put kids first

Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers, Uncategorized February 17, 2016

4 Factors to Consider about Teaching Jobs and School Reform

School reform is never easy. When sweeping changes are decided upon and implemented, everyone must fully participate in order for students to benefit from the changes and certainly not to suffer during the transition. Part of providing that stability for students is through a strong front of teachers that remain at the school during the sometimes turbulent reform process.

Here are a few things to think about when evaluating school reform:

Reform just isn’t possible without a united front of educators and administrators. A shared vision is challenging to create and maintain without stable leadership, and a supportive culture from the staff. It is a simple fact of life that high staff turnover can create instability and have a negative impact on efforts to establish a consistent learning environment for students. High staff turnover is also quite costly, particularly when the recruitment of teachers, and then the training of new teachers in the intricacies of the reform effort are considered.
More effort and support needs to be given to the recruitment process for teachers at the outset as schools and districts initiate reform efforts. Hiring teachers who “fit” reform goals will likely reduce teacher attrition. Still, more support needs to be available for new teachers. Even teachers who ostensibly have the skills and attitudes that align with reform goals will need mentoring and other supports as they begin their jobs. Every attempt must be made to reduce the debilitating rate of turnover.
Most efforts now are centered on how to make the most of current funding and utilizing money effectively in order to maximize the positive impact of reforms, rather than how to access untapped resources. Despite the dearth of new money, it is possible to free up cash through alternative means of spending. An extreme proposal to accomplish this is to reduce staffing to the absolute minimum. For example, a school with 500 students would have 20 teachers and 1 principal. Approximately $1 million could become available, depending on how many education specialists (regular and categorical) and instructional aides worked within the school. This is radical option, and there are other, less extreme ways to change the way money is spent, to include increasing class sizes, spending less on upgrading technology, and eliminating some programs.
Sometimes, spending money on non-essential areas does support school reform efforts. Prioritizing what money is spent on does not automatically mean cutting all non-academic projects. What gets cut will depend on the goals of individual schools. This should be a workable situation, as long as the school is still accountable to the state and the district for shifts in expenditures. An understanding that cutting teaching jobs can actually be detrimental to reform is important though, instead of just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper.

What do you think? Is an austerity approach (trying to have as few teachers as possible) better than one that places a higher importance on the teachers than on the budget?

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch February 15, 2016

Garden-Based Learning: A Return to Simpler Food in K-12 Schools

The idea that nutrition and educational performance are directly related is nothing new. Free school breakfast and lunch programs are often credited with higher levels of student achievement in the schools where they exist. Non-profit children’s hunger programs intended to feed at-risk students on the weekends are sprouting up all across the country. There is a connection between what a child eats and how that child performs academically.

This idea extends beyond simply filling a child’s belly though. An understanding of food and its role in lifelong physical and psychological health is also important because it addresses more than the immediate. Quality of life and longevity are impacted by food lifestyle and healthy eating habits that are formed early in life. In a culture where children grow up with a skewed concept of where food originates, it is up to schools to step in and provide guidance. With very limited resources for academic basics, though, how can schools find the time, money and expertise to root students in smart food knowledge?

One way is to have actual gardens on school property, however small. The Center for Nutrition in Schools at UC Davis found that garden-based learning does more than just improve nutrition knowledge. Students who participate in garden programs on school grounds have higher overall academic achievement and experience elevated self-esteem and social skills. These findings show that getting out of manufactured classroom and setting/digging into the dirt makes quite the positive impact on K-12 students. The benefits of gardening extend beyond the fruit in hand.

Many schools that have embraced student-led gardening programs rely on inspired parents to run them though. The award-winning gardening program at Surfside Elementary on Florida’s Space Coast is the personal project of school mom Erika Maier who admits to spending about 25 hours or more every week on holistic food initiatives. Teachers who can tear themselves away from teaching FCAT requirements for a half hour each week are able to take their kids outside to get dirty planting their own food in the ground. When the plants reach fruition, the kids help harvest and eat them.

The School Garden Project of Lane County, Oregon boasts 30 gardens at K-12 schools in five districts. Over 800 students are taught to “create, sustain and use onsite gardens” every year.” By simply showing the basics of food growing, students have an informed approach to eating without an official lesson in “healthy eating.” For many K-12 students, working in a school garden is the first time they are making a real-life connection between the items they see in the grocery store and their original location.

