, , , , , , ,

Improving School Engagement through Reduced Punishment

On September 21st, 2012, the state of California signed into law AB 1729. Effective as of January 2013, this law aims to protect student’s rights against automatic and immediate expulsions and suspensions. The implementation of AB 1729 marks a significant shift from automatically punishing students for misbehaving[i]. Instead, AB 1729 requires that school officials first pursue alternative measures to punishment before turning to suspension and expulsions as a last effort. This shift has increased student participation and attendance by improving the social climate of schools through reduced conflict and behavioral issues.

The Previous Nature of Suspensions and Expulsions

Before the implementation of AB 1729, California Education Code 48900 gave the power of expulsions and suspensions to school officials. Code 48900 stated that pupils could be suspended or expelled simply if a superintendent or principle determined that a student committed a specific, non-violent act[ii].

Such non-violent acts included class disruptions and willful defiance[iii]. Under the previous Code 48900, school officials were allowed to turn to alternatives to expulsion and suspension for these non-violent acts. Prior to AB 1729, however, these school officials were not mandated to pursue alternative methods before resorting to suspension or expulsion.

Penalty Alternatives Under AB 1729

The 2013 implementation of AB 1729 transformed Code 48900 by requiring that principals and superintendents first use non-punishment methods before turning to suspension and expulsion. Schools are required to thoroughly prove and document these alternative means of correcting student behavior. All alternative measures taken must be documented on a student’s official record. These alternatives must be both age appropriate and personally designed to address the student’s specific behavioral problems[iv]. As outlined by AB 1729, these specific other means of correction include:

  • Programs that teach positive behavior
  • Conferences between school personnel, parents, and students
  • Participation in restorative justice programs
  • After school curriculum that targets behavioral issues with positive skills development
  • Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs

Punishment alternatives, such as these, were mandated in 2013 to reduce expulsion and suspensions, but just how successful have these policies been?

Reduced Punishment Drives Attendance and Engagement

Between 1970 and 2013, suspension rates in the United States more than doubled – from 3.7% to 7.5%. In 2012, when AB 1729 was signed, up to 400,000 students were suspended from school at least once per year. To track the impact of AB 1729, the California Department of Education began a series of case studies on select California school districts. One of these school districts with the greatest increase in attendance under AB 1729 was Tuolumne County[v].

In the 2011-2012 Tuolumne school year, 640 students were suspended and 46 pupils were expelled. By 2014-2015, only 373 students were suspended and a mere 15 were expelled. The Los Angeles Unified School District additionally experienced a similar phenomenon under AB 1729. Since the law’s 2013 implementation, LA Unified has experienced a 24% decline in suspensions and a 31% decline in expulsions[vi].

California school districts have seen these drastic drops in suspension and expulsion rates through turning to policies that teach and reinforce positive social behaviors and skills. When fighting, bickering, and disruptions occur in the classroom, schools no longer automatically punish students. Instead, schools have issued school-wide positive behavior, intervention, and SEL programs to correct negative behaviors and implicit biases that cause conflict[vii].

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is the process of teaching students to acquire and apply positive behavior skills and attitudes. These skills and attitudes include managing emotions, establishing positive relationships, and handling challenging social situations. SEL programs implemented in California under AB 1729 have reduced:

  • Disruptive behavior by 64%
  • Physically aggressive behavior by 45%
  • Discipline referrals by 43%

These declines in negative interactions and behaviors are due to schools using alternatives to expulsion and suspensions. These reduced punishments keep students in school and increase attendance by eliminating penalties that remove pupils from the classroom. By introducing practices that encourage positive behavior instead of punishing negative behavior, schools create a more engaging environment. Pupils in a positive social environment are less likely to act out in school and more likely to be excited about learning.

The SEL and positive alternative approaches to punishment that AB 1729 has introduced have not only driven suspension and expulsion rates down, but have created positive social environments where kids are excited to come to school and engaged in their learning.

About CoolSchool Central

CoolSchool Central aims to facilitate the transformation that Changes Futures by using SEL and video modeling. With CoolSchool Central, schools have the opportunity to save funding that can be invested back into the system to continually work towards positive behavioral development for students. Good for schools, good for students. Let’s help make this positive change together!

