Florida Senate considers coding as a foreign language

Proposal would require high schools to count coding courses toward foreign language requirements

A controversial plan to require high schools to offer computer coding courses and let students count them toward foreign language requirements was heralded Thursday as “novel,” “innovative” and “forward-thinking.”
But some members of the Florida Senate, as well as some local school district administrators, question how costly the proposal could be and how districts would pay for it when they are already strapped for digital resources.
Despite uncertainty around the myriad expenses that might come with implementing the proposal, Senate Bill 468 by Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Margate, passed the Senate Pre-K-12 Education Committee on Thursday by an 8-2 vote.
“We’re supposed to be transformative with education,” said Ring, a former Yahoo executive. “We’re trying … to recognize the reality of the world and give our kids a leg up.”
Sen. Nancy Detert, R-Venice, said the plan screams “unfunded mandate” because of the course software, computers and specialized teachers and training that would be necessary to meet the bill’s requirements.
“I’m concerned that we’re going to take an approach that is forward-thinking and then fail in implementation,” Detert said.
Ring said the financial details would be handled in the education budget committee, which is the bill’s next stop. That panel is led by Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, who also supported Ring’s bill Thursday and offered two amendments on Ring’s behalf.
South Florida Democrats Dwight Bullard of Cutler Bay and Jeff Clemens of Lake Worth voted against the proposal. Bullard cited the “severe unintended consequences” the legislation poses — similar to when lawmakers endorsed computer-based testing but schools lacked enough computers and ran into issues.
“It sings of the same problems we faced back then,” Bullard said. He also raised concerns that the plan could further disadvantage minority students and those who live in poorer areas, which already can’t afford decent computer classrooms, like his district in south Miami-Dade.

Ring spent most of the hearing on the defensive, trying to correct what he said was a general misunderstanding about what the bill would do. He repeatedly emphasized computer coding would be another “option” for students, “not a requirement.”
“We’re not replacing foreign language; we’re saying computer language should be in the language disciplines,” Ring said. “We’re trying … to recognize the reality of the world and give our kids a leg up.”
But while the classes would be optional for students, there’s disagreement over whether schools would have the choice whether to even offer them. The bill states: “High schools must provide students opportunities to take computer coding courses of sufficient rigor.”
“The intent is it’s an option,” Ring told reporters after the meeting. “If we have to further clarify it, we will.”
House K-12 Subcommittee Chairwoman Janet Adkins, a Republican representative from Fernandina Beach, filed a companion bill late Thursday that mirrors Ring’s amended plan. If it’s enacted, school districts would have until January 2017 to develop their curriculum.
The proposal might be easier to implement in some districts than others.
Though Miami-Dade has among the most computers per student in South Florida — the district has one computer for every three students compared with one for every five students in Broward — mandating computer coding as an alternative to foreign language would still require a significant investment, Miami-Dade County schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said.
That investment would come on top of $200 million spent on technology after voters passed a massive bond issue in 2012.
“We are better prepared than most on the basis of our recent investment,” Carvalho said.
He added that there should be room for both traditional foreign languages and computer coding skills in high school education.
“We cannot approach the importance of computer science and foreign language as an either-or proposition,” Carvalho said. “I absolutely disagree with the proposition that computer coding is an equal substitute — an equal and necessary substitute — for foreign language.”
Carvalho pointed to research that cites long-term advantages, both in school and the workplace, that come with learning another language.
“Based on both educational, intellectual development, and emotional development — as well as long-term economic development in an increasingly bilingual and biliterate community — computer coding is not a trade-off,” Carvalho said.
Republicans on the Senate committee joined Ring in emphasizing the legislation would better prepare students for a modern workforce, by teaching them to be conversant in the “global language” of computer coding.
“If we simply set the goal post as a degree, then we fail in our responsibilities. The ultimate goal post is a job, is a career,” Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg said.
Clemens said he disagrees with that philosophy, which was one of the reasons he voted against the bill.
“It goes back to why we provide an education in the first place,” he said. “It isn’t so kids can get a job; it’s so they can become a well-rounded member of society. … If we’re focusing on getting our kids a certain type of job, it’s a disservice.”
One amendment approved Thursday requires Florida’s state colleges and public universities to honor computer coding courses toward foreign language requirements. For students applying to schools out-of-state, Ring suggested students could choose to take two years of a traditional foreign language and two years of coding.
Another amendment clarified previous language that initially said students pursuing a Florida Bright Futures Scholarship would have to earn at least two credits in computer coding in order to be eligible to apply. The revised wording makes clear computer coding is an optional alternative to the foreign language requirement of the scholarship.
Miami Herald staff writer Christina Veiga contributed to this report.

Read More

These students can code a video game–can yours?

Technologists say learning know how to code can teach students computer-savvy they’ll likely need in the workplace

A fire crackles in a small clearing inside a dark, dense forest. Large yellow eyes flash and a wolf stares back as mysterious footsteps approach from behind.
It’s not the opening to a horror film, but a virtual-reality game called “Hearing Through Darkness” in which players shoot lasers at attacking wolves. The game is being developed by four teenagers. Ethan Busse, Elliot Busse, Michael Lai and Nathan Boss, all students at Highline Big Picture School, are interns in a program at Foundry10 in Seattle’s Wallingford neighborhood.
Foundry10 provides interns with resources and mentors to create pretty much anything they want, be it video games, underwater robots or even hip-hop dance performances. The organization studies how and what kids are learning, in part to help determine how students can learn technology concepts.
Dec. 7 marked the beginning of Computer Science Education Week, a global push supported by tech businesses, teachers and educational organizations to encourage kids to learn to code. The week is part of a growing call across the tech industry to apply more coding education in schools to equip kids for the technological world.
The week is organized by Code.org, a Seattle coding-education company that sponsors tutorials around the world. More than 100,000 teachers are expected to participate in this year’s , a short tutorial that teaches kids the basics of computer programming.
Technologists predict computers will be even more prevalent in the future than they are today. Machines will be involved in many, if not all, aspects of life.

