put kids first

Examining the Impact of Culture on Academic Performance

A person’s culture and upbringing has a profound effect on how they see the world and how they process information. This fact was discussed by Richard Nisbett in his work, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently — and why Nisbett worked with psychologists in Japan and China and determined that the holistic way of viewing the world typical of many students from those countries differed from that of their American counterparts, who tended to view the world in parts or distinct classes of objects that could each be defined by a set of rules.

In other words, the Asian children see the world in terms of the relationship between things, whereas the American children see the world in terms of the objects as distinct entities. This information is helpful when we consider how cultural background might influence approach to both learning and school performance. There are a number of theories that seek to explain differences in school performance among different racial and ethnic groups. Three theories particularly stand out: the cultural deficit theory, the expectation theory, and the cultural difference theory.

The cultural deficit theory states that some students do poorly in school because the linguistic, social, and cultural nature of the home environment does not prepare them for the work they will be required to do in school. As an example, some students may not have as many books read to them as children in other homes. Not being able to read has a negative influence on their vocabulary development. Vocabulary development may also be stifled by the amount and nature of verbal interaction in the home. As a result, some children arrive at school lacking the level of vocabulary development expected. The cultural deficit theory proposes that deficiencies in the home environment result in shortcomings in skills, knowledge, and behaviors that contribute to poor school performance.

The expectation theory focuses on how teachers treat students. Teachers often expect less from students of certain racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. When teachers expect students to perform poorly, they approach teaching in ways that align with their low levels of expectations. In these instances, students tend to perform at the low levels expected of them by teachers.

Rosenthal and Jacobson tested this theory in their Pygmalion effect study. A group of teachers were told that their students were due for an intellectual growth spurt during the school year. Even though the students were average in terms of academic performance, the teachers interacted with them based on this expectation. All students in the experimental group improved both academically and socially by the end of the year. Based on the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy, students who experience high expectations seek to reach the level of expected behaviors. Correspondingly, students who experience low expectations act to meet the level of behavior expected of them.

The cultural difference theory is based on the idea that students who are raised in different cultural settings may approach education and learning in different ways. It is important for teachers to be aware of the differences between the school atmosphere and the home environment. People from different cultural traditions may have an approach to education that differs from the mainstream approach used in American schools. For instance, differences can be noted in the Polynesian concept of learning, whereby younger children are generally taught by older children rather than by adults. This is a very different approach to learning and one that may need to be considered in an American school that is attended by Polynesian students.

Teachers need to ensure that they incorporate methods of teaching in their classrooms that accommodate various beliefs and cultural notions students bring to school. This requires each teacher to develop an understanding of their student’s culture, but also to know who their students are as individuals. It is important for teachers to ensure that they treat all students the same and to have high expectations for each one, so that they may all strive to reach their full potential.

Can Superstar Teachers Save Failing Schools?

By Matthew Lynch

An interesting phenomenon in many public, private and charter schools is the adoption of accountability standards that read more like a white paper on business efficiency than suggestions for actually teaching human beings. The problem with these standards, of course, is that with stringent, subjective targets for learning, schools are able to “game” the system to make it work in their favor. In other words, these schools are looking for ways to meet a specific, narrow goal – think of it like a salesperson closing a deal – and then they are rewarded for that piece of shallow success.

The flip side of this is that the schools that do not manage to meet these standards are then punished, in true NCLB style, even if the details of their teaching methods actually have some merit. Teachers and administrators at schools that are deemed “failures” or even just mediocre by the established system then must bow to the pressure in order to stay relevant and away from the target range when it comes to adding “competitive” school choices.  This is the most unattractive face of school reform.

Whose fault is it?

So, are the teachers to blame?  I think it is unfair to count on, or to blame, teachers solely for the performance of their students. Yes, they play a role in shaping the young minds in their classrooms and yes, they should be held accountable for that. It seems to me that the root of issues in classrooms that tend to cause the most problems for students (like poverty and ill-equipped or uninvolved parents) should be the target of any true reform. Teachers come and go, moving from school to school or on to different careers. Strong programs that address equality in education and focus on social issues at the root of learning challenges are what will truly make an impact on what students learn and retain, and whether those students succeed.

But what about the “superstar teachers”?  You are probably familiar with the concept, particularly since it is perpetuated in popular culture through movies like the classic Edward James Olmos film “Stand and Deliver” and 2012’s “Won’t Back Down.” The idea is that with the right teacher – a committed, bright, in-tune, talented teacher – P-12 problems like the achievement gap and high dropout rates will cease to exist. If only every student had a standout teacher like the ones portrayed in these shows, the very P-12 system as we know it would be transformed for the better.

