This article was written by Chris Husbands

It is one of the remarkable transformations of our time: the world is going to university, and participation in higher education is increasing. On every continent, more young people are going to university than ever before, and increasing numbers are graduating. In the UK, over a third of 18-year-olds go to university – and that figure is higher in the US, Canada and Korea, and rising fast in China and Africa.

As a result, around the world, governments are challenging their university systems to play an ever greater part in generating knowledge, educating highly skilled workforces and building more cohesive societies.

At the same time, they are puzzling about how to afford mass higher education. And that situation opens up a potential gap, between the world of higher education providers and the world of stakeholders – who are demanding more, and demanding it more accessibly.

Teaching excellence

Universities are unique institutions – not just because they undertake research or because they teach – but because, uniquely, they do both. And great teaching matters – it matters to universities as much as it matters to schools and colleges. And for the first time the quality of teaching at English universities will be assessed as part of the introduction of the teaching excellence framework (TEF).

Of course, identifying and recognising high quality teaching is both simple and complex. Excellence in teaching is something we all know when we see it, but specifying what exactly it is turns out to be a more complex exercise.

The TEF addresses this in a sensible way. It does not set out to assess teaching quality directly, but to look for those features which are the consequence of high quality teaching and student engagement, such as strong student responses, high levels of progression and retention.

The TEF begins from a common sense position – that teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes are the right places to look for evidence of the impact universities have. It then derives “core metrics” from the annual National Student Survey and HESA data on student initial employment – and uses these to develop initial theories about the work universities are doing.

All of this will be overseen by a panel drawn from across and beyond the sector, applying its judgement and expertise – and I am the chair of the panel.

High stakes

The TEF brings the opportunity to create a structure to celebrate excellence, provide clearer market signals and enhance quality across the sector. And if we get it right, to give yet stronger signals to international students about the sheer quality to be found across UK higher education.

The UK government is clear that it wants to create a link between funding and teaching quality, which will provide opportunities to reinforce and celebrate quality. And this is an opportunity to enhance understanding of higher education and of the way teaching is developing in a responsive and fast-changing sector.

Of course there are potential risks, both for individual institutions and also to UK higher education as a global brand. That means that the panel has to get the process right, and navigate a route through a complicated mass of data on a diverse sector.

Much of the initial work has been focused on understanding and responding to sector concerns, and these matter a lot. But there are other interests, too, which is why there is student representation on the TEF panel – because we need to be alert to student concerns about the overall quality of provision. So although it is important to reflect sector concerns, it is also necessary for the sector to recognise that universities matter to others, too.

There is no denying that the stakes in the TEF are high – high for government, high for universities and high for UK higher education. But if it is designed properly, and managed effectively, the TEF can give us the opportunity to celebrate excellence and provide a common way to think about how it develops.

And with more and more young people going to university, it becomes all the more important to develop a framework we can use to communicate clearly what is going on in university teaching.

Chris Husbands, Vice Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University

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

The post Why the TEF could change the way students think about a university education appeared first on The Edvocate.

This article was written by Suzanne Rice

The national report on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) outcomes has been released today, showing the test results of Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.

The report outlines student achievement in reading, numeracy, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, and shows performance has stagnated.

Around 95% percent of students are included in NAPLAN results, meaning they provide a reasonable guide to how well Australian students are learning core skills.

Other than Year 9 writing, over the last few years, overall Australian achievement has flatlined – it hasn’t gone backwards but nor has it improved.

Here is a breakdown of the findings for each year group that’s assessed:

Year 3

Student performance in Year 3 reading and spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved since 2008.

Boys are on average doing better than girls in numeracy, but girls on average do better in reading, writing, grammar and punctuation, and spelling.

Since 2008, reading scores in Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria, Queensland, and West Australia have improved.

Year 5

Student performance in reading and numeracy is significantly better in 2016 than it was in 2008. Average reading scores rose from 484.4 in 2008 to 501.5 in 2016. Numeracy scores rose from 475.9 in 2008 to 493.1 in 2016.

Reading scores in Tasmania, Victoria, West Australia and Queensland improved between 2008 and 2016. Girls on average scored higher than boys in writing, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, but not in reading.

Year 7

Overall, there has been little change in any area for Year 7 students since 2008. Girls on average scored higher than boys in some of the literacy domains.

Year 9

Numeracy and reading achievement has remained the same for Year 9 students since 2008.

Writing achievement has decreased since 2011, however, there have been changes in the genre examined over this time – from narrative writing to persuasive writing – so this may be influencing the results. From 2016 the genre returned to narrative writing.

