Tag: blackedu

Posted on

Decriminalizing the Classroom: School climate Bill of Rights

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

A guest post by Beth Ellor

“I believe the purpose of public schools is to educate not exclude children and to help identify and meet child needs, not make children serve adult convenience, self interest, and systems.” So begins the article published in the 9/26/14 Newsletter of the Children’s Defense Fund, written by Marian Wright Edelman. Please read the entire article, here:

‘Decriminalizing School Discipline’, Marian Wright Edelman, CDF Newsletter 9/26/2014

How often do you come upon an article that precisely aligns with your values and beliefs, as well as targeting a topic that has been resonating constantly in recent weeks? As a subscriber to the Children’s Defense Fund Newsletter, this will happen more frequently – talk about children, schools, poverty, injustice and discrimination is bound to resonate with a teacher these days!

This most recent article, however, is vital to the future of our schools and of a just society. It also bears hopeful news of documented efforts being made in Los Angeles, and in other parts of the country.

Click to follow the School Climate Bill of Rights initiative in Los Angeles, ‘a package of policy changes that rolls back “zero tolerance” discipline and institutes resource-based alternatives. Introduced by LAUSD Board President Monica Garcia, it was passed by the LAUSD Board on May 14,2013.’ (from their website).

‘The School Climate Bill of Rights is a project of the Brothers, Sons, Selves Coalition, of which the Community Rights Campaign is a founding member,’ under the auspices of Liberty Hill, an L.A. organization which ‘advances social change through a strategic combination of grants, leadership training and campaigns.’ See their website here.

What is at issue here? First off, dismiss all the rhetoric about the past, and ‘the effectiveness of classes of 50 which nevertheless succeeded in graduating whole swaths of the population.’ Whatever it was like then, whatever was true or manageable then is irrelevant, because guess what, the whole social landscape has changed, and it’s not working now! Again, the seemingly condoned and unchecked tendency of schools to over-value compliance and obedience at the expense of nurturing the variety and complexity of every person who enters their doors. This doesn’t mean anarchy or the ascendance of the ‘me’ generation, but compare self-regulation to the “Whole Brain” discipline approach favored by many reform/charter schools! See a nice glitzy presentation here,

Discipline becomes the canary in the mine when you ask yourself: “What’s not working?” If so many of our students are having such a hard time participating fully in their educational experience, it’s time to stop blaming the students, their families, and/or their ethnicities and start asking why learning has become so toxic to so many of them? Ask yourself – if the Kindergarten program you are using (Core Knowledge in this case) causes some previously mellow children to hide under tables and pitch chairs and books, while alternately screaming and mumbling unintelligibly; “Uh oh, a disruption – we’ll never get done with the 25 minute direct instruction piece!” – or to cry inconsolably when they are asked to complete a page in their workbook, or scramble onto the lap of a visitor (me) and snuggle into her shoulder, trembling, is it the children we should punish (with 3-day out of school suspensions – no point in taking away recess, that was gone long ago)?

Is our only option to call the Security Guard to manhandle the 4 year old out of the room with a combination of motherly bribes and fierce threats? In upper grades, we have to find out why the required subjects are so hard/uninteresting – apart from the lack of text books and materials, the social pressures of real life, and the cumulative deficits of poor learning conditions of whatever kind. Of course it is frustrating to confront classes day after day which seem to have no interest in learning, and are routinely rude, dismissive and disruptive. Remember too that being oppositional isn’t the only way we lose kids – there’s a great deal of well-behaved boredom, obedience and lack of stimulus in classrooms across the country that manages to fly under the radar but are equally significant losses.

Hearing the descriptions of the routine ticketing of low-income minorities in Ferguson, Missouri, which lead to the issuing of bench warrants, fines, and imprisonment for non-payment of minor local ordinances created for this very purpose leads me back around to the exact same practices in schools. Once you’re singled out for any infraction, the noose simply tightens around your neck continuously. Even in elementary schools, children will tell you – “Oh, he’s bad, he don’t listen to no-one.”

The efforts described in this CDF newsletter must become the new rallying cry for our schools. These are all our children, and acting compassionately towards them must not be confused with weakness. Having high academic expectations must not be confused with expecting the impossible when content has never been taught. The social cost is unacceptable, as are the economic costs. We’ve gone a long way down the path of this new normal, where families and whole communities are destroyed by criminalization and incarceration. What does it look like to turn this around? This is the generation where the tide must turn, and the power be given back into the hands of communities and individuals. A great many people and organizations are focused on this transformation and facilitation must be made to make this happen, from the creation of dedicated Professional Learning Communities for support within schools, to the structural changes needed to enforce the protections passed in the L.A. School Climate Bill of Rights. Let it be so!

This post originally appeared on Beth Ellor’s examiner.com page, and was republished with permission.

_________________________________

Beth Ellor has explored the New York City schools as a parent, as an early childhood teacher, and as a retiree currently providing professional development to inner city schools (as an independent contractor for a celebrated i3 provider). Also a substitute teacher in a wide range of schools, she is a close observer of the reality behind the rhetoric of school success, struggle and reform.

Posted on

4 Troubling Truths About Black Boys and the U.S. Educational System

Most people like to think that American K-12 schools, workplaces and courthouses are pillars of fairness, but statistic after statistic all point to a crisis among the young, Black men of the nation. This crisis begins in homes, stretches to K-12 educational experiences, and leads straight to the cycle of incarceration in increasingly high numbers. In America’s prison systems, black citizens are incarcerated at six times the rates of white ones – and the NAACP predicts that one in three of this generation of Black men will spend some time locked up.

Decreasing the rates of incarceration for black men may actually be a matter of improving educational outcomes for black boys in America. In his piece “A Broken Windows Approach to Education Reform,” Forbes writer James Marshall Crotty makes a direct connection between drop-out and crime rates. He argues that if educators will simply take a highly organized approach to keeping kids in school, it will make a difference in the crime statistics of the future.

While there are many areas of improvement that we could look at changing for more successful outcomes for black men, I will discuss just four indicators that illustrate the current situation for black boys in the U.S., with the hope of starting a conversation about what we can do to produce a stronger generation of Black young men in our society.

  1. Black boys are more likely to be placed in special education.

While it is true that Black boys often arrive in Kindergarten classrooms with inherent disadvantages, they continue to experience a “behind the 8-ball” mentality as their school careers progress. Black boys are more likely than any other group to be placed in special education classes, with 80 percent of all special education students being Black or Hispanic males.

Learning disabilities are just a part of the whole picture. Black students (and particularly boys) experience disconnection when it comes to the authority figures in their classrooms. The K-12 teaching profession is dominated by white women, many of whom are very qualified and very interested in helping all their students succeed but lack the first-hand experience needed to connect with their Black male students.