I do believe in the power of teachers, both positive and negative, on their students. I train educators for a living and have written books about following “the calling” to become a teacher. I do think that teachers make a difference – but I cannot put all of my faith in these “superstar teachers” to reform the education system the way that is truly needed.

For one thing, the schools that desperately need some sort of superstar saviors are often unable to attract them. In a study on urban schools and poverty released by the National Center for Education Statistics, urban administrators said that they had difficulty attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. This observation, coupled with the fact that schools with higher percentages of students living in poverty had less resources available for teaching, is a recipe for disaster when it comes to counting on these “superstars” to close the achievement gap, lift standardized test scores and increase graduation rates. These urban schools are the very places that need all of those factors to happen to improve student achievement and the long-term overall quality of life in those communities. So if the answer falls solely on strong teachers, these places are in a lot of trouble.

What do you think?  Are teachers the answer to fixing the problem with many of the attempts at school reform, or does the problem run much deeper?

 

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

Why more K-12 schools should teach the Arabic language

By Kelly Doffing

From improving memory to increasing global understanding, the benefits of learning a foreign language are abundant. As globalization continues and we progress toward a more connected global community, the importance of learning a second language is not only beneficial, but also essential. The U.S. Census reports that only 21 percent of Americans speak a language other than English (at home), yet 75 percent of the world’s population does not have a basic understanding of English.

It is imperative that students be given the opportunity to study a second language in order to ensure that the next generation is equipped to be global citizens who are able to cross geographic and cultural boundaries to solve global problems.

Why we need more Arabic in K-12 classrooms

According to Ethnologue.com, Arabic is the fifth most spoken language in the world and, despite a growing importance of the Middle East in international affairs, there is a shortage of qualified Arabic-language educators in the United States. So, what are schools in the United States doing to further the study and teaching of Arabic?

Qatar Foundation International (QFI) is a U.S.-based not-for-profit dedicated to connecting cultures and advancing global citizenship through education. QFI conducted a survey of school administrators of Arabic-language programs to look at the various challenges, benefits, and logistics of offering Arabic. Between December 2012 and October 2013, the Arabic Language and Culture Program of Qatar Foundation International conducted a phone survey of 201 U.S. K-12 public and public charter schools that teach Arabic. Of the 106 responses, 84 schools self reported that they currently offer Arabic classes.

The survey revealed three key takeaways for current Arabic-language programs as well as for schools considering the implementation of such programs:

  • The teacher is critical for the success of the Arabic program. Schools rely on teachers to recruit students to learn Arabic and to conduct outreach events. Schools cited finding a quality teacher and recruiting and retaining students as two of the biggest challenges for offering Arabic. Consequently, twenty-four percent of schools that discontinued their Arabic programs did so because the teacher left or retired. One schools administrator advised, “Getting the correct teacher is the most important aspect [of the Arabic program]; you can do many things like market the program or recruit, but if you don’t have a solid teacher, the program will die.” The field of K-12 Arabic needs more highly trained, certified teachers who are passionate about working with children. Programs such as Teacher Fellowships to fund Arabic teacher study and certification, grants to current teachers for classroom needs and professional development, awards to celebrate excellence, and partnerships with leaders in foreign language education can all serve to increase the number and quality of qualified K-12 Arabic teachers, provide ongoing teacher training to those teachers already in the profession, and support classroom needs and innovation.
  • There is an urgent need for high-quality curricula, resources, and materials appropriate for use at the K-12 level. Many current textbooks are intended for university, private, or international students and do not meet national or state standards. Administrators noted that schools offering Arabic are “on the cutting edge,” so teachers have to learn to develop their own curricula. Most teachers develop their curricula by combining material from different textbooks, online resources, other teachers, and their own self-developed materials. The dissemination of standards-based curricula through teacher-to-teacher sharing websites, such as the QFI-supported Al-Masdar, can help Arabic teachers to identify effective student engagement techniques and ensure quality content.
  •  Getting buy-in from the community and administration is essential. The survey found that 68 percent of Arabic programs are less than five years old. Without local support, Arabic programs cannot get off the ground or become sustainable. Schools that are looking to start programs must first engage with local communities and communicate with parents, encourage students, and gain acceptance from the stakeholders. Schools choose to offer Arabic language for students’ benefit, pointing to the fact that the U.S. government has identified Arabic as a critical language of strategic value. Administrators say that their Arabic programs aim to increase cultural understanding and open up opportunities for students. For these schools, there are resources available – including videos such as “The Benefits of Learning Arabic,” which consists of interviews with multiple administrators, teachers, and students to show how learning Arabic benefits students and the global community.

