teachered

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Why the new SAT is a reminder to improve the teaching of writing

Jeff Grabill, Michigan State University

The SAT, the test that many schools require to check for college readiness, has recently gone through a makeover. Perhaps the most significant change is to the writing portion of the SAT, which presents students with new and more complex reading and and writing challenges.

College Board, the nonprofit that administers the test, had earlier announced that the essay in the writing section would be optional. However, many schools in the U.S. require their students to take the writing exam.

Connecticut, New Hampshire and Michigan are examples of such states, where the SAT, including its writing exam, is required, not optional. What’s more, scores from these tests are critical beyond their acceptance and placement in some colleges.

The SAT serves as the measure of the educational progress for all students in each state that adopts the SAT for that purpose. In such cases, the SAT is more than a bridge between high school and college. SAT has become a “high-stakes” K-12 assessment. In fact, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

But are schools preparing students adequately to take the new SAT?

I have been working for a number of years with K-12 writing teachers in Michigan on designing more effective approaches to learning in writing as part of my research. I believe the new writing test is complex and requires skills that U.S. schools are not teaching students.

The new SAT

First, let’s take a look at what’s different about the new writing assessment.

In a break from most standardized writing assessments, the new essay task is not designed to elicit students’ subjective opinions. Rather, its aim is to assess whether students are able to comprehend an appropriately challenging source text and craft an effective written analysis of that text.

Students need to discuss real-world topics in the revised SAT.Vancouver Film School, CC BY

For years, the formula for success on high-stakes writing assessments has been to craft a five-paragraph structure: thesis paragraph, three supporting paragraphs and a concluding paragraph. Within that structure, students are more or less free to say anything, and the more creative and engaging that “anything” is, the better.

Les Perelman, the former director of MIT’s Writing Across the Curriculum program, who helped create MIT’s writing placement test, summed it up, when he said:

It doesn’t matter if [what you write] is true or not…In fact, trying to be true will hold you back.

As Perelman noted, “in relaying personal experiences, students who took time attempting to recall an appropriately relatable circumstance from their lives were at a disadvantage.”

The revised SAT, therefore, is a major shift from “subjective opinion” to an analysis based on a real-world nonfiction persuasive passage.

The table below provides a quick overview of what the revised SAT asks of students. The five paragraph structure is still there, but the intellectual work required of students is vastly different.

The revised SAT. Jeff Grabill, CC BY

Students read a nonfiction argument that may be in the form of speeches, opinion editorials or articles that tend not to have simple for or against arguments but convey more nuanced views. Students are expected to marshal evidence about how the author builds a persuasive argument.

What makes the test challenging?

The first significant challenge is that the new prompt asks students to read rhetorically. Rhetorical reading is a form of analysis that is different from more literary forms of analysis that are likely taught in schools.

For example, the new SAT prompt asks students to notice how an author achieves a purpose, shapes a text for an audience and organizes information to achieve a goal. Students need to be able to analyze an argument pulled from topics across the disciplines.

For students to be able to do this, teachers need to help students become better rhetorical readers and better writers. This new way of reading and teaching reading must be layered into already overloaded existing curricula.

The second significant challenge, of course, is the writing itself.

In the past, success on “high-stakes” writing tests like the SAT could be achieved by following a highly structured formula.

That will no longer work. Instead, students will be asked to make arguments based on their own analytical reasoning. They will be required to marshal real evidence – not made-up events – drawn from the passage to be analyzed.

And students will be required to do this quickly, within a time frame in which they will already be engaged in more complex reading practices.

Writing instruction in schools

The reading and writing required by the new SAT will be new for students and many teachers. Rhetorical reading requires “reading like a writer” and answering questions such as “Why did the author do it this way?” Students will then have to write up that analysis in a way that makes evidence-based arguments.

What’s missing in the English writing curriculum? Dennis S. Hurd, CC BY-NC-ND

Any examination of English Language Arts curriculum in U.S. middle and high schools will reveal a nearly complete focus on literary forms and genres with relatively little writing. The basic values and focus that give us our “English” curriculum date back to a 19th-century shift from classical modes of education toward the study of literary texts. It was a shift from Latin and Greek models of discourse, and, most importantly, instruction in speaking and writing, to a shift to literature in English and a focus on reading and analysis.

The curriculum that resulted from these broad changes over time is “English,” and direct instruction in writing has never recovered. The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges, a project to help improve the teaching of writing, argues that writing is the “neglected R” in education. That same report notes that little time is spent on writing instruction – at best less than three hours a week. In a recent survey, 82 percent of teens report that their typical school writing assignment is a paragraph to one page in length.

This evidence is consistent with education researchers Arthur Applebee’s and Judith A. Langer’s findings in their comprehensive study of writing instruction across the United States. As they say:

[T]he actual writing that goes on in typical classrooms across the United States remains dominated by tasks in which the teacher does all the composing, and students are left only to fill in missing information, whether copying directly from a teacher’s presentation, completing worksheets and chapter summaries, replicating highly formulaic essay structures keyed to high-stakes tests, or writing to “show they know” the particular information the teacher is seeking.

Let’s not teach to the test

I work with teachers and schools quite anxious about how to respond.
Anxious parents – mostly parents of students who struggle with language or have learning disabilities – have asked me questions about the revised SAT.

Teacher preparation programs have historically provided little to no preparation in teaching writing to new teachers, though this is slowly changing. Surely, good teachers and attentive schools will develop well-designed approaches to the new SAT. But I believe responding to the exam is the wrong approach and misses the point.

