We’ve all heard of studies claiming that attractive people enjoy advantages, such as earning more money and are generally perceived as being smarter. Two economists, Rey Hernandez-Julian and Christina Peters, set out to determine exactly why this is. They hypothesized that perhaps other factors come into play such as confidence, various personality traits or greater effort given, not solely appearance that influences these benefits. They set out to Metropolitan State University of Denver to test their theory, with some interesting results.
Overall, attractive students did receive better grades than their less attractive peers. However, when taking online courses, more attractive students didn’t receive better grades. The more attractive the student, the larger the difference in grades between traditional and online classes. In other words, in virtual classes where students couldn’t be seen, the difference in grades between the more and less attractive students narrowed.
Peters, an associate professor at MSU Denver told the Washington Post, “we really thought it was just that more attractive people have other personality traits, other skills. But it does appear to be some type of actual discrimination on the part of the professors. That surprised us.” The study also determined that better looking professors were ranked higher by their students as well.
Though more attractive students did receive higher grades in traditional in-person classes, the difference was small. For example, the deviation would be from an A- to a B+ for the less attractive student. Still the fact that the bias exists at all is concerning.
The question now becomes if professors do possess these biases, how can they be fixed? It is likely not being done intentionally so it will take a commitment to consciously not grading in a biased fashion to avoid. Is it even possible to enforce something like that?
What do you think? Do attractive students fare better in class?
When applying for a teaching position, you’ll need to have a portfolio put together and ready for presentation to your potential employers. A teaching portfolio is a compilation of works collected throughout your teaching career that highlight your work and accomplishments. Portfolios can be used for various reasons, including as an evaluation tool when completing your teacher education program or when interviewing for a job.
A teaching portfolio should reflect your personality and highlight and describe who you are as a teacher. Although each portfolio is unique, all portfolios contain the same kinds of information. Materials are typically contained in a three-ring binder for easy access when updating. Items contained in a portfolio may be in print or audiovisual format.
1. Print Items
Your résumé.
Transcripts, test scores, sample lesson plans, curriculum materials, journal entries, writing assignments, sample tests and assignments that you’ve developed, samples of student work that reflect differentiation.
Sample letters to parents, sample letters from students or from parents, observation notes.
Formal assessments of your teaching, certificates of memberships to professional organizations, and any awards that you’ve won.
2. Audiovisual Items
Video and audio recordings featuring a sample of your teaching.
Pictures of bulletin boards, charts depicting room arrangements.
Digitize It
A digital portfolio is a teaching portfolio contained on an external storage device rather than a hard copy filed in a notebook. A digital portfolio will contain exactly the same information but in an easy-to-distribute format. Investing a little time can make your digital portfolio stand out. If you have the technical know-how, you can create the entire interface from scratch. If you don’t, there are a multitude of online tutorials that will guide you through the process. Or you could approach graphic design students or Web designers to assist you. If you don’t know any personally, you could invest a small amount of money upfront, which will go a long way toward making your application stand out. Presentations, videos, and audio clips can be stored on CDs or small mobile flash drives. Always ensure that you format your flash drive and scan it for viruses before adding your content, because damaging your potential employer’s computer software or hardware in an effort to impress may defeat the objective.
Organization of your portfolio is extremely important. A neat and well-prepared portfolio will show future employers that you are serious and capable of quality work. Begin by organizing documents into categories, and then fine-tune the details. Documents can be arranged in various ways. Having a logical plan is of utmost importance. Start by dividing documents into categories. Categories may include personal background information, instruction-related information, context information, contributions to the overall mission of the school, awards and recognitions, and many more. After developing the categories and sorting each resource into the appropriate category, develop a detailed table of contents for easy access and use. Subject dividers may be helpful to allow the potential employer easily find the document he or she is seeking.
Remember, your portfolio is first impression. You want it to be informational, clean-cut and as well-put-together as you can manage!
