One of the questions that I am frequently asked is, what does a good teacher look like? I respond by mentioning my 10th-grade Biology teacher, Mrs. Minor, and listing the attributes that made her the archetype of a great teacher.
One of the questions that I am frequently asked is, what does a good teacher look like? I respond by mentioning my 10th-grade Biology teacher, Mrs. Minor, and listing the attributes that made her the archetype of a great teacher.
Building a culturally responsive classroom is hard. To help you along your journey, here is your guide to exploring and respecting the cultural backgrounds of your students while also using diversity as an asset. If you you listen to this episode of the podcast, and take my advice, you will have a culturally responsive classroom in no time.
References
Culturally responsive teaching is a theory of instruction that was developed by Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of her work on culturally responsive teaching and other topics, click here to visit her Amazon.com page.
It seems that every year around this time, school districts around the country report not being able to fill all of their open teacher vacancies. Why do these cyclical teacher shortages occur? In this episode of the podcast, we will explore this topic in-depth.
As summer reaches its peak, and fall gears up to make its arrival, students, parents, teachers, and administrators are all preparing for the beginning of a new academic year. So many gains were made last year, and they are eager to build upon that success. When we talk about education stakeholders who are concerned with starting the school year off right, we rarely, if ever, talk about edtech companies. They too are an integral part of the school community, as they provide a valuable service.
So how do edtech companies stay on their “A” games to begin the new school year? Not to worry, we have you covered.
Hello, my name is Dr. Matthew Lynch and welcome to the second episode of The Edvocate Podcast. Today, we will discuss back to school tips that will help your edtech company get off to a running start and sustain that momentum until summer break comes around again.
Every day, technology innovations transform the way people learn and how educators teach. In the last few years, the edtech field has attracted a lot of talented people, all with excellent knowledge bases and ideas. Though the edtech industry has been around for a few decades now, the last few years, in particular, have seen a surge in investment from both school districts and investors.
The education market is currently worth around $5 trillion globally, and it is forecasted that edtech investment alone will reach $252 billion by the year 2020. This growing investment into edtech start-ups has created some exciting changes in the world of education. Naturally, with increasing capital, the number of edtech companies, products, and thought leaders is also growing. In that spirit of change and innovation, we present the Tech Edvocate Awards.
After 4 months of hard work, we’ve narrowed down the year’s top edtech companies, products, people and more. We solicited nominees from readers in June/July and held online voting from June 1, 2018 – August 21, 2018. The nominee’s performance during the online voting period was used to gauge their popularity, but in no way signaled that they would become a finalist or walk away with an award. The finalists and winners were ultimately selected by a panel comprised of two edtech thought leaders, two PreK-12 teachers, one college professor, two K-12 administrators, one college administrator and two PreK-12 parents. Here are our winners and finalists for 2018. Winners and finalists can access their award seals by clicking here.
Best Lesson Planning App or Tool
Winner: ClassFlow
Finalists:
Best Assessment App or Tool
Winner: MobyMax
Finalists:
Evo Social/Emotional by Aperture Education
Best Early Childhood Education App or Tool
Winner: HeadSprout
Finalists:
KIBO – The STEAM Robot Kit for Children 4 – 7
Canticos Los Pollitos (Little Chickies) App
Best Literacy App or Tool
Winner: Lexia Core5 Reading
Finalists:
Best Math App or Tool
Winner: MATHia
Finalists:
ExploreLearning Reflex
Best STEM/STEAM Education App or Tool
Winner: Vernier Go Direct® Sensors with Graphical Analysis™ 4 @VernierST
Finalists:
FlinnSTEM Powered by IMSA Fusion
Best Language Learning App or Tool
Winner: Sprig Learning
Finalists:
Best Virtual or Augmented Reality App or Tool
Winner: HoloLAB Champions
Finalists:
Best Personalized/Adaptive Learning App or Tool
Winner: Nearpod
Finalists:
AVer CP3Series Interactive Flat Panel
Curriculum Associates i-Ready Mathematics and Reading
Best Coding App or Tool
Winner: CoderZ by Intelitek
Finalists:
Best Gamification App or Tool
Winner: Kahoot!
Finalists:
Best Learning Management System
Winner: NEO LMS
Finalists:
Best Blended/Flipped Learning App or Tool
Winner: FlinnPREP
Finalists:
Best Assistive Technology App or Tool
Winner: Robots4Autism
Finalists:
Best Parent-Teacher/School Communication App or Tool
Winner: Bloomz
Finalists:
Best Collaboration App or Tool
Winner: Boxlight MimioSpace
Finalists:
ADVANCEfeedback by Insight ADVANCE
Snowflake MultiTeach® (NUITEQ®)
Best Tutoring/Test Prep App or Tool
Winner: GradeSlam
Finalists:
Best Classroom/Behavior Management App or Tool
Winner: NetSupport School
Finalists:
Best Classroom Audio-Visual App or Tool
Winner: ActivPanel
Finalists:
Epson BrightLink 710Ui Interactive Laser Display
Best Higher Education Solution
Winner: Study.com
Finalists:
Best Learning Analytics/Data Mining App or Tool
Winner: Otus
Finalists:
Best Professional Development App or Tool
Winner: ADVANCEfeedback by Insight ADVANCE
Finalists:
Best Student Information System (SIS) App or Tool
Winner: Alma
Finalists:
Best Global EdTech Leader
Winner: Dr. Edward Tse
Finalists:
Best Global EdTech Company
Winner: MobyMax
Finalists:
Best Global EdTech Startup
Winner: Learnamic
Finalists:
Best K-12 School Leader
Winner: Dr. Adam Hartley, Fenton Area Public Schools, Genesee County, Michigan
Finalists:
Yvonne Mackey-Boyd, River Roads Lutheran School, St. Louis, MO
Shawn Wigg, Director of Mathematics, Duval County Public Schools
Best Higher Education Leader
Winner: Nichole Pinkard, Professor, Depaul University, Chicago, IL
Finalists:
Anant Agarwal, edx, Cambridge, MA
Best School District Technology Coordinator/Director
Finalists:
John Martin, Inter-Lakes School District, Meredith, NH
Best K-12 Teacher
Winner: Crystal Avila, Socorro High School, El Paso Texas
Finalists:
Cathy Haskett Morrison, Peel District School Board, Canada
Best College/University Professor
Winner: David J. Malan, Harvard University
Finalists:
Nicole Kraft, Ohio State University
Best EdTech PR Firm
Winner: PR With Pananche
Finalists:
J Harrison Public Relations Group
Conclusion
As you can see, there is no shortage of award winners in edtech. With these innovative edtech companies, products and people in mind, it becomes clear that the landscape of education is vast and technology is carving a new path for present and future educators. Well, that does it for the 2nd Annual Tech Edvocate Awards. We will be back, bigger and better in 2019.