Students from non-English speaking backgrounds:

In a number of cases the achievement of students from non-English speaking backgrounds tends to have a bigger spread than that of students whose parents’ first language is English. Our strongest students from non-English speaking backgrounds are doing very well, but there is a long achievement tail.

Indigenous students

Indigenous students are still achieving well below non-Indigenous students.

Over the past 9 years, there has been some improvement for Indigenous students in Years 3 and 5 in reading, and in Year 5 numeracy. But as with the national data, the improvements appeared in the first few years of NAPLAN and there has not been much progress recently.

Impact of parents’ education

Student achievement analysed by their parents’ education and employment makes familiar reading.

The report shows that the higher the parents’ levels of qualifications, and the higher their level of employment, the better their children do in school.

In most cases, the biggest gap is between the achievement of students whose parents completed Year 12, and those whose parents finished school in Year 11.

Does location make a difference?

On average, students based at schools in major cities perform the best. This is followed by those in inner regional locations, then outer regional locations. In remote and very remote areas, average achievement is lowest.

These results tell us that as a country we are not doing particularly well at neutralising the effects of disadvantage, whether this is through location or as reflected in levels of parental education and occupation.

The recent PISA results already showed us that Australian education does not do well on equity compared to similar countries like Canada.

Our school systems are not good at reducing the influence of students’ home backgrounds on their achievement. We need to try harder here.

This is likely to require a range of government actions that include a more equitable school funding regime, quality targeted teacher professional learning, and actions to reduce the class divisions that riddle our education systems.

What doesn’t it tell us?

While the report tells us a lot about the impact of broad factors such as student background, it can’t provide information on what is happening at a school level, or the reasons behind the general lack of improvement over the last few years.

Establishing why student achievement has flatlined is a complex business and is not covered by the data collected or the analyses.

Where to?

There are two important responses to the report that governments can take.

First, we could apply what we know is likely to improve student achievement across the board: supporting quality teacher professional learning based on our knowledge about improving student learning from the work of people like education expert John Hattie.

Second, we can and must do more to reduce the impact students’ home backgrounds has on their achievement.

A funding system that targets funding much more strongly to high-needs students and schools is important.

Research shows that individual student background has an impact on achievement, but so does the mix of students in a school. Australia’s education system has become increasingly stratified.

So policies promoting a mix of student backgrounds in our schools, for example, by requiring that all schools enroll a percentage of students from more disadvantaged backgrounds to receive funding, would be another place to start.

Suzanne Rice, Senior Lecturer, Education Policy and Leadership, University of Melbourne

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

The post NAPLAN results reveal little change in literacy and numeracy performance – here are some key takeaway findings appeared first on The Edvocate.

This article was written by Amanda Wise

Singapore has topped the global Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in maths, science and reading, while countries including Australia, France and the UK sit in the bottom batch of OECD countries for achievement in these areas.

So what is Singapore doing right, and do other countries want to emulate it?

Clearly there are things to learn. Singapore has invested heavily in its education system. Its teachers are the best and brightest, and it has developed highly successful pedagogic approaches to science, maths, engineering and technology (STEM) teaching, such as the “Maths Mastery” approach.

Culturally, Singaporeans have a strong commitment to educational achievement and there is a national focus on educational excellence.

Success in PISA rankings and other global league tables are an important part of the Singapore “brand”. Singaporean academic Christopher Gee calls this the “educational arms race”. Highly competitive schooling is the norm.

Role of private tuition

Public discussion in Australia around why we are not doing as well as the Singaporeans is largely focused on what goes on in that country’s schools.

Yet there is one thing missing from the reporting on Singapore’s success: the role of private tuition (private tutors and coaching colleges) and the part it plays in the overall success of students in the tiny city-state. Here are some startling figures:

• 60% of high school, and 80% of primary school age students receive private tuition.
• 40% of pre-schoolers receive private tuition.
• Pre-schoolers, on average, attend two hours private tuition per week, while
  primary school aged children are attending, on average, at least three hours per week.

That’s right. Eight out of ten primary school aged students in Singapore receive private tuition, either by way of private tuition or coaching colleges.

In 1992, that figure was around 30% for high school and 40% for primary school. The hours spent in tuition increase in late primary school, and middle-class children attend more hours than less well-off families.

The number of private coaching colleges has also grown exponentially in the last decade, with 850 registered centres in 2015, up from 700 in 2012.

