This generation of K-12 students is growing up in a society that is increasingly bilingual. While foreign language requirements have long been a core requirement for high school graduation—second language classes at an earlier age would improve overall fluency for most students. It’s time to introduce second-language concepts to the youngest of K-12 students, and here are just a few of the reasons why:
1. Bilingual Children have an Academic Advantage. Studies in language development show that when young children have more exposure to all languages at an early age, it actually gives them a distinct academic advantage throughout life. There is often an argument that students should first master the English language before branching out to others – but why can’t both be taught simultaneously? Bilingual children are able to focus more intently on the topics at hand and avoid distractions from academic pursuits. They are also able to demonstrate higher levels of cognitive flexibility, or the ability to change responses based on environment and circumstances.
2. Bilingualism Improves Life-Long Learning Skills. For children to truly see the full potential multi-lingualism has on learning, exposure to non-native languages should actually begin long before Kindergarten. However, even children who learn their first Spanish words at the age of 5 can benefit from dual language curriculum. Learning is learning. The more that children can take advantage of new concepts, the more in tune their brains will be to all learning throughout life. Some studies have also found that the aging of the brain is slower and the employment rate is higher in adults with bilingual capabilities. Why not set kids up for success and strengthen long-term brain health while we are at it?
3. It Helps to Remove International Language Barriers. There are also the cultural benefits to children learning two languages together. The children who come from English-speaking homes can lend their language expertise to friends from Spanish-speaking homes, and vice versa. Contemporary communication technology has eliminated many global barriers when it comes to socialization and even doing business. It makes sense that language boundaries should also come down and with help from our K-12 education system, that is possible.
4. It Leads to Collaborative Learning. Dual language programs show students a broader world-view, whatever the native language of the student, and lead to greater opportunities for collaborative learning. We should not limit what children learn based on outdated principles masked in patriotism.
5. Early Bilingual Education Increases Fluency in Later Years. It generally takes 5–7 years to be proficient in a second language. Second-generation Hispanic children raised in the United States usually learn to speak English very well by adulthood, even though three-quarters of their parents speak mostly Spanish and are not English proficient. However only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries—those that began learning later in life, say they speak English very well. Pew Hispanic Center statistics have shown that 88 percent of the members of the second generation—those children that were introduced to English at an early age, described themselves as strong English speakers. This phenomenon should apply to children who speak English as their first language as well. In other words, U.S. students should be introduced to a second language at a young age in order to be fluent by adulthood. In fact, I believe that all K-12 students should have Spanish and English fluency by graduation.
By implementing bilingual options even younger, K-12 students stand to benefit long-term – both academically and in life. There really should be no reason why these students are not introduced to a second language as early as Kindergarten.
What is your opinion on mandating bilingual education programs in the future?
Income equality is a hot political topic as of late. Politicians use it as a wedge issue on both sides to ensure that voters will flock to the polls. But its more than political as many Americans struggle to earn a decent living wage.
Income inequality impacts education as well.
By way of new information from the Brookings Institution, students who reside in low-income states are more likely to drop out of school than students in low-income inequality areas.
This is not necessarily earth shattering news, but noteworthy as we have conclusive evidence that shows a correlation between education and income inequality.
The areas with the highest income inequality are all in the south. States like Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana are where students face the toughest financial hurdles.
Moving farther north, states such as Wisconsin and Vermont are not under the same educational pressure as their economic outlook is much better.
Where the research becomes slightly heartbreaking is when it turns to why some low-income students choose to drop out.
The Brookings study concluded that it may be perception that causes students to leave school. Students likely feel that their chances of going to college — let alone afford it — are low, which in turn will severely limit their ability to attain a decent paying job.
Instead of continuing to face and experience the results of poverty as an adult, some students choose to drop out and find a way on their own.
To combat the problem, Brookings suggests policy initiatives such as mentoring and parenting programs. If these types of projects are already in place in the states where income inequality is a major issue, then politicians should focus more resources on them.
If our workforce is to remain strong and vital, then properly investing in areas where income inequality is prevalent is paramount.
Without attention, we risk losing a generation of students to poverty.
A shortage of special education teachers is threatening the ability of schools in many states to provide high-quality education to students with disabilities. On a national level, 49 states identified a shortage of special education and related service personnel during the 2013-14 school year.