  1. Black boys are more likely to attend schools without the adequate resources to educate them.

Schools with majority Black students tend to have lower amounts of teachers who are certified in their degree areas. A U.S. Department of Education report found that in schools with at least 50 percent Black students, only 48 percent were certified in the subject, compared with 65 percent in majority white schools. In English, the numbers were 59 and 68 percent, respectively and in science, they were 57 percent and 73 percent.

  1. Black boys are not reading at an adequate level.

In 2014, the Black Star Project published findings that just 10 percent of eighth-grade Black boys in the U.S. are considered “proficient” in reading. In urban areas like Chicago and Detroit, that number was even lower. By contrast, the 2013 National Assessment of Education Progress found that 46 percent of white students are adequate readers by eighth grade, and 17 percent of Black students as a whole are too. The achievement gap between the two races is startling, but the difference between the NAEP report on Black students as a whole and the Black Star findings of just Black boys is troubling too. It is not simply Black children in general who appear to be failing in the basics – like literacy; it is the boys.

Reading is only one piece of the school puzzle, of course, but it is a foundational one. If the eighth graders in our schools cannot read, how will they ever learn other subjects and make it to a college education (or, in reality, to a high school diploma)? Reading scores tell us so much more than the confines of their statistics. I believe these numbers are key to understanding the plight of young Black men in our society as a whole.

  1. Punishment for black boys is harsher than for any other demographic.

Punishment for Black boys – even first-time offenders – in schools is harsher than any other demographic. Consider these facts:

What’s most troubling is that not all of the Black boys taken from their schools in handcuffs are violent, or even criminals. Increasingly, school-assigned law enforcement officers are leading these students from their schools hallways for minor offenses, including class disruption, tardiness and even non-violent arguments with other students. It seems that it is easier to remove these students from class through the stigma of suspension or arrest than to look for in-school solutions.

School suspension, and certainly arrest, is just the beginning of a life considered on the wrong side of the law for many Black boys. By 18 years of age, 30 percent of Black males have been arrested at least once, compared to just 22 percent of white males. Those numbers rise to 49 percent for Black men by the age of 23, and 38 percent of white males. Researchers from several universities concluded earlier this year that arrests early in life often set the course for more crimes and incarceration throughout the rest of the offender’s lifetime.

No wonder they aren’t in college…

These trends are not conducive to improving the numbers of young black men who are able to attend college. In fact, the numbers are dismal when it comes to black young men who attend and graduate from colleges in the U.S. Statistically speaking, black men have the lowest test scores, the worst grades and the highest dropout rates – in K-12 education, and in college too.  The recognition of this educational crisis has led to some strong initiatives targeted at young black men with the intention of guiding them through the college years and to successful, productive lives that follow.

This is why college motivation within and outside the black community is so vital for these young men. At this point in the nation’s history, they are in the greatest need for the lifestyle change that higher education can provide, and not just for individual growth, but also for the benefit of the entire nation. But in order to get there, black boys must experience the motivation to succeed well before college.

 

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

 

Posted on

Designer Learning Experiences: Bridging the Gap for Low-Income and Minority Students

The number of minority students outweighs the number of white students—yet underrepresented minorities still often face a worse quality education than their white counterparts. It’s prime time to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population, and fortunately, as a society, we are actively looking for ways to do just that.

As of 2014, minorities have been projected to be over 50 percent of the K-12 student population, according to the U.S. Education Department’s Nation Center for Education Statistics.

In the fall of 2014, about 49.8 million students attended public elementary and secondary schools. Of these students, 35.1 million were in prekindergarten through grade 8, and 14.7 million will be in grades 9 through 12. Another 5 million students attend private schools.

Out of these 49.8 million students, White students account for just under half at 24.8 million. The other 25 million are composed of 7.7 million African American students, 12.8 million Hispanic students, 2.6 million Asian/Pacific Islander students, 0.5 million American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 1.4 million students of two or more races.

Taking this even further, the percentage of White students is predicted to continue decreasing the next several years as enrollments of Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders increase through 2023.

Of course, I am pleased to see the numbers of minorities attending school on the rise this year. In the best interest of our country’s future, I believe that all Americans should attend school. These projections show that our nation is on the way to decreasing the education gap, and that makes me proud.

That said, even though we have a growing number of minority students attending school, we are still facing some racial, ethnic, and income-based inequities. Poor schools see less funding than their more affluent counterparts in 23 states, according to data reported in The Washington Post. On average, states and localities spend 15 percent less per pupil in the poorest districts than in the most affluent ones—but in states like Pennsylvania, this difference is even more pronounced (33 percent)!

The issues are not just income related. They are most certainly racial and ethnic in nature as well. For example, in Illinois School District U-46, over 40 percent of the student population is Latino, but only 2 percent of the gifted program is from this demographic. In July, a federal district court judge found that the school system had discriminated against its gifted Latino students by placing them in a program separate from white peers. The judge also ruled that the policies in place to identify gifted students had a “disparate impact” on the Latino school population. The lawsuit was spearheaded by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

In this particular case, the Latino students who were placed in separate gifted programs had English as a second language or were bilingual at least. In this case, the language barrier appears to be the excuse used by district leaders for separating Latino students from their white counterparts.

Another sign that not all is well is the school-to-prison pipeline.

Perhaps a great illustration of this phenomenon is the story of Ahmed Mohamed.

In September 2015, officers detained Ahmed Mohamed from the Irving Police Department for bringing in a homemade clock to school. His teacher had mistaken it for a bomb, and as a result, Ahmed was arrested for bringing a “hoax bomb” to school.

Officials later learned that Ahmed’s faux bomb was just a homemade clock and he had no intention of harming anyone. It was all, as stated by the police, just a misunderstanding.

If only it were that simple.

Since the melee, Ahmed has been invited to the White House, MIT, and Facebook for his creativity. Each organization or group has shown support for Ahmed due to his unfair arrest.

But the unfairness tagged to his arrest has more to do with Ahmed’s culture and skin color than safety.

Ahmed Mohamed was born in America, is Muslim, and his parents aren’t native. The stereotypes associated with Ahmed’s existence led to his arrest, not a clock misidentified as a bomb.

According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania, students of color, specifically black students, are suspended at a much higher rate than white students. While Ahmed isn’t black, he is considered to be a student of color.

The study also notes that in 84 districts within the 13 states studied, “Blacks were 100 percent of students suspended from school.”

This perpetuates an unfortunate theory that students of color are pushed towards prison instead of higher education.