CoolSchool Central’s mission is to Change Futures by helping public schools create a safe, enjoyable environment where kids are excited about education. Studies show that the two key reasons why children don’t go to school are being afraid of being bullied at school and finding school to be boring. Using animated interactive programs, CoolSchool Central delivers SEL in an easy and engaging way to teach kids how to manage and navigate social interactions – creating truly CoolSchools.

/by
, , ,

Good Social Skills Are Pivotal in Academic Success

We’ve all heard the stories about the long-haired nerd who avoids other people, sticks to himself, and aces every course he takes. The research shows that academic achievement rarely works like that – especially for primary and secondary school age children. In fact, the research shows just the opposite: Students who are well adjusted and have strong relationships with their teachers and other students are more likely to do well in school than those who don’t.

Schools Can Create Supportive Environments
When we see children who are well-adjusted, have productive and high trust relationships with their teachers and fellow students, and perform well academically, we applaud the students. On the other hand, when a student is not well-adjusted, is suspicious of others, and performs poorly in school, we blame the child.

Some children may have an innate drive in one direction or another, but the major influences on children are their home lives and their schools. These are the influences that can “make or break” a child. It also means that schools have a far greater role in determining the success of their students than most people have thought. The environment schools promote has a dramatic effect on the success of their students. The academic performance of the student body tells far more about the schools than it does about the aptitude and attitudes of the students on the day they enter their schools.

Social Skills Are Latent in Children and Shaped by Schools
Social skills are entirely voluntary. Positive social skills benefit others. These skills are easy to recognize because others can observe students and recognize their:

• sense of self-awareness
• awareness of their larger social environments
• ability to control their own emotions
• propensity to build high-trust relationships with others
• tendency to consistently make responsible decisions

Because these behaviors are voluntary, the role the school plays in shaping these behaviors is all but invisible. Nevertheless, the impact of schools on students’ social skills is profound. Further, the impact of students’ social skills on their academic performance is also profound. If we place this in the longstanding “nature vs nurture” argument, the evidence is very clear: nurture far, far outweighs nature.

In communities where parents don’t provide the social skills training that is so vital to academic success, it falls to the schools to provide that training.

Schools set the stage for building positive social skills several ways. The most obvious way is by setting school rules for behavior in the classroom and on playground. These rules tell children how to distinguish right from wrong. These values are not intrinsic; they are taught.

But rules are not enough. Teachers and the administration need to enforce the rules consistently all the time. Enforcing the rules is a matter of discipline. But this is still not enough.

Teachers need to recognize and reward their students’ social behaviors. More than that, students must recognize the achievements of the other students. This recognition of positive social behaviors provides feedback to each student about how to behave. They have to learn what is anti-social and what is acceptable.

Students who bully others need to be called to account – and quickly. Students will recognize their schools’ failure to identify and correct inappropriate behaviors. If left unresolved, these misbehaviors will leave lasting impressions on young children that can lead to lack of motivation in school, trouble with authority figures, and perhaps even expulsion. Schools recognize this dynamic and are adopting social programs that promote positive growth in the classroom and minimize bullying on the playground.

Academic Performance and Social Behavior Are Tightly Linked
Research has shown a correlation between childrens’ academic performance and their social behavior. Students who exhibit mature social behavior often have better academic performance than those who disregard others. Children who have positive relationships with their teachers are more apt to learn and be open to academic help and feedback. Through social programs, teachers and administrators create environments that promote meaningful student-teacher relationships and foster communities of students who want to come to school each day.

Peer-to-Peer Relations Are as Important as Student-Teacher Relations
Positive peer interactions and student-teacher relationships promote positive social behaviors and reduce bullying among elementary school aged children. These interactions and relationships can be structured through positive social emotional learning environments. This type of environment will promote cooperative classroom settings that, in turn, improve academic motivation and eliminate bullying. Social programs have the potential to reach students who are on the path for expulsion before it is too late.

The Personal and Social Costs of Being Expelled from School Are Very High
Expelling students from school is a lengthy process. It often begins with chronic absenteeism. In extreme cases, students can be expelled for causing serious physical injury to someone else, carrying a dangerous object, possession of certain substances, robbery, extortion, or assault on a school employee. The principal and the district superintendent must agree that expulsion is the only viable course of action. Students who are expelled have generally been suspended several times.

