students

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Policy & Reform

How to Help Low-Income Students Succeed

By Matthew Lynch

Students from low-income homes hit the K-12 scene at a disadvantage. Materially, they often do not have the means for the resources they need for basic classroom functions. In non-tangible ways, they often do not have the same academic support as middle- or high-income peers and know less when they arrive in Kindergarten.When parents are unable to provide for their children, that responsibility then falls on the schools and the community. Ensuring that students from low income households succeed in K-12 classrooms is multi-faceted and must include:

Physiological considerations. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, students need to have physiological needs met before they are able to learn. If a child is hungry, he or she will focus on that fact and not on the schoolwork. Federal law allows schools to provide breakfast and lunch for students whose families meet federal poverty guidelines. The law was created in an effort to meet the biological needs of each student if the parent was unable or unwilling to provide the necessary provision. If children have all of their physical needs met, they will be more likely to succeed in school.

Safety considerations. Another need that must be met is the safety of the child. Students need to feel comfortable and safe enough to learn. Students will not be able to focus unless they feel safe in both the home and the school. When teachers become certified to teach, they become mandated reporters of child abuse. This means that a teacher who suspects abuse in the home of a student is compelled by law to report this information, using protocols established by the school and/or the district.

The main job of schools is to deliver effective instruction for student learning. If the school needs to provide some or all of the necessary physical/biological needs, it should do so. Schools should be concerned about the welfare and the safety of the children they serve. The school’s purpose in the community is to ensure that students have the support and resources they need to be successful.

It is important to realize that the schools are not required to provide said support. Schools not operating as full-service organizations should advocate for their students whenever necessary. Ruby K. Payne discusses support systems in her book A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Payne posits that students from poverty need support systems to succeed. She believes that students with the right resources and support systems can succeed even if they are living in poverty.

Why should the burden fall on schools?

Local schools are the only community-service organizations that come in contact with virtually all school-aged children in a given area. Educators and administrators are in a unique position to understand the needs of children and the communities in which they live. Teachers are among the few people who understand children’s hopes, aspirations, and impediments; however, only a small percentage of teachers take advantage of this fact.

With all the problems and the issues that our children face, we can ill afford to miss opportunities to connect with them. A strong student-teacher relationship will in turn help the teachers better educate their students. One of the keys to the teacher-student relationship is the creation of mutual trust and respect. Once students understand that their teacher trusts and respects them, they will do everything in their power to live up to the teacher’s expectations.

How to help low-income students succeed

James P. Comer, a child psychiatrist who studied students from low income neighborhoods In New Haven, Connecticut, developed the Comer Process which focuses on child development in urban schools. The Comer process is based on six interconnected pathways which lead to healthy child development and academic achievement. The pathways are physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social, and ethical.

Comer believed that the pathways should be considered a road map to a child’s successful development into adulthood. If a child’s needs are not met in one of the pathways, there will be likely difficulties in the child’s ability to achieve. Comer explained that a child could be smart, but unable to be socially successful. He wanted teachers to be aware that they should not teach for the sake of teaching, but rather to help the child learn how to negotiate life both inside and outside of the classroom.

According to Comer, if a child is intelligent but cannot socially interact, then the school system did not do its job of preparing the child for the world. The theory pushes teachers to make sure that children are developing emotionally, physically, and socially before the child can learn the school-related topics. Comer believed that children will not be functioning members of society if he or she is only successful in academic skills such as math and reading.

Comer proposed that children need a primary social network—one that includes parents, and people from the child’s school and community.  Comer emphasizes that the people in this network are concerns all needs that are part of the developmental pathways. Children who have this level of support will likely be more successful in school. This is the main premise behind Comer’s idea of letters home to the parent or caregiver. He wants to make sure that the parents and caregivers are aware of what is happening in their child’s school life so they are able to share in creating a positive experience at school.

Comer’s notion of developmental pathways is now practiced in many schools across America. In fact, there is such interest in his theory that a field guide is now available for creating school-wide interventions to help students achieve academic success. Comer’s theory is concerned with the ways in which the world is changing. He foresees children needing to have more skills and more “book smarts” than previous generations. The future adults of this society will need to be socially accepted while also being “book smart tech savvy” and multi-taskers.

Educators today should understand that when they become teachers, their duty is to advocate for not only the children in their class, but also the students in the entire school. Teachers are often the creators of grassroots advocacy organizations and coalitions. Advocacy is an essential part of a teacher’s profession. When teachers advocate for a student, their action conveys to children a message that the teacher cares about their well being and creates a positive bond between teacher and student.

photo credit: katerha via photopin cc

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

For Australia to improve in maths, policymakers need to make a plan and stick to it

This article was written by Vincent Geiger

Australia is struggling to improve its performance in maths due to a lack of continuity in policymaking.