Educators, parents, politicians, and concerned citizens agree that the American educational system is in poor shape, and that far reaching changes are needed for improvement. One illustration: in today’s junior high schools, more than 80 percent of Black and Latino students say they intend to go to college. For those who get to college, up to 60 percent require remedial work to prepare them for college courses. Furthermore, 25-50 percent of these students drop out of college after only one year.
Accountability in education refers to holding school districts, school administrators, educators and students responsible for demonstrating specific academic performance results. Accountability has become a word describing a whole host of educational activity, and is held up as a banner by some and feared by others. Throughout the country, policy makers are moving toward systems designed to reward educators for achievement and punish them for lack of improvement.
Historically, school system reform was guided by “inputs” into the system. Schools were given more resources, more funding, more staffing, and in some cases had added more days to the school year, in an attempt to improve learning outcomes. The focus on inputs did not necessarily lead to noticeable improvements in student achievement.
A paradox remains where low-performing schools are having the most difficult time making significant improvements. As a result, these schools risk losing funding and support they so desperately need to advance. Of course, many people are worried about making such huge funding and support decisions based on a single high-stakes test. Clearly, there are no easy answers to fixing our education system, but accountability and assessment are the current avenues we are taking. When discussing how to improve our educational system, it is important to understand the language and the relevant issues.
School reform can no longer rely mostly on giving schools more resources and more support. Time has shown that inputs have no real impact on student performance. Federal edicts, such as NCLB have enforced protocols based on standards, testing, and accountability. These standards emphasize performance objectives and require high levels of accountability from educators.
The required reforms, particularly those which impose sanctions similar to those imposed by NCLB, often create much stress and anxiety. Many educators ask whether it is fair to hold schools accountable for student achievement. And, even if it is “fair,” how are we to measure such achievement? What testing and evaluation formulas will be used? The answers to questions like this are not easy. Obviously, achievement can only be guaranteed if we assess it in some way. However, current assessment models are flawed.
Research suggests that standards and accountability may improve learning for some disadvantaged students, particularly those with disabilities. When some schools implement accountability guidelines, they promote an environment of increased collaboration among educators and create an environment where teachers expect all students to perform well academically, which in turn encourages better learning outcomes.
Some countries have been able to show effective and useful outcomes based on their use of certain accountability policies. However, American policy-makers and researchers still do not have any real evidence that these latest accountability reforms are working to improve outcomes for the vast majority of students.
Conversations around school accountability have been polarized. Politicians and parents often want to hold schools and teachers completely responsible for student achievement. Teachers point to disinterested students and uninvolved parents, saying that there is only so much they can do. But studies have shown that if teachers and students work together, and schools hold themselves accountable, great strides can be made. Open discussions of accountability and standards bring us to a place where schools are performing better and our children are learning. This is what the American education system should focus its attention and resources on. Then and only then can we make substantial progress in our quest to close the achievement gap.
**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 Craig Kemp
This year as I reflect on 4 terms of amazing learning within my school here in Singapore I asked the students about their highlights. Using twitter in the classroom was one of those.
This year we trialled the use of Twitter as a tool to support student learning in the classroom. One major impact was its use in the development of a new modern learning environment that is currently being implemented ready for the 2015 school year.
I asked the students involved a little bit about their use of Twitter to dig a little deeper into what makes them tick when learning through Social Media. Here are some of their responses:
I remember the thrill of getting instant replies
I loved the ideas that we got from people from all over the world
The ideas we got from other students and teachers were amazing because we didn’t think of them but they were so great and we are using them in the design of our learning environment
It was a great way to see other people’s opinions
It felt a little strange at first because we didn’t know who we were talking to, but once we read their profiles we felt more comfortable
It was really exciting because there were so many different ideas and opinions to choose from
People that replied to our questions were friendly and kind
Everyone was willing to help
Within an hour we got to ask more than 15 questions and get answers to all of them
We got several links, videos and articles to help us with our research in a 1 hour lesson
It was amazing to connect with other students and teachers who have been through the same situation as us
We made some connections that wouldn’t have been possible if we hadn’t used Social Media
We discussed ideas with a designer that we ended up connecting with via Google Hangouts
All in all this was an incredible experience that I highly recommend to all educators. WIth the support of my school and utilising the excellent digital citizenship skills of my students we were able to master Social Media use. Bring on 2015 and the successful use of social media to support a more diverse range of learning.
