Dropout.....to where???

Many years from now, educators will look back on 2001 as the beginning of the educational revolution. Our responsibilities as educational leaders immediately changed the moment No Child Left Behind went into effect. Schools were forced to face our alarming dropout rate and began to create programs that were aimed towards increasing the number of students who graduate. A tremendous amount of programs and practices have come to form since then, but their effectiveness has not yet been proven. The majority of school districts lack the financial and staff support that is needed to battle the dropout rate effectively and an increase in funding is nowhere in sight. Instead of holding our breath, it’s time we started attacking with the weapons we already have in our possession. While the statistics are always changing, our attention and focus must remain constant. Addressing three of the groups that are most at risk is a great start: students who have failed a grade prior to entering the tenth grade, students who go to school in “dropout factories” and students who are transitioning from one level of school to the next.

Even though funding is at a premium during these economic times, we must find a way to reward the teachers in our inner cities. A study by Alliance for Excellent Education found that thirteen percent of schools are responsible for fifty-one percent of our nation’s dropouts. These “dropout factories” must be the first thing we address if we want to increase the graduation rate. Most of these schools lack sufficient resources and are in desperate need of high-energy teachers who can relate to these students. New teachers often work the best in these situations due to their enthusiasm, but burnout is likely if they do not receive the proper support and positive reinforcement. Along with examining who is teaching at our “dropout factories”, we also need to look at what is being taught as these schools to ensure that their current curriculums are relevant to their surroundings. Students are much more likely to be engaged in learning when they believe what they are being taught will have real life applications after graduation.

An immense amount of studies investigate the importance of connecting with students during their transitional years of schooling. The middle school years, along with the first year of high school, have proven to be the time when most students decide to dropout. On top of getting through the year’s curriculum, teachers of these age groups also have the responsibility of making sure each student is comfortable inside their school’s walls. This is often impossible to achieve during a normal school day and it is a lot to ask of a teacher to put in multiple hours after school working with each student individually. Luckily for us as a nation, we have a large group of unemployed teachers that are looking for opportunities just like this to make an impact on student’s lives. After school programs could be created and could be orchestrated by these teachers. Middle school is an integral time for students to start getting involved in after school activities and creating more structure for this to take place will give students a sense of purpose.

While the statistics on the dropout rate can be overwhelming, an article titled, “Dropouts: Finding the Needles in the Haystack” brought up one statistic that caught my eye, “61% of students who are left back in any grade ninth or lower go on to drop out of school” (Spark, Johnson, Akos, 2010). Out of all the indicators that have been identified, this one is one of the easiest to track and address. Teachers have enough to worry about during those earlier years, so a great deal of responsibility should fall on the guidance department. High school guidance counselors focus on getting their students into college, so counselors at the middle school and elementary levels should spend most of their time working with those students who have had to repeat a grade level. Often times these students lack positive role models and mentors in their lives and guidance counselors can help fill that void. By engaging these students who are at risk at an early age, we can create an opportunity for them to excel once they reach high school.

As we begin to get rolling in the 21^st century, our efforts need to be focused on drastically improving our graduation rate. Focusing on the “dropout factories” is a great place to start making changes since they are responsible for more than half of our nation’s dropouts. Within these districts, addressing the students who have repeated grade levels prior to ninth grade will give us a specific target to begin our changes. With the ever-advancing technological world around us, blue-collar jobs are diminishing. Our advances in communication, research and entertainment have made drastic changes in the way we operate our everyday lives. We need to reform our education system to keep up with these changes and it all starts with helping our students who the most at risk.

A Blueprint for Reform

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is a promise to fix the educational system and provide students with a more complete education. The Act ensures all students will contribute as citizens and thrive in a global economy. As we all know, the uneducated people of the country will financially cost the general public more as they are more likely to end up in institutions and on welfare. The ESEA is going to produce well-rounded citizens that are knowledgeable in finance, world languages, technology, science, mathematics, etc. President Obama reassures us that the Act is a fix to the NCLB era, and it will support states, districts, schools, principals, and teachers with resources and materials needed to move students to being prepared for college and careers.