What is required is a comprehensive change in how we value writing and writing instruction. If that were to happen, then more complex writing exams would be taken in stride because our approaches to learning in writing would exceed the demands of any high-stakes test.

The Conversation

Jeff Grabill, Associate Provost for Teaching, Learning and Technology, Michigan State University

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

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

Straight A students may not be the best innovators

Matthew Mayhew, New York University and Benjamin S. Selznick, New York University

Demand for innovation is at an all-time high. Innovation is now recognized as being key to economic growth strategies in the United States, Canada and countries in the European Union.

As a result, there is an increased need to understand what drives innovation. Certainly traditional research and development, funded by both the private and public sectors, continues to remain a primary source of new ideas and products. But innovation demands innovators.

So where do innovators come from? And how do they acquire their skills?

One place – perhaps among the best – is college. Over the past seven years, my research has explored the influence of college on preparing students with the capacity, desire and intention to innovate.

In this time we’ve learned that many academic and social experiences matter quite a bit; grades, however, do not matter as much.

What influences student innovation?

Our ongoing research, an example of which can be found here, has surveyed over 10,000 full-time undergraduate and graduate students in four countries – the United States, Canada, Germany and Qatar.

Our sample includes a wide diversity of students: those in fields of study often associated with innovation and entrepreneurship (e.g., business, engineering) as well as more traditional majors (e.g., arts, humanities, education); those from differing races/ethnicities and gender identifications; those from different socioeconomic and political backgrounds; and those from families that already include, or do not include, entrepreneurs.

To learn more, we asked students about their innovation intentions and capacities, their higher education experiences, and their background characteristics. We also administered a “personality inventory” to address the question of whether innovators are born or made.

Classroom practices can make a difference. Penn State, CC BY-NC-ND

We conducted a series of statistical analyses that allowed us to isolate the influence of any one individual attribute (e.g., classroom experiences, GPA, personality, gender, etc.) on our innovation outcomes.

Here is what our analyses have revealed so far:

  • Classroom practices make a difference: students who indicated that their college assessments encouraged problem-solving and argument development were more likely to want to innovate. Such an assessment frequently involves evaluating students in their abilities to create and answer their own questions; to develop case studies based on readings as opposed to responding to hypothetical cases; and/or to make and defend arguments. Creating a classroom conducive to innovation was particularly important for undergraduate students when compared to graduate students.
  • Faculty matters – a lot: students who formed a close relationship with a faculty member or had meaningful interactions (i.e., experiences that had a positive influence on one’s personal growth, attitudes and values) with faculty outside of class demonstrated a higher likelihood to be innovative. When a faculty member is able to serve as a mentor and sounding board for student ideas, exciting innovations may follow.

Interestingly, we saw the influence of faculty on innovation outcomes in our analyses even after accounting for a student’s field of study, suggesting that promoting innovation can happen across disciplines and curricula. Additionally, when we ran our statistical models using a sample of students from outside the United States, we found that faculty relationships were still very important. So, getting to know a faculty member might be a key factor for promoting innovation among college students, regardless of where the education takes place or how it is delivered.

  • Peer networking is effective: outside the classroom, students who connected course learning with social issues and career plans were also more innovative. For example, students who initiated informal discussions about how to combine the ideas they were learning in their classes to solve common problems and address global concerns were the ones who most likely recognized opportunities for creating new businesses or nonprofit social ventures.

Being innovative was consistently associated with the college providing students with space and opportunities for networking, even after considering personality type, such as being extroverted.

Networking remained salient when we analyzed a sample of graduate students – in this instance, those pursuing M.B.A. degrees in the United States. We take these findings as a positive indication that students are spending their “out-of-class” time learning to recognize opportunities and discussing new ideas with peers.

Who are the innovators?

On the basis of our findings, we believe that colleges might be uniquely positioned to cultivate a new generation of diverse innovators.

Counter to the Thiel Fellowship, an initiative that pays individuals to step out of college in order to become entrepreneurs, our work supports efforts by colleges and universities to combine classroom learning with entrepreneurial opportunities and to integrate education with innovation.

One of our most interesting findings was that as GPAs went down, innovation tended to go up. Even after considering a student’s major, personality traits and features of the learning environment, students with lower GPAs reported innovation intentions that were, on average, greater than their higher-GPA counterparts.

In short: GPA was associated with innovation, but maybe not in the direction you’d think.

Not GPAs, but being motivated, makes a difference. THINK Global School, CC BY-NC-ND

Why might this be the case?

From our findings, we speculate that this relationship may have to do with what innovators prioritize in their college environment: taking on new challenges, developing strategies in response to new opportunities and brainstorming new ideas with classmates.

Time spent in these areas might really benefit innovation, but not necessarily GPA.

Additionally, findings elsewhere strongly suggest that innovators tend to be intrinsically motivated – that is, they are interested in engaging pursuits that are personally meaningful, but might not be immediately rewarded by others.

We see this work as confirmation of our findings – grades, by their very nature, tend to reflect the abilities of individuals motivated by receiving external validation for the quality of their efforts.

Perhaps, for these reasons, the head of people operations at Google has noted:

GPAs are worthless as a criteria for hiring.

Somewhat troubling, though in line with concerns that plague the entrepreneurship community, women were less likely to demonstrate innovation intentions than men, all else being equal.

This is a problem, especially given jarring statistics that venture capitalists are funding males – specifically white males – more than any other group.

