teacher quality

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

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

Ken Libby, University of Colorado

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

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

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

Fighting ‘ObamaCore’

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

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

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

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

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

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

State-driven testing

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

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

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

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

What teachers think

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s just too darn hard.

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

The “I don’t understand it” mentality.

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

Stop teaching my kid to the test.

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

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

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

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

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

Getting the Most Out of Student Teaching Mentorship

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

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

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

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

– developing theoretical knowledge

– practical skills

– adopting positive and professional dispositions

– evaluating the intern’s teaching practice

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

 

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

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

David Whitebread, University of Cambridge

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

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

Among the earliest in Europe

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

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

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

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

Importance of play

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

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

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

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

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

Longer-term impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conversation

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

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

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

School metal detectors reduce weapon carrying but not fear

Paul Hirschfield, Rutgers University

The recent horrifying spectacle of a disturbed student fatally stabbing his teacher in front of his classmates in Leeds has spurred a national dialogue about how schools should address violence.

Perhaps the most controversial measure under consideration is expanding the use of knife arches – known in the US as walk-through metal detectors. Given metal detectors’ longevity in some US schools (since 1992 in Chicago’s high schools), the number of studies that have assessed their effectiveness is abysmally low.

In the UK, teacher union leaders and the deputy prime minister have rejected the idea of more knife arches. Their opposition to this expensive technology is understandable given that armed violence is extremely rare in UK schools. Responsible policy-making is driven by patterns and sound cost-benefit analysis rather than the uproar over single tragic incidents.

But such a proposal may resonate in the minority of schools where the risk of violent threats and victimisation are more than remote. Some students in these schools reportedly arm themselves for protection and their next minor altercation could (but rarely does) escalate into serious violence.

In these jurisdictions, police and school officials may employ knife arches in order to signal that safety is a top priority, while raising awareness about the dangers that knives pose. But do knife arches promote the aims that matter most to students, parents, and teachers? Do they make schools safer? Do they alter the school climate in a manner that promotes students learning?

The answer to these questions surely depends, in part, on how the knife arches are employed. Arches, when deployed in the UK, are used sporadically – around one day, gone the next. Confronted with this temporary barrier, most knife-toting students will either ditch the weapon or ditch school (assuming smuggling the knife through a window or side entrance is not a realistic possibility). These potential assailants can be quite confident (and their potential victims reasonably concerned) that no knife arch will impede their next attempt.

Lessons from US schools

Whereas the limited capacity of sporadic knife arches to act as a deterrent seems obvious, you can reasonably predict that more frequent use would substantially enhance this capacity.

In the USA, as in the UK, opposition to metal detectors is intense and largely successful across the socio-economic spectrum. But there are some schools – predictably comprised largely of urban youth of colour – where the lockdown environments feared by campaigners in the UK are a daily reality.

During the 2009-10 school year, 4.8% of American high schools scanned their students daily for weapons (while 12% conducted random checks). In these schools, this ritual of submission is part of a broader effort, administered by full-time school security staff, to ban all forms of contraband such as cell phones and students who are suspended or in violation of strict dress codes. With the Obama administration’s blessing, school districts around the country are rethinking the “zero tolerance” approach.

In 2010, an exhaustive meta-analysis of studies on metal detectors, either deployed alone or combined with other fortification strategies, uncovered no studies that compared student outcomes before and after installation.

Among the five studies that compare student safety measures (all self-reported) in schools with and without metal detectors, only one reflects positively on metal detectors. This 1992 study involved students who attended three sampled New York City high schools that scanned their students at random with hand-held metal detectors approximately once a week. They were 43%-49% less likely than students of twelve other high schools to report carrying weapons inside or en-route to school (even though they were equally likely to carry them at other times).

Fear remains

But reducing weapons possession is of limited benefit unless it translates into reduced violence or fear. Collectively these five studies and a subsequent one from Rutgers University suggest that metal detectors fail to reduce threats, fighting, fear, and perceptions of violence and disorder. Injuries and deaths resulting from smuggled weapons are so uncommon that any benefits are likely to elude statistical detection.