Craig is a New Zealand born educator with over 10 years experience both in the classroom and in leadership. He is an enthusiastic, 21st century change agent that is passionate about every aspect of education and making a difference.
Question: Dr. Lynch, I am an African American man whose son is being recruited by a large state university in the south. However, my friend informed me that this university doesn’t have the proper supports in place for minority students, and doesn’t have many minority faculty members. It sounds like this university only embraces diversity to be more marketable. Should I be concerned? Wayne R.
Answer: Wayne, thanks for sending this my way. It is not unusual for colleges and universities to have aggressive diversity recruitment programs in place when it comes to students and faculty. After all, a blanket priority for schools is to have student and faculty populations that are as varied as possible.
Pardon my cynicism here, but who exactly do these recruitment programs really benefit? Successful recruitment in this regard creates a visual diversity that looks good on college brochures and websites, but it is only skin-deep. A recent episode of Modern Family referenced this visual diversity when oldest Dunphy daughter Haley made the following observation about a community college mailer she received:
“At least this one doesn’t have that fakie lunchtime shot of the black guy, Asian girl and an Indian… oh, wait, there it is! Wow, that wheelchair kid is really cracking everybody up.”
It got a laugh from me and millions of other viewers who have seen this all too often in college recruitment. If a school can convince potential students that there are others already there, just like them, then enrollment numbers rise – along with revenue. While that may improve bottom line and freshman diversity, long-term retention and student success programs are often not considered. Who is on hand to give these marginalized, trophy students support when the reality of college demands sets in?
While diversity of the student population gets a lot of press, this is not the only group universities target for variety. Increasingly, colleges are seeking out minority faculty members that fit certain criteria and are meant to dispel the myth that professors are usually “old, white guys.” It’s a slow go, however. While 30 percent of the undergraduate population are considered minority students, only 12 percent of faculty are in the minority category. For minority faculty numbers to rise, schools need to make sure they are creating welcoming environments that encourage success. The sad truth is that many minority faculty members did not have many, if any, professors or instructors “like them” when they were earning their degrees and so they are blazing their own trails when it comes to their ethnicity, race and position of authority. It is not enough for schools to recruit diverse talent; they must cultivate those skills to retain those faculty members long term.
An example of a college with strong recruitment and follow up when it comes to diversity is the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The school graduates 70 percent of its black student population and 65 percent of Latino students. These are not just lucky numbers, but are the result of a concentrated program called the Educational Opportunity Program. Designed to target first-generation, low-income college students, EOP includes mandatory study hours and meetings with academic success counselors. Instead of leaving students to their own devices, the program assumes students need that extra encouragement for success.
Programs like these provide a bridge between diverse student recruitment and minority retention and graduation. They go beneath the appearance of a student population to address the real people involved. With more of a push in this mentorship direction, more minority students like your son will graduate workplace-ready and less will become collateral damage in university diversity initiatives.
Many of the world’s leading economies can do more to help struggling teenagers to get a better level of education that will equip them for later life. A new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), looking at why low-performing students fall behind at school, has found that much remains to be done to reduce the number of children that perform poorly in maths, reading and science skills.
One of the most striking aspects of the report is just how many children are low performers, even in highly-developed nations such as the UK, Australia, or the US. I find it shocking that one in six children in the UK has a low level of reading comprehension skills – 17% of those tested in both the UK and US, and 14% in Australia.