Such findings also speak to the need for higher education to intervene and actively introduce the broadest range of individuals to educational experiences and environments that spur the generation and implementation of new ideas. Fresh and creative ideas, after all, are not restricted to any one gender, race or family background.

As we say in our forthcoming paper’s finding on gender:

Imagine the explosion of new processes and products that would emerge in a world where half the population was socialized to believe that it could and should innovate.

Imagine indeed.

The Conversation

Matthew Mayhew, Associate Professor of Higher Education, New York University and Benjamin S. Selznick, Ph.D. candidate, New York University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Why it’s so hard for students to have their debts forgiven

Neal H. Hutchens, University of Mississippi and Richard Fossey, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Outstanding student loan debt in the United States reached a record US$1.35 trillion in March, up six percent from a year earlier.

About 10 million people who borrowed from the government’s main student loan program – 43 percent – are currently behind or no longer making payments, with more than a third of them in default. Some students are especially at risk, such as those who attended for-profit institutions.

Meanwhile, the loan default rates widely reported by the U.S. Department of Education fail to account for borrowers who default more than three years after repayment begins. These rates also fail to account for the millions of borrowers who are struggling or unable to repay their loans but aren’t included in the numbers because they’ve claimed an economic hardship deferment.

These unsettling numbers raise the question of what happens to borrowers unable to repay their student loans.

The ‘undue hardship’ issue

While individuals with debt they cannot repay often turn to bankruptcy, this discharge option is frequently unavailable in the case of student loans. Such debtors must first demonstrate “undue hardship,” an exacting standard few borrowers are able to satisfy and one not applied to most types of unsecured debt in bankruptcy.

Credit card debt, for example, can be easily discharged as long as a person qualifies to file for bankruptcy protection. The standard also leaves student-loan debtors without the types of options open to businesses in bankruptcy to work with creditors to reduce debt.

Some student-loan borrowers may soon have some relief, however. The Department of Education proposed a new rule this week, for example, that would make it easier for students who are defrauded by their colleges to have their debt forgiven.

That’s a step in the right direction. But more needs to be done.

As higher education legal scholars who have been examining these issues for many years, we have a special interest in the ways in which laws and legal standards support or harm students. The general inability for Americans to discharge student loans under current bankruptcy law represents an issue affecting millions of borrowers and their families.

This and the growing mountain of debt have prompted lawmakers and other observers to warn of another bubble in the making, with potentially disastrous consequences.

How undue hardship was established

The federal role in student loans can be traced back to the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which made federal loans available to all students.

In 1965, the federal government shifted from making loans to serving as a guarantor of student loans. An overhaul of federal loan policy in 2010 made direct loans from the federal government the only federally guaranteed student loan program, although loans from other lenders, often referred to as private student loans, are still available.

Until the 1970s, student loan debt received the same treatment in bankruptcy proceedings as other types of unsecured debt. Concerns arose, however, that unscrupulous borrowers had sought to discharge their student loans after obtaining lucrative positions in such fields as medicine and law.

Evidence suggests no widespread pattern of abuse existed, but Congress directed in 1976 that federally guaranteed loans could not be discharged in bankruptcy during the initial five years of the repayment period, absent a showing of undue hardship. Congress extended the undue hardship requirement to seven years in 1990, and in 1998 made the standard applicable throughout the loan’s life. And in 2005, Congress also extended the undue hardship standard to private student loans not guaranteed by the federal government.

Congress did not define the term undue hardship, leaving it to the bankruptcy courts to interpret its meaning. Most courts have adopted the so-called Brunner test (named after a famous court ruling), which requires student loan debtors to make three showings. First, they must prove that they cannot pay off their student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living. Second, they must show additional circumstances that make it highly unlikely they will ever be able to repay their student loans. And finally, debtors must demonstrate that they have made a good faith effort to pay their student loans.

This stringent standard can lead to disheartening results. For example, in one case, a bankruptcy judge denied discharge under the undue hardship to a student loan debtor in her 50’s who had a record of homelessness and lived on $1,000 a month.

In practice, most courts have applied the Brunner test, or similar standards, in ways that make discharge in bankruptcy especially difficult for many student loan borrowers. In fact, a 2012 paper calculated that 99.9 percent of bankrupt student loan debtors do not even try to discharge them. Among the reasons for this low percentage is likely the difficult standard to qualify for a discharge.

Some courts push back

Recently, however, a few bankruptcy courts have interpreted the Brunner test more leniently.

In perhaps the most well-known example, a panel of judges reviewing a bankruptcy decision discharged the student loan debts of Janet Roth, a 68-year old woman with chronic health problems who was subsisting on Social Security income of $780 a month.

Roth’s creditor argued that she could not pass the good-faith prong of the Brunner test because she had never made a single voluntary payment on her student loans. But the panel rejected this argument on the grounds that Roth had lived frugally and had never earned enough money to pay back her student loans in spite of her best efforts to maximize her income.

The panel also rejected the creditor’s arguments that Roth should be placed in a long-term income-based repayment plan that would extend for 25 years. Roth’s income was so low, the creditor pointed out, that she would not be required to pay anything on the student loan anyway. Nevertheless, a remote possibility existed that Roth’s income would rise in the future, permitting her to make at least token payments.

In the court’s view, putting Roth on a long-term repayment plan seemed pointless. Applying a common law principle of basic fairness, the court stated “that the law does not require a party to engage in futile acts.”

