reflective teacher

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Testing

Students who repeat a year stoke bad behaviour in class

Clara G. Muschkin, Duke University

Students who are held back a year in school or who are older than average for their grade have long been known to be more likely to misbehave and to be suspended from school. But what’s not been clear until now is whether their presence causes ill-discipline across the school community.

In the US, accountability policies in schools have increased the number of students who are old for their grade, or have had to repeat a school year. Schools are evaluated on the basis of students’ demonstrated proficiency in certain skills, such as maths and literacy, for each grade. These policies have led to less frequent “social promotion” – where children automatically progress to the next grade regardless of their ability. Instead, there has been an increase in the proportions of children retained in grade after they fail standardised academic performance tests.

Additionally, some parents choose to hold back their children from entering kindergarten when they become eligible at age five. This trend, known as the “greying of kindergarten”, is linked to concerns about state and school accountability. There are also perceptions among parents that students who are older than their classmates have an advantage in school.

Debates on the consequences of these policies draw upon studies highlighting the effects of grade retention and older age on school attainment and behaviour of these students. But little attention has been paid to the implication on students who themselves are not at academic risk, but who must share classrooms with older and retained students.

Following the leader

Social science theories of peer influence frame questions of how older and retained peers may affect student behaviour in school. These children are more likely to get into trouble at school, in part because of the strong relationship between academic performance and behaviour.

Older students are more inclined to engage in behaviours that seem more “adult” or fitting with their physical appearance, despite a lack of social skills needed for making decisions regarding appropriate behaviour.

The older ones should know better.
Matthew Cole/Shutterstock

A stronger presence of peers who are more likely to misbehave can influence other students through the daily school climate, as well as through increased opportunities for directly interacting with at-risk students. Middle school students are particularly vulnerable to such peer influences, since early adolescence involves developmental adjustments that result in changing relationships with peers, family, and authority figures.

In a recent study, we looked at 79,314 seventh-graders in 334 North Carolina middle schools, using administrative data provided by the public schools and archived by the North Carolina Education Research Data Center at Duke University.

We compared data across schools and took into account student, school, and district-level factors that influence school behaviour. What we found was that the likelihood of a student committing an infraction, the number of infractions per student, and the likelihood of a student being suspended were all significantly higher among students attending schools with higher proportions of retained and older students.

Lowering the tone

There was increased negative behaviour across all groups of students who have higher levels of peers who have been held back a year. But this effect was stronger for students who were themselves retained. Older students share a similar vulnerability to the influence of their peers. There were stronger effects on ill-discipline on older students in classes with more older peers.

Unexpectedly, we found that students in groups that were least likely to engage in misbehaviour were the most susceptible to the potential negative peer influence of retained and older peers. This suggests that contact with older and retained peers can contribute to delinquent behaviour even if the direct contact is not very close or frequent.

These findings can help feed into longstanding debates regarding the benefits and drawbacks of grade retention and delayed school entry. They shift the focus away from the older and retained students themselves, to consider the implications for the entire school community.

For some individual students, being held back a year or delaying school entry might be the appropriate choice for their ultimate success in school. However, it is important that educators and politicians acknowledge that policies that make students repeat a year, and those that delay children starting schools, can have significant school-wide consequences.

Given consistent research evidence of the strong relationship between academic success and behaviour in school, policies that support students academically and prevent them falling back a year have the potential to benefit students who are at risk of academic failure, and can enhance positive behaviour across the entire school community.

The Conversation

Clara G. Muschkin, Director, North Carolina Education Research Data Center, Associate Director, Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University

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

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

As easy as ABC: the way to ensure children learn to read

Kerry Hempenstall, RMIT University

Human speech has long been present in every culture, and our brains have evolved specialized features to enable its rapid development when we are exposed to the speech of others. Reading however is a relatively recent skill, and we have no such dedicated reading module to guarantee success.

Fortunately, our brains are able to adapt to the task, although there is considerable variation in the assistance learners require to achieve it.

Unlocking the alphabet

Humans have produced numerous writing systems in their attempts to create a concrete form of communication, and those languages employing an alphabet have provided the most powerful means of achieving this goal.

The invention of the alphabet was one of the greatest of human achievements. It required the appreciation that the spoken word can be split into its component sound parts, and that each part can be assigned a symbol or letter.