The new report is based on data taken from the OECD-funded Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the world’s largest and most influential educational survey. It aims to raise educational standards by providing detailed information about successful and less successful educational systems.
Every three years, 15-year-old children around the world take the two-hour PISA test. It focuses on some of the most fundamental academic skills: reading comprehension, mathematics, and science literacy. The new report is based on the 2012 PISA round, in which nearly half a million children participated.
The average score in OECD countries for each skill is around 500 PISA points. For example, in the UK, children’s scores in reading comprehension ranged from 121 to 788 points, with a national average of 499 points. Low performance is defined as a score below (approximately) 400 PISA points. According to the OECD, a low performer does not have the skills required to participate fully in a modern society.
The numbers of low performers in mathematics are worse than in reading – 22% in the UK, 20% in Australia and 26% in the US. Of course, it is possible that a child is a low performer in only one of the skills, but the numbers of children performing poorly in all of the three skills is still worryingly high: 11% in the UK, 9% in Australia, 12% in the US and 13% in France.
Which countries do best
There are considerable differences between countries. Those that generally score highly in PISA are, unsurprisingly, also the countries with the fewest low performers. Generally, East Asian countries and economic regions are successful in PISA(with the Chinese cities Shanghai and Hong Kong leading the league table) and have relatively few low performers. But there are European countries that have a similar level of success. For example, Estonia has one of the highest PISA scores in Europe, and only 3% of children are low performers in all three skills, leading the European league table.
There are no simple explanations for why some countries do better than others – many factors play a role. These include the educational levels and income of parents, their engagement, and whether or not children live in an urban or rural area. We should not only look at the leaders of the league table, but also at countries which are culturally and geographically similar.
Take Ireland, for example, which has 10% low performers in reading and 17% in mathematics and has seen a considerable reduction in low performers between 2006 and 2012. In Ireland, only 7% of low-performing children skipped school at least once in the two weeks before the PISA test, compared to 27% in the UK and 45% in Australia. Ireland’s data also shows a lower level of segregation by educational achievement. Such comparisons suggest that dealing more effectively with truancy and a more equal distribution of low performers across schools might help to drive down the numbers of low performers in other countries.
These gender gaps are also reflected in the new report. As the graph above shows, more boys than girls are low performers in reading and science, whereas more girls are low performers in mathematics. Policies aimed at reducing gender inequalities have so far not been effective in resolving these gaps. A new approach is needed.
One of the problems that the report does not address is that countries with a larger mathematics gap often have a smaller reading gap and vice versa. This is enormously challenging, because some of the countries, such as Iceland or Finland, that are able to eliminate the mathematics gap affecting girls, have a particularly large reading gap affecting boys.
How to raise achievement
The final chapter of the report lays out a series of policies to tackle low performance levels. It gives examples of successful approaches, which include language training for non-native speakers and improving the quality of pre-primary education, which has happened in Germany. It also suggests that schools could foster high academic expectations, and use networks of schools to disseminate best practise.
It concludes that the percentage of low performers in any country can be reduced within a couple of years, if government is willing to reform the education system. While the number of low-performing children in the OECD is disappointingly high, with the appropriate educational reforms, based on evidence, a lot can be done to improve the situation.
Spanking, or, as it’s formally known, “corporal punishment,” has been much in the news of late.
Out on the presidential campaign trail there was Senator Ted Cruz’s revelation that
If my daughter Catherine, the five-year-old, says something she knows to be false, she gets a spanking.
And recently, in Canada, following a call by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to prohibit spanking, the Liberal government has promised to abolish a parent’s right to physically discipline children. Along similar legal lines, in June 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state was justified in denying foster parenting privileges to a couple who practiced corporal punishment and supported spanking or paddling children. The couple in the case had argued, unsuccessfully, that physical discipline was an integral aspect of their Christian faith.
America is slowly growing less supportive of spanking children. But a majority of Americans still support it.