The apparent failure of metal detectors to reduce fear is especially disappointing, because fear reduction is the most promising pathway through which metal detectors may improve academic performance.

Fearful students enjoy school less and often reduce school involvement. In some schools, attendance reportedly worsens on the days when metal detectors are employed. I am not alone in my lack of surprise.

Student perceptions of fairness, trust, and caring all promote safe schools. Metal detectors drive a wedge of distrust between students and their schools while conveying little concern for students’ rights.

Frequent and effective scanning requires a large investment of time and money, and it inevitably widens the net of surveillance. The thousands of hours that students collectively spend waiting in line to be scanned are hours that could have been spent engaging academically.

The money spent on arches and their operation is money that could have been spent on programmes that address the needs, struggles, fears, and hopes that students carry through the school doors, gates, and arches each day.

The Conversation

Paul Hirschfield, Associate Professor of Sociology and Affiliated Professor in the Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University

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

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

He Named Me Malala: the ordinary life behind an extraordinary girl

Alison Macdonald, UCL

Malala Yousafzai was shot by the Taliban in 2012 for speaking out in support of girls’ education in Pakistan. Since then, based in the UK, she has continued her advocacy. She is the youngest-ever Nobel laureate: when it was awarded last year, she was just 17.

No doubt, then, that Malala, who grew up in Pakistan’s Swat valley and went on to inspire the world, is a truly remarkable young woman. But He Named Me Malala tells her personal story, whilst also shining a light on the wider global issue of the systematic exclusion of children, and especially girls, from education.

David Guggenheim’s documentary captures Malala’s everyday life as both a young teenager and a global activist through poignant and often humorous interview scenes. Malala is followed around her home, through school, to television interviews and global summits to spread her message of educational equality.

There are also hard-hitting clinical reconstructions of Malala’s emergency surgery in the UK after she was shot, brashly juxtaposed with the animated depiction of her upbringing in the Swat Valley. The dreamy style of these animations works well to capture the nostalgia of a life to which Malala and her family can no longer return.

Malala’s distinctiveness and bravery is reinforced by the way the film plays off the many juxtapositions of her life – voice and silence, empowerment and oppression, the triumph over tragedy. In so doing, it blends together a palpable sense of injustice with an unwavering commitment to hope. Malala speaks eloquently about everything from her favourite books and film stars to world politics. Her personal experience of suffering, however, remains wrapped in stoic silence.

Seemingly inconsequential, but touching moments of quotidian family life do well to pull you in emotionally to the heart-warming experiences of the Yousafzai family, who now live in the UK. Her relationship with her father, the “he” of the film’s title, is particularly focused on. Ordinary portraits of Malala’s giggling girlish coyness and childish banter with her brothers are a welcome reprise from the film’s prodigal tendencies. Indeed, these moments are crucial: they undercut the propensity of the film to romanticise Malala’s heroism. It is the very ordinariness of Malala’s everyday life, contrasted with the unnerving tenacity of her speeches to the UN, that pulls the rug from under our awe-inspired feet.

These touching moments are also important in the way they disrupt stereotypical imaginations of the “Islamic Other”, so often portrayed negatively in mainstream cinema and the media. The value of this simple depiction of a Muslim family being like any other family living in the UK cannot be overstated.

Malala and director David Guggenheim.
20th Century Fox

At the same time, many other wider political concerns are only hinted at. Nuggets of insight, such as Malala’s father’s claim that “the Taliban is not a person. It is an ideology”, certainly give the film a political flavour but could have been delved into in more detail.

Similarly, a 30-second clip of some Pakistani men agreeing with the Taliban’s threat to shoot Malala should she return is interesting, but also warranted more attention, particularly because it could have helped the audience better understand the everyday Pakistani perspective.

While this certainly makes for a good story, I couldn’t help but wonder about the voices of the people – in particular, the young girls – living back in Pakistan. Although the film uses Malala’s experience as a prism for thinking about the injustice of a lack of education globally, it may have been a more powerful argument for social change if the film had spent more time examining the reality of those left behind.

But despite this small niggle, He Named me Malala is a very important film. It does the crucial job of sharing the exceptional story of an exceptional young woman with a wider audience. And as an accomplished narrative of a heroic girl standing for what she believes in, it can do no wrong. But it is the moments of ordinariness that give the film real traction.

