The Conversation

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

Moving ‘quality’ teachers between schools will not help disadvantaged children

Paul Thomas, Furman University

The bi-partisan federal legislation in the US popularly known as “No Child Left Behind” was passed during George W Bush’s first term. It had two important goals: to increase scientifically based education research and to narrow the racial achievement gap. Both goals have proven to be elusive and complicated.

Scientifically based education research has been ignored repeatedly in the US. Instead, many ongoing school reforms continue despite limited evidence from the research base of their efficacy. These include reforms such as the “Common Core standards” (a national curriculum for all public school students), the widespread take-up of charter schools, and increasing support for the alternative (non-certification) teaching programme, Teach for America.

Current education policy has also increased debates about and efforts to address teacher quality. Now, a renewed interest in how teachers are assigned to particular schools appears to be gaining momentum. The US department of education is developing a 50-state strategy to equitably distribute the best teachers around the country.

Hard to identify a good teacher

Traditionally in the US, teacher quality has been rewarded based on years of experience and advanced degrees. But few efforts to identify what makes a good quality teacher have proven effective. More recently, policies that quantify teacher quality using value-added methods, combined with paying on merit, have replaced traditional teacher compensation and evaluation.

Value-added methods being adopted across the US involve students sitting pre- and post-tests and using that data in complex calculations that determine each teacher’s “value”, or impact on students’ test scores.

While linking teacher quality to student test scores has political and popular appeal, that process is less precise than advocates claim. Further reforms, aimed at determining teacher quality, are addressing how students are assigned to teachers.

A report for the Education Trust, a US not-for-profit, back in 2006, detailed the inequity of teacher assignment by social class and race across the US. It found that high poverty and high minority schools have a disproportionate number of un-certified and under-certified teachers, especially for subjects such as maths. These students were also disproportionately assigned to new teachers.

The study’s authors, Heather Peske and Kati Haycock, concluded: “Overall, the patterns are unequivocal. Regardless of how teacher quality is measured, poor and minority children get fewer than their fair share of high-quality teachers.”

Flawed move towards pay for results

Since teacher quality and assignment have historical and current patterns of inequity, many reform advocates promote greater use of value-added methods to address that gap. But as maths teacher and blogger Gary Rubinstein explains, trying to use these methods to close the teacher quality gap is also flawed.

He says there is a problem with the implication that those teachers who are rated as “effective” in one school with a wealthier population, will “still get that same ‘effective’ rating if they were to transfer to a poorer school”.

Identifying teacher quality is complex not only because different populations of students affect teacher quality but also because teacher quality contributes only a small percentage of measurable student achievement.

While states in the US are increasingly replacing traditional practices for evaluating and compensating teachers, Stanford University’s Edward H Haertel warns this can translate into “bias against those teachers working with the lowest-performing or the highest-performing classes”.

“Attempts to recruit and retain the best teachers where they are needed the most,” explains former UCLA lecturer Walt Gardner, “have largely been unsuccessful”. These earlier and even more recent efforts have focused on increasing teacher pay to attract high-quality teachers.

Repackaging incentives and bonuses will not retain experienced and effective teachers in high-needs schools and students. Gardner argues that instead:

If we want to create equitable distribution of teachers, we have to make conditions for teaching in schools serving poor and minority students so attractive that few will refuse the opportunity to teach there. I suggest starting with three periods a day, each containing a class of no more than 15 students. I’d then add a non-certificated adult to act as a teaching assistant for each teacher. This will be expensive, but if we’re serious about getting the best talent it’s the price we have to pay.

Getting the conditions right

For students living in impoverished homes, the conditions of living are powerful forces that overwhelm their ability to be successful at school. Since the conditions of learning at school tend to reflect those living conditions, students are further alienated from opportunities to learn.

For teachers, the conditions of teaching are also vital. The two original goals of “No Child Left Behind” are likely best served by addressing class size, teacher autonomy, facilities conditions, and schools as communities.

But attracting high quality teachers will have to do more than changing the teaching conditions in high poverty schools, which tend to reflect the same inequities found in the communities they serve.

As long as schools in the US allow children to be doubly disadvantaged by their home communities and their schools, teachers are unlikely to find either that community or that school a place to spend their career.

Policies addressing teacher quality and equitable teacher assignments must address inequity and poverty both in society and in schools. These commitments should prove to be far more effective than measuring teacher quality based on test scores or offering teachers increased salaries.

The Conversation

Paul Thomas, Associate Professor of Education, Furman University

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

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

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

How an induction year can make all the difference to novice teachers

Maureen Robinson, Stellenbosch University

New teachers have several options once their degrees are finished. Some want to study further, whether in their subject area or cutting across to broader issues like special needs education or education policy. Others hope to travel, teach overseas and learn about different countries’ school systems.

In South Africa, according to an internal planning report by the Department of Higher Education, more than 15,000 new teachers are expected to graduate from universities in 2015.

Research shows that the first year at work is toughest for novice teachers. Some may be barely older than their learners, or daunted by having to manage large classroom groups. Some may feel intimidated that they have to master enough content knowledge to teach all the subjects in the primary school curriculum. Some may feel overwhelmed by the social problems in the community surrounding the school.

How best can the education system support these new teachers in such a way that they become competent and confident while also retaining their passion, enthusiasm and idealism? One possible intervention is induction, where novice teachers receive structured mentoring and support by more experienced teachers in their first year or two at work.

This has worked well in countries as diverse as Switzerland, France, China, New Zealand and Japan – and there is evidence to suggest it could be very useful in South Africa.

A long term investment

The South African Council of Educators has mooted the introduction of an induction year from 2017. The statutory body believes that induction can promote the image of teaching by helping to identify those who are not able to live up to the profession’s required ethical standards.

I recently attended a presentation by independent education specialist Martin Prew for the Centre of Development and Enterprise in Johannesburg. Prew argued that induction enhances teacher effectiveness, strengthens teaching skills, helps with professional socialisation and, most importantly, has been shown globally to lower teacher attrition.

