school reform

Matthew Lynch published in Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Avoiding School Reform Roadblocks

When initiating reform, an action plan must be developed before the school can determine how the reform will be carried out and how it will be measured. Too often, administrators become anxious and feel the need to change the reform before any data has been collected. More patience is warranted because if a plan is not working, it can be amended. The school team, which consists of educators, administrators, and other stakeholders, must make the necessary amendments without hindering reform efforts. Creating too many changes within one reform plan would be counterproductive and frustrating for all parties involved.

Many new administrators enter the field hell-bent on making a name for themselves and refusing to live in the shadows of their predecessor. Often, they feel as though their only choice is to go in a totally different direction, making the previous reform null and void. This situation creates frustration among the surviving faculty and staff. New administrators often make changes before they fully think about the consequences or repercussions of their actions. Perfectly competent adults massage their egos instead of thinking about what is in the best interests of the school and the children.

It is counterproductive to start one reform and then decide to start another several months later. Once a reform has been implemented, all parties involved must show fidelity to it until there is concrete data or evidence that indicates that it is ineffective. Reform is about creating an environment in which students are the priority and we as their teachers assist them in starting and finishing their journey to becoming educated citizens.

It is hard for many administrators and educators to grasp the fact that frustrations may worsen as the reform is being implemented. Often, issues arise because people do not welcome change. Some educators need to see that change is for the better before they completely support the reform. Once the rebellion to change has subsided and the reform has been implemented correctly, the waiting game begins. During this time, educators and administrators must go about the business of collecting data for analysis. The findings will give them a clear indication of whether or not the reform has served its intended purpose. If students are not progressing under the implemented reform, then it may not be fulfilling the needs of the students or faculty.

Strategic planning and the implementation of school reform sometimes require schools to absorb temporary setbacks in order to reap the benefits of long-term gains. Student progress might dip for a month or two before teachers and administrators see a significant gain in student learning and performance. Teachers and administrators need to allow change to take place and not panic when instant changes are not apparent. In many school reform efforts, educators and administrators must understand that policies and practices that met the needs of the past, do not necessarily address current needs or the needs of the future. They must realize that in order to obtain a great future you must let go of a great past.

Some administrators fall into the trap of emulating model schools. Model schools can be found in every major city, but when trying to recreate their success, many schools fail to achieve the same results. Trying to recreate another school’s success is potentially dangerous, even when schools share similar characteristics. This is because, regardless of the similarities, every district is unique. Often, after a large amount of time, energy, and money has been spent, the school declares the plan a failure and has nothing to show for the efforts.

Strategic planning, which is widely used in the educational arena, can assist districts in setting goals and implementing school reform. You would be hard pressed to find a school district that does not have one or more strategic plans awaiting execution. Strategic plans are a district’s consistent road map, even in the face of adversity. In the end, a strategic plan that reflects the culture and needs of each individual school is a better route than attempts to replicate the success another school.

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

STEM Funding in Danger – But Does Anyone Care?

Under proposed budget changes for the 2014 fiscal year, many STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) educational initiatives may no longer exist. Though overall funding for STEM programs is actually slated to rise by $3 billion, or 6 percent, consolidation of STEM education may leave specific programs out in the cold. The annual $15 million in funding for the Science Education Partnership Awards that are funded by the National Institutes of Health, for example, are not included in the proposed budget changes. Every year the awards provide over 75,000 K-12 students with informal, hands-on science education intended to spark lifelong interest in an area where America consistently lags behind other developed countries.

While the knee-jerk reaction is to blame lack of prioritization of STEM education on the Obama administration and the budget advisors on this particular project, I think the issue is much, much bigger. A report released in December 2012 called Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study showed that just 7 percent of U.S. students had advanced level eighth-grade math skills, compared with 47 percent in South Korea and 48 percent in Singapore. Further, the U.S. was ranked as 11th in fourth-grade math and 9th in eighth-grade math. American students ranked higher in reading, but still fell behind Hong Kong, Russia and Finland.

It seems that when these test results are released, there is an initial public outcry about the slipping state of the American public in science and math. Those voices quickly fade, however, content to download another smartphone app that does metric conversion or even one that is advertised to complete math homework with a few taps of a touchscreen. It is easier to utilize technology than to learn how to perform equations; it is simpler to grab produce from the grocery store shelf than to question where that food came from or what went into its production.

It would be great to blame this indifference towards STEM initiatives on the uneducated public, or the convenience of Internet technology, or even the media (why not?). The truth is that this uncaring attitude is a byproduct of academic disengagement, fueled by the way children are taught in American K-12 schools. As interactive technology becomes commonplace in classrooms, education becomes more of a form of entertainment. Yes, educators should find innovative ways to reach students with educational messages but there is a blurry line between creative learning and babysitting tactics to keep students from declaring boredom and simply not trying.