The only other element required to have an amazingly productive writing system is for the learner to be able to identify the sound for each letter, and blend the sounds together to recreate the spoken word.

This is known as the alphabetic principle, and allows us to write any word we can say. Our written language is thus a code, and phonics is simply the key to unlocking the code.

Should we explain to our students through phonics teaching how our speech is codified into English writing? It sounds obvious that we should; indeed, that not to do so would be cruel.

Early introduction is paramount

But some believe there is a better way. English is after all a complicated language, having absorbed so many words from other languages with differing spelling patterns.

But, no, it turns out from years of research that there is a significant advantage in demonstrating from the beginning how the alphabetic principle works. This benefit is particularly evident in the 30% or so of our students who struggle with learning to read.

It also has become clear that demonstrating this principle systematically is more effective than merely sprinkling a few clues here and there as a story is read with, or to, a student.

If we do not introduce this principle early, there is a risk of students developing less productive strategies in their efforts to make sense of print.

Some of these approaches have a surface appeal because they provide a veneer of reading progress, but become self-limiting over time.

Don’t distract from the words

Despite a lack of evidence for its worth, many teachers believe that skilled reading involves making use of multiple cues in identifying words. They believe that words can be predicted (guessed), based on cues other than their structure – picture cues, meaning cues, grammar cues, and hints from the first letter.

However, routinely using pictures to determine word identity draws student attention away from print, thereby diminishing the central importance of the alphabetic principle.

Asking students to remember words as a primary strategy gives the unhelpful message that reading involves the visual memory of shapes, of letter landscapes devoid of alphabetic significance.

Stressing the integrated use of multiple cues (picture, grammar, and meaning cues) leaves students with too many ill-defined options, and produces marked variability in the preferred approach of students.

Fourth grade slump

Of course, many of the better students will develop an understanding that phonics is a foundation anyway; however, those less fortunate will be left to scour their memories for word shapes or attempt to predict upcoming words based on sentence/passage meaning or on the sound of initial letters.

Syntactic cues to word identification tend to be less employed among this less fortunate group group as their skills in grammar are likely to be under developed.

The problem is often not identified until about the Year 4; hence, the term fourth grade slump. In truth, the problem was there from the beginning, and had an instructional source, but was unrecognised because of some teachers’ misunderstanding of reading development.

What happens to these apparently progressing students? As text becomes more complex, prediction becomes less and less accurate.

Many sentences will now include difficult-to-decode words that carry non-redundant information, and hence become more difficult targets for prediction.

There are now increasing numbers of such words. For the memorisers, the number of words that must be recalled from visual memory outgrows students’ visual memory capacity.

These moribund strategies collapse, but in the absence of a productive course of action, students often hold on to them, resisting a return to decoding as a first option as being too hard or too babyish.

Resolution of the problems of these older readers is very difficult for both teacher and student. Better not to create this situation in the first place.

The challenges

Even when the value of early phonics teaching is recognised by educators, students vary significantly in the ease with which they develop from their initial painstaking attempts at decoding through to effortless fluent orthographic-dominant reading.

Our challenge as educators is to be truly sensitive to every reader’s progress through careful monitoring, and to ensure the intensity and duration of instruction is appropriate to their needs.

Once they are on their way, future progress becomes a self-teaching issue, driven largely by how much students choose to read. However, until reading is effortless, we cannot expect children to choose books over the many alternative communication modes available to them today.

The Conversation

Kerry Hempenstall, Casual lecturer in Psychology, RMIT University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert

How to Spell Words: Tips From Spelling Gurus

Note: Julie Bradley has been an educator for more than 30 years. Her expertise has taken her to outback Australia and around the world presenting to educators and parents on spelling and foundational skills. Mrs Bradley is Managing Director of Smart Achievers, a worldwide distributor for Smart Words Spelling, Reading and Perceptual Motor Programs.

Do you know a kid who feels so much shame for not being able to read and spell that they don’t want to go to school? A kid who’s very frustrated because they just can’t figure out how to spell or read words? Or perhaps you have a kid who believes they’re “dumb” because they’re struggling while everyone else ‘gets it’? How many of you have changed the word you want to write because you can’t spell it?

