school reform

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

Tenure: 3 Groups Fighting Against Bad Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform February 13, 2016

8 Reasons Common Core Will Ultimately Fail

By Matthew Lynch

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

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

Common Core is tied to President Obama.

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

Politicians are using Common Core as a platform.

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

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

Parents think common core standards are too rigorous.

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

Parents don’t understand the material.

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

Parents are growing wary of the testing culture.

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

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

American students are diverse.

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

It doesn’t recognize the differences among states.

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

There is not one model student.

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

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

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

The Business of Lesson Plans

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

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

Buying or borrowing lesson plans

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

Selling lesson plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Learning Problems Bigger Than Teacher Prep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think about stricter teacher-prep laws?

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

How to Build, and Keep, the Best Teaching Staff

By Matthew Lynch

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

Teacher Entry, Mobility, and Attrition

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

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

Compensation and Working Conditions Impact Retention

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

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

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

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

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

Establishing Pre-service and In-Service Teacher Policies

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform February 9, 2016

4 Bold Education-Related Promises from Presidential Candidates

This year has brought out many interesting candidates for the 2016 presidency, including Hillary Clinton, and Jeb Bush. It is not surprising that these presidential hopefuls are already making lofty claims related to education. Here are just four of those promises, ranging from the hopeful to the outrageous.

Bernie Sanders wants to make four-year college free. Sanders proposed something almost unheard of from any candidate: free college tuition to students who attend four-year colleges and universities. Sanders wants to encourage future labor participation and to combat the ever growing problem with student loan debt.

In his press release about his college tuition bill, Sanders also said that he believes passage of this legislation will help place the United States back at the top of the world in the percentage of people who graduate from college.

According to the Boston Globe by way of commondreams.org, the class of 2015 will carry a student loan debt of $56 billion and is “the most indebted class in history.”

Sanders’ bill has a close to zero percent chance of passing. Still–one has to admire his way of thinking. Student loan debt is out of control and so is the price of tuition at many of the country’s best colleges and universities. For lower income students, they are usually preyed upon by for-profit institutions with promises of attaining a college degree and future job placement.

Jim Webb emphasizes adult education. Webb isn’t necessarily known for his stances on education but Forbes.com has compiled a small list of where the former senator stands on matters regarding education.

He’s a proponent of “second chance education” as well as adult education. In talking about the latter, Webb said that he wants “to place renewed emphasis on our public education system, including the often overlooked area of adult education.”

His idea of ensuring that most adults are able to read beyond an eighth grade level is good, and it matches well with Webb’s want to give young adults another shot at attaining a good education.

Regarding second chances, Webb says that just “75% of the kids in this country finish high school.” Fixing that problem is ambitious and will take years of political capital to adjust.

Bernie Sanders wants to erase student loan debt. Sanders would work to forgive some student loan debt if elected president. In a speech he gave to students at the University of Iowa back in February, Sanders said that the federal government has made billions of dollars off of student loan interest payments in the last 10 years.

“We must end the practice of the government making billions in profits from student loans taken out by low and moderate income families. That is extremely regressive public policy. It also makes no sense that students and their parents are forced to pay interest rates for higher education loans that are much higher than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages,” Sanders said.

Sanders’ numbers are correct by the CBO’s standards but have been openly challenged. According to the Washington Post, the math is fuzzy and there is no true way of knowing if the federal government is making a true profit off student loan payments.

Either way, numbers show and prove that the federal government has to pivot towards a new process for collecting payments from student loans or risk creating a new set of economic problems.

That, more than anything, seems to be part of the point that Sanders is making. He also acknowledges that if students weren’t forced to pay back so much of the loan or if the interest rates were lower, they would then have the ability to reinvest into the economy by purchasing a new car or a new home.

Hillary Clinton wants to take on early childhood education. According to Bloomberg.com, Clinton visited a YMCA in New Hampshire to talk about her desire to increase funding for head start and other early childhood programs.

During her speech, Clinton took the opportunity to chide Republicans on their lack of interest in improving early childhood education.

“Republicans took care of those at the top and went after the kids. Republicans aren’t just missing the boat on early childhood education, they’re trying to sink it,” Clinton said according to Bloomberg.com.

In addition to fully funding early childhood programs, she wants extra tax breaks for “people who are taking care of kids” and wants to ensure that “every 4-year old has access to high-quality preschool” within 10 years.

Certainly striking a more progressive tone this go around, Clinton is likely trying to shore up the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. With Senator Elizabeth Warren turning into a certified political rock star over the past couple of years, Clinton has to do all that she can to appease the part of the party’s tent that supports Warren.

What do you think of the presidential hopefuls’ plans to improve education in America?

Check out all of our posts on Hillary Clinton here.

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform February 7, 2016

Time to Learn: Revisiting the School Calendar Debate

The nine-month school calendar that emerged over a century and a half ago has proven resistant to change. It remains the predominant organizational structure within which learning takes place today, despite significant social, economic, and cultural changes over the past century that could have resulted in alternate ways to structure time for learning. Still, most school districts continue to organize learning around a 180-day, 6-hour school calendar, with summers as a period of limited or no district-sponsored learning activities.