The survey revealed that the number of Arabic programs has dramatically increased over the past 15 years. School administrators reported that as a result of their Arabic programs, students demonstrated increased global understanding and excitement for the language. Many administrators commented on the opportunities the program opened up for students, the school, and the community. One administrator noted, “It is a feather in our cap to have an Arabic program, especially since we are the only high school in the district to offer the language.” Another remarked that the most rewarding aspect of their Arabic program was, “to see kids who would have not normally pursued something different because… it’s from a different part of the world. Then they explore it and get excited by the language and learn about the similarities and universal truths that they share with Arabs.”

For more information – such as what administrators noted as the most rewarding aspects of Arabic programs and advice from administrators about Arabic-language programs – read QFI’s full report.

___________________

Kelly Doffing is a Program Officer with the Arabic Language and Culture Program at Qatar Foundation International. She holds a Master’s degree in Arabic from the University of Maryland, College Park and completed the Graduate Arabic Flagship Program. She has worked as an Arabic teacher, administrator, and translator in the United States and Egypt. Her interests include expanding opportunities for Arabic learning and improving the quality of Arabic language instruction.

 

Is STEM education working, especially for women?

By Barbara Mader

STEM education remains in the spotlight 25 years after the term first emerged. Coined in the 1990s by the National Science Foundation, the acronym is applied to any curricula, event, policy or education program addressing Science, Technology, Engineering or Math. Most often it references Science and Math, but all four areas have become hot topics in the general education of K-12 students. The emphasis carries through to higher education and beyond, seeking to prepare young adults to assume 21st century worthy jobs. Anticipated areas of need include employees who are interactive as problem solvers, researchers, designers, and engineers.

The shortfall of current industry STEM prepared workers and anticipated workers needed over the next ten years can be compared to the 1950s and 60s shortfall of scientists in the space race era. The United States is losing ground in STEM expertise internally and globally for both workforce development and academia while other countries are ramping up efforts to produce scientists and engineers. Predictions put Asian engineering design and innovation surpassing American outputs in just a few years. STEM job growth is predicted to increase by 10% over the next decade, compared to a 4% increase in non-STEM industries. STEM prepared industry employees currently earn at least a $9.55/hr. higher than other industry counterparts

The National Girls Collaborative Project is an organization committed to spreading the word and encouraging girl to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. Its goals include promoting the sharing of resources for maximum expansion of female inclusion in each group’s  projects; strengthening the outcome of current projects by sharing exemplary practice research practices; and using the leverage of a network of like-minded organizations to create a gender equity in STEM.

Of particular emphasis through 2016 is strengthening, reaching, and serving underrepresented female populations in STEM. Examples of practices include maximizing access to and use of relevant, high quality resources that can raise awareness of and break down access barriers for females interested in STEM courses and careers, and provide collaborative opportunities for teachers to enable sustained development of improved practices. Targeted methodologies include webinars, websites, professional development opportunities, and mini-grants.  To date, 39 states have participated in Collaboratives affecting over 8 million girls, and 4.5 million boys.

Despite proactive programs and opportunities for female students to engage in STEM forward learning, results show gender inequity in several course paths. While males and females show similar interest in math and science, males are three times more likely to pursue STEM careers. Females tended to pursue “softer” sciences such as biology; males tended to pursue physics and engineering, typically thought of as more male gender appropriate.

The disparity really begins to emerge at the higher education level. Women earn 57% of all Bachelor degrees but only 50% in science and engineering. Men earn over 80% of the degrees in engineering, computer science and physics, while women earn only 18-19% in the same fields. Women tend to earn their degrees, once again, in the “softer” science areas of psychology, social sciences, and biological sciences. Under-represented populations of women make up 16% of the degree earning population but receive only 3-5% of Bachelor degrees in engineering, computer sciences, and physical sciences.

Female populations, therefore, continue with inequitable representation in the workforce. Women make up 47% of the general workforce in the US, but hold only 2% of the Science and Engineering jobs. Minority women hold less than 10% of the 2% of these jobs. Female science careers cluster in social sciences, and biological and medical areas (about 50%) but average much less than 25% in computer and mathematical sciences, and engineering.

The glass ceiling has not been broken for STEM careers. Although these areas of gender inequity have been studied and discussed for over two decades, and presidents and the Federal policy makers have declared initiatives and policies aiming at leveling the gender field, little actual progress is reflected in real world applications.

Legal issues addressing job discriminating practices move slowly despite top down policies, initiatives, and business incentives, all theoretically unnecessary in a gender equal society. Career-life balance issues recently addressed by first Lady Michelle Obama and the National Science Foundation are beginning to place more information in the public eye but rate of change is unpredictable.