Although school is for learning, it just breaks my heart to think that many kids do view themselves that way. And it’s stories like this one that pushed me to travel to Minnesota, USA to work with English guru, Denise Eide.

Denise taught a group of us how to make reading and writing easier for kids to learn how to spell words. I’m so excited by what I learnt that I decided to share some of it with you.

30 spelling rules and 74 phonograms

‘Aha!’ moments seemed to happen frequently for me as Denise shared her research and knowledge. They included her explanations of the 30 Spelling Rules and 74 Phonograms. It is so much easier if you know this stuff!

By the way, a phonogram is the picture of a sound.

Phonograms represent the sound, whereas letters don’t.

For example, the phonogram G represents /g/ and /j/. The rules explain its usage.

The group can now argue why most English words (98%) follow the rules and explain away all those exceptions people seem to think exist.

Denise’s explanations were simple. They made so much sense that I find it easy to remember them.

I’m bringing home some packs of her Rule Cards for all of you and they will be available as soon as my shipment arrives. Every teacher, parent and child will want one. They are brilliant and with them you’ll be creating spelling champions in no time.

Learn the history of phonograms

Denise told us fascinating stories about the history of phonograms which will make teaching them so much more interesting.

Can you believe that the reason we have O representing the /u/ in ‘mother’ and ‘love’ is because the monks who had to copy script, many hundreds of years ago, found there were too many up and down strokes if they used a U? Can you guess what they did? They changed the U to an O.

Try writing the words as ‘muther’ and ‘luve’ and you can see how confusing it is.

Denise calls them the Lazy Monks.

I imagine that with a bit of flourish the kids would love the story and they will never forget how to spell words that apply to Rule # 3.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch, Teachers

Ask An Expert: Dealing with a Parent’s Death

Question: When a student’s parent dies, it impacts the whole school community. How do you recommend schools handle the death with respect to the student whose parent has died, the teachers and students who are impacted and the community at large? — S. C.

Answer: Thank you for submitting your question. You are correct, a parents’ death does have ramifications for the entire school community. In this column, I will delineate how schools can handle the death with respect to the student(s) whose parent has died, the teachers and students who are impacted and the community at large. Without further ado, I will begin.

The loss of a parent is a devastating event for children, no matter the age. Children derive their sense of security from their parents, so the death of a parent can make them feel vulnerable and afraid.  In regards to their reaction to the death; this depends on the maturity level and the resilience of the child in question. Regardless of how well they take it, they will need the love and support of those closest to them in order to make it through the grieving process. The school community can help by conveying how much they care for the student and being empathetic to their loss.

Children must be allowed to grieve on their own timetable without feeling rushed. At the same time, you can’t allow the student to use their parents’ death as a crutch or an excuse. You don’t want them to fall into a pit of despair and pity, so of course the school counselor’s or psychologist’s services will be offered to the student. Children need access to these services both immediately after the death and for a period of time after that. With the support of the school community and their family, most of the children who lose parents go on to lead healthy productive lives.

In regards to teachers, students, and the community at large, immediately after the death they will be searching for answers and information. Schools can help them by serving as a key disseminator of information. This is very important to the process, because we all know that misinformation can sometimes run rampant in situations such as these.

Everyone will not be affected by the parent’s death in the same way, but nonetheless, the death must be acknowledged by the school community. Hopefully, your school already has an emergency team that steps in when a crisis like this arises. In the hours or days immediately after the death, your school may not have a lot of details about how the student’s parent died,  however, you still should disseminate whatever information that you have.

Make sure that you inform your staff, faculty and administrators as soon as possible. Why? Because in addition to the school itself, these are the people who will be inundated with questions from students, parents and community members. If they are out of the loop and are unable to provide these sectors with viable information, your school could end up looking unprofessional and uninformed. Use every viable communication medium that you can think of to accomplish this goal, even if the school is on break.

Also, the staff should be briefed on the appropriate way to address the situation in their individual classrooms, and how to recognize signs that the death is affecting students negatively. Students can be affected regardless of whether or not they knew or are related to the deceased parent. This may lead to anxiety or sadness, especially when children come to the realization that we all are human, even their parents. Some students may become overly preoccupied with death and the possibility that their parents could meet the same fate. Remember, students who are having a difficult time dealing with the situation should be referred to either the school counselor or psychologist.