One explanation for the present school year is that it follows the 19th-century agrarian calendar, freeing up youth to work on farms during the summer months. Other explanations include the notion that children should not be exposed to the discomfort of early 20th-century, factory-like, non-air-conditioned school buildings in the summer.

Missing from these explanations for a nine-month calendar, however, are discussions that focus directly on student learning and achievement, which should be at the forefront of conversations focused on schooling. The propensity to naysay an alternate or modified school calendar routinely includes an array of non-achievement-based concerns. Issues such as family vacations, costs, use of facilities, extracurricular activities, teacher and administrator stress, and even the summer-recreation industry too often enjoy parallel positions of importance.

Students in the U.S. spend fewer days in school than their counterparts in many industrialized countries. In Japan, for example, students attend school 243 days a year, and academic learning does end not once the school day is over. The school day is extended, as many students attend Juku, which are privately run afterschool services that primarily focus on academic subjects, although some provide tutoring in the arts and sports.

Public schools involved in extended learning time efforts provide a U.S. version of a Juku; albeit one that is public and available to all students. They recognize that the amount and quality of time does influence learning, and their efforts result in improved learning and achievement for a number of children. Even though extended learning programs may primarily focus on low-performing, high-poverty schools, given the international achievement gap, all schools should keep a close eye on the success of these schools.

Extension to the school day is important, but extension to the school year is important as well. Research suggests that not only do achievement gaps develop when children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are away from school, but the rate of these gaps accelerates during the summer months. Comparable achievement occurs during the school year for children from both backgrounds.

During periods away from school, however, skills for children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds continue to grow, while no such advances occur for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Evidence suggests that modified calendars have a positive impact on achievement for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and thus should remain a viable option for schools seeking to improve achievement for students living in low socioeconomic environments.

Clearly, a structure for learning is needed that restores our stature as a well-educated nation and contributes to our ability to be a major player on the global economic playing field. Just as important, we need to provide enough time for learning so that young people have an education that allows them to grow into competent and confident adults able to choose how to live their lives. Holding on to a rigid traditional school calendar seems imprudent when viewed in light of such goals. Historically, supplemental schooling experiences to the nine-month calendar have existed. The time is ripe to flip the arrangement, so that the traditional calendar becomes supplemental to more effective arrangements of time for learning.

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

Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch February 4, 2016

Ask An Expert: School Systems and Business Models

Question: For over 20 years I have worked in the business sector, and I have always wondered what would happen if school districts operated more like businesses? Care to chime in, Dr. Lynch? Pamela A.

Answer: Pamela, I agree, education could be changed for the better if schools were to think of themselves as businesses and the students as the customers. In a business model, students might receive more one-on-one attention, making them feel more satisfied with the education they are receiving. If a child acquires the love of learning at a young age, he or she is more likely to reach higher levels of educational attainment.

In all good businesses, employees create and produce products based on the general needs and wants of the customer/consumer. If students are the customers, then the school curriculum should be created to meet their needs. The task of the employee is to manage and motivate the people they are supervising. Teachers will implement change in their classrooms by individualizing instruction to meet the general needs of their students.

Thinking of the students as customers reinforces the idea that the student is in full control of whether or not they pay attention or engage themselves in academic activities. Certainly, state laws require the majority of American students to attend school until they are 18 years of age. Sooner or later, truant students will be tracked down by the school attendance officer, who will inform parents that their child’s lack of attendance is against the law.

However, once the student is in school, there is absolutely no way for teachers to force the child to pay attention and fully engage in schoolwork. Part of the teacher’s profession is to find ways to motivate children by providing them with appealing learning activities. Also, schools have to accept the fact that in order to engage students and keep their attention, you must earn their respect and trust. Student learning is comparable to profits in a business. Student learning is what happens when the business of schooling is managed correctly.

In keeping with the business model, successful schools must realize that quality education is paramount. Administrators and the boards need to understand that educated students are not just products and schools are not just businesses; they are places to foster a love of learning and to create productive futures for American children and the country itself. That’s my take on the subject.

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform February 4, 2016

Single-Sex Classrooms Making a Comeback for All the Wrong Reasons

There is a debate about equity in education that extends beyond zip codes, race and socioeconomic status and cuts right to the heart of something predetermined: sex. The controversy over whether or not single-sex schooling models actually make an academic difference is one that has raged for the better half of a century. Early reasons for separating young men and young women in their studies were simple enough – there was a cultural belief that removing the distraction of the opposite sex would lead to greater focus and higher academic gains. As the country moved away from the “separate but equal” mentality in all facets of life, the virtues of single-sex schooling faded too. In some eyes, separating young women and young men was not just pointless but was sexist.