Nobody will contest the value of providing support to novice teachers. But the nature of this support, and how best to implement it, still needs much discussion.

Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond, who has researched the issue extensively, told the Centre of Development and Enterprise there were several key factors for effective induction. These include:

  • trained mentors who can give useful feedback;
  • opportunities to view and analyse good classroom practice;
  • a reduced load for beginner teachers;
  • shared planning time; and
  • additional learning experiences such as seminars about assessment, how to work with parents, and so on.

This is much more than the general orientation to school rules and policies that often goes under the guise of induction. It requires far more time and commitment than is often available to senior teachers in the busy school year.

What, then, are some of the issues that should be considered as South Africa sets about designing an induction programme for new teachers?

Time, training, cost and certification

The first issue is time. This must be built into the crowded school day so that new and experienced teachers can get together and talk in earnest and thoughtful ways about their challenges, interventions and suggestions. Those designing the induction system must ensure that the pressures of a full curriculum and a myriad of administrative tasks do not mean such talk remains perfunctory, without analysis and reflection.

The second issue is that of training. An experienced teacher is not the same as a good mentor. Once mentors are identified, they themselves may need guidance on how best to support new teachers. The question of who will provide this training is at this stage not clear.

Cost is the third issue. School-based mentoring, which is sensitive to the context of the individual teacher and school, and is grounded in practice, has been shown to be most effective in the long run. However, a standardised model of mentor training will be cheaper to implement, as one set of guidelines can be developed and teachers can be trained in a centralised venue.

Finally, there is the matter of certification. Presently it is universities which have the legal competence to provide qualified teacher status. If full qualification status becomes dependent on passing the induction year, a new framework of certification will need to be developed with its own rules and requirements, as well as its own bureaucracy and quality assurance mechanisms.

It is very doubtful that this is desirable in a system which already struggles with the capacity to carry out its work.

An important discussion

None of these considerations should detract from seriously considering the introduction of teacher induction. Any intervention that can support new teachers and add value to the teaching profession is worth exploring.

All those involved in teacher preparation should look forward to a deep discussion about the purpose and potential of induction, and careful planning as to how this might be achieved.

The Conversation

Maureen Robinson, Dean, Faculty of Education, Stellenbosch University

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

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

Without teacher guidance, all the tech in the world will be quite useless

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

Kentaro Toyama, University of Michigan

A couple of years ago, I taught an afterschool class at a Seattle nonprofit, the Technology Access Foundation (TAF), which provides STEM education (science, technology, engineering, math) to children from less-privileged backgrounds. My students were 8-11 years old, and it was the first time that I had taught elementary school students.

The curriculum devised by TAF’s staff involves hands-on interaction with laptops to explore programming, robotics and audio editing. With a PhD in computer science and a range of experience teaching older students, I thought it would be easy.

It was anything but.

To allow students a lot of interaction with their devices, I avoided lectures and instead had the students work on their own while I went from table to table to help them individually. My hope was to give the children a chance to learn at their own pace.

The students, however, had other ideas. The minute I turned my attention to one, the others started playing video games. However nutritious the syllabus, they were drawn to the cognitive candy of flashy graphics and sound effects.

The problem I faced at TAF was a small version of the conundrum that confronts parents and schools everywhere: how do we prepare children for a technological world while avoiding the distractions of technology?

Diversions in India

I first encountered this problem about a decade ago in India. At the time, I was the head of a research team at Microsoft Research in Bangalore. My group explored ways in which computing technology could support poor communities. Education was one of our focuses.

Many Indian government schools boasted computer labs, but given limited funds, they often had no more than five or six PCs. With class sizes of 40 or more, this inevitably meant that crowds of children would huddle around each machine, with most of them unable to access the mouse or keyboard.

We tried an innovation in which a single PC was outfitted with multiple mice, each with an attendant cursor on screen. This customized educational software, called MultiPoint, allowed several students to interact simultaneously.

MultiPoint was a hit with students. A controlled trial showed that for some exercises, students could learn as much when they were sitting five to a PC as when they had a PC all to themselves.

A Technology Access Foundation student sneaking in a video game during an afterschool programming class.
Kentaro Toyama, CC BY

However, when we tried to take the idea to other schools, we were stymied.

One problem we often encountered was that teachers would be overwhelmed with the mechanics of the technology. Without a dedicated IT staff or significant training themselves, they’d spend the first 15-20 minutes of a 50-minute class fiddling with the PCs to set them up.

Whatever the technology’s potential, in actuality, time was diverted from learning.

Technology’s law of amplification

Similar things happened in dozens of other projects we ran in education, agriculture, healthcare and so on. Despite our best efforts at good design, computing technology did not, in and of itself, lower costs, improve pedagogy, or make organizations more efficient.

Teachers didn’t improve just by using digital content; administrators didn’t become better managers through clever gadgets; and budgets didn’t grow with the use of supposedly cost-saving machines.

Anurag Behar, CEO of a nonprofit we worked with, put it succinctly:

“At its best, the fascination with [digital technology] as a solution distracts from the real issues.”

Contrary to Silicon Valley hype, machines don’t add a fixed benefit wherever they’re used. Instead, technology amplifies underlying human forces – the unproductive ones as much as the beneficial ones. My book, Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology, explains in detail why technology by itself doesn’t solve deep social problems.

Other researchers have found a similar pattern. University of California, Irvine, researcher, Mark Warschauer, along with colleagues Michele Knobel and Leeann Stone, sums up this challenge in his paper:

Placing computers and internet connections in [low-income] schools, in and of itself, does little to address the serious educational challenges faced by these schools. To the extent that an emphasis on provision of equipment draws attention away from other important resources and interventions, such an emphasis can in fact be counterproductive.

In other words, while digital tools can augment the efforts of a well-run learning environment, they harm dysfunctional schools by distracting them from their goals.