Impact on family income

According to Singapore’s Household Expenditure Survey, private tuition in Singapore is a SGD$1.1 billion dollar industry (for a nation with a population of about 5.6 million) almost double the amount households spent in 2005 ($650 million). How does that look at the household level?

34% of those with children currently in tuition spend between $500 (AU$471) and $1,000 (AU$943) per month per child, while 16% spend up to $2,000.

Considering the bottom 5th quintile of households earn about $2,000 (AU$1,886) per month – the next quintile around $5,000 (AU$4,716) – this is a very large chunk of the family budget.

Imagine a family with two or three children and we get a sense of the potential socioeconomic inequalities at work when educational success depends on private tuition.

Surveys show that only 20% of those in the lowest two income brackets (a monthly income of less than $4,000) have a child in tuition.

One of the major tuition centre chains with outlets in shopping malls across Singapore. Author provided

Tuition centres

Tuition centres and coaching colleges range from more affordable neighbourhood and community based centres to large national “branded” coaching colleges with outlets in major shopping malls across the island.

The quality of tuition received is very much linked to how much one can afford to pay. It is big business.

The marketing strategies of the coaching colleges are very good at inducing anxiety in parents about fear of failure unless they are willing to pay to help their children get ahead.

Many parents complain that the schools “teach beyond the text”. That is, there is a perception that some teachers assume all the kids in the class are receiving tuition and thus teach above the curriculum level. Imagine the impact on those few children who are not receiving extra help.

Why does this start in pre-school and primary?

Singapore’s Primary School Leaving Exam (PSLE) is a seriously high-stakes exam that determines not just what high school a child will enter, but whether a child is streamed into a school that will fast track them to university.

Singaporeans do not have an automatic right to enrol their children into the “local” high school.

All high schools are selective and the best schools have the pick of the PSLE crop.
Primary students are streamed into four types of high school : the top ones feed students direct to university via the A-Level exams, while the bottom “technical” and “normal stream” schools feed into the institutes of technical education and polytechnics, with a much more complex pathway towards university.

Advertising poster for one of Singapore’s leading chain of coaching colleges ‘Mindchamps’. Author provided

The PSLE exam induces in 11 and 12 year olds the same level of anxiety seen in teenagers sitting the Higher School Certificate (HSC) or Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) in Australia.

Many middle-class parents believe the “race” starts early.

Parents are increasingly expected to have their pre-school aged child reading and writing, and with basic maths skills before they even enter school – and this is frequently achieved through private pre-schools and “enrichment” tuition.

While there is much to genuinely admire about Singapore’s educational success story, there is a question about the role of private enterprise (private coaching colleges) in shaping childhoods and stoking parental anxieties.

A potential concern when private tuition reaches saturation point is that schools come to assume the level of the “coached child” as the baseline for classroom teaching.

Many Singaporean parents I have spoken to bemoan the hyper-competitive environment that forces their children into hours of extra tuition, impacting on family time and relationships and reducing opportunities for childhood free play, developing friendships and simply getting some decent rest. Many feel they have no choice.

Singaporeans have a term for this pathology: “Kiasu”, which means “fear of falling behind or losing out”. Policymakers, and indeed reporting, needs to be cognisant of exactly what produces these outlying educational success stories.

This is not to argue Singapore’s success is entirely due to out of school coaching. Singaporean schooling excels on many fronts. However given the levels of private tuition, it needs to be seen as a key part of the mix.

Amanda Wise, Associate professor, Macquarie University

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

The post Behind Singapore’s PISA rankings success – and why other countries may not want to join the race appeared first on The Edvocate.

This article was written by Bruce Chapman

The Grattan Institute has proposed that a 15% surcharge should be added to the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debt of undergraduate and college students.

The surcharge is not an up front fee. It is a fee that is added to the existing debt and paid later, depending on a graduate’s future income. Repayments are only made if a graduate’s income exceeds about A$56,000 per annum.

This flat rate means that, while a graduate’s loan would initially increase by 15%, that figure would not get bigger over time.

Currently full-fee undergraduates pay a 25% fee on their loans, vocational education students a 20% fee, while postgraduate and government-supported students pay no loan fee. There is no obvious reason for these disparities and they seem to have evolved through a lack of policy attention by many governments.

So for administrative simplicity and coherence it would seem a good idea that all HELP loans are treated in the same way.

Not a radical idea

The 15% surcharge might seem like a radical reform idea, but the notion of a surcharge actually fits comfortably with the underlying economics of the HELP system, and was part of the original HECS design of 1989.

Benefits to low income earners

While an increase in the size of the loan may raise the ire of prospective students, it is important to remember that this does not leave those who go on to earn a lower income any worse off relative to their wealthier counterparts.