Organizations like the Edible Schoolyard promote the principle that food is an “academic subject” and that it is the responsibility of schools to develop sustainable farms with whatever resources they have available. Those crops should then be used in school lunches and classroom celebrations. The theory is that students who are empowered to grow their own food will then be more connected to what they eat and have the ability to make smarter choices.

These fringe movements are becoming increasingly main stream. Though not a mandated portion of K-12 curriculum, a cultural return to proactive approaches to good health – like smart eating habits – is evident. The more educational technology improves, the bigger the need for garden-based learning and other back to basics programs. Like so many other facets of happy, healthy living, K-12 students need the knowledge to make informed choices.

But do schools have the resources to be part of the movement, or will they need to rely on volunteers to make it happen?

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

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers February 14, 2016

Has education failed at “no bullying” programs?

**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 Judith A. Yates

On September 5, 2015, a 14-year-old high school girl stood before bullies and drove a kitchen knife into her own heart to fall dead at her tormentor’s feet. The little girl’s name is Sherokee Harriman. Some of her peers and family members report Sherokee was, in part, hopeless due to the school district’s lack of protection from these bullies. The bullying has not stopped as people (her peers suspect students) are now destroying the memorial placed, where Sherokee fell, in a La Vergne, Tennessee Public Park.

“Even in death,” says one student, “they disrespect her.” Her mother demands an answer: “Why do they continue to try to hurt her?” Has the education system’s “No Bullying” programs failed these kids?

According to the Suicide Prevention & Resource Center, suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people ages 12–18. Other factors are contributed to suicide, yet “Bullying is associated with increases in suicide risk in young people who are victims of bullying (and) increases depression and other problems associated with suicide.” This encompasses both the bullies and the children being bullied. (SEE CITE 1, below, for source)

Friends, classmates, and students in other schools, who knew Sherokee Harriman personally or marginally, report there are in-house programs to report bullying at all their schools. They also explain why so many students do not trust the programs. “They (the administration) don’t do anything” when bullying is reported and “if you report, then you are (called) a snitch (by other students),” creating more problems for the victim, the students who want to report, and the program. “So, it’s not worth it” one student says blatantly. Sherokee’s parents call the “Zero Tolerance for Bullying” program in their child’s school district “a joke;” her mother assisted Sherokee in completing multiple “Bully Reports” in both junior high and high school, supporting her with long talks, and trying to follow up. The last time they completed a report, it never went through the system because Sherokee was in her grave.

These are opinions of a handful of students from classrooms across the U.S. and anguished parents, but one student in fear of the school hallways and one parent let down by the education system is too many. Despite all of the “No Bully Zone” and other similar programs, the system appears to be failing students who feel unsafe in the school … and students who are bullies. Why?

One of the suspected barriers in preventing the success of “Stop Bullying” school programs is lack of funding. In 2013, the United States public school system reported an outstanding debt of $415,238,582.00 (For some information on this report see below link labeled CITE 2). The funding to create and keep school programs may look impossible with a school system that scrambles to afford basic supplies while meeting all budget demands. “We have to pay for so much classroom supplies,” says one Nashville, Tennessee high school teacher. “How are they going to find money to keep a new program running?”

Another suspected barrier is what teachers can do versus what the system demands. In 2001, “Secretary of Education Arne Duncan … reported 82 percent of U.S. schools may be failing by 2013” explains researcher / author Ron Berler. “… On paper, idealistically, No Child Left Behind was a wonderful thought, but it wasn’t put out there with any practical thought … (education needs to) reduce and adjust the amount of standardized testing” (source see CITE 3 below). It appears learning now focuses on tests; the system seems more concerned with teaching to a standard rather than combining compassion, education, and social etiquette.

How does the education system create “Stop Bullying” programs that meet faculty, students, and parents’ goals for a safe school environment while fitting the budget, with a place in the overall curriculum? The effort cannot be deemed impossible or useless to try.

It is far too late for students like Sherokee Harriman and the kids who bullied her; who, somewhere, all became lost in the mix of programs, budget demands, and education system requirements. They slipped through those cracks to fall dead in the grass, to face potential criminal charges at the age of 14, and to trash a child’s memorial.