It is not a good idea for us to believe that we are protecting students by withholding information. Like adults, students want to be told the truth. If they don’t get the truth from the adults around them, they tend to try to put the pieces to the puzzle together as best they can, which can quickly turn into myths and misconceptions. Even if you don’t know the whole truth, tell them the factual information that you possess concerning the parent’s death.

It is best to prepare a written statement to inform the entire student body about the death. Teachers can read the statement in their classrooms. The worst thing that you can do is to deliver the news over a PA system, because it is too cold and nonchalant to express the true gravity of the situation. After the news is announced, students should be allowed to freely express their feelings and ask questions. Also, teachers can use this situation as a springboard to talk about death and dying.

It is also important to remember that parents are also a part of the equation. As soon as possible, preferably via a letter home or a personal phone call, parents should be informed of the death and also of the information that has been shared with their children. It is also important to have a generic form letter that can be used in such instances. Parents will want to know the specifics surrounding the death, as well as strategies that they can use to talk to their children about the situation.

As I established at the beginning of my advice column, a parent’s death has ramifications for the whole school community. In this column, I have provided you with information that your school can use to handle a parent’s death with respect to the student whose parent has died, the teachers and students who are impacted and the community at large. At the end of the day, the golden rule in this type of situation is to “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, in your time of bereavement.”

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch

New Teacher Tip: Arranging Your Classroom

As the new school year begins, most students look forward to joining their new class. The set up and layout of the classroom will determine the ease with which the children can move around the classroom. It is also important to consider your teaching style while you are arranging the classroom. Here are things you should to consider when deciding the layout of the classroom.

1. Teacher’s desk. In the traditional setting, this is one item that is generally kept in the far corner of the room or toward one wall in order to avoid the teacher’s desk being in the middle of high traffic. On the other hand, if your approach to instruction is likely to be more flexible and interactive, you might want to have the teacher’s desk closer to the students’ tables and chairs.

2. Students’ desks. The layout of students’ desks depends on the kind of interaction that you want with students. Perhaps you desire to frequently rearrange the desks, depending on the kind of lesson you are planning, provided the desks are not bolted to the floor. Here are some layout options for you to consider:

a. Students facing the front of the room—this option is best for sessions that involve direct instruction.
b. Students facing the center of the room—this layout creates a friendly environment and is best used when interaction and debate are part of the agenda.
c. Students grouped in clusters—ideal for times when you want students to work in groups or complete a collaborative project in class.

3. Overhead projector or multimedia projector screen. It is mandatory that the screen be placed at a height and angle that allows everyone to see the screen easily. Make sure you sit in each seat while others are present to determine if you can view the screen comfortably from all positions.

4. Classroom supplies. Items that are frequently used need to be handy and kept closer to the students. Items used less often can be stored in a cabinet. The pencil sharpener and trash should be kept slightly away from the students to avoid distraction.

5. Announcement board. Decorate the board to liven up the classroom, as well as to communicate with students about important events during the academic year. Consider these suggestions:

a. Make the board colorful with project work that has been completed by students.
b. Put up a “quote of the day” that is relevant, inspirational, and motivating. You may also make this a revolving duty of the students.
c. Allow students to put up pictures of places they visited on a holiday.
d. Educate your students about something pertaining to their curriculum by pinning up newspaper or magazine editorials.
e. Use another bulletin board to put up important school information, like the academic calendar, fire drill instructions, classroom rules and other such information.

Follow these guidelines and you can be sure that the new academic year will start with a bang! Good luck!

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

Are Bilingual Programs Worth the Extra Effort and Expense?

The debate on the best way to educate ELL students continues, with little promise of a clear-cut way to proceed emerging anytime soon. Meanwhile, the diversity of languages spoken in U.S. schools continues to expand. Languages include Spanish, Hmong, Urdu, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Polish, Korean, Tagalog, and Swahili…and that doesn’t cover everything! Achieving the goal for all students to obtain a satisfactory level of learning is often compromised by the cultural, social, and language differences among various groups. The inability to provide the best approach for the learning needs of ELL students places them at greater risk of falling behind.