One of the judges in the Roth case filed a separate opinion agreeing with the judgment but suggesting that courts should abandon the Brunner test altogether. He argued courts should replace it with a standard in which bankruptcy judges “consider all the relevant facts and circumstances” to determine whether a debtor can afford to repay student loan debts “while maintaining an appropriate standard of living.”

Such a standard would be more closely aligned with how most other types of debt are eligible for discharge in bankruptcy.

So far, federal appeals courts have not taken up the suggestion to scrap the Brunner test, although several lower courts have begun applying it more humanely. The Brunner test, however, is a subjective standard, and debtors experience widely different outcomes when they attempt to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy.

President Obama signs a presidential memorandum on reducing the burden of student loan debt in 2014. Larry Downing/Reuters

Moving toward a more humane standard

Recent actions by the Obama administration on the issue – including this week’s announcement on “predatory” colleges – has accompanied the judicial activity.

For example, in 2015 the Department of Education offered guidance on when loan holders should “consent to or not oppose” undue hardship petitions involving government-backed student debt in bankruptcy proceedings.

The department also recently announced an initiative to address problems in making loan forgiveness available to individuals who are permanently disabled.

In the case of private student loans, the Obama administration has urged Congress to make such loans no longer subject to the undue hardship standard.

Courts and federal agencies can help to humanize interpretation and application of the undue hardship standard and make discharge a more realistic option for some borrowers. Ultimately, however, authority rests with Congress to make any substantive changes to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy.

While likely on hold until after the November elections, the pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act – the centerpiece of federal higher education policy – presents a key opportunity for Congress to review the undue hardship standard. At a minimum, Congress should give serious consideration to abolishing the standard for private student loans.

Other options include reinstating limits on how long the undue hardship standard should apply to federal student loans or directing courts to adopt a more flexible test for discharge in bankruptcy, such as that advocated in the separate opinion in the Roth case.

With so many student loan borrowers struggling, circumstances suggest the need for Congress to take decisive action on this critical issue on public policy and humanitarian grounds.

The Conversation

Neal H. Hutchens, Professor of Higher Education, University of Mississippi and Richard Fossey, Paul Burdin Endowed Professor of Education, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

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

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

The real reason more women don’t code

Karin Verspoor, University of Melbourne

I menstruate and I code. I share this perhaps shocking personal information in the interest of full disclosure, and in solidarity with a new satirical campaign from Girls Who Code.

The campaign proposes a simple explanation for the low numbers of women in tech: that our hormonal cycles interfere with our ability to code.

Other explanations offered up in the campaign include that women can’t code because their boobs get in the way or their long eyelashes make it hard to see the screen.

These explanations are obviously ridiculous and therein lies the point. For example, if women can’t code because they menstruate, then there isn’t much we can do.

After all, menstruating is part of our basic female biology. If it prevents us from concentrating, or thinking rationally, or coding … what hope do we have?

According to the Australian Computer Society’s recent figures, only 28% of all ICT jobs are held by women in Australia. The proportion is even lower for specifically technical roles in ICT.

So there is certainly a basis for wondering whether there is a fundamental reason that women are so underrepresented in IT and computing roles.

But I’m not convinced that the latest campaign from Girls Who Code is asking the right question. “Why can’t girls code?” is a question that starts from the assumption “girls can’t code”. Is this really the prevailing attitude?

Boys v girls

There is, certainly, evidence that boys favour other boys when estimating the performance of their peers in science class.

There is also evidence specifically from the open-source software community that there is bias against accepting code produced by women, despite the overall high quality of their contributions.

Anecdotally, most technical women can share a story of a situation where their work wasn’t taken seriously.

Dr Maria Milosavljevic, national manager innovation & technology and chief information officer at the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), told me how when she was the only girl in a year 12 computer science class, every boy in the class offered to “help” her with her assignments because they assumed she would need their help.

The implication seems to be that if boys don’t accept that girls can code, then girls can’t code. To me, that’s horribly paternalistic.

Worse yet is the idea that female biology is not suited to coding, an idea that was recently floated (seriously, I fear) citing a 1999 study of 15 people that identified brain differences between men and women.

Surely, there are biological differences between men and women. Periods, brain structure and so on must exclusively determine what women enjoy doing and what we are good at. Right?!

Girls can code

Let’s start from the default assumption that girls can, in fact, code. Nothing in our biology prevents us from being able to learn how to code.

There are plenty of examples that this is the case – after all, the proportion of women in technical roles is not 0%. And there have been some very high-profile female computer scientists. They include: arguably the first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace (1815-1852); the developer of the early COBOL programming language, Grace Hopper; her syster’s keeper Anita Borg; and Google’s first female engineer, now Yahoo’s CEO, Marissa Mayer.

Here in Australia, Kay Thorne was one of the early programmers of the CSIRAC computer nearly 60 years ago.

So, I think a better question is: “Why don’t (most) girls code?”

This is a question that has been explored many times, and even one that I have written about previously.

It is generally seen as a pipeline problem, with the challenge being getting girls interested in coding. The solutions proposed involve developing engaging opportunities for learning and creating with tech, demystifying coding and boosting confidence, and highlighting female role models.

Girls Who Code, Code Like a Girl, Go Girl, Go for IT and Tech Girls are Superheros are all organisations working to create these opportunities.

The truth behind the employment numbers, however, is more complex than that pipeline.