The Society for the Prevention of Suicide offers free information for educators. It includes education, books, training, and provides a free toolkit. Learn more here:
http://www.sptsusa.org/educators/

SOURCES;

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/Suicide_Bullying_Issue_Brief.pdf

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/04/11/why-excessive-standardized-testing-is-causing-american-schools-to-fail

____

Judith A. Yates is currently completing a PhD in Criminal Justice. She has taught at several schools, within the field of law enforcement; has worked as trainer, attended classes across the country, and has been a mentor in several programs. Her website can be found at judithayates.com.

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch February 14, 2016

New Models and Trends in Resource Allocation

Many investigators have requested new methods to determine expenditures as a means for better understanding priorities, organizational investments, proposed strategies, and as a tool to quantify the deployment of resources across subunits. Completely new expenditure models have been pioneered by manufacturing theorists that include costs that are activity and program-based, and which assist in forming fiscal data to further broaden its comparability to strategic decision-making. In education, several reports have demanded new methods of expenditure recordkeeping as a means to modify district strategy; mostly toward ensuring the real expenditure involved in individual schools, programs, or services is duly identified.

Though the models demonstrate some differences regarding the terms of the categories used, all of them propose assigning a larger percentage of costs to specific types of students and schools. For those having an interest in resource data in relation to the context of educating students, it makes sense to review central and indirect costs that are associated with joint district resources, as well as resources that are typically school-based. Costs that have less relevance are associated with district leadership, other operations, and services of a non-educational category: e.g., transportation, food services, school facilities, and maintenance systems.

Reforms relating to accountability have placed a focus not only on performance inequalities between white students and students from minority group backgrounds, but also between students having differing determinable needs that result from disability, poverty, or limitation in English proficiency. Many policymakers stress that the first stage in tackling these achievement gaps is to align fiscal policy with student needs. But as policymakers refurbish their established funding formulas to fulfill the needs of different students, they do so without evidence. In the first instance, there is little explanation of the way resources are currently aligned to different subgroups.

Basically, for a state policymaker attempting to assign an allocation to particular student types, no baseline data exist on current expenditure in regard to each type of student within their own districts or other schools within other districts. School districts in most states do not fully track costs by student type or to the school level. Even where these data are tracked, they are not accessible from published works for policymakers attempting to pin answers down.

Equally challenging is the difficulty in accessing comparisons from other states regarding spending. Accurate ways of defining or reporting expenditures influenced by student needs are not available, which makes it impossible to compare data between states. Furthermore, policymakers have not yet determined how to flow funds from one level of government to the next. For example, funds may be designated by the federal government for students living in poverty, with the goal of enhancing expenditures at schools having high concentrations of poverty.

However, by the time funds are dispersed through state and local allocation streams, they may not reach their intended target. Finally, only limited documentation exists on different decisions for structuring assigned allocations and the way those decisions relate to policy aims. Put in other terms, allocations meant for students having limited English proficiency (LEP) might be realized as a fixed dollar amount per LEP student, reimbursements for the spending on bilingual education services, apportionment of staff full-time equivalents (FTEs) to high-needs schools, or as funds for other areas. Research has not yet delineated the ways these different decisions influence either what is finally spent per pupil or how efficiently that funding reaches the intended students.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch February 14, 2016

Ask An Expert: Closing the Achievement Gap

Question: Dr. Lynch, what are your thoughts on the achievement gap? What do we need to do to close it? Lisa K.

Answer: Thanks for your question Lisa. I have researched the achievement gap for over 9 years and this is what I have learned. Our political leaders have finally begun to recognize the importance of education to the survival of individuals and societies in the 21st century. The other aspect of this conversation is all too familiar: while our children do learn, not all of them are learning as much or as well as they should to meet the demands of the new century.

In the United States, there are low levels of achievement among students from low-income backgrounds and students of color. This is in contrast to the fact that students in educationally supportive states and those from advantaged backgrounds easily rival students from across the world. To put this into context, nine year-olds from White, advantaged backgrounds read as well as thirteen-year-old Black and Hispanic students. In addition, even though funding has increased, it has done so unequally and the achievement gap has grown.

Typically, schools that serve a large number of “minority” students face big issues, which put them at a disadvantage when compared to other schools. They have to deal with lower budgets, larger classes, and often less qualified teachers and school leaders. The effect of this has been to create an “educational debt” that negatively affects the students in these communities. Major efforts are needed to address this issue. Recruiting great teachers is important, but it is not the whole answer. Systemic elements are needed to support the work of talented educators. It is not the people who are at fault: it is the system that needs an overhaul.