Students who face expulsion often lack academic motivation. They are often distant from peers and don’t look for positive relationships with authority figures. According to the American Bar Association, these students are 3.5 times more likely to be arrested as adults. The American Psychological Association concluded that zero tolerance of misbehavior is ineffective and leads to higher rates of antisocial behavior in the future. Students who face expulsion are unlikely to finish high school. In fact, they tend to be headed toward a life of unemployment and crime.

Expulsions don’t just affect the students. They affect the entire community. Expelling students often leads to more crime in the community. This is particularly pronounced in communities with high school drop-outs rates.

Social Skills Must Be Taught; They are Not Innate
Social behavior is a skill like any other. Parents and teachers must reinforce these for children to see them as normal and natural.

The University of Maryland’s Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology conducted research that demonstrated how crucial it is to build positive student-teacher relationships and improve the classroom climates through social development programs. Interactive social development programs stimulate emotional learning through cognitive development and interactions with other children. These interactions are most effective at developing positive social environments when students reinforce each other. This promotes cooperation and trust. Social programs also build a sense of community in the classroom. This comfort and positivity in the classroom motivates students to come to school.

The research also shows that when students show positive social behavior they are more likely to be successful academically. Social programs build healthy student-teacher relationships that foster better learning. Social programs condition students to receive acknowledgement for academic progress and good behavior from both their peers and their teachers. This, in turn leads students to be more invested in their education.

In Summary
When schools implement social development programs in their classrooms, children are conditioned to associate the positive social environment with learning and interacting in their classrooms. This, in turn, promotes school attendance and academic success.

/by
, , ,

The Unintended Consequences of School Suspensions

While school suspensions aim to correct problem behavior, the results are often quite the opposite. Students who face suspension are more likely to end up struggling academically, face multiple suspensions, and are more likely to drop out and/or end up in jail.

Additionally, the absenteeism caused by suspension takes funding away from schools—in the hundreds of millions of dollars every year. This only exacerbates the issue as lack of resources makes it harder for schools to address problem behavior by students.

A vicious cycle can form where a student does not correct the problem behavior, faces multiple suspensions and eventually expulsion, and then moves to another school where the cycle continues. This not only likely results in students dropping out, but also leaving schools with low attendance, further reducing the funding they get.

Most educators understand this, but are at a loss for practical and effective solutions for correcting problem behavior without expelling or suspending students.

The Process of Suspending a Student

The decision to suspend a student comes about when a principal considers that the safety, care, and wellbeing of the student, staff, or other students is at jeopardy. Suspension of a student is typically considered when the student is involved in:

  • An act of violence
  • The possession of a firearm or prohibited weapon (including knifes)
  • The possession of illegal substances
  • An act of serious criminal behavior related to the school

Before a student can be put on suspension, a principal must consider the age, disabilities, and developmental level of the student, as well as the student welfare strategies that have been implemented, such as seeing the school counselor or nurse.

Based on the severity of the student’s actions, suspension can be broken down into short and long-term suspensions. A short-term suspension is when a student is suspended no more than four school days at a time. Short suspensions are typically implemented for cases of continued disobedience and aggressive behavior.

For a long-term suspension, the principal can impose up to 20 school days of suspension. If the behavior continues after two long suspensions, then the student is subject to expulsion from the school.

Why Out-of-School Suspensions Don’t Work

It is highly likely that a student facing suspension already holds a negative view towards attending school. To such as student, a suspension does not appear as punishment, or time to reflect on his or her actions, but instead as vacation time away from school and supervision.

Suspensions do not teach students how to correct the problem behavior, nor addresses underlying issues that may be present. More often than not, the student returns and reoffends, making time away from school only exacerbate the problem at hand, as noted in the 2012 Journal of School Violence.

On the other hand, the school does not have much of a choice. While alternative steps such as counseling can be taken, these require the student’s participation in order to be effective, as well as large sums of funding needed to support behavior-correcting solutions that may simply be nonexistent. Furthermore, discipline procedures are set by the school boards and lawyers, and removing a student appears to be simpler and more appealing than seeking alternative means of correcting the behavior. In the end, suspended students are often left without the support they need to make real changes.