In fact they would be better off under this reform, because there would be no financial advantage to paying off the loan quickly. This is not currently the case.

The lower income earners who take longer to pay off their loans as the system is now are also penalised with having to pay back more interest over time.

In this sense, the change will act as a kind of subsidy on the loans of lower income earners, negating some of the cost and keeping loans from spiralling out of control.

Benefits to the government

A starting point is that the government already passes a considerable discount to students by indexing the loans by the CPI instead of the government’s own cost of borrowing.

While in the past the suggestion of imposing a real, and much higher rate of interest on the loans has been floated, it has been demonstrated that this is not the most equitable solution.

While a 15% spike in underlying cost may understandably attract headlines, this isn’t out of the blue. Having a surcharge on HELP debts for normal undergraduates was part of the original HECS design, but it took the form of a 20% discount for those who chose to pay up front.

This is just the other side of the coin of a surcharge, and was part of the original policy to cover the interest rate issue explained above.

Also, there are already surcharges on other HELP debts, and these are currently (and strangely) different depending on the nature of the tertiary education that people are undertaking.

Why 15% fee?

However, these points in favour of a surcharge should not be conflated with a judgement concerning what is the “correct” level of HELP charges in total.

This means that simply adding a 15% surcharge is an implicit recognition that the debts for graduates are too low at the moment, and should be increased.

The case for a surcharge should be made independently from the issue of what the correct overall level of a charge should be.

The economic case of the Grattan argument for a surcharge stands without reference to any budgetary concerns related to the level of HECS debts, which is a considerably more complicated (and ultimately political) judgement.

Bruce Chapman, Director, Policy Impact, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University

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

The post The case for a fixed 15% fee on all student loans appeared first on The Edvocate.

This article was written by Vincent Geiger

Australia is struggling to improve its performance in maths due to a lack of continuity in policymaking.

While Australia tends to plan in three-year cycles, the countries that are performing the best – or making significant improvements – in international rankings for maths, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan – tend to revise their maths curriculum every five to six years.

This allows teachers to become fully acquainted with new initiatives and provides time for the bedding down of any changes to previous practice. It also allows curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

So what impact has a lack of continuity had on maths education in Australia?

Slipping standards in maths

The last two international tests revealed that Australia is failing to improve in maths education.

In the 2015 version of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia was 22nd in Year 4 maths, and 13th in Year 8 maths, a decline from 18th and 12th respectively in 2011.

In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Australia was 18th in maths, down from 12th in 2012.

The results of these assessments indicate that the performance of Australian students is declining in both an absolute sense and in comparison to students from an increasing number of other nations.

The government and opposition have blamed each other for the situation, claiming the failure of respective policy direction and its implementation.

Impact of continuity in policy

It is hard to ignore the fact that there are nations that have made changes to their approach to maths education and made significant comparative progress.

In the case of Singapore, revision of the curriculum does not mean throwing out all aspects of previous practice and beginning again. Rather, it means a meticulous process of reviewing what has been effective and what needs to be improved or added to prepare students for the world they will move into – not just the world as it exists.

Curriculum is based on knowledge and practices that have served students well in the past, but is also future orientated.

This period of time also provides an opportunity for curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

The approach to curriculum development is national, focused, carefully coordinated and then thoroughly evaluated.

In Australia, however, education is the responsibility of the respective states and territories. This poses a serious challenge for a coherent coordination of our curriculum development efforts.

Development of an Australian curriculum

The Australian Curriculum was heralded as a landmark in national cooperation in education.

Through the process of negotiation for its development and implementation, however, has emerged a determination by states and territories to preserve their differences and distinctiveness.

Some states have been accused of making superficial efforts to align with a national approach.

State efforts at curriculum development have a tendency to respond to whatever political pressure point is being stimulated at any time. For example, the most recent performance on NAPLAN results are prone to quick fix solutions.

Such flightiness brings into question how any long-term effective change brought about and rigorously evaluated.

Consequently, when looking at our national effort, it appears to be disjointed, unfocused, somewhat ad hoc in its development and close to impossible to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.

Introduction of teaching standards

Australia has created a number of measures to help improve its performance in maths. These include:

• The introduction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) national teaching standards, which include a requirement that all graduating teachers have the ability to promote students’ numeracy capabilities across the curriculum.
• A numeracy (and literacy) tests for initial teacher education students to ensure graduating teachers have the necessary level of personal numeracy to be effective in classrooms.
• National programs aimed at strengthening initial teacher education students’ mathematics and science knowledge, such as Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers (ETMST).
• Restoring the Focus on STEM in School Initiative, which aims to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schools.