We need to push more kids like Ahmed to advance boundaries—but this will not happen as long as we punish their ability to blow by them.

That’s not all.

Minorities are not college ready. While the high school graduation rate has increased to around 80 percent, this hasn’t translated into college readiness for students. A report from the College of Education at the University of Arizona found that less than 1 in 10 minority high school graduates in the state are adequately prepared for college. Granted, non-minority students are doing much better. Only 2 in 10 are prepared for college after graduating high school.

These are just a few things to be concerned about. It’s not all doom and gloom, though. In fact, in this chapter, we’ll be looking at yet another emerging trend—specifically technology as the great equalizer of education for low-income and minority students.

Technology: The Great Equalizer?

The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2009 that 97 percent of K-12 teachers had computers in their classrooms every day. Also, 54 percent were able to bring a computer into the classroom. The overall ratio of students to classroom computers was 5.3 to 1.

Well that was then, and this is now. Since 2009, teachers have made the shift to include mobile devices like tablets and Smartphones as part of the classroom culture. Computers are still there but are quickly playing second fiddle to smaller, faster and just-plain-cooler pieces of technology.

In its widest definition, technology has always been associated with the creation of a level playing field for students. Bernard John Poole of the University of Pittsburgh wrote ten pillars of technology integration in K-12 schools, and his final point reads: Recognize that technology is for all, and involves all, in the process of lifelong learning.

At the public school level, all students have equal access to classroom computers and mobile devices. This is even for these youngsters who have no electronic access at home. (In this day and age, this is more prevalent than it should be. For example, a survey done in Madison, Wisconsin found that one-quarter to one-fifth of low-income, black, and Latino students in the city’s school districts do not have access to the Internet. ) Upon entering a classroom they can interact with technology and keep up with their peers.

Make no mistake, though—I do not think that technology itself is a panacea. It is the implementation of the technology that matters. Let’s talk a bit more about exactly what this implementation entails.

How to Use Technology to Transform Education

Students in urban schools are often seen as lost causes. They tend to have stereotypes attached to them and are not seen as individual learners. Then there are problems like deteriorating buildings and overcrowding, which often become too overwhelming for well-meaning reformers.

In a 2009 article in the Harvard Political Review, writers Tiffany Wen and Jyoti Jasrasaria discuss the “myths of urban education.” The article points out that many people are quick to label urban schools as lost causes without actually investigating individual issues or how they can be resolved. The authors also shed light on the juxtaposition of the basic American ideal that anyone from anywhere can make it big with some hard work and the reality of urban schools. If urban students are truly not at a disadvantage, per the American dream, then why do they graduate from high school at a rate of nearly 20 percent lower than their suburban counterparts?

In an Education Week guest blog post, urban music teacher Mike Albertson said that “overcrowded classrooms are one of the most common qualities of urban schools.”

He went on to say that the students themselves are not the actual problem in urban schools but that the overcrowded conditions are to blame for many perceived behavior issues and academic disengagement. More likely, it is a combination of high student-to-teacher ratios and behavior problems.

Studies have found a correlation between overcrowding and lower math and reading scores. Teachers also cite overcrowding as a definite contributor to student behavior problems. Too many kids in classrooms means too little individual instruction. It also means that academic time is spent dealing with issues that distract from education. Overcrowding is only one problem that contributes to urban student disadvantages but one that deserves the spotlight.

As with all aspects of K-12 improvement, finding the answers to higher achievement for urban students is a complicated process. I believe that technology can work to teacher and student advantages, though. The implications of mobile technology in K-12 classrooms are still being realized, but one thing is certain: more individualized learning is now possible. In cases where overcrowding is detrimental to learning experiences, mobile technology can serve as a placeholder teacher regarding directing students and keeping them engaged in learning when the physical teacher is unavailable.

Fortunately, it seems like most people get this—from teachers to the government

One D.C. school integrated technology into their school with a significant homeless student population. Ketcham Elementary school saw an 11 percent bump in math proficiency this past spring and a 4.5 percent rise in reading proficiency after less than two years implementing a computer-learning model that combines face-to-face teacher instruction with personalized online learning paths for students. To put those numbers in perspective, other test scores in the District barely moved in the same time frame.

Under these blended learning models, the computers serve as complements to the teachers. Teachers can set up one student on a customized learning task on a computer while working one-on-one with another group of students, for example. The blended learning allows for more personalization that is strengthened with educator insight.

As a former public school teacher, I do have my doubts. Proponents of blended learning say that it will never replace actual in-person instruction, but I worry that too much reliance on technology could lead to students who skate by but do not comprehend what they are learning. A computer can never replace the insight an educator gleans by working directly with a student.

On the other hand, I completely understand that teachers simply do not have enough hours in a school day to meet the individual needs of every student and technology can help bridge that gap. On that level, I think blended learning programs can make a positive difference when it comes to students getting more practice in areas where they need it and on an individual level.

On the national level, President Obama has acted to ensure a better education for disadvantaged minority groups as well. In particular, his budget request has included $1 billion for Native American schools. Obama wanted to help restore crumbling buildings and connect classrooms via broadband Internet.

Administrative officials said the President was inspired to increase funds to better serve this population partially as a result of last year’s visit to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. He and the First Lady traveled to North Dakota and met with young people who shared how drugs, violence, and poverty impacted their lives.

The federal government reports that around one-third of Bureau of Indian Education schools were in poor condition last year. This has forced students to learn in classrooms that fail to meet health and safety standards.

The BIE oversees 23 states and serves over 40,000 children in nearly 200 schools

In addition to renovations, Obama’s budget includes funds to expand broadband access at BIE schools, expand scholarships for post-secondary education and help tribes deliver their education programs.

Young people in Indian Country are some of the most at-risk in the United States. Many grow up in communities suffering from poverty, unemployment, and substance abuse. More than one-fifth of Native Americans over 25 years of age never earned a high school diploma. Of those who attend college, only 39 percent earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

But Does Technology Improve Educational Outcomes?

As you can see, getting technology in the classroom is a priority in many cases. However, according to the founder of the popular Blackboard software, we are still in the “really early days” of truly integrated technology. Furthermore, Troy Williams of Macmillan New Ventures pointed out during a technology summit that companies like his do not “have the outcomes yet to say what leads to a true learning moment.” He added that it would still be another three to five years before those numbers can truly be analyzed.

The data is not quite there yet for K-12 schools, but if the positive trends related to college graduation rates is any indicator, there is a lot of reason to be encouraged.

The availability of online course options is a large reason for the increase in the graduation rates of many different types of people. With less red tape than the traditional college format, online students can earn credits while still working full time, maintaining families and dealing with illnesses. Whether students take just one course remotely or obtain an entire degree, they can take on the demands of college life more readily – leading to a student population with more variety.