While Australia tends to plan in three-year cycles, the countries that are performing the best – or making significant improvements – in international rankings for maths, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan – tend to revise their maths curriculum every five to six years.

This allows teachers to become fully acquainted with new initiatives and provides time for the bedding down of any changes to previous practice. It also allows curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

So what impact has a lack of continuity had on maths education in Australia?

Slipping standards in maths

The last two international tests revealed that Australia is failing to improve in maths education.

In the 2015 version of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia was 22nd in Year 4 maths, and 13th in Year 8 maths, a decline from 18th and 12th respectively in 2011.

In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Australia was 18th in maths, down from 12th in 2012.

The results of these assessments indicate that the performance of Australian students is declining in both an absolute sense and in comparison to students from an increasing number of other nations.

The government and opposition have blamed each other for the situation, claiming the failure of respective policy direction and its implementation.

Impact of continuity in policy

It is hard to ignore the fact that there are nations that have made changes to their approach to maths education and made significant comparative progress.

In the case of Singapore, revision of the curriculum does not mean throwing out all aspects of previous practice and beginning again. Rather, it means a meticulous process of reviewing what has been effective and what needs to be improved or added to prepare students for the world they will move into – not just the world as it exists.

Curriculum is based on knowledge and practices that have served students well in the past, but is also future orientated.

This period of time also provides an opportunity for curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

The approach to curriculum development is national, focused, carefully coordinated and then thoroughly evaluated.

In Australia, however, education is the responsibility of the respective states and territories. This poses a serious challenge for a coherent coordination of our curriculum development efforts.

Development of an Australian curriculum

The Australian Curriculum was heralded as a landmark in national cooperation in education.

Through the process of negotiation for its development and implementation, however, has emerged a determination by states and territories to preserve their differences and distinctiveness.

Some states have been accused of making superficial efforts to align with a national approach.

State efforts at curriculum development have a tendency to respond to whatever political pressure point is being stimulated at any time. For example, the most recent performance on NAPLAN results are prone to quick fix solutions.

Such flightiness brings into question how any long-term effective change brought about and rigorously evaluated.

Consequently, when looking at our national effort, it appears to be disjointed, unfocused, somewhat ad hoc in its development and close to impossible to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.

Introduction of teaching standards

Australia has created a number of measures to help improve its performance in maths. These include:

  • The introduction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) national teaching standards, which include a requirement that all graduating teachers have the ability to promote students’ numeracy capabilities across the curriculum.
  • A numeracy (and literacy) tests for initial teacher education students to ensure graduating teachers have the necessary level of personal numeracy to be effective in classrooms.
  • National programs aimed at strengthening initial teacher education students’ mathematics and science knowledge, such as Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers (ETMST).
  • Restoring the Focus on STEM in School Initiative, which aims to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schools.

These initiatives demonstrate the commitment of considerable federal resources for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s mathematical (and scientific) capabilities.

Taken as a suite, this list seems to represent a comprehensive approach to improving students’ mathematics outcomes – all aspects of curriculum, teacher pre-service education and teacher in-service education receive attention.

So why has this (what appears to be) well thought-out plan proved to be seemly ineffective?

Continuity of funding

Having been part of a number of federally-funded programs aimed at strengthening the teaching capabilities, I think it is fair to say that most have been successful in what they set out to achieve.

Programs such as the Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers, for example, were carefully scoped out and then thoroughly monitored throughout their implementation. They are now undergoing stringent evaluation.

But no matter how successful, no program has any chance of securing additional funding. We appear to set agendas, allocate funds, complete projects and then move on to something new – unlike many successful countries that value continuity in their approach to teacher professional learning.

While project leaders will always have in place plans for the sustainability of the work begun through a program, the hard reality is that without further funding those involved will be expected to find new projects and income streams and move on.

The Conversation

Vincent Geiger, Associate Professor and Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

The case for a fixed 15% fee on all student loans

This article was written by Bruce Chapman

The Grattan Institute has proposed that a 15% surcharge should be added to the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debt of undergraduate and college students.

The surcharge is not an up front fee. It is a fee that is added to the existing debt and paid later, depending on a graduate’s future income. Repayments are only made if a graduate’s income exceeds about A$56,000 per annum.

This flat rate means that, while a graduate’s loan would initially increase by 15%, that figure would not get bigger over time.

Currently full-fee undergraduates pay a 25% fee on their loans, vocational education students a 20% fee, while postgraduate and government-supported students pay no loan fee. There is no obvious reason for these disparities and they seem to have evolved through a lack of policy attention by many governments.

So for administrative simplicity and coherence it would seem a good idea that all HELP loans are treated in the same way.

Not a radical idea

The 15% surcharge might seem like a radical reform idea, but the notion of a surcharge actually fits comfortably with the underlying economics of the HELP system, and was part of the original HECS design of 1989.

Benefits to low income earners

While an increase in the size of the loan may raise the ire of prospective students, it is important to remember that this does not leave those who go on to earn a lower income any worse off relative to their wealthier counterparts.