As Ted Sizer once put it, “The people are better than the system.” We have come a long way in understanding how to create more effective school leaders and build a national commitment to educational leadership. However, we are not there yet. We need leadership to forge all of the various elements of school reform today into well-functioning systems that make sense for those working hard to achieve results for students. If this is accomplished, we will begin to close the achievement gap.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers February 13, 2016

Tenure: 3 Groups Fighting Against Bad Teachers

The war against underperforming teachers is in full swing, with proposed laws created to prevent them from negatively impacting their students. One of the many ways we tend to address this is by targeting teacher tenure. Teacher tenure protects teachers from the many threats to their jobs—but does it also make them complacent and keep them from doing their best? Taking this even further, do the worst teachers benefit from tenure?

Some people believe so, and they’re fighting back by tackling tenure in their proposed laws. Here are three institutions that have taken measures to protect their students by going after teacher tenure.

Teach Great proposed an amendment that would get rid of teacher tenure in Missouri.

In Missouri, instead of tenure, teachers would get renewable three-year contracts. Test scores would also become the chief factor in teacher evaluations.

However, an overwhelming number of teacher groups, statewide education associations and school boards fought against the amendment. Teach Great, the group that drove the proposal, even backed off before the vote admitting that the timing was off. The group hoped this system would reward good teachers.

Andy Hosmer, Springfield Public School Board vice president said, “I’m thrilled the voters saw through this blatant attempt to influence education across Missouri. This was a situation where no one thought this was a good idea.”

Had the proposal passed, tenure would no longer have existed. Students would have taken more tests and bargaining over teacher evaluations would have been prohibited. Teachers’ salaries would be based on the performance of their students with over 50 percent of teacher evaluations based on standardized testing.

Teachers felt that the proposal would have forced them to “teach to the test.” The testing also would have cost Missouri millions of dollars.

Luckily for teachers, the statewide efforts to spread the word about the negative consequences of the proposal proved to be triumphant.

Students Matter sued to change the status quo of teaching in California.

Nine public school students in the state brought on this case and challenged a set of laws – one of which gives teachers in California tenure as soon as 18 months into their careers. Another requires layoffs on a last in, first out basis without taking into consideration the quality of the teacher.

Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled in favor of the group, Students Matter, and against teachers unions in a decision that may turn over how the state’s teachers are both hired and fired in California.

Students Matter believes the laws allow ineffective teachers to stay on board and that low-income, minority students suffer as a result when less-desired educators make their way into their classrooms. Judge Treu agreed and found that five California statutes violate the constitutional protection children have in the state to equal education opportunity.

Economist Raj Chetty calculated that the one year of exposure to the worst performing teachers actually might cost a classroom of children $1.4 million in lifetime earnings. These findings were from a study that looked at data on 2.5 million students’ grades three through eight between 1989 and 2009 and compared their test scores in English and math to tax records as adults.

Chetty went on to say that students who had higher quality teachers for even one year were more likely to attend college, less likely to have teen pregnancies and more likely to have higher adult earnings.

Teachers’ groups who firmly believe that removing their job protection will not help students find greater success dispute the conclusions.

The Senate in North Carolina wanted to increase teachers’ pay in exchange for tenure—by they changed their minds.

Senate leaders in North Carolina proposed an 11 percent pay increase for teachers. Senator Harry Brown introduced this proposal and pointed out that the budget plan would boost North Carolina to 27^th in pay ranking for teachers in the U.S. Teachers in North Carolina will be ranked at 37^th in pay though if the House’s plan is approved instead.

Representative Brian Holloway says he is glad to see that the Senate would no longer make pay raises contingent on whether or not teachers give up tenure, but also pointed out that the Senate wants to pay for the plan with the money gained through the elimination of teacher assistants.

Brown and Senator Bob Rucho defend the plan stating that since the teacher assistant model was put into place in classrooms, reading proficiency among children in North Carolina has not increased. In fact, proficiency has actually decreased. It was also noted that TA’s have no positive effect on student achievement and are not an essential classroom investment.

Senate leaders also proposed the idea of increasing the lottery advertisement budget to pay for the 5 percent increase in teacher salaries.

Representatives from the House’s plan are unwilling at this time to increase the lottery advertising budget.

I am interested to see whether the Senate or House proposal is passed. I do like that the Senate is offering an 11 percent pay raise to these teachers, but I do not like that the increase in pay is partially funded based on the elimination of Teacher Assistant positions.