The flexibility and convenience of online learning is talked about, but the diversity of the college population that results from it is not.

The Babson Survey Research Group recently revealed that while online college student enrollment is on the rise, traditional colleges and universities saw their first drop in enrollment in the ten years the survey has been conducted. This drop is small – less than a tenth of one percent – but its significance is big. A trend toward the educational equality of online curriculum is being realized by students, institutions, and employers across the board. The benefits of a college education through quality online initiatives are now becoming more accessible to students that simply cannot commit to the constraints of a traditional campus setting.

Similar benefits can be passed onto K-12 students as well—flexibility, convenience, and personalization. It will be interesting to see if technology will help education equity improve over the next few years.

 

Posted on

Hope for High School Dropouts: How Increasing Graduation Rates Will Transform Our Country

Are math and science killing our high school graduation rates?

More rigorous math and science requirements for high school graduation are in place. At the same time, dropout rates in this country are up.

Is this a coincidence?

Research back to 1990 showed that the US dropout rate rose to a high of 11.4 percent when students were required to take six math and science courses, compared with 8.6 percent for students who needed less math and science courses to graduate.

The dropout rate is up to 5 percentage points higher when gender, race, and ethnicity are considered.

Andrew Plunk, a postdoctoral research fellow in the psychiatry department at Washington University School of Medicine, says the study highlights that the one-size-fits-all approach to education requirements is not ideal due to various demographic groups, states and school districts that are all different.

When educational policies cause an unintentional consequence of an increase in students dropping out, the effects reverberate far beyond the classroom walls.

“Communities with higher dropout rates tend to have increased crime,” says Plunk. “Murders are more common. A previous study estimated that a 1 percent reduction in the country’s high school dropout rate could result in 400 fewer murders per year.”

Maybe this is all true. Maybe the high school dropout rate can be blamed on math and science courses.

However, I don’t feel like the answer is for schools to ease up on these requirements.

No, the key is to better prepare the students for these classes. These classes may be difficult, but life after high school is even harder.

Let’s raise our standards. Let’s start thinking about how we can help all students graduate high school.

Are we in the midst of a high school dropout crisis?

Doesn’t it seem like the phrase “high school dropout” is often accompanied with the word “crisis”? Depending who you ask, kids everywhere are giving up on education before they obtain a diploma and the situation has never been worse.

But is it that bad? Is the state of the high school dropout rate in the U.S. deserving of the “crisis” label? Let’s look at the facts.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national dropout rate was 7 percent in 2011. The number is calculated by taking the number of 16 to 24-year-olds that are not enrolled in school and do not have a diploma, or a general educational development (G.E.D.) certificate. In 1990, that number was 12 percent so based on that criteria; the dropout rate has dropped in the past two decades. In fact, dropout numbers have been on the decline since 1970 when it was 15 percent.

Perhaps a more interesting stat is that the percentage of 16 to 24-year-old dropouts who were in employed in 1970 is the same as 2011 – 49.8 percent. As dropout rates have declined, the importance of finishing high school has increased in America. One big problem with the NCES dropout calculations is that they imply that a high school diploma and G.E.D. are equal when it comes to opportunities for earners. In reality, studies have found that G.E.D. holders earn about the same amount as dropouts long term.

Based on these numbers, it may seem like the high school dropout problem is much, much better than it was just a few decades ago. But consider that more jobs demand post-secondary education than back then and that today there are so many alternative options high school students have to finish their diploma outside the traditional classroom setting.

We’re not where we need to be yet. The dropout rate should be negligible at this point.

Who is dropping out?

In 1972, when the government started tracking the dropout rates for Hispanic students, over one-third of all Hispanic students dropped out of high school!

Today, that number is much lower—down to 13.6 percent—but this group still leads all races and ethnicities when it comes to young people out of school with no diploma or G.E.D.

A similar trend exists for black students. Black students dropped out at a rate of 29 percent in 1967 (the first year the group was tracked), and that number is down to 7 percent (the same as the national average) today.

White students had always held on to the lowest percentage of the dropout pie chart, even when their numbers represented a larger majority of total student populations. In 1967, 15 percent of white students dropped out of high school; today, just 5 percent do.

When it comes to gender, there has not been much differentiation when it comes to dropout percentages in over 40 years. There have been four years since 1972 when the rate for young men dropouts was noticeably higher than young women: 1974, 1976, 1978 and 2000.

As far as economic backgrounds, lower-income students have always been at a high school graduation disadvantage. In 2009, students from families in low-income brackets ran a risk of dropping out that was five times higher than high-income peers. Still, the future is not completely bleak for kids from disadvantaged economic environments. In 1975, low-income students dropped out at a rate of 16 percent, but that number now sits comfortably under 10 percent.

Household income is the not the only disadvantage many dropouts have, though. Students with learning or physical disabilities drop out at a rate of 36 percent. Overall, a student who does not fit the traditional classroom mold, or who falls behind for some reason, is more likely to lose motivation when it comes to high school and decide to give up altogether.

Why you should care about high school dropout rates

Let me be blunt: Dropping out costs money.

It costs the individual who drops out money. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that dropouts bring in just $20,241 annually, which is $10,000 less than high school graduates and over $36,000 less than a person holding a bachelor’s degree. The poverty rate for dropouts is over twice as high as college grads, and the unemployment rate for dropouts is four percentage points higher than the national average. In the end, the lifetime earnings of high school dropouts are $260,000 LESS than peers who earn a diploma.

It costs taxpayers money. An estimated half of all Americans on public assistance are dropouts. If all of the dropouts from the class of 2011 had earned diplomas, the nation would benefit from an estimated $154 billion in income over their working lifetimes. Potentially feeding that number is the fact that young women who give up on high school are nine times more likely to be, or become, young single mothers. A study out of Northeastern University found that high school dropouts cost taxpayers $292,000 over the course of their lives.

Did I mention that it costs taxpayers money? We’re not just paying for public assistance programs for dropouts—we’re paying to protect ourselves against them through incarceration. Over 80 percent of the incarcerated population is high school dropouts – making this an issue that truly impacts every member of the community. Numbers are higher for dropouts of color; 22 percent of people jailed in the U.S. are black males who are high school dropouts.

Imagine what would happen if we took the nearly $300K that taxpayers put in over the course of a dropout’s lifetime and deposited it into their K-12 learning upfront. If we invested that money, or even half of it, into efforts to enhance the learning experience and programs to prevent dropping out, what would that do to dropout, poverty and incarceration rates?