Regardless of where you go in the world, teachers are the backbone of the education system. Without quality teachers, school districts cannot provide students with the skills that they need to be successful academically. Without teachers, the next generation will not be able to compete in the global economy. These are sureties, and you will find few people who would disagree.
If you have been studying the field of education closely, as we have, you know that it is undergoing a metamorphosis. Students no longer respond to the teacher-centered pedagogy that our forefathers did. No, today’s students are immersed in a technologically advanced world and possess attention spans that last only a few seconds.
Because of this, today’s teacher needs to add a new skill set to their repertoire to be successful. In this today’s podcast, we will discuss the 8 key attributes that successful digital age teachers possess.
By Tiffany Oft
As a gifted education specialist in Ohio, much of my career is dictated by the words “95th Percentile.” You see, in some states, a student can only be identified as gifted in academic subjects or cognitive abilities, and therefore receive services, if they score at or above the 95th percentile on a standardized, state approved test.
That is the official, fancy worded policy on gifted children in a lot of states. What it means in reality is that every child I teach in the gifted resource room at my school has scored higher than 95% of the people who took a specific test.
If we think of a typical, general education elementary school classroom of twenty-ish students, only one of them would likely be gifted according to this criteria. Something like this. (the one blue headed child in the class.)
Reality Check – The actual situation is significantly more complex than this oversimplified illustration. Students can be identified in seven different areas. Some students are twice exceptional- meaning they have a gifted identification and a diagnosis of disability. An yes, students who come from poverty or minority populations are grossly underrepresented in the identified gifted population.
However, there is an important lesson in the pared down version, so humor me.
Now that you have some sense of how common (or uncommon) children identified as gifted are in the classroom, let’s take a look at some of the things I hear on a pretty much weekly, if not daily, basis in response to the population I teach:
“But everybody is gifted.”
“He must have cheated on the test.”
“The test isn’t that hard.”
“They don’t act like a gifted kid.”
“It must be nice teaching gifted kids.”
“They will do just fine without the gifted program; it is a waste of money.”
“But they have a C in my class!”
All of these comments seek to downplay the gifted and talented label, either claiming the child isn’t actually gifted, that being gifted is a commonplace thing, or that the services for children identified as gifted are unnecessary.
As the title suggests, this is not only an article about the 95th percentile, but also about the mirror population, the 5th percentile. If we take the same situation and identify the students who score at or below the fifth percentile, we are again left with one out of twenty.
Let’s take another look at those statements about gifted students, and apply these same arguments to the student who scores the lowest of a class of twenty on a standardized, reliable assessment.
“But everybody is gifted.” | ⇢ | “But everybody is special ed.” |
“He must have cheated on the test.” | ⇢ | “He must have failed on purpose.” |
“The test isn’t that hard.” | ⇢ | “The test is too hard.” |
“They don’t act like a gifted kid.” | ⇢ | “They don’t act like a child with disabilities or learning struggles.” |
“It must be nice teaching gifted kids.” | ⇢ | “It must be nice teaching students who struggle.” |
“They will do just fine without the gifted program; it is a waste of money.” | ⇢ | “They will do just fine without special education services; they are a waste of money.” |
“But they have a C in my class!” | ⇢ | “But they have a C in my class!” |
These statements about the lowest scoring five percent of the population, those that are most likely to receive special education services, do not make much sense either. Of course a child who scores lower than any other student in their class is going to need some additional supports to reach their potential and grow. At the same time; of course a child who scores higher than any other student in the class is going to need some additional support to reach their potential and grow.
Even if you disagree with the gifted label. Even if you dislike the way your state measures, identifies, or serves children that have the gifted label. And even if, for some reason, you have a deep seated hatred of gifted programs. Can we put aside our emotional reactions to the labels “gifted” and “disabled” and come to the agreement that the students who fall at or above the 95th percentile on reliable, standardized tests would benefit from some additional support when compared to the general population?
Mathematically, students at or above the 95th percentile are as different from the average student as students at or below the 5th percentile are. When it comes down to it, students that demonstrate a high level of achievement, or a low level of achievement, both need some extra help. Some acceleration or some additional time. Some extension work or some more one-on-one time. Some opportunity to extend their thinking or an extension to the time the have to think and learn.
Of course, in a perfect world, we would be able to create classrooms and learning opportunities that allow these opportunities for ALL learners. One that is not restrictive or targeted to specific portions of the population. A classroom that reaches ALL learners where they are, when they get there. Sadly, for many learning environments, this is simply not the reality.
So, until the day this kind of amazing classroom is universal, these programs, both gifted education and special education, will be the lifeline for students, and the help that students at both extremes need in order to thrive.
So focus on their needs, give them what they need now, and work to make it better for all your students.