 

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

____

Barbara Mader is a retired teacher certified in special education, speech therapy, and as a Wilson Language Instructor. She taught special needs students in three states for over thirty years. She now tutors, blogs, edits, writes in eight categories for Examiner.com, and is developing a line of all natural non-chemical skin care products. As a hopeful novelist seeking an agent for her first romance adventure she wove together her love of gardening, ancient history, a little magic, and fairies. You can follow her online journalism work at http://www.examiner.com/user-bmader and her somewhat irreverent blog at http://barb-says.blogspot.com.

Ask An Expert: Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools

Question: I recently moved from New Jersey to a small town in Louisiana. To my amazement and horror, my children’s elementary school still uses corporal punishment. Fortunately, it is an opt in system, but if parents do not consent to its use, their children are automatically suspended, whether it is in school or at home. What does research say about the effects of corporal punishment? What can we do to end this deplorable practice? Marcia E.

Answer: First of all, thank you for your question. It’s difficult to believe in this day and age that we still have some schools around the nation that are using corporal punishment as a form of discipline. At this point, there are only 19 states that now allow corporal punishment, which is allowing the school to use physical punishment on a child. Such punishment usually includes a spanking of some kind, typically done with a wooden paddle. Although not allowed in the majority of states, it is reported that there are over 200,000 children who are victims of it each year around the country. It’s difficult to imagine that so many children are going home throughout the school year with welts, bruises, and broken vessels, as punishment for something they did in school.

Spankings themselves, as well as corporal punishment, are controversial topics at best. There is a lot of evidence and research that has pointed to the fact that spanking as a form of punishment, at any age, can be problematic. We as a society need to be aware of this research, especially when it comes to it still being allowed in the schools of 19 of our states. Here’s some of the most troubling aspects of corporal punishment in schools:

• Research indicates that children who are disciplined with spanking go on to have more mental illness as adults. Spanking has been linked to children becoming adults who not only have mental health issues, but also experience more depression, and have problems with substance abuse.
• Spanking children is also believed to make them become adults who are more aggressive, antisocial, and who go on to abuse their own spouse and children.
• As a nation, we are concerned with our high school drop out rates. This makes me wonder how many adults would want to continue showing up at their jobs if they knew they would be paddled if they didn’t perform their jobs correctly. Perhaps if students were not being paddled, they may hang in there a while longer and take to their studies a little better.

Corporal punishment may be under attack, but until we outlaw it from every state in the country, we will have the problems associated with it each year. And those problems, as we have discussed, are far reaching and long lasting. They impact us as a society long after the child has completed their schooling.

While the Supreme Court allows corporal punishment in whatever states and school districts have it legally on the books, this is a matter of ethics. We as a nation need to do what is right by the next generation. By the looks of it, if corporal punishment continues in the 19 states it is currently allowed in, we will be raising a lot of children who may go on to have mental illnesses, be more aggressive, abuse their spouses, and have addiction problems.

Once they are adults, society can point the finger at them and say that it’s their own fault, and they have created the problems in their life by the choices they have made. But if we can agree that the writing is on the wall, and the potential long term impact is there, then we may need to start pointing a few fingers at the schools, as they are using a form of punishment that experts agree goes on to create more unwanted behavior.

Now is the time for parents around the nation, especially those who live in states where corporal punishment is still allowed, to take a stand. It’s time that we focus on more peaceful and less harmful ways to teach the children of the nation right from wrong. Getting rid of the paddles in the schools of this nation is a great place to start.

 

3 Stories That Reveal How Important Arts Education Really Is

The arts have always had a secondary place in K-12 learning. If you doubt that statement, think of the first programs to go whenever budget cuts are implemented – music, fine arts and even physical fitness which includes dance. I’ve yet to hear of a school board or administrators discussing the way cutting math programs could help the school’s bottom line. There is a hierarchy of academics in America, and arts education tends to fall pretty low on the totem pole.

Let’s look at three notable events that show the state of arts education in America and what that reveals about our society.

  1. New York City schools lack arts education—and low-income students suffer the most.

A report from the New York City comptroller finds that many public schools offer no arts programs, and that low-income and minority students are hurt the most by it. The report is written based on data from the U.S. Department of Education that finds 20 percent of New York’s public schools have NO arts teachers. This includes one in seven middle and high schools, despite that fact that arts instruction at that level is a state requirement.

The biggest areas hit by the lack of arts teachers? Central Brooklyn and the South Bronx. In those schools, more than 42 percent have no state-certified arts instructors. Between 2006 and 2013, spending on arts equipment and other supplies dropped a whopping 84 percent, perhaps due to pressure to meet higher accountability standards in basic subjects.

At any rate, the lack of arts education in NYC schools is indicative of a larger cultural issue that undercuts arts education for the sake of higher test scores.