It’s not just about the money, though

Why graduating more students from high school helps us all thrive

Think of the quality of life experiences, we, as Americans, can enable for as many citizens of our country as possible. As it happens, when students graduate from high school, opportunities open up for them.

When students stay in school, they are more likely to value a career path over a job. Over 68 percent of high school graduates begin college coursework the following fall. Students who earn high school diplomas are that much more inspired to continue their academic journey and seek out a lifelong career match, not just clock hours at a “job” until retirement.

And the fulfillment people receive from a job they enjoy should not be underestimated. Studies have found that happier people are healthier and are even able to better fight off common illnesses like colds and the flu. Considering more time is spent working than in any other pursuit, job satisfaction plays a major role in overall happiness.

Job satisfaction aside, as a nation, everyone benefits from well-educated workers who earn a living in areas where they possess natural talent too.

Staying in high school also allows students to have valuable experiences. The childhood years go by so quickly, and high school represents the last stage before adulthood. The social opportunities that high school provides are not duplicated anywhere else except in college—and high school dropouts miss out on both. What’s more, high school dropouts tend to get into more trouble than their in-school peers. The National Dropout Prevention Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. prisoners are high school dropouts. The life lessons found in the later years of high school are more valuable than they get credit for and the peer-level socialization is a vital part of late-childhood development.

Finally, there’s much to be said about learning for its sake. In our material society, it is difficult to explain the intangible value of things like intellectualism, particularly to young people. Until greater value is placed on obtaining knowledge for no other reason than to broaden individual and societal wisdom, students will continue to drop out of high school.

After all, how can the economic importance of a high school diploma be explained to children who have never had to earn their living? Even those in dire socio-economic conditions do not have a grounded concept of what money means in the quality of life and long-term happiness.

Sometimes the best way for young people to learn about these abstract concepts is through experience. Going to school will teach all young people more than the subjects they learn at school.

How do we make sure kids stay in school?

Let’s go beyond telling kids to stay in school. Here we’ll look at the secret weapons we can use to solve this problem at a structural level.

As we learned at the beginning of this chapter, it’s not about loosening standards so that children can more easily finish school, but preparing people for the demands of the workforce.

Here’s what we can do to make sure we help students meet these high standards.

First of all, get the business community involved. The economic impact of high school dropouts cannot be denied. The nation as a whole will miss out on an estimated $154 billion in income over the lifetimes of the dropouts from the Class of 2011 alone. From a business perspective, this is a missed opportunity. There is money to be made and an economic boost is possible – but only if these students stick around long enough to obtain a high school diploma and potentially seek out college opportunities. Georgia is a great example of a state that has taken advantage of the business community to help improve graduation rates. Areas like Atlanta Metro have some of the strongest business leaders in the nation, and school officials have begun to call on them for guidance and funding when it comes to improving graduation rates.

The report Building a Grad Nation 2012 found that between 2002 and 2010, Georgia showed high school graduation rate improvement from 61 to 68 percent, in part because of involvement from the business community. In that eight-year span, the number of “dropout factories” (schools with 60 percent or lower graduation rates) fell from 1,634 to 1,550. Making graduation numbers an issue of economic stability, and having a backup from business leaders, is just one step toward reducing dropout numbers.

The next step is to look for support beyond the classroom. As discussed already, risk factors for dropouts include coming from low-income or single-parent families. Teachers simply cannot address the academic and emotional needs of every student within normal class time, so programs need to be in place for students who are at risk for dropping out. A pilot program in San Antonio called Communities in Schools has taken on this challenge by offering on-campus counseling services for students on the fence about dropping out.

The program offers a listening ear for whatever the students may need to talk about, from lack of food or anxiety about family financial woes. Of the students in the program in the 2012 – 2013 school year, 97 percent obtained a high school diploma instead of dropping out. While students can certainly talk about their studies, the main point of the program is not academic. It is simply a support system to encourage students who may be facing life obstacles to keep pushing forward to finish high school. These programs are often what students need to feel accountability toward the community as a whole and also worthiness for a high school diploma.

Another, perhaps surprising way to reduce the high school dropout rate is to prioritize early childhood education. Much of the attack on the dropout rate happens when teens are already at a crossroads. In truth, the learning and social experiences they have from birth influence their attitudes about education, society, and their lives. Perhaps the dip in dropout rates in the past four decades hinges on another statistic: from 1980 to 2000, the number of four-year-old children in the U.S. enrolled in preschool programs rose from half to over two-thirds.

But currently, pre-K learning is only an academic right (free of charge) in 40 states and 2012, total funding for these programs was slashed by $548 million. Instead of putting money where it belongs – upfront, at the beginning of a K-12 career – lawmakers could be contributing to a higher dropout rate, and economic cost, in future decades. It’s time to stop making the high school dropout issue something that is confronted at the moment; prevention, as early as pre-K learning, is a long-term solution.

It’s great that we know of possible solutions to the high school dropout crisis. Now it’s time to spread awareness of this issue, promote possible solutions, and implement them for the good of our country.

 

 

 

Posted on

The economic argument for ethnic studies

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

A guest column by Jim Estrada

Our nation is undergoing a cultural evolution as a result of an ethnic population explosion. In a blink of the eye, Hispanics, Latinos, and mestizos have grown to 54 million in 2015 and are projected to reach 132.8 million by 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Much of this growth will come from natural childbirth among U.S. citizens, not immigration as many in the U.S. have been led to believe to believe.

But what else do we not know about our nation’s largest and fastest-growing ethnic neighbors? Simply stated, very little!

We have a substantial information gap in the USA’s educational curricula regarding our nation’s non-European white populations. Exposure to accurate unbiased information about them, their histories, and contributions to our nation can lead to a better understanding of their increasing influence and contributions as the fastest growing consumers, K-12 students, taxpayers, voters, and members of the workforce. This gap represents a glaring need, as they are already the “majority” of the population in many metropolitan areas across the nation.

According to the Selig Center at the University of Georgia, consumer spending among Latinos increased appreciably and grown at a faster rate than that of the overall U.S. population. Since 1990 the nation’s Hispanic buying power grew dynamically. In sheer dollars, their economic clout rose from $212 billion in 1990, to $489 billion in 2000, to $978 billion in 2009, and was estimated to reach over $1.5 trillion by 2015.

To effectively interact with this diverse and fast-growing ethnic group, mainstream society must become better informed of its members’ histories, cultures, and contributions to our nation. Already, U.S. Spanish-language media has recognized the historical void in positive programming images and limited news coverage related to the Latino segment of U.S. society and is addressing that need. In a world of increasingly diverse information sources and content, Spanish-language media is demonstrating that cultural relevance works; and more importantly, that it is profitable—for itself and its advertisers.

