Great post on the MindShift blog. During a student’s advisory time, she sits with a group of her peers and has the opportunity to discuss everything from current school assignments to dealing with stress. This practice would be great to introduce on the first day of high school (or any K-12 grade) because the students start to develop a sense of community and hopefully understanding and awareness of their other classmates concerns before they get too caught up in their own high school life. More importantly, it turns the attention from what a student does/doesn’t know to what she needs to express. Students are in school five days a week, eight hours a day. At some point in their school, they should have a moment to slow down and work their projects and concerns out in that same environment, so that the school environment becomes a place where support, on multiple levels, can occur. This kind of group practice acknowldegs that students are more than their school work and that other students have similar concerns but dont know how/if it’s okay to express them. The school should act as a facilitator because teenagers are still growing into themselves. Schools should lead by example and understand that This kind of positive atmosphere, I’m sure, gets carried over to other classes, if only for a few students.
Tag: education policy
Video: “Shake Off Those Charter Chains!”
I’m not entirely against charter schools. In part, I simply wish that they acknowledged they are doing harm to the public school system and that the public school system should remain relevant.
We are giving up our tax dollars to not elect those who run our schools. How can that be right? I agree with advocates for charter schools when they say the bureaucracy in the public school system needs to change. But I don’t think we should give the public school system to a system that, say for example, doesn’t give teachers any kind of union protection. What’s more is that there are politicians, like governor John Kaisch of Ohio, who ignore the fact that students are failing in some charter schools but continues to give those schools more tax dollars AND not require that these schools be subject to public audits…there’s obviously a motive that does NOT favor the children of Ohio.
Schools are schools and one system should NOT actively hurt the other…there’s something morally wrong about that. Instead, they should be working as a community.
With that said, take a look at this exaggerated-not-so-exaggerated-video on how charter schools have a negative impact on public schools:
Finally Reading Paul Tough’s “How Children Succeed”
I’m only on the first chapter, but so far I love the anecdotes, which bring the troubles some children go through to life. I’m also fascinated by economist James Heckman’s interdisciplinary work on the Perry Preschool Program and Tough’s use of the research in the book’s introduction. The reader understands what Tough is going to talk about but he provides this strong piece of research that is a catalyst in his quest to understand how children succeed. More thoughts on the book as a read!
Wyoming Schools Could Lose $45 Billion
Exciting news! Wyoming schools could lose $45 million in funding due to state budget cuts. This is such an irreparable amount that has not been approved but lets hope it’s far less than that.
Minorities Less Likely to be Labeled Gifted by White Teachers
Students of colors are significantly less likely to be “deemed” gifted by caucasian teachers than students of color being taught by teachers of color. This Washington Post article lists some reasons why this may be but the question is how do we rectify this? I didn’t read the study the article is based on, but it would be interesting to see what the schools studied considered to be “gifted” and what, if anything, is being done with students who are almost-gifted-but-not-there-yet? I’d like to know the answer to the latter question more so than the former simply because if some “near-gifted” colored students aren’t selected for the initial gifted program, it’s important to continue to hone and challenge their minds. According to the study, they prove to be just as academically gifted, so it would be ashamed that they are denied entry into a gifted program but remain in a less engaging environment, which would leave room for them to lose that will to learn. ughhhh. It sucks because more likely that not, this is what is happening:-/
Teachers Get One-Size-Fits-All Training
Pauline Zdonek, a Illionois teacher and math coach, wrote a blog post on Edutopia about the importance of effective professional development. I won’t go into too much detail, but I can’t agree with the point of her post anymore: Teachers, like students, benefit from development geared towards their individualized needs more than non-applicable, repetitive information. We should want each teacher to leave a session learning something useful, rather than waste their time, as Pauline recounts in her post. The problem, she says, is that administrators apply a one size fits all technique, which ends up being so vague, no one can benefit it.
While it is hard to provide granular, one-on-one professional development for every teacher, any attempt to “meet the teacher where she is at” is a safe bet on making an actual improvement to her skill set. Pauline recounts the all too often situation is a teacher not being asked what she would like to gain from a training session but given a requirement to attend sessions, regardless if she walks away with meaningful, useful guidance or not.
Why do we expect teachers to be amazing when we don’t understand or care for how they’re being taught? Professional development needs to be a more transparent component of education as a whole. Perhaps professional development organizers could meet with a wide range of teachers and discuss what could be covered over a series of future professional development trainings. Or, if meeting is not possible, have students fill out a detailed survey that leaves plenty of room for open-ended answers, which would be sufficient to engage the teacher about how they can be accommodated. With that said, genuine professional development for teachers that takes their needs into consideration would just let teachers know that, just as students’ individual needs matter, theirs do too…because they are…students, after all.
