“No Child Left Behind” and the O’Bama’s Administration “Race to the Top” brought us many things including high stakes testing, what I call gates examinations – pass the test and you go through the gate, fail it you do not.  But the question of testing needs to answer the question, what is the purpose of tests?

Tests currently are being used to evaluate students, teachers and the entire educational system.  Because of this emphasis, more standardized tests are being examined and homework and classwork time is being devoted to preparing students to take them and less time is being spent on instruction.  In addition, because things like history, art, music and sports are not being tested, they are either being eliminated or seriously being restricted from students’ programs.  For many students, these subjects are the reasons they come to school.  Because of budget restraints, students are now being charged for playing in sports or in the band.  This seriously hampers poor student’s participation.  In places like Atlanta and Philadelphia, PA teachers and school administrators have been accused and are being brought to trial for helping students cheat on the examinations.

Two sociologists, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, conducted a study which showed that 45 percent of college students, after two years of colleges, “have made no significant gains on a test of critical thinking.”  This raises the serious question, do tests actually test for things that we want the students to know? Do we simply want students to do well on a test for its own sake?  Do we want them to demonstrate some knowledge or skill like knowing how to multiply or do want to be able to think critically as well?

Computers are filled with knowledge but lack the ability to process the information into knowledge.  Aren’t high stakes test testing information and not knowledge?  Schools are teaching students what to think and not how to think.  Doesn’t the business public want students who know how to think as well as what to think?

We also know that children learn differently.  Yet our current tests simply test student’s ability to recall, rote memorize and regurgitate. Is this what we want for our children?

My mentor, Dr. Myron Tribus, has stated that the purpose of testing is simply to determine what to do next.  Have we seriously considered what to do next?

 

Do you remember when we were told that students were spending too much time watching television?

The American Academy of Pediatrics has restated its long-standing recommendations that parents limits the access to television of children under age two. But it’s fairly clear that few people are actually heeding the advice. According to a recent study by Common Sense Media, children of all ages are spending more and more time in front of screens of all sorts — not just television screens, but computer screens, iPads, smart-phones, gaming consoles and the like.

Concern about children’s access to and consumption of media — even media that’s labeled “educational” — is nothing new. But there is a new warning flag in this latest report: a so-called “app gap.”

An “app gap,” Common Sense Media argues, is developing between children of high-income and low-income families, the latter having limited access to mobile devices and the applications on them. Some statistics from the report:

• One in 10 lower-income children (that is, children from families earning less than $30,000) has a video iPod or similar device in the home, according to Common Sense Media, compared to one in 3 of upper-income children (those from families earning more than $75,000). Two percent of low- income children have an iPad or tablet in the home, versus 17 percent of higher income children.
• 38 percent of lower-income parents say they don’t know what an app is, compared to just 3 percent of higher income parents. Fourteen percent of lower-income parents have downloaded apps for their children to use, compared to 47 percent of higher income parents.

No surprise, the difference in access to devices and to the apps on them leads to different usage figures: 55 percent of children from higher-income families have used a cell phone, iPod, iPad or similar device to play games, watch videos or use apps, whereas just 22 percent of children from low-income families have done so.

Here is another problem that educators will, inevitably have to deal with. 

 

In an article in Science 23 September 2011 entitled The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling, Diane Halpern and a number of other authors argue that “single sex schools neither improve academic success nor counteract gender stereotyping by teachers and students.”

In an article in Science 23 September 2011 entitled The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling, Diane Halpern and a number of other authors argue that “single sex schools neither improve academic success nor counteract gender stereotyping by teachers and students.”

Single-sex education has been growing in popularity since the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act was passed, allowing local educational agencies to use “Innovative Programs” funds to support same-gender schools and classrooms “consistent with existing law.” Today more than 445 public coed schools offer single-sex classrooms.

Yet many experts say much of the success of single-sex schools stems from a demanding curriculum and a focus on extracurricular activities “” gains that would have been seen regardless of whether the opposite sex was in attendance.

“In attempting to improve schools, it is critical to remember that not all reforms lead to meaningful gains for students. We argue that one change in particular””sex-segregated education””is deeply misguided, and often justified by weak, cherry-picked, or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence. There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex (SS) education improves students’ academic performance, but there is evidence that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism. School is preparation for adult life. How can boys and girls learn how to interact as equals in the workplace if they have no experience interacting as equals in school?”

Why separate?

Single-sex education advocates often point to brain differences and different maturity rates as evidence for the benefits of separating girls from boys in the classroom.