Questions many non-Spanish speaking professionals and managers need to answer are: “Do you possess the necessary skills to deal with the growing influence of this ethnic population on your “bottom line”? Is the traditional white-Eurocentric “one size fits all” approach to marketing and advertising still profitable?” If the answer is no, then the next question must be: “Are the nation’s educational systems, companies, government, and non-profit organizations prepared to invest in preparing experts who can provide them with culturally competent professionals?”

There are many thoughts on how to create cultural competency. The logical place to start is in our nation’s school systems, which are charged with expanding the knowledge base that affect the goals and objectives of our society and the marketplace. The most successful private companies and public service delivery sectors must increase their number of culturally competent, career-specific, degreed individuals when creating a diverse employee team that more accurately reflects the demographic changes occurring in our population.

Due to these rapidly changing demographics, employers must increasingly rely on employees who demonstrate knowledge of their respective organization’s diverse consumers and possess the cultural proficiencies to manage new brands or services, communications, and outreach initiatives that address the organization’s integrated operational and marketing efforts. Having culturally competent “aces” in all the right places insures increased market share, profits, and sustainability in an increasingly diverse and competitive marketplace.

Ethnic studies are important to the fast-growing non-white segments of our country’s population for a variety of psychological and social reasons; but from an strictly economic point they may of equal importance to non-minority individuals who must become culturally aware of those who are already affecting their professions and careers—as well as related revenue streams.

Our nation’s educational institutions must address this critical need for preparing tomorrow’s multi-culturally trained workforce, for especially in the marketplace (and workplace) “adapt or perish” remains nature’s inexorable imperative.

__________________________

Jim Estrada is a nationally recognized expert in ethnic marketing, communications, and public relations. The author of the award-winning book, “The ABCs and Ñ of America’s Cultural Evolution,” has provided his counsel to the most respected corporations and nonprofit organizations in the USA. A former TV newsman and corporate executive, he attended San Diego State University, Boston College, and Harvard Business School.

Posted on

Will the pending ESEA actually move funding backward?

By Derek Black of Law Professor Blogs Network

Last week, Nora Gordon focused on one of the more technical aspects of the pending Senate bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: the supplement not supplant standard. The standard requires that Title I funds for low income students only be used to supplement the resources that state and local entities were already providing those students, not supplant them. Gordon summarized the new revisions and her sense of their importance:

The larger legacy of the Every Child Achieves Act may well be how it cleans up supplement not supplant, a little discussed and often misunderstood fiscal rule with a big impact on how schools actually spend the $14 billion of NCLB Title I funds. The proposed legislation makes two important changes: (1) it requires districts to show they are distributing their state and local funds across schools without regard to the federal funds that each school receives; and (2) it increases local autonomy over how to spend Title I funds.

The problem she says is that:

Under current law, those Title I schools that do not operate school-wide programs must demonstrate that every single thing they buy with Title I funds helps only the neediest students, and would not be purchased with other funds absent the federal aid. In my research, I’ve found this rule often has the unintended consequence of preventing districts from spending money on the things that might help those students most, pushing schools to work around the edges of their central instructional mission. They buy “interventionists” instead of teachers, or “supplemental” curricular materials rather than “core” ones, and are discouraged from investing Title I funds in technology.

Gordon is correct that the supplement not supplant has been a disaster.  As I wrote in The Congressional Failure to Enforce Equal Protection Through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 90 B.U. L. Rev. 313 (2010),

Although well meaning, the prohibition on supplanting has not met its goal. In fact, in a recent report, the GAO recommended eliminating the supplement-not-supplant standard altogether. The GAO concluded that the standard has become almost impossible to enforce. Enforcing the standard requires too much speculation about what a school district would have spent on education and also requires extremely detailed tracking of spending in thousands of school districts. In short, the prohibition on supplanting funds relies on unreliable projections and unusually labor-intensive work. Possibly for these reasons, the Department of Education has effectively stopped attempting to enforce the standard, treating it as a non-priority. The standard, however, remains the law and a measure that well-intentioned schools may expend effort attempting to meet.

But at this point, the question is not whether we should discard the current supplement not supplant rule.  The question is what we should replace it with.  It is far from clear that moving toward more district autonomy (so long as they provide data) fixes the funding inequities and inept state and local funding effort that Congress needed to tackle with supplement not supplant and other related standards.

The new fix in the pending bill is a compromise that dodges that fundamental problems, and has the potential to incentivize backsliding by state and local districts unless other new protections are added.  Yes, the new bill would provide more information on funding inequality from states so that we can see what they are doing.  But that data is generally available anyway.  The challenge is that data’s complexity, not its unavailability.  So the new freedom for states looks like a give away that runs the risk that states will engage in the very behavior it formerly sought to prohibit (even if Congress and the Department of Education never did a good job of prohibiting it).  Under the proposed new approach, federal money could even more easily become part of districts’ general operating budget, which would allow the money to be seriously diluted or state and local dollars to decrease when federal dollars are available to fill the gap.

So what should we do in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?  I laid out the solutions in painstaking detail in the article noted above.  But in short, the Elementary and Secondary Act should 1) demand comparability of resources both within and between districts and 2) distribute federal funds to incentivize states to meet student need (get states to progressively fund high poverty schools), and 3) incentivize integration and punish segregation.  The first two proposal are intuitive, but the third is also necessary because the existence of segregation provides the platform for inequality and drives up the cost of delivering an equitable education in high poverty schools.  Unfortunately, there are longstanding headwinds against these solutions, which explains why the Senate’s proposed supplement not supplant approach does so little.

Get my full explanation of how to fix ESEA here.

 

This post originally appeared on the Law Professor Blogs Network and has been republished with permission.

Posted on

Is your child taking a test? When is the right time?

Francesca Gino, Harvard Business School

Standardized tests have become the primary tool for determining a student’s academic ability. Legislators and administrators use test data to evaluate the effectiveness of schooling on children and create curriculum.

Their use is supported by two fundamental assumptions: that the tests do not have a bias, and that they accurately assess a student’s academic knowledge.

A typical standardized test assesses a student’s knowledge base in an academic domain, such as science, mathematics or reading. When taking a standardized test, it is assumed that the substance of the test and its administration will be the same for all takers. The tests are identical, with identical degrees of difficulty and identical grading methods.

Despite these goals in the creation of standardized tests, recent research I conducted in collaboration with Hans Henrik Sievertsen (of the Danish National Center for Social Research) and Marco Piovesan (of the University of Copenhagen) identifies one potential source of bias: the time at which students take the test.