So, is it okay to spank a misbehaving child, every once in a while?
By way of personal disclosure, my wife and I don’t have children, and I try not to sit in lofty judgment of couples whose kids present very difficult behavioral problems. But as a psychiatrist, I can’t ignore the overwhelming evidence that corporal punishment, including spanking (which is usually defined as hitting a child with an open hand without causing physical injury), takes a serious toll on the mental health of children.
Why parents spank children
In a review of corporal punishment in the United States, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toledo Michelle Knox noted a striking irony in the American attitude toward corporal punishment.
In the United States, it is against the law to hit prisoners, criminals or other adults. Ironically, the only humans it is still legal to hit are the most vulnerable members of our society – those we are charged to protect – children.
Knox, like many mental health professionals, cites a strong correlation between corporal punishment and child abuse, noting that “…spanking is often the first step in the cycle of child abuse.”
What may begin as the parent’s well-intentioned wish to discipline a child often ends with the parent’s mounting anger and worsening blows.
It isn’t that the parent is “evil” by nature or is a “child abuser.” Often, the parent has been stressed to breaking point, and is not aware of alternative methods of discipline – for example, the use of “time-outs,” removal of privileges and positive reinforcement of the child’s appropriate behaviors.
Impact of spanking on children
The psychological toll on children subjected to corporal punishment is well-documented.
Corporal punishment (CP) is an important risk factor for children developing a pattern of impulsive and antisocial behavior…[and] children who experience frequent CP… are more likely to engage in violent behaviors in adulthood.
…although corporal punishment may have a high rate of immediate behavior modification, it is ineffective over time, and is associated with increased aggression and decreased moral internalization of appropriate behavior.
In short, spanking a child may seem helpful in the short term, but is ineffective and probably harmful in the long term. The child who is often spanked learns that physical force is an acceptable method of problem solving.
Parents vs. researchers
But wait: aren’t there exceptions to these general findings? Aren’t there times when a light rap on the backside can do a misbehaving child some good – or at least, not cause any significant harm?
Many parents think so, but most specialists would say there is little evidence to support such claims. That said, Dr Marjorie Gunnoe, a professor of psychology at Calvin College, and her colleague, Carrie Lea Marinerpublished a study in 1997 that concluded that, “for most children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seem unfounded.”
Gunnoe and Mariner argued that the effects of spanking may depend on the “meaning” children ascribe to it. For example, spanking perceived by the child as parental aggression (as opposed to nonaggressive limit setting) may be associated with subsequent aggressive behavior by the child.
Parents who believe they have no alternative except to spank their misbehaving children do not need finger-wagging lectures from clinicians.
But they do need professional support and education, aimed at reducing their level of stress and increasing their use of alternatives to corporal punishment.
**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 Justin Foster
As an elementary school counselor, one of the favorite parts of my job is teaching my guidance lessons. During a guidance lessons a counselor will touch on topics such as citizenship, friendship, anger management, and how to deal with bullying to name just a few. Generally my lessons have a theme for the year and build off the previous lesson. My goal is to conduct one lesson a month for each grade level (my school is K-4).
I am a big proponent of personal responsibility and while that may seem simplistic, something we can all agree upon, base off of stories I have seen recently in the news dealing with young people in schools and bad behavior this is not the case. In my opinion there is an epidemic of violence in schools involving students against each other, and students towards school staff members. This is something that for some reason does not get the attention in the media that it should. This violence impacts the quality of our young people’s education and needs to be address more on a national level. This will no doubt have an impact on the economic well being of many communities and our nation as a whole.
For me teaching students how their behavior affects them and those around them is just as important as teaching manipulatives in math or decoding words. Teaching coping skills and conflict resolution are some of the most important things one will learn in school. One of the issues that I have seen through my career in education is that there are far too many parents who don’t foster and nurture a mindset of school success in their children. School too many times is seen as a necessary evil or something that is just done by going through the motions. Waking up, going to school and coming home is not all there is to receiving the best education possible. School must be looked upon as a vehicle for future advancement and success in society.