In Arizona, for instance, where districts reported a 29 percent increase from 2013 to 2014 in the number of positions that remained vacant, special education was one of the areas with the highest vacancy rates.
Special educators serve students with significant learning and behavioral needs. To effectively serve their students, they must have sophisticated knowledge and skills about content, pedagogy and students’ learning. Special educators who are fully qualified in special education through a teacher preparation program provide more effective instruction, resulting in stronger achievement among their students.
When no qualified special educator can be found, open positions may be filled by substitute teachers who are not qualified to teach at all, by prospective teachers who have not yet completed their teacher preparation or by teachers who are licensed in other areas, but have no specialized preparation for special education.
Dr. Loretta Mason-Williams from SUNY Binghamton analyzed a nationally representative survey of teachers; 16 percent of special educators were not certified in special education. This rate was higher in high-poverty schools, which have greater difficulty attracting and retaining all kinds of teachers.
In this context, special education teacher attrition is a major problem – for when a qualified special educator leaves, schools struggle to find a skilled replacement.
So the question is, why do special educators leave their schools?
Here’s why we left
In the mid-2000s, we began our careers in education as emergency certified teachers – that is, we were hired to teach students with disabilities through “provisional licensure programs” (such as this one) that allowed prospective teachers to be considered highly qualified without full preparation or licensure.
We both served as special education teachers for students in middle and high school settings in high-poverty, urban communities – Elizabeth in Tucson, Arizona, and Kristin in New York City.
We served students who qualified for special education because of emotional disabilities. Most of our students had been identified with mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders. Many had histories of trauma and abuse.
Our students relied on us to teach them grade-level standards in all areas. They also relied on us to teach the foundational skills they had missed, such as phonics and math facts. In addition, they relied on us to help them develop the social and behavioral skills necessary to live healthy lives and build positive relationships.
In other words, in our first year as uncertified teachers, we were responsible for the totality of our students’ learning experiences during the school day, for everything they needed to know to be successful in school and beyond.
We struggled to meet these responsibilities with sparse resources – we had few books and curricula, limited mentorship and minimal professional development opportunities. We were planning and delivering instruction in all content areas completely on our own, despite the fact that we had never been trained to do so. We knew our students needed far more than we were capable of providing.
We both improved our skills over time, yet within five years, we both left our schools. We were committed to our students, but we left because we knew that no matter how hard we worked, no matter how much we grew as educators, we couldn’t provide high-quality instruction in all content areas – the kind of instruction our students deserved – without better support.
Our failure to adequately meet our students’ needs was not our failure alone – it was the failure of an educational system that systematically places unqualified teachers in classes serving students with the most significant needs. And then it fails to support them.
As academics, we now study the systems that lead to difficulty recruiting and retaining effective special educators, including how schools can support them, so they can better serve students.
And here are stories of teachers
In our research, we find that our own experiences are not unique.
In one study, we interviewed eight special educators in classes for students with significant emotional disabilities. Like us, they felt deeply committed to providing high-quality instruction and being a constant source of safety for students with serious social-emotional needs.
Many special educators report feeling overwhelmed by their workloads. woodleywonderworks, CC BY
They also spoke about the challenges of planning high-quality lessons in all content areas for students in multiple grade levels while meeting students’ social-emotional needs and fulfilling all of their other responsibilities as teachers, such as bus duty, lunch duty, administrative paperwork and so on.
These challenges left them feeling as though they were failing their students.
Take Diedre (name changed), an elementary school special educator. She was responsible for teaching all content areas to students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Diedre had no scheduled planning time, limited curricular resources (e.g., math and reading curriculum) and no lunch break away from her students.
Whereas the general education teachers in her school coplanned instruction for all students within a single grade level, Diedre was planning, completely on her own, for students in every single grade level. She didn’t have colleagues with whom she could share resources and ideas, or go to for help when a student struggled with a standard.
Further, she had extensive extra responsibilities – she planned professional development for all of the teaching assistants in her school, supervised afterschool activities and did bus duty, among other things.
In her interview with us, she shared,
[As a consequence], I end up feeling like I’m never really doing my job, and I’m always letting the kids down.
Exhausting workloads
Other studies confirm that Diedre’s experience is not unique.