The Reform will set standards that prepare students for college and careers. As students enter college, we have come to know that not everyone that graduates from high school is fully prepared to enter. Therefore, there is going to be more money set aside and granted to educate and develop teachers using data-driven and researched-based programs for implementation to prepare students for post-secondary education. This Reform will also have goals and initiatives to get everyone in the educational process on board and helping with the education of the students. Parents, teachers, administrators, and everyone at all levels of education will be assisting with closing the achievement gap. Resources and materials needed to prepare students will be aligned with the state standards to ensure college and career preparedness.

The Reform will create a fair accountability system that recognizes and rewards growth and progress. Many grants are available and ready to be given to reward schools that increase student achievement and close the achievement gaps. Schools that are not completing these tasks year after year will be labeled as "Challenge Schools" and will be given grants to implement interventions that will increase student achievement. These schools will be identified by the state as the schools in the bottom 5% of performance (U.S. Department of Education). Again, the interventions need to be data-driven and evidence-based, as they should be. The Reform will be providing money to better inform families through the use of school report cards. These are going to provide graduation rates, funding information, achievement levels, etc., about their child's school. This will create a family friendly climate and hopefully get more families involved in their child's schooling. Along with this, promoting family literacy will be addressed, as there are adults and parents that are illiterate, yet we expect them to want to be involved in their child's learning. Helping them feel like they are a part of the school will increase their support for their child.

The Act will provide flexibility to state and local educators to innovate and create local solutions. Many states are expected to work with post-secondary institutions and universities to upgrade their existing standards and ensure the students will not need the remedial classes and coursework. It is wasted money and time when students spend semesters taking classes that will not and do not count towards graduation or their degrees. The states are also going to be rewarded for their schools' growth and progress. The Act is going to "reward success rather than only identifying failure" (U.S. Department of Education). It is more of a race to the top for all schools with incentives as success happens. The states are able to be flexible with their "reward funds", as well. This is incentive enough to make the states push their districts and school to do well and for teachers to push their students.

The Act will focus rigorous, meaningful interventions and support for the lowest-performing schools that have not demonstrated any progress. Title I money has been allocated for accurate assessments, student growth, better measure of states' districts, and how schools, principals, and teachers educate students. It will help teachers adjust and focus their teaching and provide information to the students and their families. There will also be additional assessments for high schools that include science, history, foreign language, and technical subjects. The states will also be given grants to help provide specifically for migrant students, homeless students, and neglected and delinquent students.

These goals for the ESEA are very powerful and supportive to teachers, schools, districts, and states. However, in my opinion, it sounds very expensive, and while I can't think of a time where there should be a price on education, we do have a regressing economy on our hands. The Reform Act seems to respect teachers and rewards them for their successes in the classroom and for the student growth.

Technology and Curriculum – Safety For Our Students

Technology is changing our country, so fast that the average American can’t keep up with all of the trends. In fact, it is impossible for most Americans to have the financial means to keep up with our changing technological world. Educators are aware of the fact that in order to meet the growing demands for innovative learners students must possess technological savvy. The problem becomes, as Doug Young, spokesman for the Lower Merion School District points out (2010), “mistakes might be made when combining technology and education in a cutting edge way.”

While technology strives to make educators lives easier in many ways, it creates anxiety in the lives of others. It is no wonder with words like cyber-bullying, cyber-threats and sexting that teachers worry about expanding their students knowledge base with an Internet full of up to date research, when the hazards they can be exposed to sound so intimidating. The solution might just lie in how we develop curriculum to teach children about safety on the Internet. The topic of Internet safety for students in schools is both interesting and debatable.