Fostering a Mindset
The dictionary defines mindset as a mental attitude or inclination and a fixed state of mind. Working off this definition the attitude that must be taken by all regarding school is that it is for students of school age one of the most important things in their lives. A mindset that views the school experience as one that works best when rules are followed and respect is shown at all times no matter our emotions at a particular moment is critical.
Just in the past three weeks I have seen stories of students assaulting teachers, students refusing to comply with simple school rules and authority. I have watch several YouTube videos showing students fighting each other in school while peers just stand around and in many cases record them. What type of mindset or attitude says it is normal to disobey simple request such as putting away a cell phone in class or that body slamming a principal is appropriate in any form? Who among us really thinks that a school with such chaos and mayhem on a regular basis is an environment that is conducive to learning at an optimum level? Respect, both respect of self and others is one of the most important qualities any school aged student must have in order to reach their full academic and individual life potential.
This has to be instilled at home by parents and caregivers. All the guidance lessons in the world can’t counterbalance parental apathy or parents that do not regularly discuss with their students how important education is and how their attitude towards school will impact their success. No matter how much you may not like your neighborhood school for whatever reasons, it is important to view it as a place that for now is preparing your student for success. Many of us have had bad experiences at the dentist or at a hospital, but we still understand the need for both. Believe it or not most teachers in public education teach because they love the profession.
A certain reverence should come with this role, a reverence that in times gone by was more prevalent, that now sadly is not. Engaging with young people of all races and backgrounds gives most educators tremendous satisfaction. For me as a male educator I love not only teaching my content area but also serving as a role model to students of all races and backgrounds and teaching them the importance of their behavior and why it matters. In order to succeed academically behavior matters!
_________________________________________________
Justin A. Foster currently works as a public school counselor in Pennsylvania and has over a decade of experience working with youth and families in both public and private education. Justin is a speaker, author, and educational consultant who enjoys working with students, parents, community leaders and others with a vested interest in being positive influences in the lives of our young people. You can contact him at [email protected] or on twitter @ justincounsels
Not only do school systems receive state funding but also federal funding through various programs and initiatives. Therefore it is important to understand three types of federal funding methods that transpired throughout history which include categorical aid, grants, and Title I funds.
Currently, the federal government contributes approximately 9% annually, or about $71 billion, to the education of the nation’s elementary- and secondary-aged children. The amount of support varies from state to state, with some states receiving more federal monies. South Dakota receives the most federal funding (an estimated 16% of the state’s entire educational budget), while New Jersey gets only 3% of its funds from federal sources. The U.S. Department of Education was allocated $63.7 billion for fiscal year 2010. The department distributes funds to schools, determines major education issues and focuses attention to them through provision of funds, instigates programs designed to ensure an equal education for all, and engages in research activities that result in an accumulation of educational statistics.
Before the 1980s, federal funding was distributed to states solely in the form of categorical aid
(or grants). Basically, money was designated to fund several federally sponsored programs and to support federally based educational legislation. Categorical aid was spent on specific items or in particular ways. For example, money for textbooks was to be used exclusively for textbooks. Schools and districts had to track how money from categorical aid was spent and had to report these expenditures to the federal government to ensure that money was used in the manner for which it was intended. Any unused funds had to be returned to the provider, if they were not spent within an allocated time frame. Many critics claim that the stipulations attached to federal monies allowed the federal government to more readily influence state-based education, as districts had to accept federal regulations in order to receive the funding.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration introduced the notion of the block grant. With this method of funding, monies were dispersed to states with relatively minor conditions attached. This change in funding reflected the Republican belief that the federal government should play a lesser role in educational policy making. The federal government transferred money in a “block” to individual states, and the states decided how the money would be spent. Both block grants and categorical aid are currently used by the federal government to finance education. States are accountable to the federal government for how monies are spent. To this end, they must accept conditions attached to grants and prepare plans for funds received. All expenditures must be tracked, and reports regarding how monies were spent must be submitted to the federal government. These requirements have led to an increased federal influence over education nationwide.