Are math, science, engineering and technology topics too complicated for the short attention spans of today’s American K-12 students – and do educators add to this problem by spending too much time trying to put on a song and dance? I think the answer to both of these questions is “yes.” This is not to say that it is the fault of educators but merely to point out that they are in a quandary made possible by screen-culture and an education system that favors standardized learning over intellectualism. By emphasizing fact memorization, and placing no priority on hands-on math and science experiences, it is no wonder that 46 percent of Americans believe young people do not pursue math and science careers because they are “too hard.” In the same Pew Research study, 20 percent of Americans said careers in science and math are “too boring.”

Clearly something is being missed along the way in our K-12 system. How can science, the intricate study of how things work with and without our known universe, be boring? How can math, the way things balance out and make our world run smoothly, be too complicated to pursue? It seems these questions just bring up even more questions and there are not enough people who care enough to seek out answers.

What factors do you think contribute to indifference in STEM education?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity, Matthew Lynch

Examining the Impact of Culture on Academic Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Teachers

Can Superstar Teachers Save Failing Schools?

By Matthew Lynch

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

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

Whose fault is it?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Why more K-12 schools should teach the Arabic language

By Kelly Doffing

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

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

Why we need more Arabic in K-12 classrooms

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________

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

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation

Is STEM education working, especially for women?

By Barbara Mader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

____

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

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

Ask An Expert: Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

3 Stories That Reveal How Important Arts Education Really Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Examining The Federal Government’s Role in Educational Reform

In the decades of attempted educational reform, the U.S. government has been the biggest player. Following the Nation at Risk report the federal government became more focused on the achievement of all students in the nation’s schools.

In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act passed with the goal of supporting states’ efforts to develop curriculum standards that would outline what students should know and be able to do, as well as state and district efforts to improve student achievement along the standards. The act did not stop at standards-based education. It included goals focused on safe schools, parental involvement, and teacher development, all of which ostensibly influence student achievement. And it also addressed goals for education from early childhood to adulthood. Goals 2000 included the following:

  • All children in America will start school ready to learn.
  • The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.
  • All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging 
subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, the arts, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation’s modern economy.
  • U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
  • Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  • Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
  • The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.
  • Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.

The NCLB of 2001 built on goals outlined in Goals 2000, and in many ways NCLB amplified and extended goals that originally appeared in Goals 2000.

NCLB is the leading federal legislation governing K–12 schooling. Its introduction meant that the federal government took a greater role in education in the United States. A major objective of NCLB was to decrease the achievement gap between students with low scores and those with high scores. Schools and districts not reaching stated annual progress toward the goal of removing the achievement gap would be penalized.

NCLB has divided opinion. It has been positively recognized for requiring a disaggregated format for student performance reports, enabling evaluation of the performance of different groups of students. This has particularly benefited disadvantaged students, whose performance was often overlooked in the past. However, as you’ll see in the following section, NCLB also has many detractors.
Reforming NCLB

Many have called for reform of NCLB itself. Suggested changes include removing the 2013–2014 target years for eliminating the achievement gap among different groups of children, because educators and policy makers alike believe the target year is unrealistic. Critics state that NCLB places too much emphasis on standardized testing and too little on the education of individual students. They also suggest that using standardized tests as the only measure of progress has led to instruction more aligned with students’ performing well on tests rather than learning a broad array of topics. Critics suggest that student growth should be a measure of the difference between students’ performance level at the beginning of the year and their performance level at the end of the year, rather than an arbitrary expectation for annual performance. And critics recommend expanding the measures used to determine student performance, so that standardized tests are not the only measures used.

The funding arrangements for NCLB are also the subject of discontent, with suggestions that much more funding is required to achieve the stated objectives. Under NCLB, states are responsible for the type and level of assessments given to students. Critics have suggested that variations across states in terms of levels of performance proficiencies makes it next to impossible to accurately compare performance across states. The focus on testing only mathematics and reading has also come under scrutiny, with suggestions that knowledge and skills in other subjects should be assessed as well.

NCLB requires states to staff their public schools with “highly qualified teachers.” This provision of NCLB can be viewed as a successful school reform measure, because research has shown that excellent teachers have a positive impact on student achievement. The provision seeks to ensure that students are taught well-prepared and highly qualified staff—teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it.

Although not explicitly required by NCLB, gaining National Board Certification is one way to become a highly qualified teacher. National Board Certification is an advanced teaching credential that is offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. It supplements, but does not supplant, a state teacher license. National Board Certification is achieved on successful completion of an optional assessment initiative intended to identify effective and accomplished teachers who meet high standards based on what teachers should know and be able to do.

National Board Certification is available nationwide for most pre-K–12 teachers and has been a positive school reform measure since its inception. Whatever your thoughts on educational reform, National Board Certification is a powerful tool to have in your toolbox to help you be an effective educator and voice for change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Teachers Don’t Want Year-Round Schooling

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

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

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

photo credit: Old Shoe Woman via photopin cc

  • no reactions
0
Share