I know reformers don’t like accommodating teachers, but I think PD accommodation is worth the investment, no?
Intrinsic Motivation and Students
Great article by Edutopia on kids and intrinsic motivation. We’re so used to telling kids/students what to do. The key item I pulled out of this read is the what kinds of choices and directions you give students. The examples they provide are clear to see the differences in style of what is traditionally done and what kids would respond to better.
I was writing in Starbucks a few weeks ago, when a mother asked her 3 year old daughter if the girl wanted to finish the apple she took one bite out of or throw it away. I was confused by the latter option, simply because I thought she could have asked the girl if she wanted save it for later or if she would like to cut it (it was a whole apple). I can see how this was the mom trying to give her daughter options, at the same time, her daughter didn’t understand the value of food, so she said shed like to throw it away. Giving the girl options to eat it at a later point would highlight that value and at the same time, allow the girl to make her own decision.
This may not quite be intrinsic motivation and could simply be a difference in value for food, but it certainly something that some parents are picking up on.
No K-12 Ed Policy on the 2016 Pres. Campaign Trail
The 2016 presidential candidates, especially the democrats, are vocal on changes to college affordability. But, this Ed Week post talks about how little attention K-12 reform is getting on the 2016 presidential campaign trail. Part of the assumed reasoning behind the lack of conversation is because ESSA was just passed to replace NCLB, probably the most controversial education policy law in recent memory. One can argue that the fed is taking a lighter hand in ed reform because, traditionally, education reform is a state issue.
I appreciate Hillary’s comment on charter schools and it makes sense why John Kasich is quiet about his mess in Ohio. But I wish candidates spoke on the subject simply because they care, and not because they’ll lose political points or because it won’t heavily effect their campaign or time in office. Ed policy, especially ed policy that affects the early ages, is an American issue that each potential leader should be well versed and opinionated about.
Greed & Law School Indebtness
This NYT article discusses why both for-profit & non-profit schools jack their tuition up and graduate students who wont be able to find a job.
The following quote from the article summarizes what allows schools to do this:
In 2006, Congress extended the federal Direct PLUS Loan program to allow a graduate or professional student to borrow the full amount of tuition, no matter how high, and living expenses. The idea was to give more people access to higher education and thus, in theory, higher lifetime earnings. But broader access doesn’t mean much if degrees lead not to well-paying jobs but to heavy debt burdens. That is all too often the result with PLUS loans.
What’s happening here seems to be, in part, true for colleges. Who’s responsibility is it to present students with a current, true, blunt and comprehensive view of what loans, schools, career and desire really mean?
If schools are fudging with the numbers, they clearly know that they’re doing something wrong. Schools and students shouldn’t receive federal loans until the school can actually produce a 67% field-related employment rate for their students.
Most Likely to Get a Menial Job Post Graduation
Tiny Dintersmith and Ted Wagner write, “‘You can either get your college degree or end up with a menial job.’ But the reality in America today? Millions of adults end up with both.”
It’s upsetting that leaders in the higher education community won’t acknowledge this.
It’s even more absurd that colleges with gross price stickers take money from middle income families that have to take out loans to pay the school, but end up with a degree that can’t get them anywhere.
Our students aren’t counseled enough to understand their “investment” both in high school and throughout college. Diane Ravitch has said that college isn’t necessarily for those seeking to make tons of money, which must be true because graduates are coming out with tons of debt and low jobs–there debt far exceeds there income.
Some people say college is a lifetime investment, so even though one may not make much right after college, the gains will come later in life. But that can’t be the case for, say, art history at middle rate college.
I thinks students are conditioned to believe that to believe that hard work in first high school, then college, is the key to “success” but they’re not told that there’s so much more that goes into that, including finding what one wants to do with their life in order to make these loops worth it.
We put too much pressure on students to perform well academically and tell them that going to college but they’re too young and have been conditioned to theoritical learning to fully understand what kind of real investment they’re making. The schools certainly won’t stop and tell them.
Part of me thinks students should pay the amount economists predicts what a students major will garner, not necessarily throughout their lifetime but maybe expected salary in the current job market. It seems to be fair for the students because one ridiculous high price tag does not benefit all. We sadly go under the assumption that it does.
On Education: Curriculum, Equity & Public Education 