The bottom line is this: teachers should be held accountable for their actions. Tenure shouldn’t protect the educators who aren’t making an impact in our students’ lives. We also need high quality teachers in our schools and no matter how many years a teacher has been on board, he or she should be held to the same expectations as the newest ones. With all that said, however, I do not think that scrapping tenure completely is the best way to increase the quality of teaching in our public schools.

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform February 13, 2016

8 Reasons Common Core Will Ultimately Fail

By Matthew Lynch

Since their initial implementation, national Common Core standards have caused quite a stir. It seems that everyone from politicians to parents have an opinion on these learning benchmarks and their corresponding testing systems. Everyone is throwing his or her two cents into the Common Core discussion and it has all led to a firestorm of questions surrounding the future of K-12 education in the U.S. and whether one streamlined goal program can really be effective with all students.

As a disclaimer, I actually support a lot of the components of Common Core and believe that heightened, more focused teaching toward subjects like math and science are necessary for this generation of K-12 students to survive and thrive in the future world workplace. Despite my personal feelings on the heart of Common Core standards, however, the initiatives are misdirected in more ways than one and will be rendered ineffective in the end. Here are just a few of the reasons I feel this way:

Common Core is tied to President Obama.

Even though President Obama did not draft or implement Common Core standards, he is inextricably linked to them. This is due in part to the fact that his Race to the Top program connects federal funding with states that have Common Core standards in place and who excel in the testing of the material. The President has certainly put his weight behind the ideals of Common Core standards and has always been vocal about his belief that streamlined learning benchmarks and continued teacher accountability is necessary for the future of the nation’s economy and knowledge base. He did not, however, come up with the idea for Common Core standards nor approve them upon completion. The bi-partisan National Governors Association did that. Still, people who already dislike President Obama seem to think that passionately disliking Common Core is just another way to show their disapproval of his administration. While this specific group is certainly not large enough to topple the standards alone, it is influential, particularly when it comes to politicians that are looking for an easy way to please constituents. Which brings me to my next point…

Politicians are using Common Core as a platform.

Republican governor of Indiana Mike Pence was once a supporter of Common Core initiatives, and so was Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Yet both are now some of the most prominent politicians to speak out against Common Core standards – and in the case of Pence, he has since withdrawn Indiana from the program (and then replaced the standards with eerily similar “state developed” ones). It seems that Common Core is becoming a platform for politicians looking for their next news byte or front-page photo op. It’s not limited to politicians in office, either.

In April, Republican Rob Astorino of New York, a gubernatorial hopeful, made a public announcement that his own children would not be taking state assessments based on Common Core benchmarks. The spotlight-stealing is not limited to Republicans, of course. Just this month Virginian democrat Adam Ebbin who hopes to replace long-time Senator Jim Moran said he does not support Common Core standards (which Virginia has so far opted out of using). Politicians from both sides of the aisle are seeing the fiery side of their constituents and looking for a way to push that passion in their own directions.

Parents think common core standards are too rigorous.

The heightened concepts of learning and retaining Common Core materials means that some students will get left behind. The aggressiveness of the learning campaigns, however, make it difficult for teachers to spend extra time on subjects or circle back to them once most of the class has retained them. In a perfect world, this is where the parents would step in and fill the gap, or at least hire a tutor to do it. Ever since No Child Left Behind legislation, however, the assumption is that public schools are responsible for the total learning process of all their students. Parents who find that Common Core is leaving their own children behind find it easier to point the finger at the standards instead of initiating a way to make them work for their kids.

Parents don’t understand the material.

Particularly when it comes to math, some of the new-fangled methods that Common Core implements are foreign to parents. Moms and dads who remember excelling in elementary school math are suddenly befuddled by the homework questions their second-graders must figure out. Parents, even the very young ones, did not use many of the tactics now in place in K-12 classrooms and certainly were not required to learn as many complicated subjects at such a young age. This lack of comprehension translates to lack of confidence – and causes parents to become defensive about the materials their children are expected to learn.

Parents are growing wary of the testing culture.

Parents are a finicky bunch when it comes to education. They want the best career opportunities for their kids but resent the idea of teaching too specifically for the simple sake of scoring higher on an assessment test. The items on state assessment tests, more than ever, are designed to test the knowledge set deemed appropriate for the future economy (in part, at least). Though parents want the best job opportunities for their kids, they don’t want knowledge to be so narrowly dispersed. The truth is that no teacher has enough time to teach everything to his or her students. Some of that learning must happen at home and in other real-world applications.