In fact they would be better off under this reform, because there would be no financial advantage to paying off the loan quickly. This is not currently the case.

The lower income earners who take longer to pay off their loans as the system is now are also penalised with having to pay back more interest over time.

In this sense, the change will act as a kind of subsidy on the loans of lower income earners, negating some of the cost and keeping loans from spiralling out of control.

Benefits to the government

A starting point is that the government already passes a considerable discount to students by indexing the loans by the CPI instead of the government’s own cost of borrowing.

While in the past the suggestion of imposing a real, and much higher rate of interest on the loans has been floated, it has been demonstrated that this is not the most equitable solution.

While a 15% spike in underlying cost may understandably attract headlines, this isn’t out of the blue. Having a surcharge on HELP debts for normal undergraduates was part of the original HECS design, but it took the form of a 20% discount for those who chose to pay up front.

This is just the other side of the coin of a surcharge, and was part of the original policy to cover the interest rate issue explained above.

Also, there are already surcharges on other HELP debts, and these are currently (and strangely) different depending on the nature of the tertiary education that people are undertaking.

Why 15% fee?

However, these points in favour of a surcharge should not be conflated with a judgement concerning what is the “correct” level of HELP charges in total.

This means that simply adding a 15% surcharge is an implicit recognition that the debts for graduates are too low at the moment, and should be increased.

The case for a surcharge should be made independently from the issue of what the correct overall level of a charge should be.

The economic case of the Grattan argument for a surcharge stands without reference to any budgetary concerns related to the level of HECS debts, which is a considerably more complicated (and ultimately political) judgement.

The Conversation

Bruce Chapman, Director, Policy Impact, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Behind Singapore’s PISA rankings success – and why other countries may not want to join the race

This article was written by Amanda Wise

Singapore has topped the global Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in maths, science and reading, while countries including Australia, France and the UK sit in the bottom batch of OECD countries for achievement in these areas.

So what is Singapore doing right, and do other countries want to emulate it?

Clearly there are things to learn. Singapore has invested heavily in its education system. Its teachers are the best and brightest, and it has developed highly successful pedagogic approaches to science, maths, engineering and technology (STEM) teaching, such as the “Maths Mastery” approach.

Culturally, Singaporeans have a strong commitment to educational achievement and there is a national focus on educational excellence.

Success in PISA rankings and other global league tables are an important part of the Singapore “brand”. Singaporean academic Christopher Gee calls this the “educational arms race”. Highly competitive schooling is the norm.

Role of private tuition

Public discussion in Australia around why we are not doing as well as the Singaporeans is largely focused on what goes on in that country’s schools.

Yet there is one thing missing from the reporting on Singapore’s success: the role of private tuition (private tutors and coaching colleges) and the part it plays in the overall success of students in the tiny city-state. Here are some startling figures:

  • 60% of high school, and 80% of primary school age students receive private tuition.
  • 40% of pre-schoolers receive private tuition.
  • Pre-schoolers, on average, attend two hours private tuition per week, while
    primary school aged children are attending, on average, at least three hours per week.

That’s right. Eight out of ten primary school aged students in Singapore receive private tuition, either by way of private tuition or coaching colleges.

In 1992, that figure was around 30% for high school and 40% for primary school. The hours spent in tuition increase in late primary school, and middle-class children attend more hours than less well-off families.

The number of private coaching colleges has also grown exponentially in the last decade, with 850 registered centres in 2015, up from 700 in 2012.

Impact on family income

According to Singapore’s Household Expenditure Survey, private tuition in Singapore is a SGD$1.1 billion dollar industry (for a nation with a population of about 5.6 million) almost double the amount households spent in 2005 ($650 million). How does that look at the household level?

34% of those with children currently in tuition spend between $500 (AU$471) and $1,000 (AU$943) per month per child, while 16% spend up to $2,000.

Considering the bottom 5th quintile of households earn about $2,000 (AU$1,886) per month – the next quintile around $5,000 (AU$4,716) – this is a very large chunk of the family budget.

Imagine a family with two or three children and we get a sense of the potential socioeconomic inequalities at work when educational success depends on private tuition.

Surveys show that only 20% of those in the lowest two income brackets (a monthly income of less than $4,000) have a child in tuition.

One of the major tuition centre chains with outlets in shopping malls across Singapore. Author provided

Tuition centres

Tuition centres and coaching colleges range from more affordable neighbourhood and community based centres to large national “branded” coaching colleges with outlets in major shopping malls across the island.

The quality of tuition received is very much linked to how much one can afford to pay. It is big business.

The marketing strategies of the coaching colleges are very good at inducing anxiety in parents about fear of failure unless they are willing to pay to help their children get ahead.