The amplification principle also applies at the individual level.

Children have both a drive to learn and an affinity for quick rewards – digital aids amplify both. Few people would imagine that children left in a room with an encyclopedia and enticing toys (even educational ones) could, on their own, summit the intellectual mountain that is a K-12 education.

Handing students a computing device and expecting them to teach themselves is the virtual equivalent of being left in such a room. Rigorous research by economists Robert Fairlie and Jonathan Robinson finds that laptops provided free to students result in no educational gains of any kind.

In other words, while technology can amplify good pedagogy, there is no way around quality adult guidance for real learning.

People first, technology second

At TAF, I was lucky to have a good manager and several terrific teachers as role models. They recommended that I set some rules. For example, I asked students to close their screens any time I was doing a demonstration. I prohibited free time with the laptops if they came early, so that they wouldn’t start off with games. And anyone caught playing video games during class was sent to my manager for a few words of discipline.

Implementing these rules was a challenge at first, but young children are mercifully responsive to firm adult direction. Within a couple of classes, the students got used to the new class culture, and they started focusing on the learning activities.

What I learned was that even in a class about computers, maximizing screen time wasn’t the goal. The first requirement is the proper mindset – focused motivation in students and capable adult supervision.

If technology amplifies human forces, then a good outcome with technology requires that the right human forces be in place first.

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

The Conversation___________

Kentaro Toyama is Associate Professor, Technology and Global Development at University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.

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

We cannot teach race without addressing what it means to be ‘white’

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

Jennifer Harvey, Drake University

We have steeped ourselves in higher education today in a framework for understanding difference that insists we should “value diversity.” Even then, in terms of realizing a robust multiracial environment in colleges across the nation, we have a very long way to go.

We know higher education’s commitment to diversity is not mere window-dressing.

For instance, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), an independent corporation founded in 1895 that grants accreditation to post-secondary educational institutions in 19 states, requires a commitment to diversity.

But the skyrocketing costs of college, which make access difficult for the more economically marginalized, and an incarceration crisis that sees young black men and women imprisoned at astronomical rates, are only two of many factors that create racialized outcomes when it comes to higher education.

Colleges and universities bear institutional responsibility for taking such racialized outcomes seriously (as the HLC accreditation processes insist). One small but important piece of such responsibility means considering how discussions of race take place in classrooms.

Some of the questions that arise in this discussion are: how can academics help students engage meaningfully in the public discussion now riveted on race and racial violence? What is missing in our current understanding of diversity? And is our current paradigm of diversity adequate for including challenging issues that get raised in regard to white racial identity?

These are important questions to ask, especially since events in Ferguson, Missouri last August that have been followed by numerous killings of African American men, women and children — first by the police and now by a 21-year-old white male in Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

As a professor of religion and ethics who writes extensively about the role of faith communities in challenging racial injustice, I’ve been grappling with these issues as they show up in my classroom for many years. How do we effectively teach the next generation of young people such that they are better prepared to make a desperately needed impact on the US racial climate?

White racial identity

When 70% of blacks cite problems with policing relative to race and only 17% of whites do the same, we, as academics, know that able teaching on racial difference is essential for students.

But the very way in which diversity is framed creates a serious logjam when it comes to race in the college classroom. The premise of diversity is not merely that we are all different (and that students need to learn about that), but that our differences are goods to be celebrated and embraced.

We tout the innate value of diversity for college life: citing the importance of learning in diverse environments to equip our students to navigate a pluralistic world.

But there’s a major gap that goes unaddressed in this framing.

The particular difference “white” racial identity and experience represents in the context of US history and current climate makes it hard to “celebrate” the “goodness” of whiteness.

How far is white racial identity considered in discussions?
greg lilly, CC BY-NC

Students know this. I regularly help my students explore the failure of the diversity paradigm by asking them whether a group of black students carrying signs that read “Black is beautiful” is the equivalent of a group of white students carrying signs that read “White is beautiful.” They quickly shake their heads and tell me “no.”

“Why not?” I ask. “Shouldn’t valuing diversity include all diversity? If we can’t equally celebrate both of these scenes, then what are missing?”

They typically can’t explain why these two scenes are not the same. But, they know they are different. And understanding the reasons the scenes are different becomes a critical starting point for us to think about the historical, ethical and moral challenges of “whiteness” in the United States.

Inadequate framing of race

I believe our “diversity” paradigm is failing because it does not give us the tools to unpack and explore this conundrum.

The need to ably teach matters of race difference and historical as well as contemporary racial realities in the US could hardly be more urgent. But our ability to engage, discuss and home in on “whiteness” is stymied by a paradigm that cannot help students understand the difference between the two scenes just described.

Such inadequate framing of race certainly does not help us engage white students in the room, for whom the conundrums evident in the difference between these two scenes are embedded in their actual racial identities as “white people.” (Ask students of color in the room to talk about their racial identity and most can do it. Ask white students to do it and you get an uncomfortable silence.)

So, the diversity paradigm needs something more that can help faculty and students alike directly engage the complexities “white” poses for thinking about race.

How to engage white students

Academics are recognizing this and finding different ways to address these challenges. At a recent gathering of the National Conference of Race and Ethnicity in American Higher Education (NCORE), several workshops focused on the distinct challenges of engaging white students on race.

Psychologists who study racial identity development have helped educators think about the ways racial identity is formed in response to racial environment.

Such studies explain a great deal about the reactions of white students to racial conversations. For example, if you are taught to genuinely believe in “equality” but experience “white privilege,” the high level of cognitive dissonance that it generates has to be first addressed. Only then can any effective teaching take place about race and racial injustice.

Through race theories and historical work, academics are enabling students to understand how race and racial identities are constructed. These tools help students see the many challenges of a white racial identity as well as that of black or Latino. This can be a potentially transformative education for students today.

Lean in to move forward

There’s an irony here, of course.