It is these moments that inspire and show us that any person, anywhere, can muster a voice. And a powerful, revolutionary one at that.

The Conversation

Alison Macdonald, Teaching Fellow in Social Anthropology, UCL

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

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

How to Help Second-Language Learners Thrive in American Schools

If you’re a teacher helping ELL students succeed in regular education classrooms, there are a few things you must consider.

First, you need to educate yourself about the language acquisition process. You should also contextualize learning so that content is relevant to students’ experiences with their families. And most importantly, don’t allow the language barrier to interfere with a belief that ELL students can learn. You can’t underestimate the power of high expectations when it comes to success with language development (and learning in general). As a teacher, you should be willing to learn about ELL students, their families, and their communities, to structure meaningful learning experiences.

Use technology, including recordings, videos, and presentations, to emphasize language concepts. Students should be allowed to demonstrate their language acquisition through dramatization or video, with subtitles in their native language.

Some programs endorse the use of translation devices or electronic dictionaries in the classroom. However, there is some debate as to whether or not these forms of assistive technology actually defeat the purpose of English language learning.

Another less-considered idea is to include ELL students’ families and communities in the learning process. For example, you can host presentations or entertainment nights so students can show parents what they’ve learned. The community can be included as a means for support by inviting bilingual guests to share their language-learning experiences with students. ELL students will learn that language is a challenge for everyone and that learning a second language becomes a valuable, admirable skill. Cooperative and collaborative learning can also be effective. Many ELL students learn best in small-group discussions where there is less pressure to speak perfectly. Introducing the entire class to a third language might be beneficial, to help instill empathy for the new language learners.

Visual aids also support learning among ELL students. These include nonverbal behavior such as pointing, body language, signals, and gestures, as well as photos, videos, and dramatizations. ELL students should be encouraged to use graphic organizers and to keep picture journals of the words they have learned. Writing journals and learning logs also support learning among ELL students. Also helpful are alternative versions of texts or novels and teacher-provided notes for lectures or presentations.

I hope these tips are useful for taking part in ELL students’ success. Do you have any other tips that will help ELL students learn best in a school setting? Please leave your thoughts below.

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

Digital Doom? 3 Effects of Texting and Tweeting on Students’ Writing Skills

Internet and cell phone cultures have brought a whole new meaning to American slang. Not only are kids these days speaking informally, but now those relaxed rules of grammar are sneaking into written words too.

This is probably not surprising at all, but do you know just how much this culture has affected our students’ writing skills? Fortunately, I have three research-backed results to show you.

1. Students can no longer tell the difference between formal and informal writing: The Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life project asked middle and high school educators about their thoughts on digital tools and the impact on student writing. The biggest problem with these digital avenues of composition, according to surveyed teachers, is the blurring of lines between formal and informal writing. Abbreviations are common, particularly on platforms like Twitter that have a 140-character limit. Most smartphones now have no limits on texting characters, but students that owned phones with the 160-character limits of just a few years ago have already formed short, abbreviated habits. In the digital realm, short and sweet is the key – even if a grammar, punctuation and writing formalities fall by the wayside. The same is not true of educational writing pursuits though, as K-12 writing instructors must prepare students for the demands of strong, professional writing in college and the workplace.

2. But at least they are more creative: Over two-thirds of the respondents said that writing platforms provided through Internet and cell phone use have improved student creativity. Students also have more outlets for collaboration which encourages improvement and “putting it out there” in terms of writing that may have been closeted to notebooks or diaries in pre-Internet generations.

3. Even after graduating college, young adults cannot write. A report released by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills found that over 26 percent of college graduates have deficient writing skills. These findings were not based on graduation assessment exams, but compiled by interviewing actual employers. These employers said that many college-educated employees could not even accomplish the basic writing tasks of the job proficiently. How are these students earning college degrees if their writing is not up to par though? With the average U.S. student accruing $35,200 in college debt, it would seem learning the basics of writing, at least above a “deficient” level, would be a given takeaway.