For instance, when Dr. Susan Albrecht and her colleagues from Ball State University surveyed 776 special educators who teach students with emotional and behavioral disabilities, they found that more than half felt they had inadequate time to fulfill their responsibilities.
Similarly, Dr. Bonnie Billingsley from Virginia Tech and her colleagues found in their analysis of a survey of new special educators, more than 75 percent reported that routine duties (such as paperwork, supervising students in nonacademic activities, etc.) interfered with their teaching.
In a recent (not yet published) study, we worked with Dr. Nathan Jones from Boston University and Drs. Mary Brownell and Maureen Conroy from the University of Florida to analyze data from a surveyDr. Peter Youngs from the University of Virginia conducted with 245 special and general educators who were in their first three years teaching in urban districts in Michigan and Indiana.
Unsurprisingly, teachers who felt more overwhelmed were more likely to be emotionally exhausted, and more likely to plan to leave. And, new special educators were significantly more likely to report feeling overwhelmed than new general educators.
Working conditions matter
A growing body of research indicates that, when teachers work in more supportive conditions, their students show better academic achievement gains.
For instance, when Dr. Susan Moore Johnson and her colleagues at Harvard University analyzed data on all schools in Massachusetts, they found that schools in which teachers rated their administrative support and their school culture more highly had stronger student achievement gains in reading and math. This was so even when controlling for school demographic characteristics, such as the proportion of students living in poverty.
Being supported by skilled colleagues makes a difference. Army Medicine, CC BY
Teachers whose schools had more collaborative cultures become more effective more rapidly than teachers whose schools were less collaborative.
Studies have shown that special education teachers are also more likely to want to continue teaching when they work in a culture of collective responsibility for all students, when they can trust their colleagues and have opportunities to collaborate with them.
In our study of new special educators in Michigan and Indiana, we found that special educators felt less overwhelmed when their schools had cultures of collective responsibility for students with disabilities, and when they interacted with their colleagues around instruction more frequently.
Teachers need support
Special educators often choose to teach because of their commitment to serving students with more significant needs.
And, as we know through our research and experience, they often leave, not because of their students, but because of the unsupportive conditions in which they are expected to serve those students.
Retaining special educators in their schools over the course of their careers is essential for ensuring that students with disabilities are served by qualified and skilled special educators.
For that to happen, our educational system must fulfill its commitments to them – by providing them with adequate time to do their jobs, administrative and collegial support for learning to teach, high-quality professional development opportunities and the material resources necessary to teach.
In September, Ahmed Mohamed was detained by officers from the Irving Police Department for bringing a homemade clock to school that his teacher mistook for a bomb.
This may not have happened if Ahmed were not a student of color, a Muslim with foreign-born parents. The stereotypes associated with Ahmed’s existence may have led to his unfair arrest.
The school-to-prison pipeline is a real phenomenon, especially for students of color. Here are some facts for you that detail the reality of the school-to-prison cycle.
Black students are suspended at a much higher rate than white students.
According to study by the University of Pennsylvania, students of color, specifically black students, are suspended at a much higher rate than white students. 70 percent of all in-school arrests are black or Latino students.
The study also notes that in 84 districts within the 13 states studied, “blacks were 100 percent of students suspended from school.”
Over half of young black men who attend urban high schools do not earn a diploma.
Then, of the dropouts, nearly 60 percent will go to prison at some point. There are also eerily similar ones associated with young Latino men. (61 percent of the incarcerated population is black or Latino – despite the fact that these groups only represent 30 percent of the U.S. population. Nearly 68 percent of all men in federal prison never earned a high school diploma.)
The school-to-prison pipeline is affecting the economy.
People who fall outside this fringe group of perceived misfits may wonder why the school-to-prison pipeline should matter to them. Outside of caring about the quality of life for other individuals, it matters in more tangible ways. Each federal prisoner costs taxpayers $28,284 per year, which is about $77 per day. That’s a measurable cost. What isn’t measurable is the indirect impact those incarcerations have on the economy in terms of those prisoners not contributing to the work force.
Fortunately, the situation does have a solution. In a blog post by Sally Powalski, a 10-year employee of juvenile facility in the State of Indiana, she gets to the root of the issue.
“They have been given the message for several years that they are not allowed in regular school programs, are not considered appropriate for sports teams, and have had their backs turned on them because everyone is just tired of their behavior… Why should they strive for more than a life of crime?”