  1. The First Lady wants to make arts education a priority.

An estimated 6 million children have no access to arts education, and another 6 million have a “minimal” exposure, First Lady Michelle Obama said.

The First Lady Michelle Obama joined the stage with middle- and high-schoolers who performed in the first ever White House Talent Show, created to celebrate the importance of the arts in American education. At the opening of the show, the First Lady emphasized the need for arts programs to be a part of all school curriculum, and not something that comes secondary to other academic pursuits like reading, math and science.

“Arts education isn’t something we add on after we’ve achieved other priorities, like raising test scores and getting kids into college,” said the First Lady. “It’s actually critical for achieving those priorities in the first place.”

The Talent Show celebration comes two years after President Obama introduced the Turnaround Arts program in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education. The goal of the program is to see if strong arts programs aid in other strong student academic outcomes. In the original eight schools where the program has been implemented, reading and math scores have improved, and so has behavior. Two of the schools have shown so much progress that they are no longer considered in need of a “turnaround.” In each case, big-name artists or performers like Alfre Woodard and Sarah Jessica Parker have adopted the turnaround schools and provided guidance in the programming.

At the show, the First Lady announced that the program will expand to 35 schools in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

  1. Some districts have adopted arts integration as a creative solution.

Sometimes schools cannot afford to implement arts departments in their schools. Some districts have instead integrated the arts in their existing curricula. Instead of treating the arts like a separate, distant relative to other classroom endeavors, these programs integrate musical instruments, painting, dancing, drawing, singing and more into traditional subjects like science, math and language. When implemented correctly, these programs are enthusiastically received by students who learn comprehensively.

Take a look at the West Michigan Academy of Arts & Academics in Ferrysburg, Michigan. The charter school has found ways to make stale topics like economics interesting through dance, music and visual art learning components. WMAAA may appear to be a “fun” learning environment, but its arts integration actually has legitimate outcomes. The test scores of WMAAA students rival the highest-rated traditional public schools in its district and in neighboring ones too. By allowing students to be active, instead of burying them in text books or regular written assignments alone, learning moves from a place of isolation to one that has other applications beyond the topic at hand.

Public Middle School 223 in the Bronx is another example of a school using arts integration methods effectively. Students in the school – the lowest income district in all of New York – participated in a four-year arts integration program that took students from basically no arts learning to multi-faceted lesson plans with arts inclusion. The results? An 8 percent improvement in Language Arts scores, 9 percent improvement in math scores and less absenteeism. Whether the last point impacted the higher scores is irrelevant. If students want to be in school more because of arts integration, and their test scores improve as a result, that is reason enough to call a program a success.

Even when schools do not have the money to support an official arts integration program, teachers can make arts integration a reality on their own. Teachers do not need to be artistic to successfully use arts integration – they simply need to be innovative enough to merge art concepts with other content. Social media is an amazing platform for teaching ideas, particularly when it comes to the arts, and teachers should take advantage of these available resources from around the world to integrate arts and traditional academics.

As results range from increased engagement in schools to better test scores, one thing is clear from all this: arts education should be made a priority in U.S. schools.

 

Year-Round Schooling: Why it’s Time to Change

When public schools first started popping up in the U.S., they were considered secondary to other hands-on pursuits. Learning to read, write and perform basic arithmetic in classrooms was not equal to or greater than the actual work of building the nation and keeping up family farms.

Even when a basic public school education became a relative priority, the school calendar revolved around agriculture – a necessity of the American way of life. Three months off in the summer months was not mandated because students needed “down time” or free creative play or time to decompress from the pressures of their studies. Those months off were full of even more work, and little free time, and plenty of hard work for the sake of the family and the nation.

Though family farms as a whole have become an antiquated piece of American history, the idea of summers off from school is still alive and well. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research finds that the average American student receives 13 weeks off of school each calendar year – with 10 or 11 of those coming consecutively during June, July and August (approximately) – while barely any other countries have more than seven weeks off in a school calendar. Around 10 percent of U.S. schools have transitioned to a year-round school calendar with shorter breaks inserted throughout the year but the majority of schools in the U.S. still follow a summers-off schedule.

But why? There is no perilous economic reason that keeping children in school during the summer would be detrimental, and there is no medical reason that three consecutive months during the center of the calendar year are necessary for the healthy development of children. The reason the school year remains in a summers-off state is simple: it is easier than changing it. That mentality begins with teachers in the classroom and escalates to educational policymakers. Changing the ways things have always been, even if there is some pretty solid evidence that it would improve things, is too cumbersome – so why bother?