That’s why several entrepreneurs, largely funded by tech companies, are building games and programs to create new ways for kids to learn about technology.
“How does every child feel that they are the master of the world around them and not at the behest of the machines?” asked Vikas Gupta, co-founder of coding-robot startup . “In order for us to give kids that agency, that sense of power over the world around them, we need to get them to code.”
Other organizations, including Code.org and board-game maker Robot Turtles, are joining Wonder Workshop in a growing industry that seeks to teach kids how to interact with technology, even when they aren’t in the classroom.
For years, educators and tech- industry leaders have pushed to integrate technology into basic education. But some have raised the concern that kids may not be catching on sufficiently to complex technological concepts.
“I believe sometimes people underestimate what kids are capable of,” said Lisa Castaneda, co-founder of Foundry10.
Mentors and experts recruited by the organization to work with kids often tell Castaneda that the students raise concepts or look at things in ways they hadn’t thought of themselves. Foundry10 works with a psychologist to meet with kids at the beginning, middle and end of their internships to assess what they’ve learned in a way entirely unlike a standardized test. Castaneda points to the results.
The kids, who don’t pay to participate, often finish video games or robotic projects, and learn more about creative problem solving.
Research from Foundry10 shows that game design in particular is beneficial to learning how to program.
“Computer-science concepts that are fundamentally difficult can become much more accessible when explored via game design,” researchers wrote in a Foundry10 paper last year.
Gupta, of San Mateo, Calif.-based Wonder Workshop, chose to focus on tangible technologies to teach kids.
“Kids can grasp programming concepts at a young age,” he said. “What’s often lacking are the tools for them to learn those concepts.”
Wonder Workshop has two small robots, Dot and Dash, that can be programmed to use a “drag and drop” method on an app, a technique used often with kids to get them comfortable with basic programming commands. The robots can walk, talk and respond to voice commands.
The company found that children respond well to physical components, and being able to program a robot in front of them makes it appealing to learn to program commands, Gupta said.
During a recent tech event at the Zillow Group’s Seattle headquarters, younger children constructed towers with blocks and built spaceships with motors and markers. Middle-school and high-school kids programmed with a kid-friendly programming language created by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab.
Noga Khen, a Shorewood High School sophomore, taught a computer to calculate the number of fingers when given a certain number of people.
“Ever since today, I’ve decided this is what I want to do,” she said.
Necessary digital natives
Code.org and Wonder Workshop aim to provide technology training in schools, but they also work to make sure kids have tools outside of school. Some entrepreneurs start with even younger kids.
Seattle entrepreneur Dan Shapiro, now running Glowforge, a 3-D laser printing company, created the Robot Turtles board game in 2013 to teach his two young children the basics of coding.
“If you give kids access to something early on, whether it be reading, math or computers, they just take it for granted,” Shapiro said.
That doesn’t mean 3-year-olds are writing JavaScript. Rather, they move pieces on a board by giving commands to a “computer,” aka their parent. The game also introduces the children to error messages. Making a mistake triggers a “bug card,” meaning they have to start the turn over.
Coding games for kids are really about teaching the basics of logic and problem solving, said Scott Jacobsen of Madrona Venture Group, which has invested in Wonder Workshop. Technologies for kids teach how to match the analytic and creative parts of the brain, he said.
To do that, they must first be appealing to kids. That partly explains the emphasis on game design, an area kids are familiar with and which carries a bit of a cool vibe. Code.org’s online tutorial even partnered with Disney and Microsoft to add Minecraft, “Frozen” and “Star Wars” characters to lessons, just one more way to make technology accessible.
Founders of companies working on tech for kids, however, insist that the games and programs are not exclusively for kids who want to be computer scientists. Everyone, they say, will need to know how to speak to computers.
In developing the Scratch programming software, MIT researchers sought to teach basics of coding in a creative way.
“For us, coding is not a set of technical skills but a new type of literacy and personal expression, valuable for everyone, much like learning to write,” Scratch co-founders Mitchel Resnick and David Siegel wrote in a last week. “We see coding as a new way for people to organize, express, and share their ideas.”
Many entrepreneurs agree. “It’s not that kids need to learn a particular programming language,” said Hadi Partovi, co-founder of Code.org. “It’s learning how apps work, how basic technology operates. I can’t imagine being a functioning member of society in 30 or 40 years without knowing that.”
Back at Foundry10 in Wallingford, Ethan Busse and his team have been putting some of the thinking behind teaching coding and programming into practice by building their video game.
The team was particularly interested in how audio can be incorporated into virtual reality.
“You can listen to sounds around you to look for clues or enemies nearby,” Ethan said.
In the horror game, players try to stay alive by listening to sounds in the forest and determining the best time to attack the wolf. The four teens are playing the role of animator, programmer and 3-D modelers to complete the project; they’re hoping to be done within the school year through the twice-weekly Foundry10 internship.
“You learn how to teach yourself things, which is really helpful,” Ethan said. “Now I know how to figure things out by myself, which is huge if I want to do this for a living. Which I do.”

Read More

3 critical education topics affecting U.S. students

Brown Center on Education releases annual report examining three distinct areas of education

An annual report examines the persistent gender gap in reading performance, how the Common Core is impacting reading achievement, and how intrinsic motivation plays a key role in student engagement, and offers analyses in all three areas.
The study is the fourteenth Brown Center Report on American Education and is divided into three sections, each dedicated to an independent topic and each based on the best evidence available, which is further described in each section.
The reading gender gap
As author Tom Loveless notes, “girls outscore boys on practically every reading test given to a large population. And they have for a long time.”

The gap is not unique to the U.S. For instance, Finland’s girls scored 62 points higher on the PISA reading test than do its boys.
The report notes that biological and developmental differences, school practices that don’t necessarily attempt to fix the gap, and cultural influences are among the most widely-cited reasons for the reading gender gap.
Of eight national assessment data included in the report, test score gaps are statistically significant on all eight. The gaps also appear narrower among younger students and wider among older students.
Loveless also raises the question of what makes a gap small or large and illustrates the gaps with tables found in the report.
Measuring the Common Core’s effectiveness
The second section of the report seeks to address when the Common Core started having an impact on student learning.
It also raises the question of how educators and policy makers will know when the standards do influence student achievement if they have not yet had an impact.
One of the key goals in this section, Loveless notes, is “persuading readers that deciding when a policy begins is elemental to evaluating its effects. The question of a policy’s starting point is not always easy to answer. Yet the answer has consequences. You can’t figure out whether a policy worked or not unless you know when it began.”
The analysis uses surveys of state implementation to identify different Common Core starting points for states, and from that it compiles a second “early report card” on the standards’ impact.
Because states differ in how quickly and aggressively they implemented the Common Core, the report constructed two indexes, based on state education agency surveys, to model Common Core implementation.
A 2011 survey focuses on the number of programs on which states said they spent federal funds to implement the Common Core. A 2013 survey focuses on states’ responses regarding when they planned to complete full Common Core implementation in classrooms. The report uses fourth grade NAEP reading scores as the achievement measure, because “reading instruction is a key activity of elementary classrooms. …The impact of CCSS on reading instruction…will be concentrated in the activities of a single teacher in elementary schools.”
Results showed small advantages, and the report notes that because only four states are in the non-adopter category (the logical, though small, control group), big changes in one or two of those states can have impacts on results.
“Taken together, the 2011 and 2013 indexes estimate that NAEP reading gains from 2009–2013 were one to one and one-half scale score points larger in the strong CCSS implementation states compared to the states that did not adopt CCSS,” Loveless noted in the report.
“These differences, although certainly encouraging to CCSS supporters, are quite small, amounting to (at most) 0.04 standard deviations (SD) on the NAEP scale. A threshold of 0.20 SD—five times larger—is often invoked as the minimum size for a test score change to be regarded as noticeable,” he added in the conclusion.
Student engagement
The report examines engagement as it pertains to “the intensity with which students apply themselves to learning in school.”
The report uses PISA data as a measure of student engagement, noting that the international test is given to 15-year-old students, and many note that high school is a time when students lose interest in learning.
“This analysis concludes that American students are about average in terms of engagement. Data reveal that several countries noted for their superior ranking on PISA—e.g., Korea, Japan, Finland, Poland, and the Netherlands—score below the U.S. on measures of student engagement,” Loveless wrote. “Thus, the relationship of achievement to student engagement is not clear cut, with some evidence pointing toward a weak positive relationship and other evidence indicating a modest negative relationship.”
The unit of analysis–individual data, aggregated data, etc.–is critical “when examining data on students’ characteristics and their relationship to achievement,” as noted in the report.
When it comes to what PISA data recommends for policy makers, programs that are designed to increase student engagement should be evaluated on a small scale before wide implementation.
International evidence outlined in the report “does not justify wide-scale concern over current levels of student engagement in the U.S. or support the hypothesis that boosting student engagement would raise student performance nationally.”

Read More

5 core functions of the LMS of the future

New EDUCAUSE report explored the gaps between current LMS functionality and what’s needed for the next-gen digital learning environment.