It’s people of color who are most negatively impacted by the racialized outcomes of higher education and the structural violence of our national landscape. Yet, the gap educators are starting to address puts greater focus on the study of “white.”

So, let me be clear. The point is not that academics believe white students should get even more resources and attention. The point here is that we are coming to recognize that our racial destinies are completely bound up together.

We need to lean in, and explicitly take up the challenges of whiteness if we are to produce teaching and learning that can adequately impact the lives of all, in this racially plural, white hierarchy that is the United States.

____________The Conversation

Jennifer Harvey is Professor of Religion at Drake University.

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

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

With harsher disciplinary measures, school systems fail black kids

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

Esther Canty-Barnes, Rutgers University Newark

Although it has been over 60 years since the Brown v Board of Education decision, black students are still more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions for minor violations of the code of conduct. As a result, they are more likely to drop out of school or enter the juvenile justice system.

Black students constituted 32%-42% of those suspended during the 2011-12 school year, even though they represented 16% of the student population.

As racial tensions resurface in the aftermath of the conflicts and riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, we need to consider whether some of these issues have their origins in the manner in which children of color are treated in our schools.

As a clinical professor of law at the Rutgers University Law School’s Education and Health Law Clinic, I provide legal representation to parents and their children in cases where they are being denied an appropriate education or are suspended from school.

This includes filing legal complaints, attending meetings and assessing the appropriateness of a student’s educational program. At the clinic, my colleagues and I have seen firsthand the disparities in the treatment and resources provided by schools. And often, I have seen that suspension of young black students begins as early as kindergarten.

Educational inequities for black kids

Our educational system continues to fail children of color.

Research shows that black males are disproportionately more likely to be placed in special education and classified as mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed.

They are also more likely to be placed in segregated placements, more likely to be educated in poorly performing schools and more likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system for infractions that occur in school.

They are also the least likely to be provided the positive supports and the assistance that they need in order to succeed.

None of this is new.

Children of color have historically been subjected to educational inequities. After the landmark decision of Brown v Board of Education in 1954, where the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to maintain segregated schools, practices and policies were developed to maintain segregated settings.

States in the South refused to comply with Brown, while other parts of the country developed practices such as IQ testing and tracking students into specific programs that often kept children of color in different classes from their white counterparts.

The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), headed by Marian Wright Edelman, was one of the first organizations to look at the disparities in access to education. In its groundbreaking report in 1975, “School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children?,” the CDF analyzed the reports submitted to the Office of Civil Rights.

Although black students accounted for 27.1% of the students enrolled in the school districts reporting to the Office of Civil Rights in the 1972-73 school year, the report found that they made up 42.3% of the racially identified suspensions.

At the high school level, black students were suspended at more than three times the rate of white students: 12.5% versus 4.1%.

Persistent patterns of suspensions

These inequities in suspensions and removal from school continue to persist.

In recent times, the term “school-to-prison pipeline” is often used to describe systemic practices that ultimately lead students of color into the criminal justice system. These policies often cause the suspension or removal and sometimes the arrest of students from school for nonviolent or minor violations.

Arrested students fall behind the class, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Meg Stewart, CC BY-SA

The vast majority of suspensions are not for serious or violent offenses. Most are for minor infractions such as tardiness, dress code violations or disruptive behavior.

Why suspension matters

Students who are suspended for substantial periods lose valuable instruction time and fall behind in school.

The unfairness of these practices increases gaps in learning and eventually makes it difficult for black kids to keep up in school. Researchers have found that the use of harsh punishment for minor offenses has a negative impact on children, including increasing the chances of dropping out of school.

The US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in its 2014 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) on discipline provides a stark example of how the educational system continues to fail children of color.

For the 2011-12 school year, for out-of-school suspensions by race/ethnicity and gender, black students on average were suspended or expelled at a rate three times greater than white students.

At the preschool level, although black children represented 18% of enrolled students, they represented 48% of the students suspended more than once.

Although black students represented 16% of the student population, they accounted for 27% of the students who were referred to law enforcement and 31% of the students who were arrested.

Prejudices against students with disabilities

Students of color with disabilities are also disproportionately suspended from school compared to their white counterparts. They are twice as likely to be suspended than their non-disabled peers. And they are referred to law enforcement at greater rates.

Although students in special education represent 12% of enrollment, they constitute one-quarter of students arrested and charged with juvenile offenses.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) outlines specific protections for parents and their disabled children and requires that school districts provide an appropriate education and services such as counseling, social skills and other supports to meet their unique needs. However, the needs of these children are often not met.

Moreover, there are many protections that apply before a disabled student could be considered for suspension or removal for substantial periods of time. Often, these protections are ignored, and the services that should be provided are not.

Change is needed

Suspension of students for minor infractions is certainly not the solution. We don’t have to look far to see the consequences of policies that take students out of school and place them in vulnerable, nonproductive settings.

The cost – a life of poverty or incarceration – further continues to perpetuate a cycle of failure.

Myriad systems have worked against poor children of color to deprive them of the educational opportunities that their white counterparts have taken for granted. Poverty, violence, inadequate housing and other systemic inequities place these children in a pipeline for failure. Most of us would not be able to endure the burden, if placed in their small shoes.

A great deal of change is needed to combat these pervasive educational inequities. The US Departments Of Education and Justice have begun to take some important steps by issuing guidelines to school districts to reduce the numbers of students who are being removed or suspended from school and encouraging schools to find alternatives to suspensions.

These are important steps, but much work remains to be done.

______The Conversation

Esther Canty-Barnes is Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Education and Health Law Clinic at Rutgers University Newark .

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.

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

Why music education needs to incorporate more diversity

Jacqueline Kelly-McHale, DePaul University

As presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to insist upon banning Muslims from entering the U.S. and espousing a need for a wall along the Mexican border, heating up anti-immigration and racist rhetoric, it’s essential we consider this: one in four students under the age of eight in the U.S. has an immigrant parent.