Why Teachers Don’t Want Year-Round Schooling

One of the first issues educators raise when the idea of year-round schooling arises is getting rid of summers off. Theoretically if nothing about the school calendar changed except the timing of the days off, teachers and administrators would still have the same amount of time off but it would be spread out over 12 months more evenly. Most educators will admit that they enjoy having at least three consecutive months each year to themselves, without the demands of being around children for seven hours every day and spending their evenings deep in grading or lesson planning. Many teachers take advantage of the time off to seek out other avenues of employment, to supplement their annual incomes. It’s doubtful that these teachers would be able to find the same level of employment during one or two week breaks scattered throughout the year, and it’s hard to say if those shorter spurts would allow enough time to for the mental decompression teachers need to perform their important jobs to the best of their abilities.

I believe that the benefit to teachers of year-round schooling would far outweigh these inconveniences, though. The pressure to have high-performing students is the bane of every teacher’s existence and research shows that too much time off from the school routine can actually undo the hard work teachers put in to their students. In fact, many teachers report that the first two to three months of each school year are spent teaching remedial skills from the previous grade – wasting even more of the time that should go into original learning.

What do you say teachers? Are your misgivings about year-round school based on personal reasons, or out of concern for your students?

photo credit: Old Shoe Woman via photopin cc

5 States That Have Had Issues with Common Core

Developed by state governors, Common Core Standards are about creating a baseline of knowledge and skills that translates across all states in the nation. One way that equity of education can be assured is through federally-encouraged programs like Common Core Standards.

Despite its noble and auspicious goal, Common Core has drawn criticism throughout the country for various reasons, angering parents, educators, and politicians nationwide. Here are just a few of the many states that have struggled with the Common Core standards:

  1. Indiana

Indiana was the first state to walk away from Common Core requirements.

In a statement, Gov. Pence said that he believed the students in the state were best served through standards developed at a state or local level. Common Core was developed by the National Governors Association and Indiana adopted the standards in 2010 under then-governor Tony Bennett, also a Republican.

This move drove a few teachers to come out publicly against the change.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, math teacher Joel Gramelspacher called Gov. Pence’s move “slapdash” and said that the quick turnaround for new standards would cause anxiety in teachers and would not serve students well. As teachers spent the past few years redrafting lesson plans and adapting their own mindsets to the new standards, and dropping Common Core meant that they had to change course, and quickly.

  1. Louisiana

Louisiana’s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, who helped develop the PARCC tests, has spoken out publicly against the tests and Common Core standards in general.

“We support higher standards and rigor in the classroom, but every day, concern among parents is growing over Common Core,” Jindal stated.

Jindal’s attempts to drop Common Core requirements in Louisiana have not gone smoothly. He has battled with the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), which wanted to keep the standards. In response, Jindal reduced the spending threshold on a variety of school supply necessities, including computers. The BESE voted to hire outside lawyers to sort out the mess that is Common Core versus state-created standards and assessments.

Those are not the only battles Jindal has fought against Common Core proponents. He has also been sued. A black education group, the Black Alliance for Education (BAEO), funded parents and teachers in a lawsuit against Jindal. The BAEO supported the standards and believed all children deserved access to high-quality education.

Another group sued Jindal, citing that he lacked the authority to withdraw his state from the Common Core national academic standards.

Stephen H. Kupperman, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs said, “We think the governor has overstepped his bounds and doesn’t have any right to do this. We don’t want to hold the children of the state hostage to somebody’s ambitions.”

  1. Oklahoma

Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill to repeal the Common Core education standards in 2014, ridding Oklahoma schools of the new math and English guidelines that were set to go into effect the coming school year.

The bill was passed in the House and Senate the final day of the 2014 session and required the state to return to previous standards that were used prior to 2010 and encourages new ones to be developed by 2016.

The Common Core standards were adopted in 2010 in Oklahoma and also adopted by over 40 states, but the concern was that the standards represent a federal takeover of education. Gov. Fallin worked hard to mollify these concerns back in December — even signing an executive order that states Oklahoma will be responsible for deciding how to implement the standards – but opposition continued to grow.

The business community actually supports more rigorous standards with the intent to better prepare students for life after high school in college or the workforce.

The Oklahoma Academic Standards, which are aligned with Common Core standards in math and English, were to be reflected in tests administered to students’ during the next school year.  State education officials say that over 60 percent of the school districts in the state have already aligned the curriculum with the new standards.

  1. California

Some parent groups in California have urged schools to keep the old key elements of math in place instead of adhering to the new Common Core method of teaching the subject.

Parents rebelled out of fear that their children would not get to take calculus, a subject they believe is key in competition for college admission.

Math educators who back the new Common Core standards insist they provide a needed grounding in math concepts compared with the approach of old math that has led to U.S. students’ poor performance in global math tests and the countrywide phobia of the subject. Common Core organizes math topics into related groups, similar to math teachers in high-performing countries. It focuses on problem-solving skill, not memorization.