According to over 70 education IT specialists, current LMS functionality is great for administrative tasks, but doesn’t provide support for the new learning approaches in today’s schools.
The next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE), says a new EDUCAUSE report, will need a “Lego” approach, where components are built that allow individuals and institutions the opportunity to construct learning environments tailored to their requirement and goals.
“What is clear is that the LMS has been highly successful in enabling the administration of learning, but less so in enabling the learning itself,” wrote the report’s authors. “The challenge is to build on the value of an LMS as an administrative tool by retaining what works, but not be bound to an outgoing model of teaching and learning. [This] NGDLE is what should come after the LMS era.”
And according to the report’s authors, there are five core components of the post-LMS, as well as new architectures to consider.

Functionality
In multiple conversations conducted with over 70 educators, campus-based technologists, and developers from the private sector, EDUCAUSE—enlisted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—identified five domains of core functionality for the NGDLE:

1. Interoperability and Integration: The ability to integrate tools and exchange content and learning data. “This is the linchpin of the NGDLE,” emphasizes the report.
2. Personalization: Outfitting and configuration of the learning environments, which is then used to construct pathways to accomplish learning tasks and attain learning goals; this needs to occur not only at the individual level, but also at the departmental, divisional, institutional, and consortium levels.
3. Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment: Learning analytics should be incorporated to measure, collect, analyze, and report data about learners and their contexts for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs. Integrated planning and advising systems (IPAS) is an “institutional capability to create shared ownership for educational progress by providing students, faculty, and staff with holistic information and services that contribute to the completion of a degree or other credential,” defined the report.
4. Collaboration: The NGDLE must support collaboration at multiple levels and make it easy to move between private and public digital spaces. The NGDLE must also include a requirement to move past a “walled garden” approach to locking down a course’s LMS, and instead enable a learning community to make choices about what parts are public and what parts are private.
5. Accessibility and Universal Design: “A holistic, ground-up approach, addressing accessibility within the larger framework of universal design, has the potential to provide the most accessible digital learning environment possible,” states the report. NGDLE designers must consider accessibility in terms of the students as both receiver and creator of content.

[A much more detailed description and outline of implementation and design strategies for each core functionality can be viewed in the report.]
New architectures
Enabling the five core functions also means creating new architectures, say the report’s authors. The NGDLE will not itself be a single application like the current LMS, or other enterprise applications; rather, it will be an “ecosystem of sorts,” characterized by:

• At the built layer, it will be a confederation of IT systems, including content repositories, analytics engines, and a wide variety of applications and digital services.
• A full adherence to standards for interoperability, as well as a wide variety of applications and digital services.
• Instead of uniformity and centrality, it will need to support personalization at all levels of the institution. The NGDLE will not be exactly the same for any two learners, instructors, or institutions.
• For users, it will be a cloud-like space to aggregate and connect content and functionality, similar to a smartphone, where users fashion their environments directly with self-selected apps.
• If the paradigm for the NGDLE is a digital confederation of components, the model for the NGDLE architecture may be the mash-up: A web page or application that “uses content from more than one sources to create a single new service displayed in a single graphical interface,” describes the report. “Hence, it uses a heterogeneity of components to produce a homogeneity of function.”

The report notes that if a mash-up is the way institutions will assemble their own NGDLE, then a “Lego” design may be the best option.

Incorporating a Lego design
A mash-up model can be enabled by populating the landscape with a set of tools and resources that are NGDLE-conformant, explains the report. “This would result in a toolbox of applications, content, and platforms that could be assembled in custom ways.”
Campus tech specialists say a Lego approach could work because of a design specification that ensures the pieces will interlock, while enabling a wide variety of component parts.
The Lego approach, they explain, can enable communities to focus on realizing specific aspects of the NGDLE functionality, interconnected into a single structure. It can also address the key needs for personalization by enabling this function at a variety of levels, from the individual to the institutional.
The report lists a few vendors and solutions currently providing this NGDLE functionality, including LoudCloud.
“In general, LoudCloud, since our inception, has built with the ‘Lego,’ or what we call modular design, in mind. We have always been of the philosophy that ‘one size does not fit all’ and that applies both at the learner and institutional level,” said Greg Harp, LoudCloud’s Chief Marketing Officer to eCampus News.
Harp explained that this philosophy applies to LoudCloud’s modules being self-contained with the ability to move those containers into other platforms or into proprietary systems of institutions.
“Each of our LMS modules, for instance the Discussion Forum or our Quiz engine can be independently integrated with other platforms. In the K-12 arena, JEFFCO school district is a great example of where we have built modules that work with and through other systems they have from a legacy perspective or that they felt met their needs,”  noted Harp. “We offer RESTful services and API’s for our different modules to easily integrate with other systems. I believe this ability to be both modular and self-contained not only sets us apart in the industry, but as this report indicates, put us in line with the future of educational technology.”
“For the NGDLE to succeed as we describe here, a similar set of specifications and services will need to be defined that constitute the conformance needed to make the Lego approach work,” say the report’s authors.
For the report’s recommendations on creating an NGDLE-conformant standard or specification, vendors and solutions currently providing NGDLE functionality, as well as what new NGDLE components for the future may entail (smart tools, portfolios, dual enrollment, authoring tools, etc.), read the full report here.

Read More

Report outlines how to shift to tech-enabled personalized learning

New report examines how this type of learning is poised to benefit all students

A new report has combined the recommendations and observations more than 100 educators who gathered last year to compare experiences, discuss common challenges and barriers, explore case studies, and identify potential solutions and models that all must be addressed collectively to scale the implementation of personalized learning through technology.
The educators gathered at the Technology-Enabled Personalized Learning (TEPL) Summit hosted by the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at NC State University in collaboration with Digital Promise, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), and the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA).
This convening was unique in that the leaders included similar representation from industry, associations and nonprofits, and university and K-12 educators.
“As personalized learning has made its way into the classroom, the role of technology continues to play a role in bringing personalized learning to scale,” said Jill Abbott, CEO of Abbott Advisor Group. “We have learned several important elements that make this successful, as well as identifying several pieces that still need to be reconciled. This white paper is the result of bringing together national experts to provide some recommendations and highlight some areas where the education ecosystem can focus and collaboratively resolve.”
Personalized learning is a comprehensive educational approach that puts students at the center and engages students when, where, and how to best meet their unique needs and interests. Summit participants recognize the central human element of teaching and learning and view technology as a teaching force multiplier and a learning accelerator that can enable more efficient and effective use of learning time.
“Technology is necessary to personalize learning at scale, and the Summit helped foster public-private partnerships to address technical challenges needed to translate that vision into reality for the success of all students,” said Mark Schneiderman, senior director of education policy for SIIA’s Ed Tech Industry Network.
“The discussions and case studies shared by education leaders emphasized the potential and also the complexities of implementing truly personalized learning. Human capacity is essential, and the technology, data, content, and assessment systems have to work together to support the teaching and learning in an effective way,” said Mary Ann Wolf, director of digital learning programs at the Friday Institute.
The paper is organized around five themes, with suggested solutions to work toward specific goals: data, content and curriculum, technology architecture, research and development, and human capacity. Outcomes included development of action plans, tangible recommendations, partnerships, and furthering of participants’ knowledge.
“We’re at a great time in education, actually rethinking and re-engineering what’s possible. This document provides a starting point for transforming how we design the future of teaching, learning, and research in education,” said James Basham, associate professor at the University of Kansas.
Participants determined that the major, collective concerns to be addressed are:
-The development and adoption of technical standards for tagging content, defining and exchanging data, and easing integration of the myriad components of the TEPL ecosystem needed to support educators, recommendation engines, and related pedagogical research.
-Data policies, agreements, and research protocols needed to scale R&D across data silos about what works with which types of students under what conditions.
-Redefining educator roles and supporting professional development to ensure that the human capacity needed to shift from a traditional teaching model to a student-centered TEPL model is available.
“Participating in and working with education thought leaders at the Technology-Enabled Personalized Learning Summit at the Friday Institute was a great pleasure. I’m confident that the great insights and specific recommendations from the summit will produce meaningful, learner-centered innovation,” said Steve Nordmark, Chief Academic Officer at Knovation.
“The challenges of personalized learning and balanced technology usage remain front and center for schools and they need solutions. I’m excited to continue the work to actively seek out solutions,” shared Kathy Walter of Nsoma.
Due to the success of the pilot TEPL Summit, the Friday Institute is pleased to announce that it will be hosting a follow-up summit in late 2015, which will be funded by the Oak Foundation, to continue building on this work.
Material from a press release was used in this report.