Why timing matters

We used data from a context in which the timing of the test depends on the weekly class schedule and computer availability at the school. Thus, students and teachers do not choose when the test occurs: the test time depends on factors outside of their control. Though our data come from Denmark, the same conditions often exist in the case of tests in other countries across the globe.

But does the time of the day when students take the test make a difference in terms of their performance on the test? We thought it would.

After all, people’s ability to perform effectively on various tasks is not constant across the day but shows temporal variation. In fact, research has argued that individuals’ cognitive functioning (e.g., memory and attention) is at its peak at their optimal time of day and decreases substantially at their nonoptimal times. Others have suggested that time-of-day effects on performance depend on external factors that occur at particular times (e.g., meals) or vary depending on the nature of the task itself.

Students become increasingly fatigued as the day wears on. This affects test results.
CameliaTWU, CC BY-NC-ND

Given these various theories about how time of day affects performance, we had a unique opportunity to put these hypotheses to a test as we gained access to data on the full population of children in Danish public schools from 2010 to 2013.

As the day wears on, students (as we all do) become increasingly fatigued. So, we reasoned, “cognitive fatigue” (i.e., when the brain has to work harder to concentrate on tasks) can lead students to perform worse on tests taken later in the day and that breaks can recharge students’ energy.

So, “cognitive fatigue” negatively impacts test performance. But a break can counterbalance this negative effec. For example, during a break, children in school can have something to eat, relax, play with classmates or just have some fresh air. These activities recharge their energy.

How timing matters

Our results are consistent with these hypotheses.

To test whether our intuition was right, we linked two million standardized tests taken in Denmark by children between the age of eight and 15 with the time the test was administered.

In Denmark, these tests are computer-based: to test the students, teachers have to prebook a test session within the test period (which runs from January to April of each year). Therefore, the test time is determined by the availability of a computer room and students’ class schedules. And, in fact, our analysis confirms that students are allocated to different times randomly.

Our analyses led to three main findings: 1) The later in the day the time of the test is, the lower the performance on the test; 2) breaks cause a significant improvement in performance; 3) the effect of time of day and of breaks are not homogeneous – low-performing students are more affected by breaks (and also by the time of the day when the test is taken) than high-performing students.

Here is how to think more concretely about the size of our results:

We found that when the standardized test is taken an hour later in the day, it causes a deterioration in a student’s test score that corresponds to parents having about US$1,000 less in their household annual income or students going to school for 10 fewer days every year. A break causes an improvement in a student’s test score that corresponds to parents earning about $1,900 more in their household annual income or students going to school for 19 extra days every year.

We were able to identify these estimates based on additional analyses of our data that we conducted to better understand the impact of taking the standardized test later in the day to find concrete numbers to compare our effects to.

The effect sizes may seem small, as these estimates suggest, but they are quite sizable compared to the influence of individual characteristics on students’ test performance and the implications of these findings.

When’s the right time?

In reading about these results, one may be tempted to interpret them as evidence that the start time of the school day should change to later thus allowing students to sleep in – a topic that is currently debated quite often in the United States among other places.

Results are better if students are allowed to sleep in.
Alberto G., CC BY

One may reach this conclusion since, by starting the school day later and getting some more sleep (which is well-known) to be a way to restore one’s mental energy), students may be able to perform better on their tests and other school activities throughout the day.

Our results should also not be interpreted to say that schools tests should be administered earlier in the day.

Rather, the message of this research for policy-making is twofold.

First, when policymakers or schools administrators make decisions regarding the length of the school day and the frequency and duration of breaks, “cognitive fatigue” should be taken into careful consideration. Longer school days can be justified, our research suggests, as long as they include an appropriate number of breaks. Second, it is important for school accountability systems to control for the influence of external factors on test scores.

We rarely ask the question of whether it is the right time to take a test. But, our research suggests, this may be an important question to ask going forward given that, as the day wears on, students (like all of us) become increasingly fatigued and consequently more likely to underperform on a standardized test.

The Conversation

Francesca Gino, Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School

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

Posted on

When researchers ask for data on penalization of black kids, schools resist, cover up

**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.**

 

Muhammad Khalifa, Michigan State University & Felecia Briscoe, University of Texas at San Antonio
Students of color are more likely to be suspended. Rod Library, CC BY

That students of color bear the brunt of the zero tolerance discipline policies in schools has been well-established. What is not so well known is that some school administrations are actually complicit in this act of racial disciplining.

Nationally, students of color are more likely to be suspended than white students. On average, black boys are suspended four times more than white boys. Latino students are also suspended more frequently than white students, and female students of color are also disciplined more frequently than white female students.

The policy ‘problem’

But this is not all. A recent study that we conducted over a period of two years in Texas found that schools were in fact negligent when it came to addressing such practices of disciplining. The study covered four school districts in Texas with a population of nearly 200,000 students.

As researchers, we have been studying this issue since 2010. But what prompted this study was the suspension of one of the researcher’s sons from school. The child was given a US $500 court citation. And when we showed up for our court appointment, we saw that all the children were either black or brown. Did it mean that white children never fought in school?

We knew this was part of what is now known as the school-to-prison pipeline for children of color. It led us to take on a scholar-activist role.

Most schools and districts claim to be following “race-neutral” discipline policies. School officials even point to their race-neutral suspension and expulsion policies to show how they are “fair” with students of all race and ethnic subgroups.

However, researchers have found that the problem lies in the application of these policies.

For example, black students are more likely to be suspended for breaking subjective school rules such as a lack of respect for teachers than for objective ones, like having a weapon. Researchers point to cultural stereotypes and misunderstandings from a primarily white teaching force as the reasons for the “disciplining gaps.”

Data on discipline

Our recent study found that some schools are, in fact, negligent and even defensive when it comes to addressing the problem of school discipline practices and the discipline gap.

The kind of responses we got when we asked for school districts’ discipline data resembled a “corporate cover-up.”

Some school administrators resisted our attempts to provide information under the  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and some others released data that were not helpful. For example, in the discipline data submitted by a school district, we were not able to discern the race of the children who had been suspended or expelled from school.

Some schools have been found to be negligent about school disciplining issues. Student image via www.shutterstock.com

It is hard for us to imagine that schools are not keeping track of usable disciplinary data, considering that in recent years, widespread attention has focused on the disciplinary treatment of black boys and other students of color. President Obama has even initiated My Brother’s Keeper, a national program intended to help black and Latino boys succeed.

Responses from schools

Our biggest surprise was finding out that districts perceived our request for data as a threat. We found that school administrations became secretive, defensive and even more protective of the data. It seemed to us that districts were essentially complicit in the process of oppression of youth of color.