Classrooms are getting more diverse as the percentage of minority students increases. In the fall of 2014 there were more minority students in the the public education system. According to a report from the Pew Research Center, 50.3 percent of students in 2014 were minority, whereas 49.7 percent of all students were white. By 2022, 45.3 percent are projected to be white, and 54.7 percent are projected to be minority.

How can classrooms become more culturally responsive in their teaching practices in classrooms and foster respectful behavior?

As a music educator and music teacher educator focused on culturally responsive teaching, I believe a music classroom is an ideal place to begin. Music is an experience found across all cultures, and music classrooms are a logical place where difference and respect can be recognized, practiced and celebrated.

Music programs lack diversity

Music education programs in the high school setting typically bring to mind the images and sounds of bands, orchestras and choirs. In the elementary context, general music classes are viewed as places where children sing, dance, and play the recorder and other classroom instruments.

Each of these experiences is rooted in either a Western view of music that is focused on placement of Western classical music as the highest form of musical experience, or on methods of teaching that grew out of European music education practices.

In my research, I found that the reliance on a method of general music instruction within a classroom where the majority of the students were the children of Mexican immigrants resulted in a the creation of an inherent bias against the students’ culture and a sense of isolation for the students. This bias was the result of the the teacher’s views, which created an environment that did not support the integration of cultural, linguistic and popular music experiences.

This finding was supported by music education professor Regina Carlow, who found that when the cultural identity of students in a high school choir setting was not respected or even acknowledged, students developed a sense of isolation.

This isolation can result in an unfair learning environment.

Teachers lack diversity

So why don’t classrooms engage students in musical practices that are rooted in their cultural and musical backgrounds? The answer can be found in the traditions of American music education.

In 2011, music education researchers Carlos Abril and Kenneth Elpus found that 65.7 percent of music ensemble students were white and middle class; only 15.2 percent were black and 10.2 percent were Hispanic. These data demonstrate that white students are overrepresented in high school music ensembles. Students for whom English was not their native language accounted for only 9.6 percent of ensemble members.

The majority of teachers are white and middle-class.
Andy Bullock, CC BY

Additionally, Elpus found that the majority of music teachers – 86.02 percent – entering the profession were white and middle-class.

Adding to this reality is the fact that the process of becoming a music teacher is rooted in the Western classical tradition. Though the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) does not stipulate a classical performance audition, it is required in a majority of cases.

Based on my experience as a music education professor, aspiring music teachers must pass a Western classical performance audition with an orchestral instrument, classical voice or classical guitar in order to even begin down the path of becoming a music educator, even though no school explicitly states that.

Given this, music education programs not only primarily reflect Western European classical music, but they also create a self-perpetuating cycle.

Start with understanding music

In fact, music curriculum can be an ideal place to start culturally responsive teaching. Music crosses cultures and is an experience that can be considered universal.

Education researcher Geneva Gay describes culturally responsive teaching as a practice that supports learning through and about other cultures.

This includes cultural values, traditions, communication, learning styles, contributions and how people relate. It is not just taking a week or month to study the folk music of Mexico. It is about building a curriculum that enables students to experience, discuss, and perform music that is culturally and socially relevant.

This happens when teachers draw on musical styles and genres that are varied. For example, learning to sing the folk song “Frog Went a Courtin’” based on its American variant, then comparing and contrasting it to the Flat Duo Jets’ rock version of the song.

In this regard, music education researcher Chee-Hoo Lum recommends that music teachers start with the students’ cultural and musical background in order to get them to better understand and interact with different musical experiences.

The cultural values and contributions of diverse musicians and genres provide the perfect avenue to explore and learn about the “other” in a classroom environment. Additionally, the chance to sing, play and listen to the music of other cultures creates an understanding that transcends personal experience, and creates a more global perspective.

Reimagine and reconfigure

This is not to say that we should forgo the current practices. Band, orchestra, and choir programs provide wonderful educational experiences for students throughout the country.

And these programs should continue.

However, there are other music programs that focus on guitar as a popular and folk instrument. Such as this one:

And there are programs that run rock bands within the school day. Then, there are programs where students learn to write songs, sample and compose. In addition, there are music education blogs that celebrate the many “other” ways that students learn about music, outside of band, orchestra and choir.

These programs can help us reimagine and reconfigure.

Building walls and excluding groups do not engender respect and democratic growth in our classrooms or in our political arenas. Rather, they foster fear and prevent equality and opportunity. Music classrooms can and should become the places where diversity is embraced and integrated.

The Conversation

Jacqueline Kelly-McHale, Associate Professor of Music Education, DePaul University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation, Teaching Strategies, Tactics, and Methods

Many low-income students use only their phone to get online. What are they missing?

Crystle Martin, University of California, Irvine

For many of us, access to the Internet through a variety of means is a given. I can access the Internet through two laptops, a tablet, a smartphone and even both of my game systems, from the comfort of my living room.

However, this access is unequally distributed. Although nine out of 10 low-income families have Internet access at home, most are underconnected: that is, they have “mobile-only” access – they are able to connect to the Internet only through a smart device, such as a tablet or a smartphone.

A recent report, “Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in low income families,” shows that one-quarter of those earning below the median income and one-third of those living below poverty level accessed the Internet only through their mobile devices.

This leads to limited access: A third of families with mobile-only access quickly hit the data limits on their mobile phone plans and about a quarter have their phone service cut off for lack of payment.

So, what impact does this type of access have on youth learning?

What changes with a computer connection

My research has explored underserved youth’s use of technology to discover and participate in content related to their interests. Having access only through their mobile devices means that low-income families and youth do not have the same access to the Internet as those with other Internet connections.

One-fifth of families who access the Internet only through their mobile devices say too many family members have to share one device. This means that the amount of time each individual has to access the Internet is limited.

This can be a barrier to learning for young people. It can limit their access to resources to complete their homework, as well as create barriers for other learning. Thirty-five percent of youth who have mobile-only access look online for information about things they are interested in. But this goes up to 52 percent when young people have access to an Internet-connected computer.