These initiatives demonstrate the commitment of considerable federal resources for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s mathematical (and scientific) capabilities.

Taken as a suite, this list seems to represent a comprehensive approach to improving students’ mathematics outcomes – all aspects of curriculum, teacher pre-service education and teacher in-service education receive attention.

So why has this (what appears to be) well thought-out plan proved to be seemly ineffective?

Continuity of funding

Having been part of a number of federally-funded programs aimed at strengthening the teaching capabilities, I think it is fair to say that most have been successful in what they set out to achieve.

Programs such as the Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers, for example, were carefully scoped out and then thoroughly monitored throughout their implementation. They are now undergoing stringent evaluation.

But no matter how successful, no program has any chance of securing additional funding. We appear to set agendas, allocate funds, complete projects and then move on to something new – unlike many successful countries that value continuity in their approach to teacher professional learning.

While project leaders will always have in place plans for the sustainability of the work begun through a program, the hard reality is that without further funding those involved will be expected to find new projects and income streams and move on.

Vincent Geiger, Associate Professor and Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

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

The post For Australia to improve in maths, policymakers need to make a plan and stick to it appeared first on The Edvocate.

By Matthew Lynch

Students from low-income homes hit the K-12 scene at a disadvantage. Materially, they often do not have the means for the resources they need for basic classroom functions. In non-tangible ways, they often do not have the same academic support as middle- or high-income peers and know less when they arrive in Kindergarten.When parents are unable to provide for their children, that responsibility then falls on the schools and the community. Ensuring that students from low income households succeed in K-12 classrooms is multi-faceted and must include:

Physiological considerations. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, students need to have physiological needs met before they are able to learn. If a child is hungry, he or she will focus on that fact and not on the schoolwork. Federal law allows schools to provide breakfast and lunch for students whose families meet federal poverty guidelines. The law was created in an effort to meet the biological needs of each student if the parent was unable or unwilling to provide the necessary provision. If children have all of their physical needs met, they will be more likely to succeed in school.

Safety considerations. Another need that must be met is the safety of the child. Students need to feel comfortable and safe enough to learn. Students will not be able to focus unless they feel safe in both the home and the school. When teachers become certified to teach, they become mandated reporters of child abuse. This means that a teacher who suspects abuse in the home of a student is compelled by law to report this information, using protocols established by the school and/or the district.

The main job of schools is to deliver effective instruction for student learning. If the school needs to provide some or all of the necessary physical/biological needs, it should do so. Schools should be concerned about the welfare and the safety of the children they serve. The school’s purpose in the community is to ensure that students have the support and resources they need to be successful.

It is important to realize that the schools are not required to provide said support. Schools not operating as full-service organizations should advocate for their students whenever necessary. Ruby K. Payne discusses support systems in her book A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Payne posits that students from poverty need support systems to succeed. She believes that students with the right resources and support systems can succeed even if they are living in poverty.

Why should the burden fall on schools?

Local schools are the only community-service organizations that come in contact with virtually all school-aged children in a given area. Educators and administrators are in a unique position to understand the needs of children and the communities in which they live. Teachers are among the few people who understand children’s hopes, aspirations, and impediments; however, only a small percentage of teachers take advantage of this fact.

With all the problems and the issues that our children face, we can ill afford to miss opportunities to connect with them. A strong student-teacher relationship will in turn help the teachers better educate their students. One of the keys to the teacher-student relationship is the creation of mutual trust and respect. Once students understand that their teacher trusts and respects them, they will do everything in their power to live up to the teacher’s expectations.

How to help low-income students succeed

James P. Comer, a child psychiatrist who studied students from low income neighborhoods In New Haven, Connecticut, developed the Comer Process which focuses on child development in urban schools. The Comer process is based on six interconnected pathways which lead to healthy child development and academic achievement. The pathways are physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social, and ethical.

Comer believed that the pathways should be considered a road map to a child’s successful development into adulthood. If a child’s needs are not met in one of the pathways, there will be likely difficulties in the child’s ability to achieve. Comer explained that a child could be smart, but unable to be socially successful. He wanted teachers to be aware that they should not teach for the sake of teaching, but rather to help the child learn how to negotiate life both inside and outside of the classroom.