Even the districts that provided the data were very defensive when informed of the discipline gaps that occurred in their schools. For example, when presented with data in his district, one data administrator responded, “Well, other districts in Texas are higher than us” and “We are not far off from the state average.”

It was very troubling for us to see schools reacting in this way, especially when lives of youth were at risk. These responses were unacceptable and deflected the district’s responsibility.

In the end, only one school district, out of four, instituted a district-wide program for the principals of their schools to learn more about the racial discipline gaps. It was the only one to take steps on how to begin reducing and eliminating racial discipline gaps at both the school and at the district level.

As we conducted the study, we also realized that there is no national legislation that prompts schools to address disparities in education. While No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and other national legislation have at least attempted to draw attention to racial disparities in achievement, no legislation exists that actually compels schools to address the problem.

This is unfortunate, given the close connection between the academic achievement gap and the discipline gap.

What must be done?

It is important that schools make policies and goals for racial and ethnic groups more explicit. For example, a goal for “75% proficiency for students in math” is not as impactful as “75% proficiency for each student subgroup based on their racial, gender or language-based identity.” The reason we say this is: what if the population of a school is 25% Latino and that happens to be the same population of nonproficient math students?

At the policy level, what is needed is intensive training on implicit racial bias in most districts. In addition, school districts should be required to report overall suspension rates and discipline gaps within each of their schools.

Furthermore, state or federal policies must begin to regulate both the collection of discipline data and the rate of compliance of schools.

Parents too need to pay more attention. Parents of color and from other subgroups should begin to identify which schools are more likely to suspend students of color.

All this together can be a powerful impetus for districts and schools to attend to this problem. Otherwise, disciplining practices will continue to have devastating consequences for our kids.

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

________________________________

Muhammad Khalifa is Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at Michigan State University.

Felecia Briscoe is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at The University of Texas at San Antonio

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.

 

Posted on

Spend less time searching for classroom resources

A teacher’s job does not end when the school bell rings. From grading papers and prepping classroom materials, to creating lesson plans and seeking out professional development opportunities, to say that educators have a lot on their plate would be an understatement.

Finding classroom resources and quality training has been an even more arduous task with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. According to a report from the Center on Education Policy, a majority of educators are creating new curricula independently—more than two-thirds of districts reported that their teachers were designing their own curricula to meet the new standards.

This has left many teachers looking for tools that can help them find high quality lesson plans, worksheets and other resources to aid their instruction. The process of sifting through irrelevant content can be a drain on educators, who are often spending their own money on classroom materials and resources. Educators need an effective and affordable way to find peer-reviewed content so they can spend less time searching and more time focused on the classroom.

Unlimited Resources, On-Demand

Teachwise Inspire, a new online platform for educators, can most easily be described as the “Netflix” of teaching resources. For a low monthly subscription, members gain access to unlimited, on-demand classroom and professional development resources, eliminating the potential for buyer’s remorse.

The online tool currently includes 28,000 teacher-reviewed, teacher-approved K-12 resources that are aligned to the Common Core and connected to curriculum goals. Content is curated in partnership with Lesson Planet based on their rigorous review criteria. The platform allows users to easily search for resources by subject area, grade level, and specific standard-alignment so they can find exactly what they are looking for. Members also have the ability to rate and review resources, making it easy to see how other educators are using the resources in their own classrooms.

There are also professional development videos and coursework for teachers, with topics ranging from behavior management to implementing new teaching strategies.

Save Time and Money

Teachers spend too much time and money finding resources to use in the classroom. Teachwise Inspire is an affordable tool that can give educators back some of that time, allowing them to focus on their number one priority—students.

Basic membership is available at a monthly cost of $7.99, and for a limited time is available for a seven-day free trial.  To sign up for the free trial, educators can visit inspire.teachwise.com.

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

Posted on

Data secrecy violating data democracy in D.C. public schools

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

A guest post by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley

The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) is soon to vote on yet another dramatic new educational policy that, as described in an email/letter to all members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) by AFT President Randi Weingarten, “would make it impossible for educators, parents and the general public to judge whether some of DCPS’ core instructional strategies and policies are really helping District children succeed.”

As per Weingarten: “Over a year ago, the Washington [DC] Teachers’ Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to see the data from the school district’s IMPACT [teacher] evaluation system—a system that’s used for big choices, like the firing of 563 teachers in just the past four years, curriculum decisions, school closures and more [see prior posts about this as related to the IMPACT program here]. The FOIA request was filed because DCPS refused to provide the data….[data that are]…essential to understanding and addressing the DCPS policies and practices that impact” teachers and education in general.

Not only are such data crucial to build understandings, as noted, but they are also crucial in support of a functioning democracy, to allow others within a population concerned with a public institution test the mandates and policies they collectively support, in theory or concept (perhaps) but also via public taxes.

Regardless, soon after the DC union filed the FOIA, DCPS (retaliated, perhaps, and) began looking to override FOIA laws through “a radical new secrecy provision to hide the information that’s being used to make big decisions” like those associated with the aforementioned IMPACT teacher evaluation system.

Sound familiar? See prior posts about other extreme governmental moves in the name of secrecy, or rather educational policies at all costs, namely in New Mexico here and here.

You can send a letter to those in D.C. to vote NO on their “Educator Evaluation Data Protection” provisions by clicking here.

As per another post on this topic, in GFBrandenburg’s Blog — that is “Just a blog by a guy who’s a retired math teacher” — Brandenburg did leak some of the data now deemed “secret.” Namely, he “was leaked,” by an undisclosed source, “the 2009-10 IMPACT sub-scores from the Value-Added Monstrosity (VAM) nonsense and the Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF), with the names removed. [He] plotted the two [sets of] scores and showed that the correlation was very, very low, in fact about 0.33 [r-squared=0.13], or nearly random, as you [can] see here:”

 

vam-vs-tlf-dc-2009-10

In the world of correlation, this is atrocious, IF high-stakes (e.g., teacher termination, tenure, merit pay) are to be attached to such output. No wonder DCPS does not want people checking in to see if that which they are selling is true to what is being sold.

In Brandenburg’s words: “Value-Added scores for any given teacher jumped around like crazy from year to year. For all practical purposes, there is no reliability or consistency to VAM whatsoever. Not even for elementary teachers who teach both English and math to the same group of children and are ‘awarded’ a VAM score in both subjects. Nor for teachers who taught, say, both 7th and 8th grade students in, say, math, and were ‘awarded’ VAM scores for both grade levels: it’s as if someone was to throw darts at a large chart, blindfolded, and wherever the dart lands, that’s your score.”

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

__________

This post originally appeared on the blog VAMboozled! and has been republished with permission.