When young people have access to an Internet-supported computer, it facilitates their learning.
leah, CC BY-NC-ND

When young people have their own access to the Internet, they have an opportunity to engage in connected learning – learning that is based on interest, is supported by peers and has the potential to offer better opportunities for the future.

A 2014 paper on the use of digital media as a learning tool highlights how learning around interests can be supported through online resources.

The paper tells the story of Amy, a participant in an online knitting community, Hogwarts at Ravelry, which combines both interest in knitting and the Harry Potter series. Amy finds inspiration in the vast knitting pattern library of the group and receiving support from others in the community. She begins to develop, design and write patterns of her own. And, as a teenager, she begins selling her patterns online.

Amy’s access to a stable Internet connection and her own dedication allowed her to dive deep into the activities of the community. Over time, it allowed her to become more active and engaged in knitting.

Another example of what youth can accomplish online comes from my 2014 research on a professional wrestling fan community, a set of forums where professional wrestling fans get together virtually to discuss the many facets of professional wrestling.

Maria, a professional wrestling fan, seeks out an online community because she lacks local support for her interest. Through her participation, she realizes her deep enjoyment of writing. She carries this back into her English class and the school newspaper. This eventually leads her to take creative writing as a second degree in college.

Maria spent hours on her computer carefully crafting her narratives while participating on the forum. With a mobile-only access, she would not have had the amount of time online, or the amount of bandwidth, required for this work. This is supported by the fact that only 31 percent of children with mobile-only access go online daily as compared to 51 percent of those with other Internet access.

How low-income youth get left behind

Mobile-only access to the Internet can create serious barriers for youth who want to access content and educational supports.

As part of my research, I have been conducting workshops in libraries located in low-income communities, using an online coding program that is not yet available on mobile devices. In one of the workshops, students needed to work on projects outside of the sessions.

Because of the limited technology access at home, the librarian held additional open hours so the youth participating in the workshop could work on their projects outside of the workshop hours. A few youth had access to their own computers, but the majority had only mobile access.

Young people who have computer access create may better projects.
Jeff Werner, CC BY-NC-SA

The youth with computer access at home created more complex projects. This was partly because they had more time to develop, modify and problem-solve their projects. But it was also because the coding program was available to only those with computer access. These youth also seemed to develop a deeper interest in coding potentially due to this greater level of exposure.

Need for better understanding

What becomes evident from the data from “Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in low income families” and from the examples from research is that having access to the Internet only through a phone can have an impact on young people’s access to learning opportunities.

Designers, educators and researchers need to be aware and continually create more equity through mindful decision-making.

Amanda Ochsner, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern California who studies how underrepresented groups of young people engage with games and digital media, argues that when designers and developers take the time to understand young people’s digital lives, they are ultimately able to make better tools. As she said to me:

In offices where the most recent models of laptops, tablets, and iPhones are abundant, it’s far too easy for those of us who develop educational tools and technologies to misjudge the technological realities of the young people the education tools and technologies are designing for.

Just how young people access online, in other words, matters – a lot.

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

The Conversation

Crystle Martin, Postdoctoral Researcher , University of California, Irvine

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

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

Epidemic of rights abuse fails black kids across the US

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

Noelle Witherspoon Arnold, University of Missouri-Columbia

As the world grapples with the containment of diseases such as Ebola, there is another epidemic that demands attentive responses, policies, and actions. It is one of grave proportions regarding the violation of basic civil and human rights in black communities across the United States. These violations end all too often in abuse, incarceration, and death.

Recent events in Ferguson after the death on August 9 of 18-year-old Michael Brown at the hands of white police officer Darren Wilson in the suburb of St Louis, Missouri, have brought this crisis into sharp focus.

There is no way to discuss what has happened in Ferguson without addressing systemic structural and institutional racism. This includes the politics of poverty that presents the poor as complicit in their own deaths, missed educational opportunities, and economic ceilings.

In Brown’s case, insinuation and innuendo suggested he had stolen goods from a store and was a “thug”. At the same time, a narrative regarding education developed that labelled Brown as yet another black, unmotivated student.

In fact, he managed to graduate from a high school with one of the highest rates of poverty, unequal resources, and violence in Missouri – all of which contribute to low student achievement, little social mobility and economic stagnation. Often these conditions reproduce cycles of generational poverty that are felt in Ferguson and other poor communities of colour. Despite this, Brown’s family indicated he was headed to college with aspirations of starting his own business.

What to tell the kids

Even though President Barack Obama gave a stirring speech on race in 2008, America still cannot talk about it. Having a black president has made race more visible, but no less difficult to discuss, particularly with our children and students. This failure has created a new generation of victims and violators.

In new research about educational inequity at Ferguson, University of Pennsylvania researcher Shaun Harper notes:

As is typical in moments of racial eruption in the US, there will be an inclination to swiftly move on – to treat Ferguson as an isolated, unfortunate event that came and went. I suspect that few P-12 [school] teachers there or elsewhere across our nation even know how to talk with children about what happened in the St Louis suburb and the larger implications of this tragedy.

In fact, one school district in Illinois has banned talk of the issues in Ferguson even though research has shown that black students personalise racism even when it is not personally happening to them. This stands in contrast to encouragement by teachers and politicians to discuss other tragedies such as 9/11, which spawned whole curricula on the subject. Students and educators deserve the truth.

In the case of the Ferguson-Florissant school district and others like it, Harper says that: “Ferguson had structural problems that systematically disadvantage black families and youth long before a white police officer killed an unarmed black teenager.”

Rebalancing inequalities in schools

Even as educational scholarship explores issues of social justice, there is little movement by those who create education policy in ameliorating inequities for those who have not been well served in schools. There must first be racial and cultural sensitivity, relevance, and awareness of institutionalised racist practices in schools.