While we know that enrolments of females in ICT courses at tertiary level lag behind males, we also know from research done at Harvard that even if women enter employment in ICT, they don’t always stay there.

Beating the ‘brogrammer’ culture

There have been accusations of a “brogrammer” culture in tech that is hostile to women.

Microsoft got into trouble earlier this year for organising a party at a developer event featuring half-naked dancing women, highlighting that even companies that have worked to support women in tech still lose their way sometimes.

Which brings us full circle back to our biology and the idea that girls can’t code. Yes, women are different from men. Yes, women certainly can code.

On the other hand, women don’t want to face sexism or misogyny in the workplace, behaviour that is driven primarily by their biology. If girls are getting the idea that they can’t code simply because they are girls, then it’s no wonder they don’t see coding as a viable career path.

So maybe they don’t code because someone makes them feel that they can’t.

The Girls Who Code campaign oversimplifies a complex problem, and it delivers a message with nuances that may be lost on the people who need most to understand them.

But it has provoked a question about the connection between biology and cultural attitudes towards women in tech that is worth considering. Period!

The Conversation

Karin Verspoor, Associate Professor, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne

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

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

Teachers: Make The Internet Work For You

The World Wide Web can be a powerful tool for educators. The Internet is thick with informational resources, sample demonstrations, and primary source sites. You probably use the Internet every day in your personal life, but have you really sat down to consider what the Web could do for you as an educator?

The Internet is the connection among computers connected to various networks around the globe. These connections allow the sharing of information. Many classrooms use the Internet every day, as a communication tool, as a meeting board, and to conduct research. The Internet has the potential to be used for the enhancement of classroom activities. Teachers can create discussion boards online, where students can upload their thoughts and ideas to provide feedback regarding different activities. All the documents used in class can be uploaded to the same system, and the whole class has access to it. Teachers can see how the different groups are developing their activities and even track learning progress for each student.

The Internet is an excellent research tool if used correctly. Teachers and students alike need to know how to determine whether information is reliable and to become aware of issues such as copyright infringement and intellectual property, to ensure that they don’t incur any unnecessary litigation. Developing research skills is an integral part of subjects such as social studies. In general, all the information needed for a specific lesson can’t be found at one source. Knowing how to find different sources of information, and different points of view on the same subject, is an important part of today’s instruction. The Internet can also be used to facilitate foreign language acquisition, with an extensive variety of online resources, including exercises that give immediate feedback on performance results.

Compile a list of websites that you find most informative. Some of the sites can be for your own edification and for purposes of compiling lesson plans, and some of the sites can even be links to pass on to your students for their own perusal. There’s an entire world out there waiting behind a screen – don’t be afraid to go and access it!

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

What Teachers Really Want From Their Administrators

Ask any teacher why they chose a career in education, and chances are they will tell you that they have a passion for making a difference in students’ lives, and that they want to help their students learn, grow, and develop so they can be successful. You’re probably never going to hear a teacher say that they went into teaching because they wanted to attend meetings, coordinate an endless number of initiatives, and navigate administrative burdens and “office politics.”

Yet all too often in the modern educational environment, a disconnect between teachers and administrators takes hold, creating frustration, discontent, and burnout among even the most passionate and committed teachers. Far too many teachers claim that they feel their administrators are out of touch with the realities of classroom life, and make their lives more difficult rather than serving as inspiring leaders. Certainly this isn’t the case in every school or district, but with so many teachers struggling with their administrators, it only begs the question “What do teachers want from their leaders?”

Whether you are an experienced administrator, are considering earning a degree — learn more about what an Ed.S degree can do — to become an administrator, or are in the process of working on an advanced education degree, keeping the following teacher priorities in mind will help you be a better administrator.

Model Expected Behavior

Many teachers expect their administrators to model the behaviors that they expect from teachers and others within the school. A principal, dean, or other leader is key to establishing the culture of the school, and teachers appreciate those leaders who adopt a “do as I do” approach to leadership, rather than a “do as I say” approach. Typically, this means demonstrating a willingness to listen and really learn about the issues that are affecting both teachers and students, working collaboratively to develop solutions, and creating a positive atmosphere.

admin-2

Empower Teachers

When teachers are empowered, meaning that they have the ability to help determine the school’s goals and policies, and exercise their professional judgement as it relates to what and how to teach and how to manage their classrooms, they tend to have higher levels of morale and productivity. Teachers aren’t looking to be micromanaged or bogged down by endless policies. They want to be recognized as the professionals they are, and given the opportunity to be creative, take some risks, and make decisions based on what’s best for their students and the goals of the school.

Encourage Collaboration

A collaborative environment is proven to be more supportive of empowerment, and teachers want the opportunity to work collaboratively both with each other and with administration. They want a seat at the table, and the ability to be involved in the decisions that affect their daily work.

Protect Teachers’ Time

Professional development, meetings about school issues, discipline discussions, etc., are all important. However, teachers are very busy, and often overwhelmed by the sheer number of responsibilities on their plates. Effective administrators are respectful and protective of teachers’ time, only holding meetings when absolutely necessary (e.g., sharing information via email or memo rather than a meeting) and limiting the number of administrative tasks, such as discipline and school operations-related tasks, that they are asked to take on.

Provide Meaningful Professional Development

Teachers who do little more than stand in front of the class reading a PowerPoint presentation aren’t generally considered effective. Yet all too often, teacher “professional development” is little more than that. Make professional development opportunities more meaningful to teachers by engaging them, allowing for the exchange of ideas, and encouraging discussion. Teachers want to leave feeling inspired, and like they spent their time wisely, so facilitate that as best you can.