Read More

Global policy report touches on reduced testing reliance

ASCD’s first Global Policy Agenda highlights components of student success and learning

ASCD has released its first Global Policy Agenda, which makes recommendations to promote the success of students, educators, schools, and communities worldwide.
“The needs to promote a whole child education and to reduce the overreliance on standardized testing are just two of many priorities that span all education systems across the globe,” said David Griffith, ASCD director of public policy. “ASCD is committed to supporting policies that enable growth and success for all students, and we believe the introduction of this Global Policy Agenda lays out a comprehensive vision for international educators to support student achievement.”
Each January, ASCD releases a legislative agenda with recommendations concerning federal education policy in the United States. However, in our ever more global societies it is becoming clear that many of today’s key education issues are international in nature and must be addressed for all students in all countries.
It is important to establish an expansive and well-rounded definition of student success that includes all academic subjects, as well as social-emotional learning and whole child supports.
The specific global recommendations include the following:
1. Establish a multimetric accountability system—While schools and localities should enjoy flexibility and autonomy in their decision making, government must be held accountable for the progress of and ongoing support for their most in-need students. It is important to create new, comprehensive accountability models that use multiple measures of performance, incorporate all subjects, include nonacademic factors, promote continuous improvement and support, and report community-level data to highlight shared responsibility for student success.
2. Reduce the reliance on standardized testing—Many existing testing requirements are woefully inadequate to determine whether students possess the knowledge, skills, and traits needed for school and career success. School systems must make sure standardized tests are never used as the lone measure of student performance, educator effectiveness, or school quality.
3. Promote a whole child education—A whole child approach can best prepare students to be college, career, and citizenship ready. To achieve this, all schools must
a. Provide comprehensive opportunities in all academic subjects, including the arts.
b. Deliver social and emotional learning.
c. Provide mental health and counseling services.
d. Promote meaningful student and parental engagement.
e. Make high-quality early childhood education and affordable postsecondary learning available.
f. Provide appropriate and necessary supports for each child across multiple sectors.
4. Honor and support the education profession—Teachers and school leaders are the two most important in-school factors that affect student achievement, yet the current approach to preparing, supporting, and evaluating educators does not reflect this reality. Investments in time and resources are necessary to provide ongoing professional development for teachers and school leaders and successfully recruit, train, and induct them.
“Each child in each school deserves a well-rounded education that provides college-, career-, and citizenship-readiness,” said Sean Slade, ASCD director of whole child programs. “As well, each educator needs the support, both in the school and from politicians, to provide such an education for all students. By following the recommendations in ASCD’s Global Policy Agenda, schools and school systems can establish a foundation for long-term student success.”
The complete 2015 ASCD Global Policy Agenda can be found at www.ascd.org/globalpolicyagenda. For more information on ASCD’s Educator Advocates program, visit www.educatoradvocates.org. Visit www.ascd.org/wholechild to learn more about programs that keep all students healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged. Visit www.ascd.org to learn more about ASCD programs, products, services, and membership.
Material from a press release was used in this report.

Read More

Dispelling 9 common myths on how to improve student achievement

Based on statistical examination, prof says there are clear distinctions in what works and what doesn’t for improving student achievement.

According to Dr. John Hattie, a professor and researcher at Melbourne’s Graduate School of Education, research and detailed statistical examination can determine which teaching methods actually improve student achievement and which are, essentially, a waste of time.
“Visible learning is about understanding the attributes of schooling that truly drive student learning and have a significant impact on student achievement,” explained Hattie. “As the school year comes to a close, summer provides an opportune time for teachers to reflect on their successes and challenges in the classroom. An important aspect of this reflection is figuring out what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to improving student achievement.”
Hattie said he spent more than 15 years conducting nearly 800 meta-analyses of 50,000 education studies focused on student learning. Because almost any education intervention can claim some positive effect on learning, Hattie said he performed a statistical examination of current research and developed a threshold to determine effect. The effect size threshold is d >0.40, reflecting one-year’s average student growth in one year.
According to Hattie, his findings align to current attempts to improve education, but there are several claims—on varying sides of the education debate—that just don’t measure up.
To give teachers a head start on the process of fine-tuning teaching for the next school year, Hattie explained nine common myths about how to improve student achievement.

1. Myth: Smaller class sizes improve student learning.
Despite much of the current rhetoric, reducing class size doesn’t come close to meeting Hattie’s threshold for impact. In fact, his data shows smaller class size only marginally affects student achievement because teaching practices rarely change when teachers move from larger to smaller classes. The return on investment is also low when reducing class size because personnel spending goes up on more classes and teachers.
2. Myth: Homework matters.
Only for older students (those in middle or high school who are reinforcing their learning at home related to what happened in the classroom) does homework substantially influence student achievement, said Hattie. To be effective, homework should be four things: brief, linked to the in-class lesson, monitored by the teacher, and not include new learning that disadvantages those who most need a teacher present. For younger learners, typical homework has little to no impact; but this effect could be increased with more homework relating to practicing something already taught in the classroom (which is the typical high school homework).
3. Myth: Teachers need to soften critical feedback for students with praise.
While giving students positive reinforcement is important, coupling critical feedback with praise negates the impact the feedback has on improving student learning, emphasized Hattie. Teachers should work to create a positive, nurturing environment, so that students trust their teachers and set high expectations. However, critical feedback should be delivered with a different tone so students understand the importance of improving their work (and not merely listening to the praise).
4. Myth: Teachers need to pick the right instructional methods to improve student learning.
According to his data, selecting the right teaching methods matters a lot less than teachers assessing the visible impact they have on their students. Expert teachers constantly monitor learning and seek feedback about their teaching, and then evaluate and adjust their teaching methods based on these findings.
5. Myth: Content knowledge alone is enough.

Some education reform initiatives focus primarily on ensuring teachers have deeper content knowledge, particularly in secondary subjects. Yet, most teaching today occurs at the surface level, so in-depth subject knowledge is not as influential as many believe, he notes. It is only when there is a right mix of surface and deep learning does content knowledge matter. “Expert teachers organize and use their content knowledge to make meaningful connections among topics and concepts by using students’ prior knowledge and adapting lessons to meet students’ needs,” he explained.