Many parents complain that the schools “teach beyond the text”. That is, there is a perception that some teachers assume all the kids in the class are receiving tuition and thus teach above the curriculum level. Imagine the impact on those few children who are not receiving extra help.

Why does this start in pre-school and primary?

Singapore’s Primary School Leaving Exam (PSLE) is a seriously high-stakes exam that determines not just what high school a child will enter, but whether a child is streamed into a school that will fast track them to university.

Singaporeans do not have an automatic right to enrol their children into the “local” high school.

All high schools are selective and the best schools have the pick of the PSLE crop.
Primary students are streamed into four types of high school : the top ones feed students direct to university via the A-Level exams, while the bottom “technical” and “normal stream” schools feed into the institutes of technical education and polytechnics, with a much more complex pathway towards university.

Advertising poster for one of Singapore’s leading chain of coaching colleges ‘Mindchamps’. Author provided

The PSLE exam induces in 11 and 12 year olds the same level of anxiety seen in teenagers sitting the Higher School Certificate (HSC) or Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) in Australia.

Many middle-class parents believe the “race” starts early.

Parents are increasingly expected to have their pre-school aged child reading and writing, and with basic maths skills before they even enter school – and this is frequently achieved through private pre-schools and “enrichment” tuition.

While there is much to genuinely admire about Singapore’s educational success story, there is a question about the role of private enterprise (private coaching colleges) in shaping childhoods and stoking parental anxieties.

A potential concern when private tuition reaches saturation point is that schools come to assume the level of the “coached child” as the baseline for classroom teaching.

Many Singaporean parents I have spoken to bemoan the hyper-competitive environment that forces their children into hours of extra tuition, impacting on family time and relationships and reducing opportunities for childhood free play, developing friendships and simply getting some decent rest. Many feel they have no choice.

Singaporeans have a term for this pathology: “Kiasu”, which means “fear of falling behind or losing out”. Policymakers, and indeed reporting, needs to be cognisant of exactly what produces these outlying educational success stories.

This is not to argue Singapore’s success is entirely due to out of school coaching. Singaporean schooling excels on many fronts. However given the levels of private tuition, it needs to be seen as a key part of the mix.

The Conversation

Amanda Wise, Associate professor, Macquarie University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

NAPLAN results reveal little change in literacy and numeracy performance – here are some key takeaway findings

This article was written by Suzanne Rice

The national report on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) outcomes has been released today, showing the test results of Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.

The report outlines student achievement in reading, numeracy, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, and shows performance has stagnated.

Around 95% percent of students are included in NAPLAN results, meaning they provide a reasonable guide to how well Australian students are learning core skills.

Other than Year 9 writing, over the last few years, overall Australian achievement has flatlined – it hasn’t gone backwards but nor has it improved.

Here is a breakdown of the findings for each year group that’s assessed:

Year 3

Student performance in Year 3 reading and spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved since 2008.

Boys are on average doing better than girls in numeracy, but girls on average do better in reading, writing, grammar and punctuation, and spelling.

Since 2008, reading scores in Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria, Queensland, and West Australia have improved.

Year 5

Student performance in reading and numeracy is significantly better in 2016 than it was in 2008. Average reading scores rose from 484.4 in 2008 to 501.5 in 2016. Numeracy scores rose from 475.9 in 2008 to 493.1 in 2016.

Reading scores in Tasmania, Victoria, West Australia and Queensland improved between 2008 and 2016. Girls on average scored higher than boys in writing, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, but not in reading.

Year 7

Overall, there has been little change in any area for Year 7 students since 2008. Girls on average scored higher than boys in some of the literacy domains.

Year 9

Numeracy and reading achievement has remained the same for Year 9 students since 2008.

Writing achievement has decreased since 2011, however, there have been changes in the genre examined over this time – from narrative writing to persuasive writing – so this may be influencing the results. From 2016 the genre returned to narrative writing.

Students from non-English speaking backgrounds:

In a number of cases the achievement of students from non-English speaking backgrounds tends to have a bigger spread than that of students whose parents’ first language is English. Our strongest students from non-English speaking backgrounds are doing very well, but there is a long achievement tail.

Indigenous students

Indigenous students are still achieving well below non-Indigenous students.

Over the past 9 years, there has been some improvement for Indigenous students in Years 3 and 5 in reading, and in Year 5 numeracy. But as with the national data, the improvements appeared in the first few years of NAPLAN and there has not been much progress recently.

Impact of parents’ education

Student achievement analysed by their parents’ education and employment makes familiar reading.

The report shows that the higher the parents’ levels of qualifications, and the higher their level of employment, the better their children do in school.

In most cases, the biggest gap is between the achievement of students whose parents completed Year 12, and those whose parents finished school in Year 11.

Does location make a difference?

On average, students based at schools in major cities perform the best. This is followed by those in inner regional locations, then outer regional locations. In remote and very remote areas, average achievement is lowest.