Standards are a calculated guess as to what learning materials should be prioritized among U.S. students – not an end-all-be-all list. Parents see items that they deem “important” missing from Common Core standards and believe it signals a complete dysfunction of the benchmarks. The growing movement to protest or even eliminate standardized tests is being driven mostly by parents. Though it’s unlikely that they will ever truly succeed on this front, their outspoken concerns about Common Core will eventually aid in dismantling the standards – particularly if their political representatives are listening.

American students are diverse.

It seems everywhere you look, we celebrate diversity in this country. From skin color, to language spoken, to sexual preferences, the national message seems to be “Be you. Whatever that looks like.” Except when it comes to measuring a “good” education. It’s widely accepted that students learn in different ways and customized learning initiatives are a trend fueled by in-classroom technology. HOW students learn is varied, but WHAT they are learning is somehow expected to fall into some neat, standardized package. Laying down countrywide rules of sorts for learning, and attaching those to funding, is an easy way to check off boxes on a spreadsheet but not an effective way to teach each student exactly what he or she needs to know based on career paths, interests and life circumstance

It doesn’t recognize the differences among states.

It’s true that the world is becoming smaller and that the differences that once divided K-12 students by geography are shrinking. Still, there are some learning standards that just make more sense in one area over another. The benefits of learning a foreign language should be shared on a national level, but the specifics of those benchmarks should be considered. A state like Arizona or Texas, for example, with a high percentage of Spanish-speakers could benefit from more curriculum customized to that population, and in a much more effective way than a state like Iowa or Maine. Common Core is not a curriculum set, of course, but I use the language example as a way to show the difference between students and how where they live really does impact what they really should know. Industry specific learning is also a consideration when it comes to what should be taught more heavily, not as a way to pigeon-hole students but as a way to set them up for the best chance at career success. Considerations for subject areas that have been weak in a particular region should also be thought about and given priority.

There is not one model student.

The idea that all U.S. K-12 students should know exactly the same things, and graduate from high school with the same shared learning experiences is flawed. Of course no one expects any two students to be identical in their learning outcomes, but the implication of Common Core standards are that there should be a cookie-cutter which every district and every teacher uses. Such an educational model goes against every other American ideal – like innovation, creativity and individuality – yet is prevalent throughout the public school system. If there were one leading flaw in Common Core requirements, it would be this: it allows no wiggle room for letting students be the people they were meant to be.

Hopefully, proponents of Common Core will read this piece, correct its deficiencies, and prove me wrong.

Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Matthew Lynch, Teaching Strategies, Tactics, and Methods February 12, 2016

The Business of Lesson Plans

Creating and writing lesson plans are activities common to basic teacher education courses. Before entering a classroom, young educators are taught how to meticulously plan their time for the benefit of their students.

Through online collaboration though, many teachers now take a different approach to lesson planning than even a decade ago, and it has stirred up some controversy from both sides of the aisle.

Buying or borrowing lesson plans

The most obvious way that teachers avoid the traditional lesson planning concept is by finding ideas, or even entire plans, online. This shortcut can be as simple as finding an in-class activity idea on Pinterest or as complex as downloading a grading period’s worth of lessons that are grade-appropriate. Critics of this type of planning cite ethical issues, saying that a teachers’ lesson plans should always be original. Creating these plans is simply part of the job and should never be outsourced.
Even if teachers spend just a few hours per week on lesson plans, that is a few hours of time that educators could feasibly be doing something else. The internet has made so many other professions more efficient – shouldn’t teaching benefit too? If sharing lesson plans cuts out some of the non-student interaction time, then maybe that is a cause worth getting behind.

Selling lesson plans

It’s well-known that the teaching profession is not a get-rich-quickly (or ever, really) way to earn a living. Some educators are finding ways to earn some extra income: by writing and selling lesson plans. A teacher who spoke with the New York Times said that she brings in an additional $36,000 annually from selling her original lesson plans on websites like Teachers Pay Teachers. On one hand, if teachers are developing something that is both useful to other professionals and boosts their own bottom line, why not? As long as these lesson plans are carefully vetted and that the teacher on the receiving end does due diligence to check the accuracy, what’s the big deal? In this context, selling lesson plans can be compared to people who knit or sew and sell their patterns online for others to buy and use. The buyer can make customization changes based on preference and knitting or sewing style, but if the end result turns out the way it is supposed to, everyone wins.