“Timing is everything, in education as in many other fields,” says Leonard Sax, author of several books on the science of sex differences. “It’s not enough to teach well; you have to teach well to kids who are developmentally ripe for learning.” For example, asking 5-year-old boys to sit still, be quiet and pay attention is often not developmentally appropriate for them, but there are other ways to teach boys to read that don’t require boys to sit still and be quiet, he says.

Many experts agree that gender differences can be overblown. Teachers use strategies in the all-girls classroom and in the all-boys classroom that don’t work as well “” or don’t work at all “” in the coed classroom. For example, despite performing as well as boys in math courses, girls often doubt their ability to develop their math skills when faced with difficult material, according to research by Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck, PhD. This mindset appears to contribute to substantial gender gaps in math scores that emerge during and after middle school, While these types of teaching approaches may be thought to improve grades, test scores and college acceptance rates, there’s little empirical evidence showing that sex-segregated classes improve educational outcomes. A 2005 U.S. Department of Education comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools found a dearth of quality studies examining academic benefits and concluded that the results are mixed and not conclusive enough for the department to endorse single-sex education.

Yet other experts suggest that segregating students by sex can actually increase gender stereotyping.

Others point to the long-term effects of gender stereotyping on school infrastructure and curriculum as a down side of separating boys and girls in the classroom. Educational psychologist Sue Klein, EdD, education equity director with the Feminist Majority Foundation, a non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to women’s equality, reproductive health and nonviolence, says that separate rarely means equal in public schools that make the switch to a single-sex format. Often, Klein says, women receive fewer quality resources, and many single-sex schools and classrooms exaggerate and encourage sex stereotypes by emphasizing competition and aggression among boys and passivity among girls or by setting the expectation that boys are not good at writing. “We need to understand this whole area better, but I think we know enough now that this is not a good way to spend our country’s limited education dollars,” Klein says.

It’s about choice

The bottom line, Sax says, is that most single-sex education advocates don’t believe that single-sex education is best for every child.

The Federal Government has been looking to improve the numbers of females entering math, technology, science, and engineering (STEM) programs.  It appears that the jury is still out on whether single-sex classrooms are the answer.

 

 

According to the American College Testing organization one-fourth of this year’s graduating class who took the ACT college-readiness exam met benchmarks in English, reading, math and science, indicating they could earn B’s or C’s in entry-level college courses. Students performed better in English and reading than in science and math, and the scores are an increase from 2005, when 21% of students were considered college-ready. While observers are pleased with the uptick in overall readiness, they note that three-quarters of students still are unprepared for college-level work.

What do the governors and congressmen have to say about that as they make bone-cutting cuts in education?

 

 

The following posting appears in my latest book, “The Dropout Prevention Fieldbook”.  I am indebted to the Alberta Canada Resource Centre for Quality for doing the research and providing it on line.

Bullying

 A definition for children:

Bullying is when people are mean to someone or hurt them on purpose.  This also happens over and over again in a way that this person doesn’t like.  (Source:  Alberta Resource Centre for Quality Enhancement; 2005)

Did you know?

• Bullying occurs on average every seven minutes
• Each bullying episode lasts about 17 seconds
• One in seven boys (14%) between 4 and 11 years of age bully others, one in 20 (5%) are children who are bullied
• One in 11 girls (9%) between 4 and 11 years of age bully others, one in 14 (7%) are children who are bullied
• Among boys, bullying is usually physical and involves hitting
• Among girls, bullying is more subtle and includes gossiping, or exclusion from certain groups
• The majority of bullying happens on or close to school buildings
• Bullies often target children who are alone
• Bullying usually stops when it is reported and acted upon
• The emotional scars from bullying can last a lifetime
• 60% of kids who are identified as bullies by the age of 8 will have a criminal conviction by the age of 245
• Children who are bullied are usually too scared to ask for adult help.
• 85% of bullying takes place in the presence of others.

Source:  Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 2005)

 

Myths about Bullying

Myth #1:         Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt me.

Reality:           Scars left by name-calling can last a lifetime.

Myth #2          Children have to learn to stand up for themselves.

Reality:           Children who get up the courage to complain about being bullied are saying they cannot cope with the situation on their own.  Treat their complaints as a call for help.  In addition, it is important to provide children with problem solving techniques and assertiveness training to deal with difficult situations.

Myth #3          Children should hit back ““ only harder.