These results tell us that as a country we are not doing particularly well at neutralising the effects of disadvantage, whether this is through location or as reflected in levels of parental education and occupation.

The recent PISA results already showed us that Australian education does not do well on equity compared to similar countries like Canada.

Our school systems are not good at reducing the influence of students’ home backgrounds on their achievement. We need to try harder here.

This is likely to require a range of government actions that include a more equitable school funding regime, quality targeted teacher professional learning, and actions to reduce the class divisions that riddle our education systems.

What doesn’t it tell us?

While the report tells us a lot about the impact of broad factors such as student background, it can’t provide information on what is happening at a school level, or the reasons behind the general lack of improvement over the last few years.

Establishing why student achievement has flatlined is a complex business and is not covered by the data collected or the analyses.

Where to?

There are two important responses to the report that governments can take.

First, we could apply what we know is likely to improve student achievement across the board: supporting quality teacher professional learning based on our knowledge about improving student learning from the work of people like education expert John Hattie.

Second, we can and must do more to reduce the impact students’ home backgrounds has on their achievement.

A funding system that targets funding much more strongly to high-needs students and schools is important.

Research shows that individual student background has an impact on achievement, but so does the mix of students in a school. Australia’s education system has become increasingly stratified.

So policies promoting a mix of student backgrounds in our schools, for example, by requiring that all schools enroll a percentage of students from more disadvantaged backgrounds to receive funding, would be another place to start.

The Conversation

Suzanne Rice, Senior Lecturer, Education Policy and Leadership, University of Melbourne

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Why the TEF could change the way students think about a university education

This article was written by Chris Husbands

It is one of the remarkable transformations of our time: the world is going to university, and participation in higher education is increasing. On every continent, more young people are going to university than ever before, and increasing numbers are graduating. In the UK, over a third of 18-year-olds go to university – and that figure is higher in the US, Canada and Korea, and rising fast in China and Africa.

As a result, around the world, governments are challenging their university systems to play an ever greater part in generating knowledge, educating highly skilled workforces and building more cohesive societies.

At the same time, they are puzzling about how to afford mass higher education. And that situation opens up a potential gap, between the world of higher education providers and the world of stakeholders – who are demanding more, and demanding it more accessibly.

Teaching excellence

Universities are unique institutions – not just because they undertake research or because they teach – but because, uniquely, they do both. And great teaching matters – it matters to universities as much as it matters to schools and colleges. And for the first time the quality of teaching at English universities will be assessed as part of the introduction of the teaching excellence framework (TEF).

Of course, identifying and recognising high quality teaching is both simple and complex. Excellence in teaching is something we all know when we see it, but specifying what exactly it is turns out to be a more complex exercise.

The TEF addresses this in a sensible way. It does not set out to assess teaching quality directly, but to look for those features which are the consequence of high quality teaching and student engagement, such as strong student responses, high levels of progression and retention.

The TEF begins from a common sense position – that teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes are the right places to look for evidence of the impact universities have. It then derives “core metrics” from the annual National Student Survey and HESA data on student initial employment – and uses these to develop initial theories about the work universities are doing.

All of this will be overseen by a panel drawn from across and beyond the sector, applying its judgement and expertise – and I am the chair of the panel.

High stakes

The TEF brings the opportunity to create a structure to celebrate excellence, provide clearer market signals and enhance quality across the sector. And if we get it right, to give yet stronger signals to international students about the sheer quality to be found across UK higher education.

The UK government is clear that it wants to create a link between funding and teaching quality, which will provide opportunities to reinforce and celebrate quality. And this is an opportunity to enhance understanding of higher education and of the way teaching is developing in a responsive and fast-changing sector.

Of course there are potential risks, both for individual institutions and also to UK higher education as a global brand. That means that the panel has to get the process right, and navigate a route through a complicated mass of data on a diverse sector.

Much of the initial work has been focused on understanding and responding to sector concerns, and these matter a lot. But there are other interests, too, which is why there is student representation on the TEF panel – because we need to be alert to student concerns about the overall quality of provision. So although it is important to reflect sector concerns, it is also necessary for the sector to recognise that universities matter to others, too.

There is no denying that the stakes in the TEF are high – high for government, high for universities and high for UK higher education. But if it is designed properly, and managed effectively, the TEF can give us the opportunity to celebrate excellence and provide a common way to think about how it develops.

And with more and more young people going to university, it becomes all the more important to develop a framework we can use to communicate clearly what is going on in university teaching.

The Conversation

Chris Husbands, Vice Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education

Making university admissions process more transparent is important, but won’t help improve equity

This article was written by Shane Duggan

Universities are being urged to make their admission process more transparent following the release of a report by the Higher Education Standards Panel, which was set up by the government to help with reforming areas of higher education.

The rapid expansion of the university sector has led to a disparity of admissions practices, with equivalent courses at different institutions potentially having wildly different admissions requirements.