It is not that simple though. According to the Copyright Act of 1976, when teachers complete lesson plans for their classrooms, those materials are technically owned by the schools. Along that line of thinking, a lesson plan then sold to other teachers infringes on the inherent copyright of that material. Legalities aside, should a teacher who is already being paid to write a lesson plan for his or her own classroom then “double dip” and make even more revenue on it?

And what about teachers who keep the lesson plans they write for their classrooms and the ones they write on a freelance basis separate? Shouldn’t these teachers be able to do both things, as long as their primary teaching job does not suffer?

This is an area where it seems like teachers are expected to live up to an impossibly higher standard than other professions. By common cultural standards, any lucrative activity outside classroom hours is deemed a distraction to the purpose of teaching children. How, though, is making a little extra cash and therefore being a little more satisfied with a teaching salary really that bad? Why does it bother so many people, inside and outside the teaching industry, when teachers find a way to get ahead?

What is your take? Do you buy or sell lesson plans – or do you find either ethically wrong?

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

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform February 11, 2016

3 Learning Problems Bigger Than Teacher Prep

Last week seven U.S. states announced intentions to revamp teacher-preparation and licensing requirements that essentially make it tougher to become and remain a teacher. Some of the new requirements include steeper admission requirements for teacher-training programs and licensing based on performance of a specific set of skills. The plan is intended to make for better teachers, and ultimately better students over time, but stricter teacher requirements will not necessarily lead to higher-achieving students.

There are still too many outside forces with which everyday teachers contend that make it difficult for them to be as effective as legislation and policy-makers would like. Training and education for teachers is not the problem; here are three issues in K-12 education that have a larger negative impact on overall learning for students:

Lack of parental involvement. Of all the things out of the control of teachers, this one is perhaps the most frustrating. Time spent in the classroom is simply not enough for teachers to instruct every student in what he or she needs to know. There must be some interaction outside school hours too. Of course, students at a socio-economic disadvantage often struggle in school, particularly if parents lack higher levels of education. Students from middle and upper class families aren’t off the hook though. The demands of careers and an over-dependence on schools put higher-class kids at risk too when it comes to the lack of parental involvement in academics.

Overcrowding. The smaller the class, the better the individual student experience. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 14 percent of U.S. schools exceed capacity, but that does not include individual classrooms at schools that may not be overcrowded overall. At a time where children need more attention than ever to succeed, overcrowded classrooms are making it even tougher to learn and tougher still for teachers to be effective.

Screen culture. I am an advocate for technology in the classroom. I think that by ignoring the educational opportunities that technology has afforded us puts kids at a disadvantage. That being said, screen culture overall has made the jobs of teachers much more difficult. Education has become synonymous with entertainment in many ways. Parents are quick to download educational games as soon as kids have the dexterity to operate a touch screen, and with the best of intentions. The quick-hit way that children are learning academics before and during their K-12 careers makes it even more difficult for teachers to keep up in the classroom setting, particularly since each student’s knowledge base and technological savvy varies.

I’m not saying that stricter teacher requirements are a bad thing – I’m just not sure that is where all the focus should be. What about a program that targets parental and community involvement in what kids are learning? Maybe even a seminar for parents on tangible ways to get more involved academically in what their kids do at school? There is no way to make parents attend these but perhaps there could be an incentive. With the right funding, I’m sure schools could find a way.

Instead of making it harder to become a teacher, why not spend money on making classroom size smaller and more manageable when those teachers start their careers? Or on technology programs and training that give teachers an advantage when it comes to educational gaming?

This pilot teacher-prep program seems like just another way to blame teachers for what they cannot control. More education can’t hurt, but there are so many other issues that deserve this spotlight instead.

What do you think about stricter teacher-prep laws?

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers February 10, 2016

How to Build, and Keep, the Best Teaching Staff

By Matthew Lynch

In order for school reform in the U.S. to be successful, we must recruit, train, retrain, and fairly compensate teachers. School districts continuously engage in the complementary processes of recruiting and retaining teachers. The strain on school budgets impacts the ability of school districts to hire and sometimes to retain high quality teachers. There are steps that every school and district can take, however, to strengthen its staff no matter what the financial situation. But first, a look at patterns that impact the staffing of teachers.

