funding based on what is actually being earned, and taxed, today this news may not seem so rosy.
What’s honestly the most surprising is that it has taken this long for the levels to return to 2007 levels. We should have seen this news in 2011 or 2012. It’s still not enough though rising education funding is something worth praising.
Even with that bit of information, new money, or old money dependent upon how one views it, is good. More investment for education isn’t a bad thing. I just hope that California education funding continues to grow so its students see better appropriation in their state.
As the first tech company to announce its diversity statistics in May of 2014, Google admits to poor numbers again in 2015. A whopping 70 percent of Google’s workforce in 2014 was male, while just 3 percent of its U.S. staff was Hispanic and only 2 percent were Black. Google diversity, or lack thereof, is just a small sampling of the industry as a whole, though.
For 2015, overall gender Google diversity by in large remained the same. However, there was slight improvement with a 1 percent increase in the number of women in tech positions. There was also a slim increase in women in leadership positions within Google. However, the same can not be said for Hispanic and Black representation, as they remained at 3 and 2 percent respectively, and only 2 and 1 percent in technology-focused jobs.
How can Google diversity improve?
Though the figures are alarming, Google has committed to rectifying the situation and has invested nearly $150 million in diversity goals for 2015.
Google diversity funds are being used to recruit on non-Ivy League university campuses, which include state schools with diverse student bodies and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (or HBCUs). Current employees are being trained and participating in diversity enhancing projects. The investment is also being made in computer science education for girls and diverse underrepresented populations. Although 72 percent of Google’s leadership team is white, Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, is Indian-born and committed to diversifying the company.
It’s clear that Google diversity numbers are incredibly lackluster. There is a huge imbalance in gender and minority representation. At the same time, Google deserves recognition for bringing this information to light and prompting the entire tech industry to take a closer look at its diversity figures. With Google’s investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, the proper steps are being taken to ensure that more women and minorities get into computer science and engineering programs and eventually, tech jobs in the first place.
If you’re a teacher helping ELL students succeed in regular education classrooms, there are a few things you must consider.
First, you need to educate yourself about the language acquisition process. You should also contextualize learning so that content is relevant to students’ experiences with their families. And most importantly, don’t allow the language barrier to interfere with a belief that ELL students can learn. You can’t underestimate the power of high expectations when it comes to success with language development (and learning in general). As a teacher, you should be willing to learn about ELL students, their families, and their communities, to structure meaningful learning experiences.
Use technology, including recordings, videos, and presentations, to emphasize language concepts. Students should be allowed to demonstrate their language acquisition through dramatization or video, with subtitles in their native language.
Some programs endorse the use of translation devices or electronic dictionaries in the classroom. However, there is some debate as to whether or not these forms of assistive technology actually defeat the purpose of English language learning.
Another less-considered idea is to include ELL students’ families and communities in the learning process. For example, you can host presentations or entertainment nights so students can show parents what they’ve learned. The community can be included as a means for support by inviting bilingual guests to share their language-learning experiences with students. ELL students will learn that language is a challenge for everyone and that learning a second language becomes a valuable, admirable skill. Cooperative and collaborative learning can also be effective. Many ELL students learn best in small-group discussions where there is less pressure to speak perfectly. Introducing the entire class to a third language might be beneficial, to help instill empathy for the new language learners.
Visual aids also support learning among ELL students. These include nonverbal behavior such as pointing, body language, signals, and gestures, as well as photos, videos, and dramatizations. ELL students should be encouraged to use graphic organizers and to keep picture journals of the words they have learned. Writing journals and learning logs also support learning among ELL students. Also helpful are alternative versions of texts or novels and teacher-provided notes for lectures or presentations.
I hope these tips are useful for taking part in ELL students’ success. Do you have any other tips that will help ELL students learn best in a school setting? Please leave your thoughts below.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama brought up the topic of universal Pre-Kindergarten learning and praised the programs already in place in states like Florida, South Carolina and New Jersey. He connected Pre-K initiatives to his Race to the Top program that has the lofty goal of making the U.S. the worldwide leader in college attendees and graduates.
His administration claims that the academic skill sets needed to reach that goal must have their foundation before Kindergarten and that the responsibility for that lies in public funding.
But is this true? Here are my thoughts from an educator’s view.
1. First, it’s no secret that the U.S. lags behind other developed nations, especially when it comes to science and math. To compete as a nation on a global scale, this generation of K-12 (or P-12) students simply need to know more than their parents did as children. This fact has led to some passionate discourse both for and against more stringent academic standards that start in early childhood and extend into the college years.
2. Universal Pre-K programs tend to benefit disadvantaged and at-risk students the most. Children from middle-to-high class socioeconomic backgrounds do not feel the positive effects of preschool as strongly as their low-income and minority peers. In families where at least one parent can be home with children in the early years, and able to do basic learning activities with them, the impact of Pre-K programs are virtually non-existent by the time the child is in mid-elementary school. Children that participate in play-oriented preschool programs but have attentive parents that expose them to minimal learning fare just as well, or better than, peers who attend regimented Pre-K programs.