According to Comer, if a child is intelligent but cannot socially interact, then the school system did not do its job of preparing the child for the world. The theory pushes teachers to make sure that children are developing emotionally, physically, and socially before the child can learn the school-related topics. Comer believed that children will not be functioning members of society if he or she is only successful in academic skills such as math and reading.

Comer proposed that children need a primary social network—one that includes parents, and people from the child’s school and community.  Comer emphasizes that the people in this network are concerns all needs that are part of the developmental pathways. Children who have this level of support will likely be more successful in school. This is the main premise behind Comer’s idea of letters home to the parent or caregiver. He wants to make sure that the parents and caregivers are aware of what is happening in their child’s school life so they are able to share in creating a positive experience at school.

Comer’s notion of developmental pathways is now practiced in many schools across America. In fact, there is such interest in his theory that a field guide is now available for creating school-wide interventions to help students achieve academic success. Comer’s theory is concerned with the ways in which the world is changing. He foresees children needing to have more skills and more “book smarts” than previous generations. The future adults of this society will need to be socially accepted while also being “book smart tech savvy” and multi-taskers.

Educators today should understand that when they become teachers, their duty is to advocate for not only the children in their class, but also the students in the entire school. Teachers are often the creators of grassroots advocacy organizations and coalitions. Advocacy is an essential part of a teacher’s profession. When teachers advocate for a student, their action conveys to children a message that the teacher cares about their well being and creates a positive bond between teacher and student.

photo credit: katerha via photopin cc

The post How to Help Low-Income Students Succeed appeared first on The Edvocate.

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Student assessment is a necessary evil of the teaching profession but what is actually most effective?

Ankur Singh, formerly a student at the University of Missouri–Columbia, took an English class in his junior year of high school that influenced him profoundly.

“It was the only class I’ve ever taken where the lessons I learned will carry with me for the rest of my life, and after completion, I felt ten times smarter,” he says. The teacher focused on the development of the students’ critical-thinking skills and ensured that they were able to analyze poems and essays. He was keen to allow each student to form his or her opinions.

Because Singh loved the junior-year English class so much, he expected the college-prep AP English course he enrolled in during his senior year would be equally enjoyable. However, it turned out to be an awful experience. The critical-thinking skills he had honed the previous year were of no use in the new class; instead, the classes focused solely on preparing them for the inevitable exam. “It frustrated me to no avail, and I ended up doing very poor in AP English,” Singh says. “And I found the same thing in all of my other AP classes, which seemed more focused on college preparation and standardized tests rather than genuine learning.”

Singh began to wonder what the real purpose of education was. “All around me were students studying diligently, stressing out about their grades, homework, the ACT, college essays, AP tests. And here I was not caring about any of those things. Were there no students in this school who wanted anything more than just a college degree and a job?” He began to feel lonely, and then angry. Finally, during an AP French exam, he used the time to write a furious letter to the College Board, expressing his misgivings.

Though he expected to be reprimanded by his French teacher for writing a letter rather than taking the exam, she listened sympathetically and told him that she felt the same frustrations with the system. Though she had wanted to take the French students on field trips to a French bakery or watch a French film, she was forced to teach to the test. “Maybe if the students themselves spoke out against it,” she said, “it could all change.”

As Ankur Singh’s story demonstrates, the current model of assessments can lead to frustration in students and teachers alike. In a previous article, we outlined ways in which administrators in education might manage the hiring of qualified teachers and how they might also use the availability of qualified teachers to promote student success in the classroom. In the following articles, we will look at the use of multiple assessment measures in determining a student’s abilities and academic potential.

The basic premise of this strategy is as follows: Many states and school districts rely on large-scale assessments when making decisions about student grade progression. Despite the evidence that such assessments are not always an accurate reflection of a student’s academic abilities and despite the reality that most testing experts warn that high stakes retention or promotion decisions should never be made by a single assessment, states and school districts rely on these assessments.

How can we change the way we look at student assessments – and how can they benefit our students as a result?

The post Pass or Fail: Multiple Assessments to Determine True Learning appeared first on The Edvocate.

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

When it comes to assessing what students have learned, there is a mixed review from educators. A few view the current way we assess students as on point, while a few others feel it’s detrimental. Most educators hang out somewhere in the middle, with an understanding that current assessments are needed, but have perhaps gone too far to the detriment of students.

How can we improve student assessment?

Let’s begin with a review of the current status of assessments, identifying exactly what types of assessments are currently used, and their strengths and weaknesses. There are numerous types of assessments employed throughout the world to assess knowledge, skills, and even fundamental intelligence. Often, though, the advertised purpose of a test is not consistent with its capacity for assessment. The Intelligence Quotient or IQ test, for instance, is supposed to gauge individual intelligence.