In West Deptford, New Jersey, student Internet browsing is being filtered for inappropriate content. This includes the laptop program that allows students to take computers home. According to Joel Brown, a member of the West Deptford Technology Team, “All web traffic goes through the school’s filter first and then gets thoroughly logged and reported upon.” Brown explained that the debate on student Internet use is usually framed in two opinions. One side believes that children should be protected from offensive content in any way possible, while the other side contends that through proper education on Internet security and safe practices children should be guarded as little as possible. The truth seems to be that because the Internet is such a large and dynamic space censoring becomes almost unattainable.

It is embedded in New Jersey State Curriculum Standards, that children, as young as second grade, are taught about safe, legal and ethical computer behavior. I currently work with fourth graders, so I found it interesting that Technology Standard 8.1.4.D.1 suggests that students are able to, “Explain the need for each individual, as a member of the global community, to practice cyber safety, cyber security, and cyber ethics when using existing and emerging technologies.”

How are we as educators applying this standard to our curriculum? Are we producing digitally responsible citizens and why is this important? The value of computer use in the classroom can be witnessed in multiple studies that suggest that the benefits include, “increased student motivation” (Gardner 1994), “a shift toward more student-centered classroom environments” (Stevenson 1998), and better school attendance (Stevenson 1998). With the evolution of Anti-Bullying Laws this September, several organizations have made advances in curriculum and lesson planning ideas to help educators teach students about digital safety in the classroom and at home. We must, as vigilant members of society, teach our children about the consequences of negligent computer use because the pros of accessing technology far outweigh the cons.

It is more important than ever to protect our students by teaching them how to self-filter dangerous information, avoid suspicious websites, and exchange safe information on the Internet. The world is changing and our children need to be able to evaluate and make critical decisions related to their technology choices as they advance in our increasingly technologically advanced world.

Technology and Curriculum: The Schools of Tomorrow

The students of today are changing and relying more on technology at an amazing rate. Our students are surrounded all the time everyday by technology; iPhones, laptops, Kindles, iPads, iPods….technology is their life. It’s all they have ever known. Some kids of today will never even know what a CD is, or a home phone for that matter. Often, they know more about technology than we, as educators, do. Said best, “Technology is affecting education in revolutionary ways, and the momentum toward these changes is irreversible” (Hardin 1998). Just a small example came when my eighteen month old Goddaughter, Ella, taught me how to turn off her iPad just the other day. Yes, I said “her iPad.” As you can see, calling the modern Internet an “information superhighway” is “the equivalent of someone in 1896 declaring that the airplane will be the canal system of the 20th century” (Dede, 1995).

Although our students are living in this fast paced technological world, educators are often left in the dust using outdated equipment. On the rare occasion that an educator’s school is updated with new equipment, sometimes the teachers don’t know how to use it, or the equipment is broken and awaiting repairs. But in a “perfect world” all educators would be well equipped with the newest technology that never breaks and they would have been fully trained in the proper use of it all.
If we want to truly engage our students in an environment that is really preparing them for the real world’s workforce we must have that “perfect world” scenario. The schools of tomorrow should be filled with curriculum that supports mostly technology-enabled project learning. This is the learning that prepares our nation’s future for their global competition best.

Furthermore, one of the most fundamental changes that I believe will, and should, occur in our curriculum of tomorrow is that the students will go from being the ones taught to being the ones who are teaching. The students should be teaching themselves, their peers and, as I am sure will happen, their educators new ways of utilizing the technology in our classrooms and our world in general. It is only through this student centered technology based project learning that our students will be able to keep up with other countries in the global economy.

Also, in our new curriculum of the future the use of technology must be absolutely routine for both students and educators. The effective use of technology in classrooms not only prepares students for the real world but it also contributes to more active student learning, more frequent feedback and interaction from the teacher and student peers, better connection to real-world experts, and it leads to largely decreased student behavior problems (Edutopia, 2008).

Overall, the world is changing and so too are our students. Technology will not wait for our curriculum and so our curriculum must change vastly and quickly to enable our students to keep up in with the global economy and competition. Technology and its use in the classroom should be one of the future educational leader’s top priorities.