Earlier this year, a Fairfax media investigation revealed up to 63.5% of students at some universities were being admitted to courses of study below the advertised Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) “cut off” scores.

However, subsequent disclosure by a number of prestigious universities has illustrated that this practice tends to be isolated to particular institutions, and courses of study.

The review was careful to point out that offers to students with an ATAR of “50 or less” made up slightly over 2% of all offers in 2016 – and more than half of these students rejected their offer.

Across the sector, universities have been accused of being non-transparent about how they deploy “bonus point” schemes. The review found that almost all providers offer bonus points of some kind. These points are commonly allocated for:

  • high academic achievement in particular subjects;
  • participation in elite sport or arts;
  • students facing social, geographic, or economic disadvantage.

The review suggests that the opacity is at least in part the result of successive waves of expansion and diversification of the sector that have gone relatively unchecked since the 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education (the Bradley Review).

Report recommendations

The review highlights five key issues around the use of ATARs for admissions that it sought to address:

  • a lack of common language used between universities
  • unable to compare course admissions criteria between states and territories
  • availability of information from admissions centres
  • overemphasis on the ATAR as an admission requirement
  • potential inflation of “cut-offs”.

In response, the panel makes fourteen recommendations focusing on four priorities: transparency, accessibility, comparability, and accountability.

Combined, the recommendations seek to improve clarity of information for young people and their families in the selection of courses of study, as well as for providers in assessing prospective student applications.

As was anticipated, a number of recommendations concern the publication of accurate minimum ATARs and clearer articulation of non-ATAR requirements.

The review calls also for the adoption of a common language around admissions processes across all higher education providers.

In a diverse system of relatively autonomous providers and discrete state and territory admissions centres (TACs), this will be difficult.

Third, the review calls for the development of a national higher education admissions information platform.

This aligns broadly with the Turnbull government’s advocacy of the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) website and was a key feature of the terms of reference for the panel to consider.

However, substantial research has shown that simply making information available does not necessarily address the challenges many young people face in completing secondary education and choosing higher education courses.

Too often, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are unaware of the options available to them. Commonly, they come from backgrounds with no history of higher education.

These students tend to have lower completion rates and report a poorer experience of higher education. Many do not feel that higher education is for “people like them”.

Is the ATAR still useful?

Four in ten students admitted to a course with an ATAR lower than 60 do not complete. from www.shutterstock.com

For many senior leaders, the ATAR remains an efficient and convenient tool for allocating Commonwealth supported higher education places.

However, researchers have suggested that the current policies contribute to “gaming” practices at some of the country’s most elite schools.

Research has shown how academic success concentrates in elite public and independent schools through subject and curriculum selection, intensive test preparation, and academic tutoring.

While debate continues regarding the effectiveness of the ATAR for predicting success for young people once they enter university, data does support the predictive power of the ATAR at a group level.

Data shows that four in ten students admitted to a course with an ATAR lower than 60 do not complete it.

Scholars have been at pains to point out, however, that ATAR performance and retention rates both correlate strongly with factors of disadvantage such as Indigenous, remote, part-time, and socio-economic status.

Transparency won’t necessarily help to improve equity

Equity of access to higher education remains an area of broad agreement between political parties.

Diversity schemes such as the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) are currently being reviewed in line with the government’s intended shake up of the higher education sector.

Over the next three years, HEPPP is marked for a A$152 million cut. Along with the shift to a demand-driven system, targeted HEPPP programs are thought to be partly responsible for the over 50% growth in low-SES participation in higher education since 2010.

More information needed for school leavers

The panel’s recommendations represent an opportunity to ensure young people have accurate information for making decisions about their intended courses of study.

They will not, however, address continued concerns about Year 12 completion rates. It is too late to begin the careers counselling process at the point of applying for courses, no matter how clear and accurate the information provided.

Helping students make an informed choice about higher education is critical. However, information about the admissions process itself is not enough.

Greater attention must also be given to ensuring that students are provided with the skills to navigate higher education.

It is increasingly likely that for the majority of young people, this engagement will be a lifelong activity.

Beyond this, helping students to develop a sense of belonging is key for boosting engagement and retention.

A successful reform must also include a more comprehensive approach to working with young people to identify a diversity of pathways and opportunities.

It must actively challenge and seek to redress the prioritising of university over technical and trade options.

It must be inclusive of broader questions of the benefits of having young people engage in education beyond school without reducing that discussion to one of “budget constraints”.

Despite recent concerns about the economic value of degrees, post-school qualifications are more important than ever.

These reforms must enshrine principles of student equity both in how young people are supported to access higher education, and in their experiences in those institutions once they arrive.

 

Shane Duggan, Lecturer in Youth Studies and Education Policy, University of Melbourne

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

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

The trendy classroom management strategy you should never use

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Michael Linsin

There is a lot of bad classroom management information out there.

Now more than ever.

Not a month goes by that we don’t hear of another irresponsible method being promoted.