The original enthusiasm for bilingual programs has diminished, and these programs are now criticized as ineffective. Support for the immersion model has also declined, and initial supporters now believe ELL students simply aren’t learning English quickly and thoroughly enough. They now suggest that the immersion program does not facilitate ELL students’ ability to cope with American culture, not only in school but also beyond school boundaries. The slower learning curve experienced by ELL students in immersion programs may plague them for the rest of their lives.

This belief is based on research suggesting that Hispanics who were enrolled in bilingual programs from the 1970s through the 1990s have earned less money on average than Hispanic students educated during the same period in an English-only setting. Hispanic high school dropouts who were in English-only classrooms are also fewer in number and more likely to return to school later. Immersion makes it difficult for the teacher to provide support for all students’ needs. In the case of a complex assignment such as a research paper, language and usage are challenging even for fluent students. The further complication of using a second language puts ELL students at a serious disadvantage if they don’t have special support. The immersion method of teaching has yet to establish itself as an effective program for minority students.

Supporters of the transitional and developmental models insist that students taught at least some of their core academics in their native language can better keep pace with their English-speaking peers. According to research studies, transitional instruction in both the native language and English helps students learn English more quickly and effectively. Transitional instruction helps students become more literate in their native language, which in turn improves their ability to learn English.

An issue that complicates the education of the ELL learners is the lack of training among teachers and the apparent lack of urgency on the part of states to ensure highly qualified ELL teachers. Most states have no requirements for new teachers to demonstrate competency in ELL instruction. And most states do not have incentives for teachers to pursue a license or endorsement in ELL instruction. Regardless of the model chosen, qualified teachers are necessary for quality programs.

Bilingual programs—are they helpful or harmful? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

 

 

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

Explainer: what is all the fuss about the Common Core?

Ken Libby, University of Colorado

When it comes to US public education, few topics engender such heated debate as a new set of maths and English standards for school children known as the Common Core.

Since the final standards were released in 2010, they have been adopted by 44 states and the District of Columbia. This marks a departure from the long history in the US of leaving most educational standards up to the whims of states and local school districts, resulting in different standards in every state for kindergarten to grade 12.

The Common Core counts supporters and critics in both of the two major US political parties. This makes the conversation about the standards quite messy and interesting – especially given the upcoming congressional elections in November.

Fighting ‘ObamaCore’

Although moderate conservatives generally favour the Common Core, those further to the right, like the Tea Party, portray the new standards as inappropriate meddling by the federal government. Some engage in wild conspiracy theories, and attack the standards as part of a broader anti-public school agenda.

The fight over the US’s recent changes to healthcare policy, Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as “ObamaCare”), provides a way for some conservative activists to jump into the Common Core fray by claiming the new standards are the educational equivalent (“ObamaCore”). It’s a poor comparison, but permits easy entry into the debate for those with little substantive knowledge.

Left-leaning critics cite concerns about the potential for private companies (such as publishing group Pearson) to profit from the Common Core as a reason for rejecting the new standards.

Criticism of the standards is coming in all shapes and sizes.
amerigus/WWYD , CC BY

There are also concerns as to whether the standards for early elementary students are developmentally inappropriate. Others dismiss the new standards as a solution to a problem that does not exist, or a band-aid for much bigger problems, like the high child poverty rate in the US.

Some critics of the Common Core view it as further cementing the use (and misuse) of standardised testing in American schools.

State-driven testing

In addition to the new standards, two consortia of states – Smarter Balanced and the Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers – have been working to develop tests tied to the standards. However, some states, such as Kansas, have opted to develop their own assessments.

These new and ostensibly better assessments created by the two consortia may provide some real advantages compared to previous tests. However, early trials of assessments tied to the Common Core indicate up to 70% of students in New York may not receive a passing mark given the more challenging nature of the standards. While that may well paint a reasonably accurate picture of how many students can truly meet the new standards, it is a politically tenuous position to maintain.

Supporters, on the other hand, claim the standards are more challenging than previous state standards (and they are, at least for most states). They also say that the standards will better prepare students for college-level work, and create a more level playing field for children across the country.

The shift to the Common Core comes as states pursue several other policy changes, including teacher evaluations based in part on student progress on standardised tests. These new evaluations attempt to use statistical models to calculate a measure of teacher quality based on how much a teacher’s students improve their performance on standardised tests, usually controlling for a host of other variables.