The back-and-forth over single-sex schooling never completely faded from the educational landscape, though, and neither did all-girls or all-boys schools. In recent years, it seems that the argument FOR single-sex schooling is making a comeback for many of the same reasons it was born in the first place. Around 500 public schools in the U.S. now offer some form of all-girls or all-boys schooling, either in entirety or in individual classrooms. It is a fact that young women, even those who show strong propensities toward STEM topics, lose interest in math, science and affiliated fields around middle school. This is also a sensitive age where young women traditionally start to put more stock in what the opposite sex thinks about them. This is enough to make some people like former New York City mayoral hopeful

Christine Quinn spearhead campaigns to open public magnet middle schools for girls where they can pursue STEM topics without a loss of self-confidence around men.
But is the loss of interest in traditionally non-glamorous topics like engineering, science and math really related to the presence of the opposite sex? It seems that would be a simple answer but of course, nothing simple can ever be accepted at face value. This idea that young women are dropping non-feminine topics at an impressionable age because of the opposite sex is flawed.

It is possible that outside factors like parental influence weigh on what a young woman pursues as she gets older. This can be a direct effect when a parent steers a child in a certain direction, or it can be the indirect effect of seeing the roles a mother and father play in their own homes. If father is an engineer, and mother is a preschool teacher, it is possible that a young woman will relate more fully to her mother’s path, even if she has an interest like dad in engineering topics. A preschool teacher is a noble career, of course, but one that is also dominated by females. In 2011, only 2.3 percent of U.S. preschool teachers were male. In this example case, even a young woman who attends an all-girls STEM school may end up taking the young childhood education path for reasons that have nothing to do with her feelings about the opposite sex.

And what about LGBT students? The number of K-12 students who identify themselves as non-heterosexual in one way or another is rising. One of the arguments for single-sex schooling is that it takes away the tingly, budding attraction emotions in young people but it becomes irrelevant if a student has no interest in the opposite sex anyway.

The American Civil Liberties Union has even come out against single-sex schools, particularly in cases where those schools are public ones, in its “Teach Kids, Not Stereotypes” campaign. The ACLU believes that separating young women and young men is a slippery slope and one that could inadvertently bring unfair outcomes to the students. It seems that there must be a better way to encourage young women, and men, in their academic studies without implementing the archaic practice of total separation in classrooms.

Are you in favor of, or against, single-sex schooling models?

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform February 1, 2016

Future Trends in K-12 Classroom Management and Discipline

K-12 Classroom management and discipline is all about the balance between learning within the classroom and discipline. Today, various trends are currently popular. Strategies that come to mind include Wong’s Pragmatic Classroom, which stresses the need to define expectations for students, and Canter’s Behavior Management Cycle, which emphasizes a distinct discipline model.

So far, though, despite the range of strategies and their fluctuating popularity, all strategies applied to date have their pros and cons, their various strengths and weaknesses.

Above all, there is an increased importance applied to classroom management these days. A relatively new open-mindedness also applies to classroom discipline strategies (the recognition that it is not, after all, better to punish the child for inattention or some indiscretion).

What does this point to? Inevitably, there are several trends to be aware of:

• We are likely to see an increase in success for one strategy or another. Existing strategies for classroom management and discipline approaches tend to be, in general, quite effective. Inevitably, there is also the need to make some allowances for teaching style. Some teachers excel with one approach to classroom management and discipline. Others prefer alternative methods. While this is unlikely to change because it is unlikely that there will be a single strategy deemed more effective than the rest, we can be fairly sure that the handful of top recommended strategies will see an increase. We should see an increase in their strengths and a corresponding reduction in weaknesses as overall efficiency and effectiveness are improved.

• Because of the increased use of technology in the classroom, we can certainly expect to see more of an integration of technology within the classroom, in part as a management approach but perhaps also as a discipline approach. Teachers may well find means of applying technology. Whether it is some sort of integrated system used via a system like the iPad (with more and more public school classrooms enjoying access to this type of technology) or some online database for monitoring student behavior in class will depend on the circumstances. It is likely that teachers will have increased scope to experiment, very likely knowing ten or fifteen years down the line precisely which of these various resource types is likely to be the most effective.

• With a bit of luck, although this trend is less certain, teachers may well also see a greater transfer of learning responsibility to the child. A further advantage of the integration of technology to the classroom is the increase in scope for independent activity among children. In many other areas of school life (for instance, library use and general self-care areas), children are already encouraged to take a lead, to the effect that they learn relevant skills faster and that much more effectively. Very likely, teachers will have means of encouraging students to be more independent in their discipline – in their self-discipline –and, depending on the way in which curriculum and standards develop, perhaps also in terms of how they go about learning within the classroom, moving from task to task and perhaps even having independence in their learning choices.

One thing is for sure though — we can expend change to classroom management and discipline strategies in public education classrooms. We may not have the full story yet on what is likely to happen five to ten years down the road, but we have some signs of change, some definite evidence of the types of shifts. How exactly these individual shifts play out? Only time will tell.