We hope to list our top ten worst strategies in a future article, but today we’d like to cover one in particular that is gaining considerable traction.

It’s a strategy that both surprises us here at SCM and leaves us dismayed anyone would think it’s a good idea.

Yet, it’s actually being encouraged in many school districts.

It’s a close cousin of the “caught being good” strategy, which we also don’t recommend, but is far more damaging to the targeted student.

The way it works, in a nutshell, is that when you notice a student misbehaving, you would first approach them so they’re aware of your presence. Then, instead of confronting them directly, you would . . .

Praise the students around them.

That’s right. You wouldn’t say a word to the offending student, but instead gushingly tell the students near them how well they’re doing.

“Wow, I love how you’re working, Ana!”

“You too, Javier. Way to go!”

“Emily is also working beautifully.”

You would give the students within proximity of the misbehaving student an enthusiastic pat on the back for not misbehaving.

The idea, in theory, is that the targeted student would see their tablemates receiving praise, and thus they too would begin behaving properly.

They too would desire your praise. They too would seek to be recognized for doingwhat they’re supposed to do.

Setting aside the troubling and bar-lowering message you’re sending to the entire class by offering false praise—which you can read about in Dream Class—the strategy attempts to manipulate or fool the offending student into better behavior.

It’s the classroom management version of a magician’s sleight of hand. But it’s cruel and dishonest and doesn’t help the student actually change their behavior.

It offers no helpful feedback, no meaningful lesson, and no opportunity to reflect on their misbehavior.

Although it may work in the moment—which is why proponents of the strategy are quick to cite its “research based” credentials—it will quickly weaken over time and train every student in the class to become extrinsically motivated.

It will make difficult students less inclined to get back on track in the future and turn your classroom into a petri dish of neediness, dependency, and underachievement.

So what should you do instead?

Well, first imagine yourself on the receiving end of such a strategy. How would it make you feel? How would you feel about a teacher effusively praising everyone around you while you’re being ignored?

Is this someone you would trust or admire? Of course not.

Like your students, you too appreciate a straight shooter. You too appreciate a teacher who tells the truth rather than tries to manipulate you, toy with your emotions, or underhandedly bend you to their will.

Being a leader students look up to and want to behave for isn’t so difficult. Have a classroom management plan that clearly lays out the rules and consequences of the class.

Hold all students equally accountable by letting them know exactly how they’re misbehaving (feedback) and what the consequence is.

Follow through. Be a person of your word. Do what you say you will.

Sadly, most difficult students have been on the receiving end of an endless procession of strategies that attempt to appease, manipulate, and deceive them into better behavior—which only makes them worse.

What they really need is your honesty. They need your truth and forgiveness. They need your accountability, your leadership, and your consistency.

They need your praise based on genuine achievement. The kind of praise that is real and heartfelt. The kind of praise that uplifts and informs.

That stirs internal motivational engines.

That matters now and forever.

PS – If you’re a principal and would like to improve recess behavior, click here.

Also, if you haven’t done so already, please join us. It’s free! Click here and begin receiving classroom management articles like this one in your email box every week.

This post originally appeared on smarclassroommanagement.com, and was republished with permission

_____________

Michael Linsin is the founder of Smart Classroom Management, the top classroom management blog in the world with more than 60,000 subscribers.He has taught every grade level from kindergarten to eighth grade over the past 24 years, and is the author of three bestselling books about classroom management. He holds teaching credentials in Elementary Education, English, and Physical Education.

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

Empowering students and lessons in giving constructive feedback

A guest post by Brooke Chaplan

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

Students today more than ever before need to be empowered to go on to live effective, successful lives. It is important students of all ages have good examples of learning and education in their lives. They also need constructive feedback from teachers that can help them to mature as learners and as people. As a teacher, you are privileged to be able to give them both.

 

Begin with a Passion For Teaching

Your love for teaching will be the first thing students notice about you as a teacher. It doesn’t matter if you particularly like an individual subject you may have to teach, although that certainly helps. What students need to see in you is a passion for the art of teaching that will tell them that it is important for them to learn.

If you have a passion to teach, it will be translated to your students in thousands of non-verbal ways throughout your classes. They will see it in your eyes, in the invigorating way you talk about your subjects, and even in your tone of voice. The payback for translating your passion to your students will be that some of them will emulate your example and become teachers themselves. If you can demonstrate the best parts of learning it can inspire others to be lifelong learners themselves.

Personal Interest in Your Students Is Vitally Important

The teachers that make the most significant impression on students are those who take a personal interest in their lives. You may be teaching a very large class of students, where it is difficult to get to know each child individually. Nevertheless, in any class there are those students who stand out to you as either being very talented or very needy. You should invest the time to reach out to both of them, because they both need your help in different ways.