The current concept of “zero tolerance” may sound like the best way to handle all offenses in public schools, but it really does a disservice to students. Not every infraction is a black and white issue and not every misstep by a student is a result of direct defiance. Often students with legitimate learning disabilities or social impairment are labeled as “disruptions” and removed from classroom settings under the guise of preserving the learning experience for other, “better” students. I suppose there is an argument to be made for protecting straight-and-narrow students from the sins of others, but at what cost?
We live in an age when the American Civil Liberties Union reports that children as young as 5 throwing tantrums have been removed in handcuffs by officers. Let’s look for more nuanced solutions that provide “trouble” students (and students who are just unfortunate victims of stereotypes, like Ahmed) with higher hopes and expectations for themselves.
In the US, the concepts of equality and justice are intertwined. The idea of “justice for all” has existed since America’s early days.
But the truth is that the application of this idea has been far from perfect to this very day. Let’s take a quick look at our historical lapses in carrying out the idea and how those affect us today.
De jure and de facto segregation. De jure segregation, or legalized segregation of Black and White people, was present in almost every aspect of life in the South during the Jim Crow era: from public transportation to cemeteries, from prisons to health care, from residences to libraries. Under segregation, Black and White people were to be separated, purportedly to minimize violence. De jure segregation, or “Jim Crow,” lasted from the 1880s to 1964. Jim Crow laws were efficient in perpetuating the idea of “White superiority” and “Black inferiority.”
De facto segregation is the direct manifestation of de jure segregation, because the U.S. government could mandate that laws that segregated the races were unconstitutional, but it couldn’t change the hearts and minds of its people. If people didn’t want to be in the presence of another ethnicity or race, they could certainly make this a reality. So, de jure segregation was implemented by law; de facto segregation, by common understanding and personal choice. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many White citizens simply moved to the suburbs to avoid mixing with Black citizens. This “White flight” led to the creation of “chocolate cities” and “vanilla suburbs,” which are still prevalent today.
In relation to education, the legal segregation of the races in Southern schools was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In the United States today, however, Black and Hispanic students tend to be concentrated in schools where they make up almost the entire student body. Also, the percentage of Black students in majority White schools has decreased to a level lower than in any year since 1968.
De facto segregation is a huge problem in the United States as it allows bigotry and discrimination to occur more easily. What happens as a result? Many schools in mostly Black neighborhoods find themselves unequally funded and seriously neglected.
Persistent stratification. The disparities between rights of certain ethnic groups in American culture can easily be identified by the disparity in the number of individuals incarcerated in the nation’s prison systems. African American men are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates. Reports indicate that even when similar crimes were committed by White and African American men, the penalty was more severe for the latter. As a result of this socioeconomic stratification, a privileged class exists, with some Americans receiving benefits unavailable to others. For example, data from the U.S. Department of Labor reported higher unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics across all major age and gender groups in 2009.
The number of children from ethnic minority groups living in poverty continues to increase as well. In 2006, approximately 13 million children were living in poverty. The number of Hispanic children living in poverty has increased by 23% since 2000, and the number of African American children living in poverty increased by 8.4%. A 2006 study showed that social status had a significant influence on mortality rates, as well as “chronic diseases and injuries with well-established risk factors such as alcohol use, tobacco smoking, obesity, elevated blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose.”
We need to be aware of history so that we can understand certain attitudes and problems that exist today, and hopefully repair them as we continue to strive for the ideal of “justice for all.”
Now I want to hear from you: what are some factors that prevent us Americans from fulfilling this admirable ideal? Share your thoughts in the comments.
**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.**
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 suspendedduring 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.
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 periodslose 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. Researchershave 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 accountedfor 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 constituteone-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 guidelinesto 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.
A couple of weeks ago, a friend and I were discussing President Obama’s performance in the area of education — more specifically P-20 education, which begins in preschool and ends with graduate school. As is usually the case when we debate matters of education politics, the debate became quite contentious and in the end we had to agree to disagree. In response to that debate, I decided to write an opinion piece, assessing Obama’s education record. Toward the end of the article, I will issue a letter grade (A-F) denoting my assessment of the president’s level of performance in education policy.