Proponents of the IQ test stress that it is a viable model for gauging what someone’s academic or even professional potential might be. Culturally, this is widely accepted: a high IQ score is the equivalent of confirmation that an individual will succeed academically and professionally. The reality, however, is different. The IQ test itself is not an absolute gauge of a person’s intelligence and is far from being a perfect measure of intelligence. At best, it assesses a specific kind of intelligence with a reasonable degree of accuracy: a problem-solving ability, really, or the ability to recognize patterns in problems.

Like the IQ test, many other standardized assessments set out to gauge a particular knowledge or skill. For instance, SAT and ACT tests gauge individual capacity for verbal and mathematical reasoning. At least, that is how most of us view them. However, while the SATs and ACTs test analytical skills and comprehension skills, the alignment of these elements is not necessarily effective. As most seasoned educators are aware, the limitations established by the format of these tests and the reliance upon multiple-choice responses means that there is minimal scope for assessment. Many students with excellent academic potential may not score well on these tests. Others who have a more limited aptitude may score well and find themselves in academic settings that are too demanding for their ability level.

Since different types of abilities and many different skills play a role in academic success, the focus on analytical skills measured through multiple-choice questions and the focus on math and reading comprehension is inherently limiting. These assessments often overlook written and oral communication skills. They also overlook fundamental reasoning and argumentation skills, since students are limited in the scope of their answers. Finding a solution to that, of course, is not easy but is something we’ll explore more in-depth in future posts in this series.

The post Pass or Fail: How Did We Get to This Assessment Place? appeared first on The Edvocate.

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Obviously a multi-age classroom has children of different ages – but other than that factor, what would an ideal multi-age classroom look like?

The often idealized model – the model that is more specifically targeted to educational outcomes and the developmental benefit of the child – concentrates on creating a diverse but balanced grouping of students of mixed ages and mixed abilities. In the most idealized model, the notion of having mixed abilities also extends to including both children who are gifted and those with special needs in the classroom at a ratio that promotes mainstream inclusion.

The theory behind this is that there are tremendous benefits to a social and natural setting that is enhanced with these levels of diversity (based on age as well as ability). Specifically, these types of multi-age classrooms can help to improve or otherwise enhance the social and emotional skills of students.

Some research on early childhood multi-age grouping has shown that stu­dent disobedience is much less common in multi-age groupings compared to single-age classrooms. Higher language development has also been noted in multi-age groupings compared to single-age classrooms. It is thought that this is because there is more language exchange among mixed-age children.

Research conducted in the 1960s demonstrated that there were significant gains in reading and language-skills areas for students in multi-age classrooms, especially compared to peers in single-age classrooms. Although there is little recent research to replicate these findings, some recent studies have targeted multi-age classrooms. These studies showed evidence of higher and faster cognitive development for those in multi-age classrooms compared to those in single-age classrooms.

Other research has found that the first day of school is far more relaxed and comfortable for students and teachers in multi-age classrooms in elementary schools. The pressures are lower, for two reasons. First, the environment is familiar to a portion of the student population. Second, the teacher is familiar with the students and, in the case of a teacher who has been in the same position for some time, with the process of managing the classroom and integrating new students moving forward. Student worries about grade retention or social promotion – a major source of anxiety for many students – are not applicable in the multi-age classroom, and thus the classroom is less stressful than its multi-age counterpart.

A key advantage of the multi-age classroom is that it lets students learn at an individualized pace, working to reach their full potential but in their own time. Teachers often tend to have more motivation to focus on the progress of individual students within the multi-age classroom. This focus is better supported in the multi-age environment, especially as an alternative to moving through textbooks or working on a rigid schedule, as so many teachers must of necessity do in a single-age classroom.

The student-centered, project-based learning environment is more likely to emerge when there is this kind of motivation and focus. Students of different levels are better able to pay attention to individual projects. The underlying curriculum can be designed to challenge the knowledge and abilities of the individual student. Work can be more easily designed to challenge specific knowledge and abilities with the student-centered, project-based approach, especially when compared to the common curriculum.

With the right approach, multi-age classrooms can meet the needs of each student in them and help break the unhelpful cycle of social promotion and retention.

The post Pass or Fail: An Ideal Multi-Age Classroom appeared first on The Edvocate.

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Any large change in K-12 education in America will need backing from teachers and parents.