Federal government monies are often distributed to school districts through the state departments of education. Typically, states apply for available federal funds to support state goals and needs, although school districts can apply directly to the federal government for grants as well. As a beginning teacher, you may be asked to sit on a committee that structures a grant proposal. You may also want to consider taking the initiative to suggest an idea, a program, or an educational service that could benefit from the funds provided by a federal grant.
Some sources of federal funds have been available for a number of years. Funds under Title I of
Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) have been available since 1965, when the legislation first passed. Title I funds are directed toward improving the education of students from low-income backgrounds. The intent of the legislation of ESEA 1965 is to provide “compensatory education” as a means of ensuring equality of educational opportunities for all children, regardless of the economic status of their parents. Today, states wishing to receive Title I monies must submit to the federal government a proposal for educational improvement.
Typically, the state disperses funds to school districts, which then provide funds to individual schools. All schools considered for Title I funds must have a minimum percentage of low-income students in attendance. Schools with the highest percentages of poor students receive the most money from the Title I fund. Schools have the right to decide how the money will be spent on site and do not have to specifically allocate funds to individual students. Title I monies can be channeled into general programs of improvement, benefiting all students enrolled in the school. Initiatives such as the “Race to the Top” stimulus program have also been initiated at a federal level. This fund aims to assist states in achieving the standards outlined by Title I, acting as a stimulus grant for schools that can demonstrate that they are committed to reform and take proactive steps to ensure the output of competent students. As a beginning teacher, you should investigate how your state participates in and coordinates reform initiatives and ensure that you remain abreast of requirements. Your investigation will also familiarize you with many of the structures discussed in this chapter and with applying the required guidelines to your particular school and students.
In the 2006–2007 school year, the federal government committed almost $14 billion to Title I grants, which aided 17 million elementary- and secondary-aged school children in 61,000 schools across the country. Almost two thirds of the recipient children were in elementary school. Funds aided the education of 35% of all Hispanic students, 33% of all European American students, and 25% of African American students. Asian American and Native American students made up the remaining 7%. A national assessment of Title I conducted in 2006 found that students who had received services through the grant made modest improvements in both reading and mathematics, as evidenced by standardized test scores. Although Title I funds have helped low-income children improve, their progress in basic reading and mathematics lags behind that of their higher-income peers.
Some criticize Title I as a waste of money, suggesting that there is no real evidence that Title
I helps to improve education outcomes for students who receive Title I services. Critics point out that the funding directed toward improved educational outcomes for low-income children has done little to stem the unremitting cycle of poverty. They maintain that social ills associated with poverty, such as drug use, dropping out of school, early pregnancies, and the inability to find work persist. Advocates of Title I claim that the legislation was never meant to address every facet of poverty, and that services made possible by Title I funds have resulted in small gains in the lives of children the services were intended to help. Proponents of Title I further argue that small successes have an inestimable influence on a life that would otherwise be destroyed by poverty, and that no monetary value can be assigned to that influence.
In addition to Title I, the federal government funds other compensatory programs, all aimed to provide equality of education for lower-income children. Some, like Head Start include a substantial parental involvement component as a means for increasing each parents’ role in facilitating the intellectual and social growth of their children. Other programs target older students, whether in elementary or in secondary schools. Tutoring, literacy training, and projects designed to discourage dropping out of school are all examples of programs funded by the federal government. Title I programs today fall under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which was passed in 2001. The 2001 enactment of NCLB was actually a renaming and reauthorization of the ESEA. ESEA was modified several times after 1965, but NCLB was the first sweeping overhaul of the legislation.