Let me begin by saying that throughout Obama’s political career, he has continually preached the need for America to invest in education. To put it in his own words, “Countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow.” The core of his plans for education has been to provide all students with the same opportunity to reach high levels of proficiency. In the past, disadvantaged students were not provided the same educational pathways as other students. They were not held to the same high standards as their classmates; their lower achievement outcomes were readily accepted.
The president has continually invested in and supported early childhood education. Why? Because he knows that it lays the foundation for future academic success. In a 2007 speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, Obama said, “For every $1 we invest in these programs, we get $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less crime.” When he became president, he put his money where his mouth was, figuratively speaking.
The American Recovery Act allocated $5 billion for early childhood programs, and $77 billion for reforms to support elementary and secondary education. On top of this, his administration provided $500 million for the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge. It is unprecedented for a president to show such passion and commitment towards early childhood education, while simultaneously articulating such a profound understanding of its importance.
In 2010, President Obama establishedPromise Neighborhood Grants to support plans that implement cradle-to-career services that are intended to improve the educational attainment and healthy development of children. The program endeavors to provide youth in Promise Neighborhoods with effective schools and well-built networks of parental and community support that will prepare them to receive an exceptional education and effectively transition to college and a career. Patterned after Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, Promise Neighborhoods are a “promising” reinvention of an existing educational innovation.
Obama’s education reform magnum opus, Race to the Top, sustains successful teachers and principals in school districts across the nation, and has led to the adoption of common K-12 teaching standards. In this competition, states receive points for fulfilling certain criteria, such as performance-based standards for teachers and principals, showing fidelity to nationwide standards, encouraging charter schools, etc. Critics argue that high-stakes testing is untrustworthy, and I am inclined to agree. If there was a component that required contestants to create alternative assessments or value added systems to replace high stakes testing, “Race to the Top” would be as advertised.
In terms of outreach to the Hispanic community, the president’s actions have been unprecedented. President Obama did an excellent job of ensuring that the Hispanic community was included in attempts to advance educational opportunities for the entire nation. In addition, he restructured the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics to advance educational opportunities at the P-20 level. Also, President Obama is dedicated to giving students who aren’t yet American citizens an opportunity to gain their citizenship.
In terms of college access and loans, President Obama has made higher education more affordable by doubling financial support for Pell Grants, growing the number of recipientsfrom 6 million to 9 million since 2008. How did he do it? Obama accomplished this mostly by cutting out the intermediary from the college-loan program, which in turn freed billions of taxpayer dollars.
Beginning in 2014, first-time borrowers will only have to pay 10 percent or less of their disposable income towards loan repayments. The law also stipulates that after 20 years, any remaining loans will be forgiven. If they make their payments on time, public servants (teachers, police officers, servicemen, etc.) will have their student loans forgiven after 10 years. Also, the president increased funding for land-grant colleges. The aforementioned measures constituted the largest reform of student aid in 40 years.
Solely on his P-20 record, I will have to give President Obama a B+. The Obama administration’s education agenda began in the midst of one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. Since his inauguration, President Obama and Arne Duncan aggressively tackled education reform in P-20 education. What President Obama and Arne Duncan have been able to accomplish in less than four years is nothing short of amazing.
There is room for improvement, especially when students are still tested using antiquated assessment measures. More importantly than this, NCLB still exists in its original state and has not been amended. However, I decided to stick with my B+, because these issues cannot be laid at the president’s doorstep. Throughout his first term, President Obama has entreated Congress to amend NCLB, and he has been met with opposition and hostility.
Under Obama’s watch, the U. S. education system is experiencing something that it hasn’t experienced in ages — genuine progress. Although we have many more miles to go, we have to remember that Rome was not built in a day. The issues that continuously plague our public education system took decades to get that way and will probably take several more decades to fix. If President Obama is to engender true school reform in America, he has to bear in mind that school reform is a unicorn of sorts — an imaginary, magical creature conjured up by our subconscious desire to make sense of things. The truth of the matter is that school reform, as most people envision it, does not exist.
President Obama knows that you do not need to wait for something to be broken in order to fix it. That’s why our president always looks for opportunities to improve upon current processes, making things incrementally better as time passes. He has brilliantly applied the process of continuous improvement to our educational system; constantly striving to make things better, reevaluating how he does things, looking at the results he achieves, and taking steps to improve things incrementally. He has earned his B+.