References

Dede, C. (1995). Testimony to the U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Joint Hearing on Educational Technology in the 21st Century, Committee on Science and Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, October 12, 1995. Retrieved from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/congrpdf.htm

Edutopia. (2008). There’s a Place for Tech in Every Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction

Hardin, G. (1998). "ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: Extensions of "The Tragedy of the Commons"”. Science

Fixing and Preventing the Dropout Rate

The dropout Epidemic:
The dropout epidemic that is overtaking many of our public schools is one of those cases that is more misunderstood than understood. There are many factors that lead a student to dropout of school. In order to prevent students from dropping out, it is important to know first who is dropping out and the reason for this choice.
Who is Dropping Out:
In order to identify who is dropping out of school, it is imperative the we, as educators, understand the factors the lead students to drop out in the first place. Understanding and recognizing these factors is critical in our immediate prevention and fixing of this problem. As identified by (Macmillan, 1991; Rosenthal, 1998; Rumberger, 1995; Wolman, Bruininks, & Thurlow, 1989) there are two types of factors that contribute to the decision of a student to drop out of school.
Status Variables vs. Alterable Variables:
Status Variables are those factors identified as difficult or unlikely to change. These are the variables that educators, students and schools will have great difficulty in changing in order to assist an “at risk” student from staying in school. The status variables mentioned are as follows:
Age. Students who drop out tend to be older compared to their grade-level peers.
Gender. Students who drop out are more likely to be male. Females who drop out often do so due to reasons associated with pregnancy.
Socioeconomic background. Dropouts are more likely to come from low-income families.
Ethnicity. The rate of dropout is higher on average for Black, Hispanic, and Native American youth.
Native language. Students who come from non-English speaking backgrounds are more likely to have higher rates of dropout.
Region. Students are more likely to drop out if they live in urban settings as compared to suburban or nonmetropolitan areas. Dropout rates are higher in the South and West than in the Northeast region of the U.S.
Mobility. High levels of household mobility contribute to increased likelihood of dropping out.
Ability. Lower scores on measures of cognitive ability are associated with higher rates of dropout.
Disability. Students with disabilities (especially those with emotional/behavioral disabilities) are at greater risk of dropout.
Parental employment. Dropouts are more likely to come from families in which the parents are unemployed.
School size and type. School factors that have been linked to dropout include school type and large school size.
Family structure. Students who come from single-parent families are at greater risk of dropout.
The above mentioned items are contributing factors to students dropping out of school. These predictors are very difficult for an educator to change in any student; therefore, the student is very likely to drop out whether attention is given to the variable or not.
Alterable Variables: are those factors that are much easier to change and can usually be influenced by students, educators, parents, and the community (Macmillan, 1991; Rosenthal, 1998; Rumberger, 1995; Wolman, Bruininks, & Thurlow, 1989) The alterable variables are as follows:
Grades. Students with poor grades are at greater risk of dropout.
Disruptive behavior. Students who drop out are more likely to have exhibited behavioral and disciplinary problems in school.
Absenteeism. Rate of attendance is a strong predictor of dropout.
School policies. Alterable school policies associated with dropout include raising academic standards without providing supports, tracking, and frequent use of suspension.
School climate. Positive school climate is associated with lower rates of dropout.
Parenting. Homes characterized by permissive parenting styles have been linked with higher rates of dropout.
Sense of belonging. Alienation and decreased levels of participation in school have been associated with increased likelihood of dropout.
Attitudes toward school. The beliefs and attitudes (e.g., locus of control, motivation to achieve) that students hold toward school are important predictors of dropout.
Educational support in the home. Students whose families provide higher levels of educational support for learning are less likely to drop out.
Retention. Students who drop out are more likely to have been retained than students who graduate. Using National Education Longitudinal Study data, being held back was identified as the single biggest predictor of dropping out.
Stressful life events. Increased levels of stress and the presence of stressors (e.g., financial difficulty, health problems, early parenthood) are associated with increased rates of dropout.
The above variables are influential in a student making the decision to drop out of school; however, the difference between the alterable variables and the status variables is we can change the alterable variables in order to assist a student “at risk” of dropping out of school. If, as educators, we focus our attention to these two very unique variables, we may be able to truly assist students and increase school completion for many of our students.
Understanding the Variables:
The belief that students who are at risk are more likely to dropout is not accurate; in fact, as mentioned by Schargel & Smink, 2001 [t]he majority of dropouts are not those who seem to be most at risk. That is, although the dropout rate for Blacks is 50 percent higher than for Whites, and twice as high for Hispanics, 66 percent of the actual dropouts are White, while just 17 percent are Black and 13 percent are Hispanic. Moreover, most dropouts are not from broken homes, not poor, and not pregnant. Consequently, if our graduation rate is to climb to 90 percent, it will have to be achieved by putting greater emphasis on retaining students whose background and behavior are not generally thought of as the defining characteristics of students who drop out.
If our goal is to truly fix the drop out epidemic, the above statement is suggesting we focus our efforts on those students we are able to help by identifying the alterable variables. For too long we have focused our energy, our efforts and our money on changing variables that are not going to change. The outcome of these efforts: students continue to drop out. Schargel & Smink are suggesting it is time for our way of thinking about drop outs to change. We need to focus our attention on those students we can help. The expectation stated in Goals 2000 was to reach 90% school completion rate by the year 2000. Recent reports identify on 17 states reaching this goal (NCES 2002). Today, a student who does not complete high school is at an even greater risk of not finding employment that pays living wages. According to the Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention 80% of the individuals in prison do not have high school diploma. Therefore, it is now time to change our way of thinking and our focus on not just who is dropping out, but why they are dropping out. We need to fix the things we can in order to increase school completion. Failure to identify these variables in our students is keeping the status quo in check. We need to switch our focus to another group of drop outs; it is time to help those we can. If we show progress with this group, we may be able to give hope to those students who suffer from those status variables, which in turn will assist them in making a change for themselves.