Exceptional students need to be spurred on to greater growth. Take college students aside and encourage them to perhaps pursue and online Master’s in higher education. Talk to younger middle school and elementary school students about honing their talents and finding what they are good at. Help them to find out how they can use their personal talents to pursue the career they were meant for.

Needy students can need a challenge for any number of reasons. You will need to take the time out of your schedule to find out why. Perhaps they have a troubling home situation, or may have cognitive challenges. Unfortunately, many students today have chemical addictions as well. Whatever the reason, attempt to help them and put them on the right path. Even a kind note on an essay can be a good personal notice for more shy students.

Share Your Constructive Criticism When Needed

Constructive criticism always has a positive edge to it. Though it may be initially perceived by the student as being negative, it is intended to correct for greater positive growth. It does not beat down or demoralize. In any class of students, it is sometimes needed.

Constructive criticism is something that should always be shared in private. Begin by telling the student the good things you see about him or her. This will get you started off on the right track. Then tell them what you think is holding them back, and how they can make a positive change. After this is done, reaffirm your confidence in them as an individual. If you share your concerns in the right way, it’s possible that the student will heed your advice. Learning from mistakes and error is one of the most important parts of teaching and learning.

Being a teacher is not an easy job, but the reward is that you are allowed to help students to reach their individual potential as human beings, and see them succeed. With positive feedback and constructive criticism you can help student succeed. It’s up to them as much as you to see where the future can take them.

Brooke Chaplan is a freelance writer and blogger. She lives and works out of her home in Los Lunas, New Mexico. She loves the outdoors and spends most her time hiking, biking and gardening. For more information contact Brooke via Twitter @BrookeChaplan.

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

The tech divide: An opportunity gap schools must close

By Robert Baker

Computer programming is growing at twice the average rate of national job growth according to Code.org —and by 2020 there could be nearly a million more IT jobs than U.S. college graduates available to fill them, representing a $500 billion economic opportunity waiting to be realized.

Living in Silicon Valley, I see firsthand the impact that technology skills make on one’s earning potential. Often times a college graduate with an IT degree can find a job with a six-figure salary right out of college.

Growing up with access to technology, and the opportunity to learn key IT skills such as coding and app development, gives students a huge economic advantage over their peers. But these opportunities too often are defined by a student’s family income.

While 90 percent of families with household incomes above $100,000 have broadband access at home, only 64 percent of those with incomes between $20,000 and $29,000 have home broadband, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Schools not only have an opportunity, but an obligation, to be the technology equalizer that levels the playing field for all students—but too often, we see a similar divide between schools in wealthier and poorer neighborhoods.

While virtually all schools have basic hardware and connectivity, there is a sharp contrast between those that have the high-speed wireless connections that can support devices for every student, and those that lack this sophisticated technology infrastructure. There is also a knowledge gap between schools that have savvy instructors who can teach students IT skills such as coding and app development, and schools without this expertise on their staff.

We need to do everything possible to get technology in front of more kids at an earlier age, accompanied by curriculum that teaches them coding and other IT skills. Fortunately, there are movements under way to help bring these skills to more students.

A growing number of states have passed laws allowing computer science to count toward math or science credits needed for graduation. Code.org offers free local and online workshops, curriculum, and instructional videos to help schools teach computer programming. Other nonprofit organizations, such as Yellow Circle, offer free online environments for students to learn IT-related skills.

Of course, none of these resources will do any good if students aren’t connected or don’t have access to devices.

Although 2014 marked the first time that the number of apps in the Google Play store exceeded the volume in Apple’s App Store, many app developers recommend starting with iOS first as their platform of choice. “It’s my contention that iOS development is quite a bit easier,” writes programmer David Bolton.

Add in the fact that Apple currently has a 90-percent share of the tablet market in schools, according to education research firm MDR, it’s clear that Apple’s platform is an important tool for students to gain exposure to.

But Apple devices also are more expensive than devices with similar specifications running on other platforms, which raises a significant question: How can schools in economically disadvantaged communities afford these tools?

That’s where companies like Mac to School help. We enable schools to save on the cost of high-quality Apple equipment by reconditioning and recertifying used iPads, iMacs, and MacBooks and selling them to educational facilities for a fraction of the cost of new machines.

Schools can purchase up to four times the equipment by purchasing recertified devices, which allows them to put that extra money toward wireless infrastructure, teacher training, and other essential ed-tech needs.

Given the huge demand for IT-related employees, and the technology divide that exists between wealthy and poor communities, there is both an economic need and a moral imperative to expose all students to technology skills at a young age—regardless of their ZIP Code or their parents’ income level.

Technology is a gateway to future success, but students from impoverished areas will need access to the same tools and devices if they are to be given the same opportunities as their peers from wealthier families—and schools have a critical role to play in ensuring these opportunities for all students.

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

_____

Robert Baker is the co-founder and chief executive officer of Mac to School, which buys, sells, and recertifies Apple equipment for education.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share