Those who back the new standards warn against dividing students into different tracks in middle school.

But many high-performing districts retain the fast pace of old math instruction while adopting the new standards. Saratoga, Cupertino, Pleasanton, and Palo Alto schools pride themselves on high test scores, but maintain some accelerated math tracks in middle school. Those paths put students on track to take calculus in high school.

  1. Tennessee

Two Republican senators filed legislation to repeal common core in Tennessee and create a new panel to recommend different standards for public schools.

The new standards, which have phased into Tennessee classrooms for the past four years, must be in place when K-12 public students enter schools in the 2016-17 school year.

The move to repeal Common Core is designed to guarantee Tennessee students continue to learn and improve by applying the highest standards and wielding state control over education.

The bill cancels the current memorandum of understanding with the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers or Common Core standards for English, Language Arts and Math. Both groups were involved in the push for Common Core standards.

In 2014, Common Core critics demanded a delay in the state’s testing based on the new standards after conservative grounds charged Common Core was the work of President Obama and amounted to a federal effort to take over education.

The standards were developed and underway long before Obama became president, but the administration embraced the standards intended to put states on the same page with respect to what students should know in English and math.

Inequality of resources and opportunities for American K-12 children runs rampant and affects every member of society. When children are not given basic access to the same education as their peers, the country cannot progress the way it should.  This was what Common Core was meant to address. But are these standards really the best way to create a better standard of education in the U.S.?

The Five Attributes of Successful Schools

Students across the globe need effective schools. While the American school system as a whole may be falling behind international standards, there are still some schools that stand out.

Sure, the context of schooling will impact attributes that contribute to effectiveness in specific schools. But at the same time, there are attributes that contribute to effectiveness across schooling contexts. If we understand the attributes of effectiveness, we can observe which attributes exist at successful schools.

There are five common attributes that make up an effective school.

  1. Leadership

The first attribute is quality leadership. Students perform better when the principal and school board members provide strong leadership. Effective leaders are visible, can successfully convey the school’s goals and visions, collaborate with teachers to enhance their skills, and are involved in the discovery of and solutions to problems.

  1. High Expectations

The second attribute is having high expectations of students as well as teachers. High expectations of students have repeatedly been shown to have a positive impact on student performance. Students are somewhat dependent on the expectations placed on them during this period of their lives, as they are still shaping their personal sense of ability and esteem. Teachers who are expected to teach at high levels of effectiveness can reach the level of expectations, particularly when teacher evaluations and professional development are geared toward improving instructional quality.

  1. Ongoing Evaluation

The third attribute of a successful school is the ongoing screening of student performance and development. Schools should use assessment data to compare their students with others from across the country. Effective use of assessment data allows schools to identify problematic areas of learning at the classroom and school levels, so that teachers can generate solutions to address the problems.

  1. Goals and Direction

The fourth attribute of a successful school is the existence of goals and direction, According to research, the successful school principal actively constructs goals and then effectively communicates them to appropriate individuals (e.g., students, teachers, and the community at large). School principals must also be open and willing to incorporate innovation into goals for school processes and practices. So it’s important to invite input from all stakeholders in the process of developing school goals. Student performance has been shown to improve in schools where the entire school community works toward goals that are communicated and shared among all in the learning environment.

  1. Secure and Organized

The fifth and final attribute of a successful school is the extent to which the school is secure and organized. For maximum learning to occur, students need to feel secure. Respect is a quality that is promoted and is a fundamental aspect of an effective and safe school. Successful schools also have a number of trained staff and programs, such as social workers, who work with difficult or troubled students before situations get out of hand.

Apart from the five attributes of a successful school already mentioned, the size of the school seems to be an attribute in the school’s effectiveness. Research has found that the smaller the school, the better students perform, especially in the case of older students. This is the rationale behind the concept of schools-within-schools. Students in smaller learning environments feel more connected to their peers and teachers, pass classes more often, and are more likely to go to college. Schools-within-schools involve creative use of the same teaching workforce to provide additional opportunities for learning for smaller groups of students or specialized teaching to students who require extra attention.

This environment could be created in the form of divided streams for mathematics education. Students who want to pursue studies in the humanities would need a mathematical education grounded in statistics and graphical representation, because this focus will be more relevant and prevalent during their postsecondary education career.

Students who intend to pursue a career in engineering or applied physics, for example, would have completely different needs, such as a greater focus on calculus and highly theoretical mathematical concepts like number theory. Creating schools-within-schools for these students would have lasting and measurable benefits for them, as well as benefits for the teacher, who could teach smaller groups of students and offer greater individual attention to student queries and difficulties.