Year Round School

Year-Round schooling is a term that has been tossed around for many years. The United States is one of the only countries that does not have year-round schools. Therefore, by putting year-round schools into effect, students gain the ability to have a more global educational experience. Students who attend year-round schools go to classes anywhere from six to nine weeks in a row, with two to four week vacations between class sessions. Some educators believe that this is the optimal way to enhance the learning process for students with the least amount of disruption possible.

There are several schools located in fast-growing areas that made the transition to year-round schedules as a way to ease overcrowding. When this happens, students are placed on a system called multi-tracking and they alternate tracking in and out of the school. This process keeps the buildings in constant use and students in this system are better accommodated by receiving more individualized attention and less competition between peers.

Some arguments in favor of year-round schools emphasize the fact that schools not in use during the summer are inefficient. These buildings remain vacant, but minimal to no activity at all is taking place. Taxpayers are still paying to help keep the schools running, but their children aren’t even using them at the time. Another problem with long summer vacation is many students forget the information they learned during the school year. By changing the school system to year-round schedules student retention rates may decrease. Further, remediation needs of students can be addressed during the school year as opposed to during summer programs.

Some other facts that support year-round schools are that shorter summer breaks will decrease the chance that students will incur summer learning loss. By decreasing summer learning loss, the number of students that are served in intervention programs may decrease. In addition, families that struggle to find childcare or to pay for childcare expenses during the summer will benefit from year-round schools, as will children in poor childcare settings. Lastly, family vacation time will be more evenly distributed throughout the year. This will make it easier for families to schedule their vacations and it will give students opportunity to regenerate more frequently. As a result, the need to re-teach skills after long vacations may be cut down and teachers will be better able to use classroom time more efficiently.