These are but a few of the most common requests that teachers make of their administrators, at all grade levels. Above all, though, teachers want administrators to understand the pressures they are under, and the challenges they face in the classroom each and every day. When everyone works together toward that mutual understanding, and teachers are given the voice they desire — and deserve — than everyone’s jobs will become more meaningful and fulfilling, not to mention just a little bit easier.

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

Why More Teachers Need a Leadership Mindset

Teachers are unequivocally the leaders of their classrooms. Regardless of the course’s level or subject, teachers provide direction, instructions, guidance, and motivation to their classes, stepping directly into the responsibilities of a leader within any business. Yet, only the most accomplished teachers ― those recognized with awards and praise ― view themselves as leaders; in fact, most teachers lack the training to provide the leadership their students need to excel.

For the sake of the students, it is vital that more teachers learn leadership skills and qualities. By examining how renowned teacher-leaders think and act and by exploring how teachers can develop the proper mindset, more schools can benefit from having true leaders in classrooms.

How Recognized Teacher-Leaders Behave

Though modern education systems like Common Core are designed to limit the amount of variance between teachers, it is impossible to disagree that some teachers are better than others. Superior teachers are often recognized with awards and special responsibilities ― both of which mark them as teacher-leaders.

A study on teacher-leaders discovered that these unique educators behave differently than typical teachers. Though their specific actions depended on their tasks and schools, in general, teacher-leaders could effortlessly employ well-known leadership skills to organize and empower fellow teachers and students ― skills such as building trust, inspiring self-reliance, modeling approachability, identifying obstacles, and juggling a variety of responsibilities. Ultimately, such skills work to benefit students and teachers alike by improving the environment and facilitating learning.

What Leadership Training Can Bring to Schools

Though administrators tend to receive credit for the success or failure of schools, teachers are responsible for helping students excel. On average, a school administrator remains in a position or at an institution for three to four years; comparatively, most teachers remain in the profession for more than a decade, and many stick to a single school. Therefore, teachers hold the institutional memory, and they develop the school culture. When more teachers develop the leadership mindset, the school is bound to succeed.

In the study mentioned above, teacher-leaders were found to provide significant bonuses to their schools. For one, teachers learn to overcome challenges of their profession without consulting administration, which saves a school time and money. Additionally, teacher-leaders tend to be less socially isolated, which is a common problem among American educators.

Many teachers begin to feel separated from society due to the overwhelming work they must complete each week, and loneliness is a dangerous predictor of a number of health issues. However, by learning how to function as a leader, teachers can prevent feelings of isolation. Finally, teacher-leaders tend to exhibit more personal growth than their non-leader peers. Teacher-leaders are more likely to seek intellectual growth, perhaps through advanced degrees that will benefit them in their profession, and they are more likely to achieve of personal goals unrelated to work, thereby making a workforce of teacher-leaders happier, healthier, and more able to help students succeed.

leadership-2

How Teachers Can Grow a Leadership Mindset

Unfortunately, just as some teachers are notably better than others, some teachers might not naturally adopt the mindset of a leader. Therefore, school systems must actively develop teacher-leaders through carefully designed culture and programs.

Typically, school administrators initiate the development of the leadership mindset by having a vision and crafting a plan, but self-made teacher-leaders can also instigate leadership training in their fellow educators by working alongside open-minded administrators. A school must have sufficient support from its community and staff to foster leadership in its teachers. In particular, parents must learn the benefits of leadership in the classroom, and staff must understand and accept the imminent changes to their roles. A leadership development program for teachers will not excel without the interest and encouragement of those it concerns.

Most importantly, teachers must remember that it takes time and effort to become a leader, especially when skills such as perseverance, building rapport, and facilitating communication do not come naturally. Administrators and existing teacher-leaders must push for the change they want to see, celebrating any and all successes and pressing their peers for even more progress.

Though not every teacher looks or feels like a leader, it is important for teachers to develop the leadership mindset. By employing leaders’ skills and qualities, teachers can do more for their schools and their students than they might think possible ― and their eagerness to do the impossible is exactly why we need leaders around.

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

Could Cyberbullying Be Causing a Rise in Absenteeism?

Seventy-one percent of teens use more than one social networking site.

Think about that statistic for a second. Roughly seven out of every ten teens are sifting through a combination of Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter and a multitude of other sites. Ninety-two percent of teens browse the internet daily, and 24 percent report they are “online constantly.”

Technology is now the common way of life, especially for teens. With the widespread use of this technology, it should not be surprising teens have adopted an age-old practice to fit into this digital age — bullying.

Cyberbullying as a practice is simple to understand. Teens pick on other teens through the use of technological platforms. And yes, it is a big deal. Almost 43 percent of kids have reported they have been cyberbullied. So, when kids are being harassed through social media or even in person, what is their defense? How can they prevent this? Many think there is only one answer. And that’s to simply not show up to school.

Absenteeism is not a new issue for the education community. One of the educator’s main jobs is to take attendance and make sure their students are showing up to class. If they don’t show up, then it is the educator’s responsibility to notify the administration of an absent child. New studies that look into absenteeism give stunning results that should be raising red flags.

In a study that encompassed over 500 school districts, it was found that 30 percent of students missed at least three weeks of school for the entire year. Three weeks equals out to 15 days of learning and development these kids miss out on. While this statistic is alarming, the question that naturally comes up is what is causing this high percentage of absences. While sickness and family issues are a natural part of the process, ABC News conducted a study on cyberbullying and found some intriguing results.