A number of school districts view preschool education as an attribute that will influence overall effectiveness across all schools located within the district. Evidence suggests that children with preschool experiences fare better academically and socially as they enter kindergarten and beyond. Experiences in literacy and numeracy among early learners not only prepare preschoolers for a kindergarten curriculum that has heightened expectations of prior knowledge, but also help identify early learners who need additional support to ensure they have positive learning experiences later.

Additional attributes that influence effective schools include time to learn, teacher quality, and parental trust. Research supports the view that the more time a student spends learning, and the more efficiently that time is used, the higher their achievement. Schools that find creative ways to extend learning time will likely be more effective. Furthermore, schools with high-quality teachers also tend to be more effective.

Schools able to hire teachers from high-quality teacher education programs are more likely to be effective. But school effectiveness can also be influenced by the frequency, relevancy, and quality of the teacher professional development offered by the school or school district. Teachers who haven’t had the opportunity to attend prestigious teacher education colleges still have several opportunities to develop after embarking on their professional career. Support for these initiatives at a school or school district level tends to improve overall teacher quality, regardless of their college of origin.

Trust and parental participation are also features of a successful school. Trust between all parties of the school community is vital for enhancing the school’s effectiveness because it supports the prospect that parents and teachers believe in each other’s motives and actions. Parental participation is also important because it sends the message to
students that the adults in their lives—both teachers and parents—believe
in the importance of education and are willing to make time to support
students’ educational experiences and efforts.

How well does your school embody the five attributes of a successful school?

Math Learning, Tutoring Comes Home to Families

Math concepts are difficult for students. parents and educators. Even teachers who are trained and skilled in math struggle to give a classroom of students the one-on-one attention needed for mastery. Parents are then expected to pick up that slack at home, often with little time to do it and no training in the way math concepts are taught today. The combination of difficulty (or perceived difficulty) and lack of time needed for custom math learning in the classroom and at home leads to many students getting lost in the shuffle from one concept to the next.

The statistics are telling. In the most recent round of testing performed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement, American students were outscored in math by 13 other countries, including Canada, Japan and Korea. The test showed little improvement in American student success in math from the time the first tests were implemented in 1995. Math, it seems, is still outsmarting teachers, parents and students, despite all the efforts to strengthen the math skills of the American public.

Educational technology is evolving so quickly, though, that there has to be a way to narrow these deficiencies. Recently I had a chance to try the personalized math help platform LearnBop, launched initially for teachers and now available for parents to use at home. The new LearnBop Family platform is a math-centered learning management system covers K-12 math topics, including algebra I and II and geometry. Students are given learning paths that they can tap on their own and at their own pace, providing a path for customized learning that complements what teachers are already doing in the classroom.

Screenshot 2016-06-28 13.08.03

LearnBop Family is not a question and answer platform. The material is adaptive, meaning it reacts to the actions of the students, and adjusts lesson plans. LearnBop Family helps every student with each individual problem they attempt, and then it tutors students step-by-step when a problem is incorrectly solved.

An independent study found that students who used the LearnBop platform alongside classroom instruction for an hour each week saw math growth of 40 to 66 percent higher than the average for their grade. LearnBop students also showed 7 to 9 percentage points more growth on post-assessments compared with peers not using the platform. The study also found that LearnBop was effective across gender and ethnicities, too.

That final stat is important because years of educational research tell us that students who come from advantaged backgrounds perform better academically. The reasons for that are obvious enough — parents from  middle and higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have more time to help kids learn and often have attained higher educational goals. LearnBop family levels that playing field by giving the same one-on-one, attentive treatment to students from all backgrounds, providing equality in resources for the students using it.

Screenshot 2016-06-28 13.12.56

The thing I really loved about the LearnBop concept is that the content and delivery style was developed by teachers. I’ve often thought that some learning management systems lack that realistic, human touch that goes a long way with students. If learning material is really meant to mimic a teacher, then it just makes sense that an actual teacher should be involved in the content creation process.

LearnBop Family is reasonably priced, at $15 per month or $150 per year, and with each new subscription, another one is donated to student who needs the resource but does not have the means to pay for it. I like that LearnBop recognizes that though its price point is low (individual tutoring costs $15 or more per half hour), there are still students who come from backgrounds that cannot afford it, which I think speaks volumes to the heart of the company.

Screenshot 2016-06-28 13.09.03

Math learning is difficult. One-on-one teaching is impossible in today’s classrooms. Parents want to help their kids but are often ill-equipped when it comes to math concepts. LearnBop Family faces both challenges head on with its learning management system with proven results. If you want to learn more or get your own kids started, head to the LearnBop Family website.