In conclusion, year-round school is a hot topic in the United States today. Many other countries work more efficiently and effectively with year-round school and students as well as their families may be better served by the change to year-round school. There are several reasons why year-round schools would benefit students in America such as, decreased retention rates, summer learning loss, and better accommodating the students. All in all, year-round schools should be seriously considered in America.

References

http://childparenting.about.com/od/schoollearning/a/year-round-school-pros-cons.htm

http://www.scholastic.com/resources/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-year-round-schools/

Blueprint for Reform

Gena Orazi

Blueprint for Reform Position Blog

10/22/11

           

In March of 2010, the Blueprint for Reform was created by the Obama administration (Department of Education, 2010). The principle ideas of the blueprint seek to fix the negative aspects of NCLB, but does President Obama’s blueprint accomplish this? There are compelling arguments for both sides.  This is a scary time to be a teacher. During my research of this topic I found that many are asking the same questions and have the same concerns: Are these reforms going to be “here today and gone tomorrow? If our students’ test scores aren’t high enough will we lose our jobs? Will the focus on test scores further narrow our curriculum even further?

            The Blueprint for Reform has undeniable strengths. While NCLB focused on test scores and numbers, the blueprint seeks to recognize gains and still offers rewards for schools that do not meet AYP. This is by far one of the blueprint’s biggest strengths. When only numbers and scores are taken into consideration, a student’s individual gains are not recognized, especially those students in special education and racial categories. The focus will be on growth not just achievement based on test scores, according to proponents of this initiative (Department of Education, 2010). Also the 2014 deadline has been extended to 2020, due to the fact that it is an unrealistic goal. Another strength is the new shared accountability system between states, districts, and schools. There are critics of the blueprint that argue it is too vague, but the supporters counter that argument by saying it is flexible. NCLB was rigid and punitive. The federal government is not giving every school once specific model to follow, but it gives local officials the opportunity to do what is best for each particular school and its students.

            There are some cons associated with the Blueprint for Reform. There are many that believe President Obama’s “plan to renovate a flawed law” is just “NCLB part two” (Schwartz, 2010). Although his plan offers students a well-rounded education, “in reality teaching such a variety of subjects in underfunded overstretched schools is impossible if students are also expected to ace standardized tests” (Schwartz, 2010). Also, some believe two of the four models in the blueprint actually do not reform schools that fail, but give up on them. If there isn’t improvement in a particular school, the state is able to turn it into a charter school or close the school altogether. Cuts to staff are a part of the models also. Energy would be focused on the schools that are truly failing, and that will involve dismissing many administrators and principals. Sam Chaltain, the national director of the Forum for Education and Democracy explained, “every school is different, so not all schools will be able to succeed with one of the four models. It’s discouraging to see that we’ve boiled it down to these four prescriptions. We’re still looking for simple answers to complex problems.” The grants for innovative teaching methods are a positive aspect of the blueprint, but more funding is given to charter schools for these proposed methods.

            On a personal note, I am a self-contained special education teacher. My students are in the 8^th grade and on average they are functioning on a 4 to 5^th grade level with some even lower. As mandated I am teaching them the regular education curriculum with modifications. This is quite a struggle for me. It was mentioned that this initiative is not as punitive as NCLB, but from what I read the message is still saying “teach to the test.” Well, how am I supposed to teach to a test that is written 3 to 4 grade levels above my students’ levels? Why am I teaching my students slope and y-intercept when they can’t even read the question independently? I am not saying that my students do not have the ability to make academic achievements and further their education. I am saying that they may never make “proficient” on a state test, and that does not mean that I am doing something wrong in my teaching. We need to make a change, and I may not have the answer, but I’m not seeing the proof that this blueprint truly takes into consideration our minority and special education groups and their need for different standards.

            So is this Blueprint for Reform the answer to some of the downfalls of NCLB? In my opinion it is too early to determine an answer to this complex question. There are still several weaknesses in this new blueprint, but there are also strengths. According to our president, in 2020 our students’ success and college completion rate will put the U.S. in the lead amongst other nations in the world. We shall see.