6. Myth: Facilitating learning through inquiry and project-based learning is the route to better student achievement.
Hattie said that while project-based learning and inquiry can be effective instructional techniques, they only reach their highest potential after specific content has been mastered. These techniques require sufficient surface level understanding of concepts by students, so to use the technique generically across subjects is not as effective as using specific content with problem-solving methods to deepen learning in one subject.
7. Myth: Teachers learn by watching videos of their work.
Reviewing videos of their teaching can help teachers identify areas of improvement in their instruction. However, this is only true when student reactions to the instruction are included, which allows teachers to see what was understood by the students and what needed more clarification or direction.
8. Myth: Eliminating social promotion will give students more time to learn critical foundational skills.
Repeating a grade actually has a negative effect on student achievement (at every age) and is correlated with negative social and emotional adjustment, behavior, and self-concept, emphasized Hattie.
9. Myth: Ability grouping can be effective.
While some believe grouping students by ability allows teachers to customize learning to students’ learning pace, in reality the opposite is true—it has a barely discernible impact on student achievement, said Hattie.  The greatest negative effect is that students from minorities are more likely to be in the lower groups and such equity issues should raise major concerns.

Read More

Report: The 4 models of blended learning in action

New report explores main blended models and their use

A new paper by advocacy and policy org iNacol explores how blended learning is being used in practice and traces its history from 2008 to today. In particular, it takes a close look at the four major blended models and, through case studies, how specific schools have fared in implementing them.
According to iNacol, the paper also delves into the evolution of blended learning, the use of digital content and curricula, and the engagement of students toward higher levels of academic success. The case studies profiled illustrate a variety of blended learning implementations, providing insights for increasing program effectiveness.
Drawing from research from Clayton Christensen, the report outlines four blended learning models: rotation, Flex, A La Carte, and/or Enriched Virtual.
Rotation is defined as, “Any course or subject in which students rotate—either on a fixed schedule or at the teacher’s discretion—among learning modalities, at least one of which is online learning.” The teacher, or the clock, determines when students move from one activity or modality to the next. Students might rotate in the same physical classroom space, move to a computer lab, or independently switch activities based on personal learning goals. Flipped learning might also be used to help students rotate.
In action: New York’s Randolph Central School District, where students in grades K–6 are placed in “fluid ability groups” relative to grade level, and rotate between online learning, small-group print materials, and teacher-led instruction for math and ELA instruction.
Flex models make use of a brick and mortar campus but most of students’ time is spent in an online environment, although a teacher is present on-site. Some programs, the report notes, make ample use of face-to-face time, such as facilitating group discussions away from computer screens, while others take a more hands-off approach.
In action: Innovations Early College High School, in Salt Lake City, which lets students help create their own learning plan by setting career goals and choosing online or face-to-face courses offered by other high schools or a local community college. For Innovations offered courses, students work through district-developed curricula with on-site teachers who provide individual and small-group instruction, and facilitate group projects. Students are even free to arrive and leave at their leisure between 7 am and 5 pm.
A La Carte, as a model, is exactly what it sounds like: students take a typical class load at their campus but supplement with personally-selected online courses, much like choosing platters off an a la carte menu. The report notes that it does not even have to be a whole school experience.
In action: Washington’s Spokane Public Schools, a district with two blended programs in place: one, a credit recovery program called ICAN, features special on-site classrooms at various campuses where students work through online courses with an instructor present; On Track Academy also serves at-risk students but with the purpose of moving them toward a technical or two- or four-year college degree. Students there have access to various skill centers staffed by qualified teachers who are on hand to work with students toward their set goals.
Enriched Virtual refers to models where students spend some time in a face-to-face environment but then are responsible for completing their work individually, either on-site or at home. “Many Enriched Virtual programs began as full-time online schools,” according to the report, “and then developed blended programs to provide students with brick-and-mortar school experiences.”
In action: Commonwealth Connections Academy, a Pennsylvania virtual public charter, uses drop-in centers to allow its virtual — and often at-risk — students to receive face-to-face instruction while they move through online courses. Workshops in STEM and humanities fields are also offered at the drop-in sites.

Read More

Minority children underrepresented in special education

UCI-Penn State findings contradict prior research, public perception and federal legislation, policies

Contrary to popular belief, minority children are not overrepresented in special education classrooms and are actually less likely to be diagnosed with and treated for disabilities than white children with similar academic achievements, behaviors and economic resources, according to new research co-authored by George Farkas, professor of education at UC Irvine.
Special education programs have been the target of legal challenges on the grounds of discrimination and racial bias, yet the study found that minority children are underdiagnosed across five disability conditions for which U.S. schoolchildren commonly receive special education services.
“From the beginning of kindergarten to the end of middle school, minority children are less – not more – likely than white students with similar performance and behaviors to be identified as having learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disabilities, other health impairments, or behavioral disorders,” Farkas said.
Minority children are more likely to grow up in economically depressed neighborhoods, be exposed to dangerous pollutants, and be born prematurely or at a low birth weight than white children and are, therefore, at higher risk for developmental and behavioral problems, he said. Intervention programs such as special education are of particular benefit to these children.
The findings contrast sharply with most prior educational research as well as current federal legislation and policies, which have focused on attempting to reduce what has been reported to be minority overrepresentation in special education.
“These policies instead may be exacerbating the nation’s educational inequities by limiting minority children’s access to potentially beneficial special education and related services to which they may be legally entitled,” Farkas said.
Students enrolled in special education programs receive an individualized education plan and may get small-group or one-on-one instruction by teachers trained to support their learning. They may also be granted extra time to complete tests.
“Education professionals should be attentive to cultural and language barriers that might keep minority children from being appropriately evaluated and identified for disabilities,” Farkas said. “Minority children with disabilities may be denied [remedial] services if well-meaning but misguided advocates succeed in placing limits on special education placement.”
Additional study results include the following:
• Black children’s odds of learning disability identification are 58 percent lower than those of otherwise similar white children. Reductions in the odds of identification with speech or language impairments, intellectual disabilities, health impairments and emotional disturbances are, respectively, 63 percent, 57 percent, 77 percent and 64 percent.
• Comparable reductions in the odds of disability identification for Hispanic children compared to otherwise similar white children are 29 percent for learning disabilities, 33 percent for speech or language impairments, and 73 percent for health impairments.
• For children from non-English-speaking households compared to otherwise similar children from English-only households, the odds reductions are 28 percent for both learning disabilities and speech or language impairments.
• Children from families without health insurance are less likely to be identified as having speech or language impairments.
The study sampled participants in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study’s kindergarten cohort, a nationally representative group of 20,100 U.S. children who entered kindergarten in the fall of 1998 and were then surveyed during the spring of kindergarten, fall and spring of first grade and the springs of third, fifth and eighth grades. Data were collected from children, parents and teachers.
The study appears in the current issue of Educational Researcher, a journal of the American Educational Research Association. Farkas’ co-authors are Paul Morgan, Marianne M. Hillemeier, Richard Mattison, Steve Maczuga, Hui Li and Michael Cook of Pennsylvania State University.
Funding was provided by the National Center for Special Education Research, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the U.S. Department of Education. Additional support came from the Penn State Population Research Institute through funding from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Material from a press release was used in this report.

Read More

7 mobile learning myths no educator should believe

Two researchers discuss myths associated with mobile adoption and use

By now, educators are familiar with the term mobile learning — or mLearning — having experienced its rush in classroom popularity starting as early as 2000. But two researchers say it’s now imperative that educators slough off the myths from the reality to avoid ineffective classroom practice moving forward.
“In recent years, many projects have assisted in the maturation of mLearning and much has already been done to integrate mLearning into mainstream education. However, mLearning is still in its infancy and we are merely seeing the tip of the iceberg,” notes Tom Brown, a former associate professor of research and development in tech-enhanced learning at the University of South Africa , Pretoria (UNISA), and co-author of the report (after the report’s publication, Brown left to become CEO of a portfolio management company).
“Our perspectives on [mobile learning] seek to…stimulate an appetite to embrace the opportunities in open and distance learning, while minimizing the potential negative effects of technological, social and pedagogical change,” explains Lydia Mbati, senior researcher with specialties in higher ed-tech and pedagogic theory at UNISA, and co-author of the report.
Most of the myths identified by Brown and Mbati focus on mobile learning’s oft-described “techno-centric” characteristics, which the researchers say may do a disservice to those educators either interested in implementing mLearning, or have already done so.