Second, teachers must be trained with a commitment to understanding and creating diversity, inclusive practice in schools, and a fostering of social relations across cultures. In addition, there must be continual dialogue and supportive, safe spaces in which youth and communities can process what happened.

The “wronged” parties – in this case black communities – should be involved in school curricula and policy. Although the concept of social justice remains a somewhat inchoate idea, the black community has a long history built around the constructs of advocacy, justice, and social change in schools and communities.

A history of abuse

Ferguson is only the newest failure of the larger society to substantially address these issues. Growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, I know something about the impact of race and racism that manifests as a right to protest, demonstrate and protect oneself from harm. I recall an eerily familiar scene of 1960s: water hoses, now juxtaposed against current images of bullets and tear gas. These were crimes against humanity in heavy-handed shows of militarised force against those who dare to be wounded, fatigued, angered, and have the audacity to shine a spotlight on violence.

Brown’s funeral on August 25 drew a crowd of more than 4,000 to not only say goodbye, but also to show solidarity amid cries and tears for justice and restoration. Similarly, thousands attended the funeral of 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was lynched in 1955 Mississippi. Brown’s tale also has overtones of another St Louis period of unrest in 1968 at the unjust killing of another black man, Dr Martin Luther King.

And in this latest experience of déjà vu, the results are the same: the stripping of worth and humanity, the devaluation of the black life, and the criminalisation of youth of colour.

More than anything, Brown’s death has dispelled the myth of a post-racial world and revealed just how real racism is. It seems that “democracy requires hard work that we seem less and less willing to do”, a point argued by Yale law professor Stephen Carter his book Civility. Some would rather dehumanise and shame the victim of colour through misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies than get down to that hard work.

__________

Noelle Witherspoon Arnold is the associate Professor, PK-12 Leadership & Policy at University of Missouri-Columbia

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Parental Involvement, The Whole Truth

In kids, even low lead levels can cause lasting harm

Robert L. Fischer, Case Western Reserve University and Elizabeth Anthony, Case Western Reserve University

The recent firestorm over lead exposure from drinking water in Flint, Michigan is a reminder of the enduring risk posed by environmental lead. While we can all agree that it is unacceptable for children to be exposed to dangerously high levels of lead, there is less awareness of what this means.

Flint is just one of many cities in the country where lead exposure is a serious issue. For cities with an industrial past and much pre-1978 housing stock, like Cleveland, where we work, the risks to today’s children is of continuing concern. In recent years, we and our colleagues have been examining the incidence and effects of lead exposure on young children in Cleveland and its first-ring suburbs.

Even though lead paint was banned in 1978, many old homes still have it.
Thester11 via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Lead is a known neurotoxin that is associated with cognitive deficits in children – even at low levels of exposure. In fact, reports indicate that most of the harm may occur at levels of exposure well below current standards for concern. Though lead is no longer used in household paint and has been removed from gasoline, there is still plenty of it out there. Lead leaching into water pipes, in paint dust and chips, and soil remains a serious threat to children.

Children living in low-income neighborhoods, children of color and children whose families live in rental housing are statistically at the greatest risk of exposure to lead. That means the children most at risk of lead exposure also disproportionately face the effects of poverty, low-resource communities and trauma.

Lead’s effects never go away

Often attention is focused on the number of children who have an elevated lead test result in a given year. This is an important metric, but it can mask the cumulative role of lead exposure on child development.

For example, in Cuyahoga County, where nearly 25,000 children are tested each year, we have seen the number of children with an elevated blood lead level (above 5 micrograms per deciliter) drop from 35 percent in 2004 to 9 percent in 2013. This is a very encouraging trend showing success from public health efforts.

Despite the fact that the number of children with high lead level rates seems to be going down, it is important to think about the overall share of children that have ever had a positive lead test. These children carry those effects with them as they age.

In a recent unpublished analysis using integrated data from multiple sources, we found that fully 35 percent of children in a sample of preschool classrooms had an elevated blood lead level at some point in their lives.

The treatment options for children with elevated blood lead levels include dietary approaches and dealing with the effects of lead by managing sensory exposures. At greater exposures, chelation therapy – in which a synthetic compound is injected into the bloodstream which binds itself to the heavy metals – can be used. Though chelation has been shown to significantly reduce blood lead levels in the short term, there is evidence of a rebound in lead levels after therapy has concluded. Also, blood lead levels do not fully capture the retention of lead in bone and deep tissue.

Kids with lead exposure start behind nonexposed kids.
Children image via www.shutterstock.com.

Long-term consequences

Children exposed to lead are at elevated risk for learning delays and academic issues. We have also found that students with confirmed early childhood lead exposure have lower kindergarten readiness scores.

In tracking the experiences of children in our community, we find that lead-exposed children entering high-quality preschool start the year significantly behind their nonexposed peers.

In our ongoing research, we have found that on standardized measures these children score 10-30 percent below their peers on skills such as identifying letters, numbers and shapes. More sobering is the reality that while these children show significant progress during preschool they still finish the year, on average, below where their nonexposed peers start the preschool year.

This disparity is likely to grow as children age unless special efforts are made to address it. Results from Detroit show that these children are much more likely to experience academic challenges as they age.

And it looks like it doesn’t take much lead to cause harm. Other research has shown that blood levels well below the current standard for intervention can also cause negative effects on school readiness for young children.

There is no known safe level of lead exposure

Until a few years ago, the federal standard for action was 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood, and in 2012 it was lowered by half in recognition of evidence showing a lower threshold of concern.

But the truth is there is no known safe level of blood lead for children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said as much.

The medical research community has documented negative impacts on children with even lower levels of lead exposure than the current 5 micrograms per deciliters standard. With that view, we might consider every child with a confirmed nonzero lead test as at-risk.

Based on our analysis of lead data in our county, we calculate that if this standard were adopted in the U.S., our lead exposure rate for kids younger than 6 in a single year would climb from 9 percent to 3-4 times this rate.