3. Socialization and preparation are two other reasons for pre-Kindergarteners to attend school. Of course, academics are not the only benefit to Pre-K programs. Socialization and an idea of what to expect when the school years come along are also an integral part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more.
4. Be aware of how preschool can affect these same children when they reach kindergarten and beyond. As I have said before, being prepared for the next school year is also an important part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more. Common Core standards exist at the Kindergarten level, with the expectation that these students will know how to read simple sentences competently, do basic addition and subtraction problems and understand basic time concepts. States that already have tax-funded Pre-K programs test Kindergartners and report back to the preschool provider the results. In some cases, future funding rests on whether or not the Pre-K program adequately prepared enough students for the academic rigors of Kindergarten.
So then the question becomes one of impact. Will universal learning at a younger age make a big enough difference long-term to justify the added cost and resources? How much time do children really need to learn what they will need to know to compete globally?
Parents seem to be split on the issue, with one side affirming the need for stronger academic standards and the other side bemoaning the difficulty of material their young children bring home from school. Districts throughout the country have listened to parents’ complaints when it comes to implementation of all-day Kindergarten (versus the traditional half-days) and some parents have even decided to homeschool their children because they so strongly disagree with the academic rigor. Given this cultural climate, I wonder what is to be expected when more states roll out
Pre-K programs? Right now it is voluntary for families – but will that always be the case?
Is universal Pre-K a necessity – and if so, are American educators, parents and young students really ready for it?
Leave a comment—I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
It is beyond any doubt that low-performing schools would benefit from developing strong parent-school partnerships. However, it is not always easy to promote such a culture of shared responsibility. Schools may face difficulty in attaining an efficient collaborative framework among stakeholders, which include teachers, parents, students, the community, and the administration.
Generally, education and school leaders try to generate a social framework that will help teachers, administrators, and parents resolve differences in a peaceful and supportive manner. Overall improvement of student performance can be the outcome of improved relationships between teachers and parents.
Education leaders can encourage parental involvement by improving the structural environment of schools that directly affects teachers, administrators, students, and parents. Historically, American culture has tried to promote a locally inspired, community-based school structure; however, most of the calls for decentralization of schools and school district systems have failed to remove the bureaucratic nature of schools. This includes a structural division of responsibilities, a strict set of laws and regulations, and hierarchical control over the functionality and operation of schools.
Bureaucratic systems often create barriers that prevent teachers from developing effective student-teacher relationships and discourage parents from taking part in helping students develop their learning skills. Centralized schooling systems under the burden of stern bureaucracies can also cause alienation of teachers and obstruct student development. On the other hand, bureaucratic systems help teachers control and use their expertise to guide students effectively. A reduction in bureaucracy would increase administrative tasks among teachers, which would then have a negative impact on their performance.
The bureaucratic system should be based on flexible formulae that will guide the teachers, administrators, and parents in promoting the learning skills of students and help them achieve better results. The centralized or hierarchical authority of schools can be used to implement these supportive regulations and policies to enhance parental involvement. On the other hand, the wrong set of policies or the lack of flexibility may harm the process of teaching and learning.
Schools must be prepared for the fact that one outcome of effective parental involvement programs will be the desire of parents to become partners in the decision-making process existing in schools. Thus, school personnel must possess a genuine belief that shared responsibility for multiple aspects of the educational enterprise will result in improved learning environments for children and youth.
Understanding the deep-rooted importance of family and parental involvement in education and its effect on the academic performance of a child, requires recognizing the fact that parents are children’s first teachers. Home is the first school, and as such, it is the place where children learn an abundance of skills, knowledge, and attitudes, some of which supports what is taught in schools.
When parents get involved with their children’s education, they tend to succeed academically and perform better on exams. They miss fewer school days and tend to be more conscientious about completing school-related work outside of school. Conversely, children, whose families are not as involved in their school experiences, are often unable to compete academically with peers, have irregular attendances, and are less likely to graduate from high school.
Because of the positive impact that parent and family involvement in education has on the performance of children, schools often try to encourage parents and family members to increase their participation in the educational process. In order to increase partnership of parents with schools, schools must create an environment that offers enough incentives and support for parents.
Schools cannot expect that all parents and family members will increase their level of parental involvement on their own. School staff, including teachers, other school personnel, maintenance staff, and administrators, must work together to develop an environment that encourages parents to ask questions and share their feedback with school personnel. Some parents will need to be invited to schools, and learn to view schools as places where they may seek advice, receive suggestions on any number of school/student related issues, and understand it is a place where their inputs and thoughts are welcomed.
Some parents may be dissuaded from getting involved with what they perceive as a group of close-knit educational professionals who engage in language and practices meant to exclude parents from the work of educational systems. School districts must make sure parents understand state standards and assessments so that parents can be more involved in monitoring the progress of their children. Schools are required to make sure that communications with parents are in a language and format that are understandable to parents. In order for America’s children to succeed academically, the crucial role of parental involvement must be embraced wholeheartedly.