What teachers think

Pursuing both the new Common Core standards and teacher evaluations at the same time is worrying, especially if teachers and schools are not adequately prepared to help students reach the goals of the new standards.

While teachers generally support the common core, they also express reservations about implementation. A poll conducted in July 2013 by the largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), indicated that teachers wanted more time to collaborate with colleagues about the new standards, updated resources, and enhanced technology for the classroom.

With each state and school district responsible for implementation, the degree to which teachers feel supported (or not) varies greatly. Heads of both the NEA and the second largest teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers, have expressed concerns about Common Core implementation in recent months.

Personally, I do not consider myself a strong supporter of the common core. Nor am I an opponent. Although some critics make wild charges and engage in conspiracy theories, there are certainly legitimate concerns about the changes.

Implementation seems rushed in far too many places, leaving teachers and students inadequately prepared for the shift. If equity across the country were truly a concern, we would talk about how states do an exceedingly poor job of financing schools equitably, giving fewer resources to districts populated with low-income students and racial minorities. We would also tackle the inequitable distribution of teachers and various out-of-school factors – poverty, residential segregation, inequality and racism.

With more states shifting to the new standards and assessments in the coming year, the Common Core will likely remain an important issue in US public education and political debate. The standards themselves are rarely discussed – in large part because the biggest concerns are about related (and perhaps intertwined) issues like testing, teacher evaluations, and implementation.

The Conversation

Ken Libby, PhD student studying educational foundations, policy and practice, University of Colorado

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

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

The Ultimate Demise of Common Core – Part II: The Parents

It’s been said that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but in the case of Common Core implementation, I’d say the word “parent” could easily be inserted. Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, message boards – you do not have to look very far to find a post, thread or entire account dedicated to a common hatred for Common Core. Facebook pages titled “Common Sense against Common Core” and “Against Common Core” have fans who are passionate about dismantling the initiatives that are ruining the educational journey of their kids and dumbing them down for testing. A viral meme reads “Wow! This Common Core homework makes so much sense… said no parent, ever.” Parents appear to be both confused and angered by Common Core benchmarks that, at least in theory, are designed to improve national learning standards.

On Monday, I wrote about the ways in which I believe politics will contribute to the downfall of Common Core initiatives. Today I want to look at the ways parents will eventually succeed in the same way.

It’s just too darn hard.

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.

The “I don’t understand it” mentality.

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.

Stop teaching my kid to the test.

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.

In the last part of this series I’ll write about the ways the logistics of Common Core standards will lead to their downfall.

Do you think parents are right in their Common Core complaints, or off-base?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch, Teachers

Getting the Most Out of Student Teaching Mentorship

Whether an official part of a student teaching internship or a more informal relationship garnered in your work place, mentorship is a great opportunity to learn from someone with experience in the field and to receive advice without worrying about how it will affect your marks or measured performance.

You can get the most out of a relationship with your mentoring teacher when you take responsibility and are proactive in the process. You’ll take responsibility when you do the following:

  • Take the initiative when it comes to having your needs met as a protégé. Soon after being assigned a collaborating/mentoring teacher, find an opportunity to talk about what you’d both like to get out of the mentoring experience. Agree on roles and a schedule for meetings.
  • Take responsibility for your personal well-being. To establish a healthy, safe, and nurturing relationship with your collaborating/mentoring teacher as well as with your students, it helps greatly if you yourself are well centered. As a teacher, it’s helpful to spend time with family and colleagues to talk about mutual ideas and problems

A mentor’s goals for the mentees usually include guiding the intern in:

– developing theoretical knowledge

– practical skills

– adopting positive and professional dispositions

– evaluating the intern’s teaching practice

The collaborating/mentoring teacher is responsible for providing guidance and feedback as necessary, and communicating with your college advisor about your progress and participation. You should try to develop a good working relationship with your collaborating/mentoring teacher. As well as having an influence over your academic performance, he or she is also a valuable source of learning and guidance and can be considered as one of the resources during your teaching education. Your degree of involvement in the classroom activities will be based largely on your relationship with your mentoring teacher.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Hard Evidence: at what age are children ready for school?