The deficiency is not the fault of the colleges and universities though, at least not totally. Students are showing up for college without the skills needed to write well and with schools assuming they already know the basics. The 2011 book Academically Adrift found that less than half college students felt their writing had improved at all in college. Less than half also said they were never required to write a paper longer than 20 pages. In a nutshell, the writing proficiency that half of these students exhibited as seniors in high school was the same four years later, despite the so-called rigors and high cost associated with a college education.

While colleges could certainly take a hint from these numbers, the work of remedial writing education is not the responsibility of colleges. It falls on the teachers that come long before the adult years. These teachers face an uphill battle though, especially in an age where formal writing is often confused with everyday communication. The tools for creativity in the writing process may be better than ever, but the constraints of digital communication are hurting students’ composition and their attention spans too.

How can students who have essentially made a lifestyle of short, segmented, slang-ridden writing conform to the formal communication still expected in the real world? It starts with teachers who set high standards and do not waver. In the long run, the fear of losing a student’s interest by insisting on high writing standards is a small one compared to the implications of college graduates viewed as writing-deficient by the people who sign their paychecks.

How can K-12 teachers win out against the negative impact of digital communication on formal writing? Please share your thoughts.

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

All You Need to Know About Substitute Teaching

The job market is wildly unpredictable. Depending on the year, it can be difficult for educators – especially newly graduated ones – to find a permanent position with a school. If your job searching process is taking longer than you expected, you may want to seriously consider looking into substitute teaching.

Practical experience is more important than ever in today’s job market, and you can’t immediately secure a teaching position following graduation, or wish to obtain more experience in the teaching field, substitute teaching may be an avenue allowing you to do so. When full-time teachers are unavailable due to illness, family responsibilities, or personal or professional conferences, substitute teachers may be called in. Some districts tend to hire permanent staff from their available substitute teacher pool when positions become available, so this could also be a way of moving gradually into a position or secure employment.

Approximately 270,000 substitute teachers are employed across the United States, and approximately 1 full year of a student’s K–12 education is taught by substitute teachers.

Qualifications for a substitute vary by district and according to need. However, a bachelor’s degree or enrollment in the final years of a teacher college program is usually the absolute minimum requirement. Many districts with a shortage of substitute teachers relax the qualifications simply to be able to cover the classes. Some may require certified teachers for long-term substitute teaching when the full-time teacher must take an extended leave of absence (e.g., maternity or medical leave).

To obtain a substitute teaching position, inquire at the office of the district where you wish to teach, or check the district Web site for details. The process for being added to the substitute list differs from district to district. If you do decide to accept a position as a substitute, know that you are playing an important part in helping keep a classroom running. Your presence enables education to keep going. While your role may be temporary, it is still extremely important!

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

Landing Your Dream Teaching Job

Finding a job after completing your degree can seem like a pretty daunting feat. However, you don’t have to go it alone. There are several resources and networking services available to help soon-to-be and new graduates find a placement. Some of the most common include:

1. College Career Centers

Most colleges have a career services office to assist graduates in finding employment. Career services offices allow you to complete a current placement file containing all of your credentials. The career services personnel will provide your placement file to any employers requesting credentials. The career services offices also provide current job postings, may arrange on-campus interviews, and can provide you with other job search resources.

2. The School Districts Themselves

Once your placement file is updated, contact the districts where you’re most interested in working. Find out their procedures for applying for a certified teaching position and if they expect any openings in your area. Many districts have this information available online, but other districts may require you to call.

3. Local Job Fairs

Job fairs are also an excellent place to apply for teaching positions. At a teacher job fair, area districts set up booths and accept applications from potential candidates. Candidates should dress professionally and prepare for a pre-interview.

4. Personal Contacts

Finally, remember to use your contacts. Ask your collaborating/mentoring teacher, other teachers you know, colleagues, college instructors, and anyone who may have information regarding job openings. Most important, don’t forget to follow through with all of your leads.

It may take several attempts at reaching out and applying for positions before you finally receive an offer. Be persistent, show up in person whenever you can, and don’t be afraid to ask for help from those who are already established in the field who might be able to help you get a foot in the door.

  • no reactions
0
Share