According to the ABC study, 160,000 students stay home from school every day because of bullying. That means 160,000 students are not getting a proper education because of the presence of bullying in all forms and shapes. It may blow you away, but it’s apparent that bullying is a serious problem in school and should not, under any circumstance, be ignored or thrown to the wayside.

Specifically, cyberbullying is a tough act to stop. While teachers can break up fights and keep students away from each other physically, the online arena is a whole different world. Harassment doesn’t just stop when the kids go home for the day. It follows them.

Facebook posts, insulting tweets and horrific Instagram pictures are all tools for cyberbullies. And then there are the texts, which put down the victim and pummel their mind until they believe what the bully is saying.

With cyberbulling being so prevalent, it’s hard to contain it and stop it. Technology is great in so many respects and is used quite often in the classroom. Chromebooks are employed in many schools on a regular basis for testing and enhancing the students’ learning experience. Built-in projectors that hang on the classroom ceiling allow teachers and students to explore any question they have about a topic as the internet is just a click and keystroke away. Technology isn’t going anywhere and is already becoming a normal method of teaching in the classroom.

The technology in the classroom also allows for a diversity of experiences to be seen, felt and heard. Students who learn better by doing can participate in experiential learning on their laptops while students who listen well can watch examples of their lessons play out on their computers. Technology allows all types of learning to occur, which is the goal of every teacher who cares about their students.

While correlation does not prove causation, technology does open up a new avenue for bullying. As with most things in life, there are good things and bad things associated with it. Taking away technology is not going to solve the problem of cyberbullying and absenteeism. Instead, educators and parents need to come up with a strategy to monitor their students’ and children’s activities online.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education

Public universities are under threat – not just by outside reformers

Brendan Cantwell, Michigan State University

A new documentary, “Starving the Beast,” recently examined the state of public higher education. Directed by Austin-based award-winning documentarian Steve Mims, the film argues that a network of right-wing think tanks and educational reformers are undermining public universities. It suggests that America’s great public universities may die from a thousand cuts unless policymakers change course.

My experience as a higher education policy researcher leads me to share many of Mims’ concerns. There are many serious challenges facing public universities.

However, my research also shows more than a right wing conspiracy is to blame for the condition of public higher education today.

Let’s first look at what the film tells us

This film’s story has many villains and few heroes. It describes how conservative politicians, think tank wonks, education reformers and wealthy political donors work together to transform public universities. According to Mims, they have two goals. The first is to run public universities like businesses. The second is to stop universities from teaching and research that contradict conservative values.

Have universities really been idyllic bastions of academic freedom?
Kimberly Vardeman, CC BY

The film shows how many recent reforms are ideologically motivated. For example, one idea that motivates reform today is economist Arthur Laffer’s “trickle-down economics.” Laffer theorizes that all government spending slows economic growth and innovation.

Laffer’s ideas lead reformers to believe reducing state support for higher education will boost the economy and prompt universities to become more efficient.

The other concept that has gained much traction is Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s idea of “disruptive innovation,” which holds that established organizations innovate only when upstart competitors upend their business model. For the reformers this means promoting for-profit colleges to compete with public universities.

Anti-tax lobby groups like Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) are also implicated in the film. Since 1986 many elected Republicans have pledged to ATR never to raise taxes, making it hard to adequately fund higher education.

The results of all of this, according to Mims, are devastating budget cuts, program closures, and the erosion of academic freedom.

But here’s the problem: In focusing on contemporary developments, the film implies that public universities were, until recently, well-supported, idyllic bastions of intellectual freedom.

In creating this impression, Mims indulges in what I describe as higher education critics’ tendency “to reject the present by pointing to a more perfect past.” Idealizing the past may tell a good story but it ignores the long history of political struggle that has led to the present crisis.

Why there’s another side to the story

Let’s consider the recent history of some of the challenges facing public universities.

Declining funding for higher education has been a serious problem in recent years. After the Great Recession in 2008 public universities in most states experienced dramatic funding cuts. But these cuts followed decades of decline.

A 2015 report of the American Academies of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) shows that in 1990 14.6 percent of state budgets went to higher education, but by 2014, this share had dropped to 9.4 percent.

I share the assessment that the states invest too little in higher education. Decline in state funding has led to increased tuition. But, as the AAAS report shows, other demands on state budgets, including increased health care spending, partly explain declines in higher education funding.

Research does show that Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures fund higher education less generously than Democratic governments. Nevertheless, some of the policies that weaken public universities have enjoyed bipartisan support. For example, policies allowing more public funding to go to for-profit colleges have had backing from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Let’s look within

Another claim made in the film is that reforms are designed to undermine academic freedom.

I disagree that threats to academic freedom come only from outside forces. This portrayal is too generous to universities, which often make decisions for nonacademic reasons.

Mims shows that intellectual activities that disagree with conservative ideology sometimes attract the ire of conservative politicians. One troubling example from the film is the closure of a poverty research center in North Carolina.

But as public policy expert from University of California, Berkeley David Kirp demonstrates in his book, “Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line,” financial interests often trump academics at America’s universities. Although painful for those involved, many program closures are motivated by cost and efficiency concerns rather than political ideology.