David Whitebread, University of Cambridge

When are children “ready” for school? There is much debate about when the transition between play-based pre-school and the start of “formal” schooling should begin. The trend in the UK primary school curriculum over recent decades has been towards an earlier start to formal instruction, and an erosion of learning through play.

But the evidence from international comparisons and psychological research of young children’s development all points to the advantages of a later start to formal instruction, particularly in relation to literacy.

Among the earliest in Europe

Children in England are admitted into reception classes in primary schools at age four; in many cases, if their birthdays are in the summer months, when they have only just turned four. This is in stark contrast to the vast majority of other European countries, many of which currently enjoy higher levels of educational achievement. In Europe, the most common school starting age is six, and even seven in some cases such as Finland.

European Commission. EURYDICE and EUROSTAT 2013. * Although education is not compulsory until six in Ireland, approx. 40% of four-year-olds and almost all five-year-olds are in publicly-funded primary schools.

From the moment children in England enter the reception class, the pressure is on for them to learn to read, write and do formal written maths. In many schools, children are identified as “behind” with reading before they would even have started school in many other countries. Now the government is introducing tests for four-year-olds soon after starting school.

There is no research evidence to support claims from government that “earlier is better”. By contrast, a considerable body of evidence clearly indicates the crucial importance of play in young children’s development, the value of an extended period of playful learning before the start of formal schooling, and the damaging consequences of starting the formal learning of literacy and numeracy too young.

Importance of play

A range of anthropological studies of children’s play in hunter-gatherer societies and other evolutionary psychology studies of play in the young of mammals have identified play as an adaptation which evolved in early human social groups, enabling humans to become powerful learners and problem-solvers.

Some neuroscientists’ research has supported this view of play as a central mechanism in learning. One book by Sergio and Vivien Pellis reviewed many other studies to show that playful activity leads to synaptic growth, particularly in the frontal cortex – the part of the brain responsible for all the uniquely human, higher mental functions.

A range of experimental psychology studies, including my own work, have consistently demonstrated the superior learning and motivation arising from playful as opposed to instructional approaches to learning in children.

There are two crucial processes which underpin this relationship. First, playful activity has been shown to support children’s early development of representational skills, which is fundamental to language use. One 2006 study by US academics James Christie and Kathleen Roskos, reviewed evidence that a playful approach to language learning offers the most powerful support for the early development of phonological and literacy skills.

Second, through all kinds of physical, social and constructional play, such as building with blocks or making models with household junk, children develop their skills of intellectual and emotional “self-regulation”. This helps them develop awareness of their own mental processes – skills that have been clearly demonstrated to be the key predictors of educational achievement and a range of other positive life outcomes.

Longer-term impacts

Within educational research, a number of longitudinal studies have provided evidence of long-term outcomes of play-based learning. A 2002 US study by Rebecca Marcon, for example, demonstrated that by the end of their sixth year in school, children whose pre-school model had been academically-directed achieved significantly lower marks in comparison to children who had attended child-initiated, play-based pre-school programmes.

A number of other studies have specifically addressed the issue of the length of pre-school play-based experience and the age at which children begin to be formally taught the skills of literacy and numeracy. In a 2004 longitudinal study of 3,000 children funded by the department of education itself, Oxford’s Kathy Sylva and colleagues showed that an extended period of high-quality, play-based pre-school education made a significant difference to academic learning and well-being through the primary school years. They found a particular advantage for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Studies in New Zealand comparing children who began formal literacy instruction at age five or age seven have shown that by the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups. But the children who started at five developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later.

This evidence, directly addressing the consequences of the introduction of early formal schooling, combined with the evidence on the positive impact of extended playful experiences, raises important questions about the current direction of travel of early childhood education policy in England.

There is an equally substantial body of evidence concerning the worrying increase in stress and mental health problems among children in England and other countries where early childhood education is being increasingly formalised. It suggests there are strong links between these problems and a loss of playful experiences and increased achievement pressures. In the interests of children’s educational achievements and their emotional well-being, the UK government should take this evidence seriously.

Hard Evidence is a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest questions.

The Conversation

David Whitebread, Senior Lecturer in Psychology & Education, University of Cambridge

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

  • no reactions
0
Share