Both of these stakeholders tend to lack full understanding of the multi-age education, though. Parents often express resistance when faced with the possibility of switching to a multi-age classroom. Teachers also tend to indicate that they have not received adequate training to be confident teaching multi-age groups. The two problems tend to go hand in hand, and parents also worry about the multi-age environment because of the potential issues with instruction quality.

Parent education and teacher education are thus two crucial components of a successful multi-age classroom system, especially one on the scale envisaged here; one that will replace the graded approach and, among other things, remove grade retention and social promotion from the American public-education system.

The processes for parent and teacher education are different, and the focus of the education must likewise be different. Parent educa­tion and teacher preparation are essential but must, to be effective, target the respective groups independently. Parents must be educated about the multi-age classroom and its benefits and challenges from an educational perspective. They must receive information and support to help them understand not only what the benefits and challenges are, but also what the process will be for the implementation of a multi-age classroom.

It is necessary to make sure that parents have the opportunity to be involved in the process of reviewing implementation plans for establishing multi-age classrooms as the standard for education in America’s public schools. Furthermore, the elements of curriculum and teacher training and support should be understood by parents. Parents must be reassured that teachers will be able to meet the needs of all students.

It has been stated that age-balanced classrooms containing students of a similar level cannot be achieved easily if parents do not fully understand and support the philosophy it depends on upon, and this should also be a consideration in the implementation of a multi-age strategy.

Teachers, for their part, must be educated and prepared to manage multi-age classrooms and given intensive support to maintain an appropriate level of professional development over time. It is not enough to promise that there will be support available. The support must be in place and made use of effectively. Honesty and accountability are key factors.

As in any other educational environment, students may not enjoy optimal benefits from multi-age classrooms if teachers cannot implement best practices. In this instance, students may not enjoy the benefits of the educational model if teachers don’t have the ability to put differentiated instruc­tional strategies, environments, and assess­ments in place. Offering professional-development workshops on multi-age edu­cation and supporting differentiated instruction for teachers, as well as providing detailed information for parents, can help students implement multi-age programs successfully.

Learning from both current and past issues, alignment of the multi-age program with curriculum must be emphasized at all points of contact. Multi-age classrooms are often not aligned with graded and curriculum-centered educational agendas in the United States, and this contributes to the challenges of making the necessary shift.  One of the greatest difficulties for administrators looking to implement the multi-age pro­gram in traditionally organized schools is that they have to operate two different programs in one school or have to operate a program that is incompatible with the legal state and federal requirements of accountability.

Administrators, like parents and teachers, must be supported to make the shift and go beyond what has been acceptable in the past, in a bid to “make room” for multi-age classrooms. Whereas school administrators have gone about creating space for multi-age classrooms in the past, trying to force them into what already exists, administrators must instead be supported in creating multi-age classrooms that exist outside the graded system. Based on research, some of which is mentioned above, there is little argument that multi-age classrooms cannot fit within the traditional graded school system. To make multi-age classrooms benefi­cial to all students, administrators should envision the classrooms as a “school within a school.”

School administrators must do more than apply multi-age education as a quick-fix solution for the underserved or for those who are not succeeding in the traditional classroom. Multi-age classrooms should not be used as a dumping ground but should be considered, as part of an established multi-age program, to be something more substantial. Indeed, administrators must essentially revise their thinking to ensure that multi-age classrooms are seen as the best option for providing students with an excellent education.

Finally, there is the problem of federal and state accountabif5lity and how the existing systems of accountability depend on standards, assessments, and school performance accountability. Creating a K-12 education system that emphasizes the achievement of all students and the academic, social, and emotional development of students is crucial, but also something that cannot be rushed. The accountability issues currently manifest as supports for a system that emphasizes the achievement of the “bubble kids,” or stu­dents just below the passing rates or cut scores on standardized testing.

Of course, there should be an emphasis on students who are on the outside of the distribution of abilities, whereas the current emphasis is at the expense of students in these bounds. The lowest achievers and high-ability students don’t have a place with the current model, and creativity and innovation, of course, are lost in the drive to have students demonstrate a level of minimum competency.

Shifting to multi-age classrooms should also concentrate on this notion of providing individual students with access to challenging but developmentally appropriate instruction. More than this, though, there should be a clear effort to embrace the potential for creative and innovative learning. The opportunities for this learning and the obvious need for it should be emphasized as one of the principal reasons for the shift to multi-age classrooms.

The need to embrace the true principles of education is central to all the benefits, challenges, and subsequent recommendations for multi-age classroom development and management.

The post Pass or Fail: Preparing Teachers, Parents and Administrators for Multi-Age Classrooms appeared first on The Edvocate.