Unlike its predecessor, NCLB includes extensive language that connects federal benefits and funding to evidence-based achievement, like standardized testing. NCLB includes specific goals for schools that include early learning initiatives for at-risk students intended to set them on the right path for learning in the formative years. These reading programs for young students have been shown to boost the overall educational achievement for children.
While ESEA took the first steps toward equalizing public school education, NCLB put more specific benchmarks in place. NCLB is grounded in the conviction that a student’s performance can be improved through the simple act of setting high standards and that the achievement of educational objectives can be accurately measured by standardized tests. NCLB requires schools to show adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward a goal of 100% proficiency among students by the 2013–2014 school year, in the areas of reading and mathematics. Schools not making AYP from year to year are subject to sanctions, ranging from the requirement to develop or revise an existing improvement plan after missing AYP for 1 year to complete school restructuring after missing AYP for 5 consecutive years. School districts that fail to ensure that sanctions are implemented at schools not making AYP risk losing Title I funds. Schools do have some leeway in how they can attain AYP. The safe harbor provision, for example, allows a school to improve by 10% overall, even if individual students have not attained state standard. Schools can also receive credit if individual students improve their performance by one third over the course of the year.
The federal government’s commitment to the education of all children was evidenced most recently with the American Recovery and Revitalization Act (ARRA), formalized in 2009.
ARRA allocated a total of $150 billion to keep schools open and functioning across the nation.
This particular piece of legislation was especially significant, because it marked the first time that the federal government provided funding based on the level of need of either the schools or the educational system.
Through the development of federal funding programs school systems are able to continue providing education to children and youth. Although there is still some controversy regarding the amount of funding given by the government, as Educators and guardians, we must be aware of the changes in legislation and how their decisions impact federal funds.
As you look for your own way of operating your classroom efficiently, there are several styles of teaching discipline to consider. One that is often used because of its easy-to-implement practices is the “desist” approach. Unlike the self-discipline approach where students are responsible, the desist approach places teachers as the responsible ones. This approach can be viewed as a power system, as teachers have the power and they set the specific rules to give students discipline and correct students’ behaviors. Here is how this method is put into practice:
Assertive Discipline
This approach bases itself on the fact that teachers have the power to ask and require specific actions from students. However, this discipline still has students’ best interest in mind. Canter and Canter, in their historical study conducted in 1992, found that teachers who use this discipline are actually calm when it comes to the rules and limits. This discipline makes teachers assert clear rules. It gives students the clear idea that misbehavior has consequences and if students want positive consequences, they know how to achieve them.
Behavior Modification
This approach centers around four types of punishment/reinforcement. These are:
Positive Reinforcement: Giving extra credit for a question answered with much thought
Positive Punishment: A meeting with a Principal
Negative Reinforcement: Removal of an activity that the student does not enjoy
Negative Punishment: Decrease in free time
This approach finds the positive reinforcement to be the most effective while punishments are comparatively ineffective. It goes without saying then that teachers are expected to encourage students’ good behaviors instead of criticizing the misbehavior.
In both cases, a lot of the responsibility of the enforcement of acceptable classroom behavior falls on the shoulder of the teacher but for individuals who want to have a tighter control over how things operate, this may be favorable. In classrooms with younger students, this may also be something that is desired as students, particularly in grades K-3, have not yet had enough classroom exposure to really understand how to implement self-discipline models.
In most cases, teachers will subscribe to more than one type of classroom management when it comes to discipline and order. If you are a teacher with different students depending on the period of the day, you may find that one style is preferable over another based on the personalities in your specific class. Conversely, you may go into the process with one style in mind and then find that in practice, something else works better. The main thing is that you at least consider how you want your classroom to operate before going into the process blindly, hoping for the best.
It may be hard to believe, but at some point you won’t need to put so much upfront effort into determining the kind of teacher you want to be — it will just come naturally. In the mean time, consider the best ways to function in your classroom to benefit your students and make your early teaching years more manageable for you.