1. Mobile learning is learning while mobile: the assumption that “mobile” refers to mobility, or learning while “on the move”. Instead, learners tend to take learning tools to the static and appropriate places. Though many learners that make use of public transport do participate in mLearning activities while on the move, that is not the misperception; the misperception lies in the fact that mLearning can take place while the learner is static.
2. Mobile learning refers to learning with mobile phones: Mobile phones are not the only type of mobile device that can be used for mLearning. Some researchers include laptops in their definitions, while others feel that a laptop restricts the ‘mobility’ of a learner and that a mobile device would be those devices that could be operated in a learner’s hands.
3. It’s all about the mobile device: “Technology should always be regarded as the enabler and not as the driver of our teaching and learning activities,” emphasize the authors. “The primary purpose of integrating technology into teaching and learning contexts is to enhance the learning experience.” They note that, unfortunately, a large body of pilot studies and trials in the use of technology for enhancement of teaching and learning experiences and outcomes are without explicit educational foundations.
4. Mobile learning is merely eLearning accessed through mobile devices: According to Brown and Mbati, some skeptics refer to mLearning as “e-learning lite” as they believe it can only offer snippets of content. It has also been defined as a subset of eLearning and/or as an extension of. “Although this is true to an extent…this view does not take into account any of the additional affordances of the mobile device, for example location awareness and both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative communication,” they explain.
5. It’s only applicable to distance learning and not to face-to-face classroom activities: There are what the authors call “excellent examples” of successful mLearning activities taking place in both distance learning and face-to-face classroom environments. In one example, note the authors, learners can extend their formal face-to-face learning to homework, field trips, and museum visits by reviewing learning material on mobile devices or collecting and analyzing information using handheld devices.
6. Mobile learning means accessing and completing all course material and coursework on a mobile device: “The misperception here is that it should be ‘fully/totally mobile’ similarly to the concept of ‘fully online’ in cases of eLearning solely delivered online,” clarify the authors. However, mLearning opportunities can be small components, activities or events within any mode of delivery. The key would be in the value that the mLearning component adds to the success and quality of the teaching and learning.
7. Mobile learning uses existing learning environment designs and current teaching and learning methodologies: According to Brown and Mbati, the transition from face-to-face education to eLearning is not a case of merely converting learning materials to distance learning and electronic format, and making it accessible through the internet. “It is now an accepted “no-brainer” that eLearning provides new and unique affordances to the teaching and learning environment in terms of, for example, resource-rich multimedia learning materials, interactivity and communication. The same goes for mLearning,” says Mbati. “We cannot merely use our existing eLearning or ODL environment designs and teaching methodologies. It is essential to (re)design our teaching and learning activities to be able to optimize our mLearning environments and to exploit the new and unique affordances that mLearning provides.”
The report also details pedagogical affordances offered by mobile learning, emerging pedagogies in mobile learning, challenges to implementation and sustainability, and what lies ahead for mLearning. To read the full report, “Mobile Learning: Moving Past the Myths and Embracing the Opportunities,”

Read More

Report: Professional development is ineffective and wastes money

District PD spending does not equate to teacher improvement, study finds

Results from a study of more than 10,000 teachers across four districts reveals that professional development — of any type — did little for the teachers or districts studied, and found that less than a third of teachers improved performance year-over-year as a result.
The study, conducted by nonprofit TNTP, found that the participating districts (there were three large ones and one charter network) spent an average of $18,000 per teacher, per year on PD, but only three in 10 teachers saw “substantial” improvement over a two- to three-year period. Two in 10 teachers at surveyed districts saw declines in practice. No particular approach or quantity of PD was found to help improve teacher performance, although there were modest gains for teachers in districts that focused on two related practices.
“The hard truth is that the help most schools give their teachers isn’t helping all that much,” said TNTP CEO Dan Weisberg. “There’s enormous untapped potential within our nation’s teachers, but our findings suggest that we’re nowhere close to unleashing it. That’s not what we’d hoped to find.”

Next page: 6 major findings

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

1  2  Next >  

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Comments:

1. joebod

   August 6, 2015 at 12:53 pm

   Biggest problem with PD is that people with little to no education experience or far removed from the classroom are deciding what PD is needed without consulting teachers. The newest fad in classroom management or technology or whatever is chosen without much investigation, introduced in a day, and expected to be perfected immediately. Then, when it fails, blame the teachers and seek out a new solution. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
   If administration would work with teachers to see what PD is truly needed, investigate fully programs to see what difficulties might arise, carefully plan, implement, observe and modify, PD would more likely produce positive results.
   
2. ctdahle

   August 17, 2015 at 3:01 pm

   I would agree with most of joebod’s comment, just adding that $18,000 per teacher seems high by at least a power of ten.
   The best teachers have a pretty clear idea of what they need to do to improve professional practice, but professional development is limited to ineffective “one size fits all” programs designed to train teachers in the novel theory of the day. Professional Development would be much more effective if it each teacher developed their own PD program, perhaps as part of the annual evaluation process and in consultation with building leadership.
   Instead of bringing in an expensive canned program, teachers should be given a PD budget and the ability to choose an effective course of study. Some teachers need help with content, others with classroom management, or assessment, or addressing students social/emotional needs. Still others may need or desire subject matter training to become qualified in a different discipline…an elementary teacher might want to switch to AP calculus for example.
   Professional development programs should be tailored to the needs of the individual teacher, just as schools should be tailoring instruction to the needs of individual students.
   

Read More

Leadership coaching could help teachers boost student achievement

Study shows that mentoring and leadership coaching are helping teachers increase student achievement in some subjects

Giving teachers two years of formal PD and training sessions with a leadership coach could result in higher student achievement in certain curriculum areas, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
The program, which also includes a mentoring component in which teachers receiving the program’s services mentor other teachers, has shown early signs of success.
The fellowship program created by Leading Educators, a national nonprofit based in New Orleans, is showing promising results on student achievement in math and social studies, according to a preliminary evaluation of the effort.
The report’s authors say the program is unique because it focuses on middle-career teachers, while other efforts typically focus on new teachers, and offers leadership development for classroom teachers.
The fellows participate in a two-year training program consisting of a series of professional development sessions, school visits and meetings with a leadership coach. Fellows can be teachers as well as school administrators. In addition, fellows select other teachers to mentor at their own school. The teachers mentored by the fellows participate in meetings and workshops throughout the school year.
The findings are based on the 2011-12 through 2013-14 school years for fellows and the teachers they mentor located in New Orleans and Kansas City, Mo. Over the study period, there were 255 fellows and 916 teachers mentored. The RAND study focused on teachers that researchers were able to match to state databases for student assessment test scores, which included 75 fellows and 438 mentored teachers.
“Since the leader development program may influence students of the fellows or the other teachers they mentor, our team examined achievement outcomes from students across this wider group,” said Kata Mihaly, the report’s lead author and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.
These early findings of the program are mixed, but suggest that the program shows promise in improving student achievement. Fellows who taught mathematics in New Orleans had a statistically significant positive effect on student achievement.
However, the analysis did not find statistically significant findings for other subjects taught by fellows in New Orleans or Kansas City. Teachers mentored by fellows had a positive impact on student mathematics and social studies achievement in New Orleans.
The analysis also examined whether teachers are more likely to stay in the same school or stay teaching in high-poverty schools after participating in the program. Program teachers remained in high-poverty schools at rates that were similar to or higher than that of other teachers in the district.
Researchers note the current results are based on few years of data and on a small sample of teachers, and results may change when there are more fellows and mentored teachers included in future studies. Prior to the evaluation being completed, Leading Educators expanded the fellowship program, with opportunities to participate in Memphis, Tenn., and Washington, D.C.
Support for this research was provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.
The report, “Examining the Early Impacts of the Leading Educators Fellowship on Student Achievement and Teacher Retention,” is available at www.rand.org. Other authors of the study are Benjamin Master and Cate Yoon.
Material from a press release was used in this report