Reality:           This could cause serious harm.  People who are bullies are often bigger and more powerful than their victims.  This also gives children the idea that violence is a legitimate way to solve problems.  Children learn how to bully by watching adults use their power for aggression.  Adults have the power to lead by positive example.

Myth #4          It builds character.

Reality:           Children who are bullied repeatedly have low self-esteem and do not trust others.

Myth #5          That is not bullying.  They are just teasing.

Reality:           Vicious taunting hurts and should be stopped.

Myths #6        There have always been bullies and there always will be.

Reality:           By working together as parents, teachers and students we have the power to build a better future for our children. It takes time to change a culture and we need to work together to change attitudes about bullying.

Myth #7          Kids will be kids.

Reality:           Bullying is a learned behavior.  That is why it is important we change attitudes toward violence.

Source: www.bullyfreealberta.ca

WHAT KIND OF BULLYING EXISTS?

There are 4 common types of bullying:

Verbal Bullying:        Name calling, sarcasm, teasing, spreading rumors, threatening, making references to ones culture, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, unwanted comments.

Social Bullying:        Mobbing, scapegoating, excluding others from a group, humiliating others, gestures or graffiti intended to put others down.

Physical bullying:     Hitting, poking, pinching, chasing, shoving, coercing, destroying, unwanted sexual touching.

Cyber Bullying          Using the Internet or text messaging to intimidate put down or spread rumors about someone.

Source: www.bullyfreealberta.ca

WHAT ARE THE WARNING SIGNS

(for parents and teachers) OF BULLYING?

• Withdrawal from family and school activities
• Shyness
• Stomachaches
• Headaches
• Not being able to sleep
• Sleeping to much
• Being exhausted
• Nightmares
• Social isolation
• Negative view of self
• Increasing difficulty with school achievement
• Giving excuses not to go to school

If bullying is not stopped, it also may hurt bystander, as they may feel that they may be the next victim.  Even if they feel badly for the person being bullied, they do not get involved in order to protect themselves or because they do not know what to do.

 

In the long run, children who learn they can get away with violence and aggression continue to do so as they experience a higher chance of getting involved in dating aggression, sexual harassment or criminal life.

Bullying effects learning because it causes stress and anxiety and makes it ore difficult for kids to concentrate and focus on learning.

Source: www.bullyfreealberta.ca   (Heart of the Matter, Alberta Education, 2005)

WHAT CAN SCHOOLS AND EDUCATORS DO ABOUT BULLYING?

They can teach students what to do:

• Be proud
• Speak to bully in a calm and assertive tone
• Tell the person who is bullying you to stop
• Walk away
• Ask a friend to help you
• Make sure you are part of a group
• Ask adults for help and keep asking until you get it.  Keep them informed.
• Avoid unsafe situations and identify a safe place you can go to if you are being bullied.
• Realize that it not worth getting hurt to save your possessions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My latest blog has been posted on the Huffington Post.  It is entitled “What is the purpose of testing?”

Go to HUffingtonpost.com and look me up to see all of my blogs.

The release of “A Nation at Risk”, in 1983 declared, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” Since its release, various constituencies have requested, and in some cases, demanded improvements in our educational system. And yet, almost 30 years later, reports continue to criticize the declining American educational system. The question to be asked is, who or what is driving this demand for educational reform?

Is it the governors who are demanding that schools need to be more effective while they are making draconian budget cuts eliminating teachers, closing schools and eliminating subjects that children come to school to enjoy?

Is it the regard for parents who work a 5-day workweek while their children attend school for only 4 days?

Is it the schools that are being asked to be globally competitive when they are closed every other Friday?

Is it the children who need individual attention but are sitting in classes where there are 39 other children sitting?

Is it the U.S. Department of Education who institutes a “Race to the Top” giving incentives to schools/districts who take the lid off of charter schools when only one out of five charter schools are performing better than traditional schools?

Is it the local superintendents who are eliminating sports, clubs, music, art and extra curricula activities because of the costs of bus transportation?

Is it the business people who are demanding that schools produce thinking, problem-solving productive citizens while supporting rote, regurgitating multiple-guess tests?

Is it educational leaders who support removing tenure from experienced classroom-trained professionals and are filling classrooms with lower-paid, less-experienced (in some cases, non-licensed) educators?

Is it the business community who are more interested in selling technology and high stakes tests than in improving instruction and learning?

What is driving educational reform in America are the financial pressures caused by politicians, business people, bankers, and financial managers.

Besides, children can’t vote!