Short of ensuring that every housing structure has been certified as lead-safe, parents and caregivers should be the first line of defense in keeping children from this exposure. Testing lead blood levels in children is simply too late.

This is akin to the TSA searching for lethal weapons after the passengers have boarded the flight and the plan has taken off. Once the lead is in the bloodstream, the damage is real and lasting for these children, and the options for response are far fewer and less effective.

The Conversation

Robert L. Fischer, Co-Director of the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western Reserve University and Elizabeth Anthony, Research Assistant Professor, Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western Reserve University

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, HBCU's, Higher Education

If a female president is good for the Ivy League, why not for the rest of us?

Cathy Sandeen, University of Wisconsin Colleges and the University of Wisconsin-Extension

On July 1, Elizabeth Garrett assumed the presidency of Cornell University.

With this, half of the eight-member Ivy League schools now have female presidents. Garrett joins an illustrious group: Christina Paxson (Brown University), Drew Faust (Harvard University) and Amy Gutmann (University of Pennsylvania).

But what about colleges and universities outside the Ivy League?

Women in academia

I am enormously proud to have been appointed recently as chancellor of University of Wisconsin Colleges and University of Wisconsin-Extension. Although I am the first woman to hold this position, I am not the only woman in a top job in our system.

Four other campuses now have women leaders, including our flagship research university, University of Wisconsin Madison. In addition, a woman was recently elected as president of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents (the governing body that oversees the UW system).

Women outnumber men at universities.
Jair Alcon, CC BY

It’s clear that there is a commitment to gender equity at Wisconsin. But national data show a different picture.

First, let’s look at how women have come to outnumber men on college campuses. The majority of degree earners in our colleges and universities are women. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, women began eclipsing men in terms of degree attainment beginning in 2000. By 2014, 37% of women between 25 and 29 years had earned a bachelor’s degree, compared to men at 31%.

Women are well-represented in education careers in general. For instance, 76% of K-12 teachers and 48% of college faculty in the US are women.

Based on this data, it might not be unreasonable to expect that now or in the near future, 50% of all colleges and university leaders would be women.

However, the latest figures indicate that only 26% of college presidents are women. How slowly it is changing becomes evident when we see that back in 2006, this number was at 23%.

Why women don’t make it

So why do women get left behind when it comes to leadership roles?

Here is where we need to see how college and university presidents are selected.

There is, as research shows, a tendency to play it safe and hire someone who fits the existing norm (ie, men). As an American Council on Education study put it:

In 1986, the first year of ACE’s college president study, the demographic profile of the typical campus leader was a white male in his 50s. He was married with children, Protestant, held a doctorate in education, and had served in his current position for six years. Twenty-five years later, with few exceptions, the profile has not changed.

The fact that there is often a dearth of women on search committees does not help.

There is higher bar for women in leadership roles.
The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, CC BY-NC

In addition, as research shows, there is often a higher bar set for women seeking leadership roles in terms of qualifications and prior experience. This applies not just to the higher education sector but to other fields as well.

Here in the US, a former football coach, a former military officer and an elected official were all recently appointed as college or university presidents over the last year. They were all male.

No doubt, they are all strong leaders. But they did not “check all the usual boxes” we usually expect in terms of broad higher education experience. Unlike women presidents, none of them had a significant amount academic leadership experience.

Now take a quick look at the stellar curriculum vitae of the female Ivy League leaders: We see multiple books (including national award winners), distinguished and endowed professorships, service as founding deans and directors of major departments and centers, appointments to chair presidential commissions, and numerous awards and honors.

Lack of ambition or confidence?

The trouble may not lie with the hiring process alone. Often, women do not even consider applying for such jobs.

Research shows that women may hold themselves back if they feel they do not have the required experience or because they fear failure.

Men, on the other hand, are more willing to throw their hats in the ring and compete for a higher-level position, even if they do not have all of the stated qualifications.

Much of this comes from women’s tendency to play down their accomplishments.

A recent study of high-ranking Israeli women leaders found that women were reluctant “to take credit for their accomplishments. They attributed them to circumstances or luck.”

Perhaps surprisingly, female Ivy League presidents are no different. For instance, at a gathering in 2007, the Ivy League’s female presidents played down their accomplishments saying “they wound up at the head of four of the world’s leading universities almost by accident.”

Balancing a demanding job and parenting responsibilities also play a role in women’s willingness to seek major leadership roles.

This “childrearing penalty” may be especially strong in higher ed. Most women presidents come from faculty ranks. Women with children have a disadvantage in academic career progression compared to men with children. Gender bias may play a role as well.

Making connections

There is another crucial fact here that we cannot ignore: the role of a powerful sponsor.

Having a powerful sponsor probably paves a smoother path to the top. It is hardly a coincidence that three former and current Ivy League women leaders, Shirley Tilghman (former president of Princeton), Ruth Simmons (former president of Brown) and Amy Gutmann also had something else in common: they were all supported by former Princeton president Harold Shapiro.

A mentor provides advice and support. A sponsor will open doors and make crucial introductions. Often, men are more likely than women to have that sponsor.

Who wants to be the last?

Culture and attitude are critical in driving change. And competition is part of the Ivy League culture.

As Ruth Simmons, the first black president of an Ivy League institution, pointed out in a 2007 forum,

When it starts to become the issue of being the last Ivy League school to have a woman president – who wants to do that? This is a league and this is a league based on competition.

As we strive for greater gender equity in college and university leadership, we need more institutions to think of women leaders as a competitive advantage.

Those of us who already hold these positions need to also be leaders in raising awareness and becoming mentors and sponsors. Perhaps more importantly, we need to encourage other women to see themselves as qualified to apply for these leadership positions.

If the Ivy League can do it, if Oxford University can do it, why not the rest of us? Indeed, who wants to be the last institution to appoint a woman as president?

The Conversation

Cathy Sandeen, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin Colleges and the University of Wisconsin-Extension

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

Read all of our posts about HBCUs by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share