Read More

Poll: Americans oppose linking teacher evaluations with student performance

Latest Gallup Poll reveals that many public school parents are not in favor of using student performance in teacher evaluations

Many Americans, especially public-school parents, give low marks to rating a teacher based partly on how students perform on standardized tests, according to a survey.
The Gallup Poll released Sunday found 55 percent opposed linking teacher evaluations to their students’ test scores. Among those with children in public schools opposition was stronger, at 63 percent.
Standardized tests are necessary, but there’s an overreliance on them, said Joshua Starr, CEO of Phi Delta Kappa International, an association for educators, and a former schools superintendent. PDK, which supports teachers and educational research, paid for the poll conducted by Gallup.
“Parents see the work their kids bring home every night,” Starr said in an interview. “They go to teacher conferences, and they’re more likely to judge the school and the quality of the teacher based on that, than solely using test scores.”
As many schools prepare for a return to the classroom in the coming weeks, more than 40 states are moving forward with plans to evaluate teachers and principals in part on how well their students perform on standardized tests. It’s something the Education Department has supported and encouraged through its Race to the Top grants to schools and other programs. While the department says other factors should be considered, such as student work and parent feedback, teachers, unions and others worry there’s too much emphasis on test scores.
Standardized tests in general were not popular with many in the survey, which included a telephone poll of 1,000 American adults supplemented with an online survey of nearly 3,500 more. The online survey included people initially selected at random, but only those with access to the internet.
Nearly two-thirds of those in the online survey said too much emphasis is placed on standardized testing in public schools. Nineteen percent said they were comfortable with the tests, 7 percent said there was too little emphasis and 10 percent didn’t know.
Of public-school parents questioned in the online poll, nearly half – 47 percent – said parents should be allowed to excuse their children from taking one or more standardized tests, 40 percent disagreed and 13 percent didn’t know. More whites supported the idea of opting out of tests. Some 44 percent of whites agreed, compared to 35 percent of Hispanics and only 28 percent of African-Americans. A majority of blacks, 57 percent, said parents should not excuse their children from the tests.
In recent years, there’s been a small but growing number of parents deciding to keep their kids home or otherwise out of the classroom during state standardized tests.
New York is believed to have the largest rate of opt-outs so far. About 20 percent of the state’s third- through eighth-graders refused to take the tests this spring, up from 5 percent a year earlier. Other states have reported resistance to the tests, including Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.
People in the online poll were mostly split on the intensely debated Common Core education standards. They have been adopted in much of the country and spell out what English and math standards students should master at each grade level. Fifty-four percent of public school parents oppose teachers in their communities using the Common Core standards to guide what they teach, while 25 percent favored them.
More blacks favored Common Core – 41 percent, compared to 29 percent of Hispanics and only 21 percent of whites.
The standards were drafted by the states with the support of the Obama administration, but have become a rallying point for conservatives who want a smaller federal role in education. In Congress, the House and Senate passed separate bills last month to update the No Child Left Behind education law. The bills, among other things, would prevent the Education Department from mandating or giving states incentives to adopt or maintain any particular set of standards, such as Common Core.
The online survey found resounding agreement on vaccinations. Eighty-four percent said all children should be vaccinated before they attend a public school; 9 percent disagreed.
The PDK/Gallup poll was conducted in May. The margin of sampling error in the telephone poll is plus or minus 4.7 percentage points, and plus or minus 3 percentage points for the online poll.
© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read More

More than half of students struggle with reading, report says

New report examines literacy development and urges Congress to do the same as NCLB rewrites progress

Nearly half of minority students and students from low-income families enter the fifth grade without basic reading skills, according to a new report urging Congress to focus on students’ literacy development beginning in early childhood.
Noting that 60 percent of both fourth and eighth graders currently struggle with reading, the report from the Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE) notes that Congress should put an emphasis on students’ literacy development from the early years and up through grade twelve as it works to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
The report, The Next Chapter: Supporting Literacy Within ESEA, is based on the 2013 results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s Report Card. According to the report, 50 percent of African Americans, 47 percent of Latinos, and 47 percent of students from low-income families read below NAEP’s basic level.

Read More

Too much technology could hurt learning outcomes

Using computers and other learning technology too often can be detrimental to student performance, OECD says

Students who use computers and learning technology at moderate levels tend to have better learning outcomes than students who use computers and learning technology rarely, according to new research from the OECD. A more startling find, however, is the fact that students who use computers very frequently at school perform much worse.
“Students, Computers and Learning: Making The Connection” finds that even countries that have invested heavily in information and communication technologies (ICT) for education have seen no noticeable improvement in their performances in PISA results for reading, mathematics or science.
To assess their digital skills, the test required students in 31 countries and economies* to use a keyboard and mouse to navigate texts by using tools like hyperlinks, browser button or scrolling, in order to access information, as well as make a chart from data or use on-screen calculators.
Top performers were Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong-China, Japan, Canada and Shanghai-China. This reflects closely their performances in the 2012 print-reading test, suggesting that many of the skills essential for online navigation can also be taught and learned using standard, analogue reading techniques.
The report also explores differences in performance between print and digital reading. Students in the United States and Canada both perform better in digital reading, on average, than students in other OECD countries with similar skills in print reading.
In contrast, students in Poland and Shanghai-China — both strong performers in print reading — do less well transferring their print-reading skills to an online environment.
In addition, the test assessed students’ internet browsing and navigation skills. Students in the United States and Canada rank among the highest of OECD countries for the average quality of their browsing, falling just behind Singapore, Australia, and Korea.
In both the United States and Canada, there are more students who are able to remain on task and correct browsing missteps than on average across OECD countries.
“School systems need to find more effective ways to integrate technology into teaching and learning to provide educators with learning environments that support 21st century pedagogies and provide children with the 21st century skills they need to succeed in tomorrow’s world,” said Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills. “Technology is the only way to dramatically expand access to knowledge. To deliver on the promises technology holds, countries need to invest more effectively and ensure that teachers are at the forefront of designing and implementing this change.”
Ensuring that every child reaches a baseline level of proficiency in reading and mathematics will do more to create equal opportunities in a digital world than solely expanding or subsidizing access to high-tech devices and services, says the OECD.
* Participating countries and economies: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Chinese-Taipei, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hong Kong-China, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Macao-China, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Shanghai-China, Singapore, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, and the United States.
More information on the assessment and findings of this report is also available at http://oe.cd/digitallearning.
Material from a press release was used in this report.