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.
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 childrenwith 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.
**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.**
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
**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 Carol Miller
It’s taken me a few days to respond, but when I went home the other day, the first thing my husband said to me when I got home was, “Did you listen to NPR today? They were talking about Guidance Counselors.”
(Of course, before I could respond to his question, I had to correct him by saying, “You mean School Counselor.”)
But, I didn’t hear it, and I had to pull it up on the NPR website to listen.
You can listen to it here, or read the transcript here.
The basic premise of the report is that many low-income, high achieving high school students don’t apply to elite colleges because their “guidance counselors” steer them towards less expensive options. While NPR reports that recommending colleges is not always on the uppermost thoughts of many counselors due to high caseloads, they do state that “guidance counselors may not have gone to selective colleges themselves.” and that your guidance counselor might not know “for a low-income high achiever, Harvard or Yale could be free.”
What NPR fails to report is that, while many low-income, high achieving students may be able to attend elite schools at a significant cost reduction, school counselors may not be privy to the net worth and financial backgrounds of each of our students. In addition, when talking about different college options with students, we listen to their needs and concerns. While Harvard or Yale might be free, transportation costs to and from these schools are not.
In addition, there is no magic wand that can guarantee a student’s acceptance into a college where the chance of admittance can be less than 10%. Do we want students to apply to dozens of colleges on a chance that they will be accepted? I know I want students to apply to a variety of colleges, but I also want them to apply to schools that would be considered reach schools, target schools and safety schools. So throw a Harvard or Yale in the mix (because I DO know that the ivy league schools have a “no loan” program for students under a certain family income–I have encouraged a few to apply to Cornell), but also apply to a few state schools and also a few more small private schools that would have great financial aid packages with generous grants and fewer loans.
I also want students to think about the fact if they are majoring in Biology, Psychology, or Physical Therapy, that they will need more than 4 years of college. I also want them to think about how they need to consider their indebtedness upon graduation. I have seen more students come back to me with $60,000 or more in college loan debt by going to “elite schools” which they are then unable to pay back.
NPR fails to report that public schools have so many mandates for course requirements these days, with Common Core testing, Regents Exams, or State Exit Exam requirements, that school counselors do not have opportunities to talk to students about these college awareness fundamentals. Class time is a hot commodity, and is not given away by teachers easily. Even at the middle school level, I struggle to find teaching time to talk about the things not covered in ELA, Math, Science or Social Studies but are important none-the-less. Bullying, study skills, healthy behaviors, kindness, compassion, and college awareness are topics that are needed but not easily incorporated into the school day.
While I regularly listen to NPR, I was bothered by this article. I would like those at NPR to know that first of all, I am a school counselor. I am NOT a Guidance Counselor. I am so much more than a paper pusher and a signer of transcripts to go on to colleges. I am a teacher, a motivator, a cheerleader, and a coach. I have inspired many low-income, high achievers to believe that college is an option. I have taught them to understand financial aid packages, and what to look for on a college tour. I have refused to give up on them and have helped them set goals. I have encouraged them to take AP classes and helped to find them scholarships to cover the AP exam fees. I have written letters to prestigious schools on their behalf carefully describing all the things that school would be missing if they didn’t accept my student. I have given sound advice, but most importantly, I listened to my students, respecting their decisions, their values, and their goals.
I would like NPR to join me in helping to educate others on the important work of school counselors, and the need for school counselors in the lives of students. We need smaller student caseloads and time with students. We need an increased awareness of the importance of college planning and social emotional learning in the school day, as it can not be an afterthought to the Common Core and Teacher Evaluation System. Our programs should be as developed as any other class curriculum, as we teach important life skills. This last report did not highlight the strengths of School Counselors. I know, however, that every day, we do great things for these great kids. It’s really unfortunate that you did not get the chance to see it.
Carol has organized School Counseling Conferences for several years in Central New York through TACA and has presented at these conferences on College Admissions, Best School Counseling Programs, and Sharing Counseling Resources. She is a member and past President of the Tompkins Area Counselor Association, and a member of NYSSCA and NACAC, and NYSACAC. Carol is a mom to three sons, a crafter at heart, and a soccer and basketball coach in her free time.