A large number of faculty are now hired on a part-time or contingent basis.
Roger W, CC BY-SA

“Starving the Beast” also identifies anti-tenure policies as a major threat to academic freedom. Sure enough, recent developments, such as policies in Wisconsin and Texas, weaken tenure and academic freedom. These are threats that come from outside of higher education. And, indeed, these policies concern me.

But more than one-half of all faculty are now “contingent” – that is, they teach on a semester-to-semester basis. This “new faculty majority” has little protection for academic freedom. In my assessment, widespread use of contingent faculty by colleges and universes poses the greatest threat to the academic profession.

Who is responsible?

Mims suggests that most people don’t know what is happening to public universities. That may be true. But in my assessment, social values might also contribute to the problem.

Results of a study by University of Michigan economists Brian Jacob, Brian McCall and Kevin Stange indicate that most students make enrollment decisions based on campus amenities such as state-of-the-art gyms rather than academics. Campus officials seem to be responding to what students want: Campus amenities are among the fastest-growing categories of expenditures at public universities.

It’s also the case that many students go to college for job training rather than the intrinsic value of learning. A study by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA shows that 70 percent of college freshman believe earning a college degree is “very important” in order “to be able to make more money.”

Often student enrollment decisions are based on campus amenities.
Penn State, CC BY-NC-ND

What is more, policies and politics destructive to public universities appear to be popular. Tax increases would be necessary to maintain high-quality education at low costs. Yet a majority of Americans believe their taxes are too high.

And several of the politicians featured in “Starving the Beast” as being harmful to universities, including Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, were elected to two terms by the people of their states.

Asking some tough questions

What does this all mean?

If, like me, you are anxious about the condition of public universities, “Starving the Beast” will only heighten your concerns. The film is a compelling account of how special interests collude to weaken public universities.

However, it tells only part of the story.

In addition to holding educational reformers and ideologues to account, it is my view as an educational researcher that we should also ask tough questions of ourselves, our neighbors and to university officials:

Are we willing to pay higher taxes for better higher education? How do we make educational choices for ourselves and for our families? Should university leaders rely on contingent professors while investing in football stadiums and gyms?

By asking these questions, I am not providing excuses for policies that Mims correctly identifies as harmful to public universities. I agree that state policies have been harmful to public universities. But what I am suggesting is that those concerned with the condition of public higher education consider the problem in a broader context with research-based evidence.

Excellent, accessible and affordable public universities are not possible without a broad public support.

The Conversation

Brendan Cantwell, Assistant Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, Michigan State University

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

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

Ask An Expert: Helping Students Avoid the Summer Slide

When the school year ends, teachers are happy to have a break from the drudgery of the school year, but they also want students to avoid the summer slide. The summer slide occurs when children lose some of the academic skills and dispositions that they gained during the school year due to the absence and scarcity of quality learning activities during summer vacation. As the old saying goes, if you don’t use it, you lose it.

To succeed academically, children need continuous opportunities to acquire new skills and practice existing ones. This need is especially heightened during the summer months, because children do not have the privilege of being educated by certified teachers. When we think of the summer months, we think of a happy carefree time when children can have fun and unwind. However, we forget about the potential learning opportunities that we can expose our children to. In order to make sure that your students do not experience the summer slide, here are some suggestions that your can give to their parents.

• Summer Programs: Many public and private schools run summer programs for their students. Take advantage of them. They are usually for only half a day and allow flexibility for summer vacations. Contact your child’s school to find out if they offer summer programs.

• Family Reading Program: Set up a summer reading program with your child in which they choose an agreed upon number of grade level books to read per month. Make sure that you consult the child’s teacher or a librarian for advice. In order to show solidarity, the entire family should participate.

• Specialized Summer Camps: Enroll your child in a specialized summer camp. These camps are fun and incorporate hands on activities into their curriculum as well. Some of the more popular ones include computer, science and math camps.

• Pick the Teachers Brain: Conference with your child’s current or next teacher and ask them to suggest summer workbooks, science activities, essay topics, and interesting summer activities for your child. You may even be able to elicit their help in assessing your child’s performance.

• Summer Enrichment: Summer is also a good time to fill in learning gaps. If you know that your child is weak in a particular subject, you may want to set up an enrichment program. Of course, as always, consult with your child’s teacher.

• Learning While Vacationing: If you are planning on taking a vacation this summer, you can turn it into a social studies activity. Ask your child to research the destination’s history, cuisine, popular attractions, etc. Also, once you reach your vacation destination, you can schedule tours of famous landmarks and locations, which will increase their social studies knowledge.

• Summer Journaling: Ask them to write a daily journal of all of the things that they learn each day. Remember, you will need to orchestrate learning activities for your children, because you can’t trust that they will be able to do it on their own.

• Turn Daily Activities Into Learning Opportunities: If you’re at the grocery store with your kids, challenge them to add up the total cost of your purchase. Driving to grandmother’s house? Ask them to find certain colors, shapes, or patterns along the way. If you’re dealing with older kids, think of appropriate variations.

• Learning Locally: Don’t forget about the local park, museum, zoo, aquarium, etc. Your local community is full of learning opportunities that you probably have never thought of.

Preventing summer slide can seem like a daunting task, but thankfully it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to pull it off. All parents need is to be organized and have the right plan. With the list above, you can provide them with some simple strategies that they can use to prevent summer learning loss, without taking the fun out of summer. When the new school new year begins, your students will be armed with the skills that they retained from the previous year and hopefully some brand new ones. This will make your job as a teacher a whole lot better. Good luck!

  • no reactions
0
Share