Read More

Study outlines how businesses can better serve local schools

Harvard study reveals how a new roadmap could benefit U.S. public education

U.S. businesses could increase their positive contribution to and impact on public K-12 education if they adopt a newly-established approach that connects students in poverty to services essential to their success.
The study, released by Harvard Business School’s U.S. Competiveness Project, focuses on communities across the nation that have implemented the Collective Impact approach and have seen meaningful improvement in educational outcomes.
The report, Business Aligning for Students: The Promise of Collective Impact, provides a roadmap for how business leaders can actively participate in Collective Impact. American businesses donate $3 to $4 billion dollars and countless volunteer hours to American public education every year.
Collective Impact provides a process and structure to the system communities usually have for supporting their students. The approach brings together community leaders from the school district, business and nonprofit organizations, government, parent groups, and religious organizations. Collective Impact helps these diverse stakeholders work together to ensure pre-K-12 students are receiving services essential for learning from tutoring to nutrition to mentoring.
By focusing on specific goals, improving the quality and coverage of services, identifying best practices and rigorously measuring results, Collective Impact moves the current service delivery system from chaos to coherence.
“Despite the sustained commitment of business leaders, they are often frustrated by the slow pace of education improvement in their communities. We found that if businesses join forces with others through Collective Impact – they can align and coordinate their efforts and together make more meaningful progress in improving students’ performance,” said Allen S. Grossman, Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School and author of the new report. “We encourage business leaders, who collaborate and rely on data to run their businesses, to take a similar approach to supporting public education. Collective Impact has the potential to be a game changer in American education.”
The Collective Impact report builds on previous HBS research, which highlights for business leaders the current state of U.S. pre-K-12 education and identifies converging trends to improve the public education system. Business Aligning for Students provides a clear pathway for transforming the education ecosystem.
The report shares insights from the first national survey of CI initiatives focused on improving public education, and 70 interviews with initiative leaders and the business leaders involved with them. It challenges business leaders to rethink how they can be more effective through Collective Impact and provides a clear roadmap of how to get involved.
Key findings from the report include:
• Collective impact is a relatively new approach to changing the results of public education that is gaining traction in communities across America.
• Collective Impact efforts across the country are showing impressive gains including Cincinnati, Ohio, the Salt Lake City region, Dallas, Texas, Milwaukee Wisconsin and the Roaring Fork Valley in Colorado.
• In Colorado, a Collective Impact initiative helped make pre-school available to children who previously did not have access to it by retrofitting a school bus into a mobile preschool. Staffed with bilingual teachers, the bus spends two hours, two days per week for ten months in each of six rural neighborhoods, delivering high-quality preschool programs.
• In Dallas and Milwaukee, after Collective Impact was implemented, students achieved improvements in seven of 11 and ten of 11 key indicators, respectively.
• Collective Impact leaders overwhelmingly want business’ involvement. 96% of all initiative leaders (including those with no current business involvement) reported that business involvement was either critical or very important to achieving their goals. 95% of business leaders involved with Collective Impact who were surveyed agree.
• 98 percent of business leaders surveyed cited their main reason for becoming involved in Collective Impact as the “potential to improve public education in our community,” whereas only 40 percent cited their reason as the “opportunity to improve the pool of potential workers in our community.”
• 81 percent of the Collective Impact initiatives surveyed reported their business community was actively involved in their local Collective Impact initiative.
• 78 percent of the Collective Impact initiatives surveyed had C-suite or senior executives active, 76 percent were owners or founders of companies and 54 percent were partners in a firm.
• 65 percent of business leaders surveyed expected to remain involved in their respective Collective Impact initiatives for three years or longer.
Material from a press release was used in this report.

Read More

Survey: Science education needs more support

Survey: Science education needs more support

By Laura Devaney, Director of News, @eSN_Laura
Read more by Laura Devaney
October 2nd, 2015

Twenty-year benchmark survey reveals critical need to improve U.S. science education

Eighty-five percent of teachers in a recent survey said they would devote more instructional time to hands-on science-based learning if they had the chance.
Eighty percent of those respondents said they lack time due to other educational priorities, and 49 percent said they lack funding to do so.
These responses are part of the Bayer Facts of Science Education Surveys, polled a variety of audiences to gauge the state of science education in the United States. It was conducted as part of a 20 year benchmark survey; a similar survey was conducted in 1995.
The 2015 survey included many benchmark questions from the 1995 survey to assess how the state of science education has evolved.
Schools today need to place more emphasis on science education.
• Three-fifths (61 percent) of surveyed teachers believe schools should place more emphasis on science education.
• Two-fifths (40 percent) of surveyed parents do not feel there is a greater emphasis on getting a good science education today, compared to when they were young. In fact, 17 percent feel there is less emphasis today.
It’s essential to shift how science education is taught, and surveyed teachers appear to believe that hands-on science learning is, by far, the best way for children to learn.
• Nearly all participating teachers (95 percent) believe hands-on activities are the most effective way for students to learn science, and 79 percent of parents say the same.
• Nearly all surveyed teachers (94 percent) agree hands-on learning in general is a valuable strategy for improving standardized test scores and overall performance.
Although parents want to be involved in hands-on science learning with their children, they need access to more resources and support.
• Eighty-five percent of surveyed parents enjoy having to help their children with hands-on science-based activities; yet, nearly 31 percent of those surveyed said they don’t feel confident enough in their scientific knowledge to help their children engage in hands-on science activities.
• Two-fifths (41 percent) of surveyed parents don’t believe their child has an inspiring science role model.
Parents, teachers and the STEM community need to work together to encourage girls’ and minorities’ interest in science.
• Eighty-five percent of surveyed teachers say female students are just as interested in science education as their male counterparts.
• Ninety-one percent of surveyed parents and 95 percent of surveyed teachers agree the science and engineering community, including companies that employ science and engineering workers, should develop programs that attract, encourage and retain girls’ and minority students’ interest in science and math in school.
Along with the survey, Bayer is announcing a five-year commitment to provide 1 million hands-on learning experiences for children by 2020, timed to the 20th anniversary of the Making Science Make Sense program, Bayer’s company-wide initiative that advances science literacy across the United States.
To kick off the five-year commitment and celebrate mentors who have helped foster curiosity around science, Bayer is launching the “Thank You” (“Tk U”) campaign. Through Oct. 30, Bayer is encouraging people of all ages to share a “thank you” message at SayTkU.com or via social with #SayTKU, acknowledging someone who has inspired scientific imagination and helped to make science make sense in their lives. For each “thank you” message shared, Bayer will provide free admission to a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) venue for a child (up to 25,000) through a new partnership with Tickets for Kids Charities.
“The Bayer survey found that parents want more hands-on homework for their kids and are willing to help them with it,” said Dr. Mae C. Jemison, chief ambassador for Bayer’s Making Science Make Sense initiative since 1995 and the world’s first African-American female astronaut. “And both teachers and parents say more students view science favorably than any other subject. This is great, because here are very important anchor points from which to build science literacy by nurturing the enthusiasm for science children are born with.”
The 2015 Bayer Facts of Science Education Survey presents the findings of a national telephone survey conducted May 11 to June 11, 2015 by SSRS among a representative sample of 1,009 adults with children in grades K-5 and a representative sample of 1,002 of adult teachers who teach in grades K-5. The margin of error associated with samples of this size is ± 3.1% at a 95 percent level of confidence.
Making Science Make Sense® (MSMS) is Bayer’s company-wide initiative that advances science literacy through hands-on, inquiry-based science education, employee volunteerism and public education. For more information, go to www.MakingScienceMakeSense.com.
Material from a press release was used in this report.

Read More