Teacher Entry, Mobility, and Attrition

The highest proportion of new teachers in any given year is female, with White women accounting for higher numbers than women in ethnic minority groups. There is evidence, however, that in the early 1990s the number of new minority educators increased. No matter what their gender or ethnicity, teachers show a similar trend in high turnover and drop-out rates, both in their early years of teaching and when nearing retirement, producing a pattern related to age or experience.

Higher attrition rates have been noted in Whites and females in the fields of science and mathematics, and in those who have higher measured academic ability. Location of teaching position also impacts mobility and attrition rates. Most studies show that suburban and rural school districts have lower attrition rates than urban districts. Public schools, on average, actually have higher teacher retention rates than private schools. Not surprisingly, higher salaries are associated with lower teacher attrition, while dissatisfaction with salary is associated with higher attrition and a waning commitment to teaching.

Compensation and Working Conditions Impact Retention

Entry, mobility, and attrition patterns discussed above indicate that teachers are looking for increased salaries, greater rewards, and improved working conditions. Educators tend to transfer to teaching or even non-teaching positions that meet desired criteria. Higher compensation results in lower attrition. These findings suggest teacher recruitment and retention is dependent on the desirability of the teaching profession in relation to other opportunities. The inherent appeal of teaching depends on “total compensation” which compares the total reward from teaching, both extrinsic and intrinsic, with possible rewards determined through other activities.

Schools with high percentages of minority students and urban schools are harder to staff, and teachers tend to leave these schools when more attractive opportunities become available. Certain factors, which can apparently be influenced by policy change, may affect individuals’ decisions to enter teaching, as well as teachers’ decisions to transfer within or leave the profession.

Lower turnover rates among beginning teachers are found in schools with induction and mentoring programs, and particularly those related to collegial support. Teachers given greater autonomy and administrative support show lower rates of attrition and migration. Better working conditions, intrinsic rewards, and higher salaries remain the most compelling elements of concern to teachers. The traditional system, whereby teachers are paid based solely on their years of experience and level of education, has caused many critics to claim that it does not promote good teaching, or is not as fair as other systems that pay based on performance, ability in certain skills, or willingness to teach in areas of high need.

Proponents of the traditional system argue that teachers’ experience and education are crucial indicators of their performance, and that because of its open and fair assessment it is the only logical choice. To reach an optimum balance, educators and policymakers have created numerous methods for revising how teachers are compensated, each seeking to adjust teacher incentives differently.

As the scientific evidence on these methods’ effectiveness is extremely limited, it is difficult to choose among them. Historically, implementing any pay reform, let alone directing a critical study of one, can be a demanding issue. A number of ambitious and interesting reforms have folded, often within a few years, under opposing political pressure or from fiscal restrictions. Attempts to study the few surviving reforms have yielded little usable data to date.

Establishing Pre-service and In-Service Teacher Policies

Literature on the influence of preservice policies on teacher recruitment and retention are limited, however there are two important points that should command attention of school districts. One of the recommendations of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future in its report, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future was that teachers be licensed based on demonstration of knowledge and skills.

This edict led states and teacher education programs to require teachers to pass a battery of tests before they exited teacher education programs and/or before they were licensed by states. These actions resulted in a reduction of the number of minority students entering and completing teacher education programs. Therefore school districts seeking more diverse teaching staffs will see a limited number of minority candidates available for recruitment.

A second pre-service teacher policy to which districts should attend is the difference between candidates completing traditional teacher education programs and those completing alternative route programs. Teacher candidates completing alternative route teacher education programs tend to be older and more diverse. Further, they tend to have higher retention rates than candidates completing traditional programs. Recruiting teacher candidates from these programs could address both the needs for more diverse teaching staffs and the desire to retain good teachers.

Districts wanting to retain their best teachers should strongly consider what matters to teachers who remain in their teaching positions. Mentoring and induction programs tend to matter to inservice teaches, as does class size, autonomy, and administrative support. It is also interesting to note that state accountability practices also impact teachers’ decisions to remain in their positions.

Financial circumstances notwithstanding, districts have control over some of these issues. They should consider publicizing situations favorable to inservice teachers, as a tool for both recruitment and retention. As districts develop their reform agenda, they should put at the forefront a vision for the type of teaching force needed to support their plans for reform, and use empirical studies as a guide to recruit and retain teachers.