The New Attitude Towards Suspensions in California

The attitudes towards student suspensions are changing. In 2014, California passed a bill, developed by the State Board of Education, that eliminates willful defiance or disruption of school activates as a reason to expel students, and shifts the focus of remedies towards positive reinforcement. This bill, known as Assembly Bill 420, came as a result of a push to keep students in the education system and to reduce suspensions in the state.

Before 420, The “act of willful defiance” made up almost half of suspensions, ranging from reasons such as not turning in homework to disrespecting a teacher. After the bill came into law, more than 45% of districts received the positive ratings of “blue” or “green”, indicating favorable performance under the new suspension standards. The total number of suspensions fell from 709,580 in 2011-12 to 503,101 in 2013-14—a 29% reduction–based on data from the California Department of Education.

Moreover, in Bellflower Unified School District, the reported number of instructional days missed because of suspension in 2015-2016 dropped by 85%, compared to 2014-2015. These improvements came after the new legislative approach that focuses on investing in student-teacher relationships, positive reinforcement for behavior through Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, and investing in elementary school counselors.

Additionally, in Stockton Unified School District, multiple elementary schools implemented “classroom circles” where students can make amends for poor behavior towards others and work through conflicts. These schools saw referrals to the office and suspensions drop by 70% and nearly 50%.

Nonetheless, the absenteeism costs schools in California hundreds of millions of dollars. Before the new legislative rollout in 2014, public schools in San Diego County reported a loss of $102 million dollars in state funding because of absenteeism. The attendance-based funding formula forces schools to track each students’ attendance, excused, unexcused, and suspension related combined. Therefore, while the number of suspensions are seen to be improving, the funding for schools are still constantly at risk because of chronic truancy. The new legislation is working to battle suspensions, but students still lack motivation to regularly attend school. This is a problem that districts have been facing at increasing rates since 1994.

Changing the Social Climate

There is a large push in the education system to move away from the penalty approach towards the restorative practices that bring involved students together, along with adults and peers, to talk through conflict. However, the students involved must be willing to participate to make the practice effective.

Nonetheless, the restorative process and formal Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support method have shown to improve the climate of schools in California. These methods encompass meditation, youth mentoring, and classroom circles to help keep students on track academically in addition to efforts to improve student-teacher relationships. This is a facet of support that can reduce classroom chaos, instill more respect towards the learning environment, and promote attendance.

If suspensions are the only practical option, in-school suspensions are recommended so that the student can remain under school supervision and receive attendance.

Overall, the focus should be on changing the social climate of the school. If students feel respected, safe, and comfortable in their learning environment, then they are more likely to participate in positive reinforcement methods and more regularly attend school.

About CoolSchool Central

CoolSchool Central aims to facilitate the transformation that Changes Futures by using SEL and video modeling. With CoolSchool Central, schools have the opportunity to save funding that can be invested back into the system to continually work towards positive behavioral development for students. Good for schools, good for students. Let’s help make this positive change together!

CoolSchool Central’s mission is to Change Futures by helping public schools create a safe, enjoyable environment where kids are excited about education. Studies show that the two key reasons why children don’t go to school are being afraid of being bullied at school and finding school to be boring. Using animated interactive programs, CoolSchool Central delivers SEL in an easy and engaging way to teach kids how to manage and navigate social interactions – creating truly CoolSchools.

/by
, , ,

Survey: School Social Climate and Bullying

In conducting an initial bullying survey of 92 respondents, we sought to better understand the social climate present within different school campuses, in addition to the currently existing initiatives and challenges schools face in implementing successful SEL and anti-bullying programs. We also gauged the potential interest schools may have in implementing Cool School, a program which combines SEL and anti-bullying.

Of the survey respondents, 83.78% were principals and 14.86% were assistant principals. A majority, 70.27%, worked in elementary schools, while 28.38% worked in middle schools. In surveying the social climate, morale, and absenteeism in schools, the ratings given by respondents was fairly mixed among all grade levels.

Overall Findings

Overall, ratings were leaning more positively toward extremely good and fairly good. In rating social climate, there were no respondents that felt their school’s climate to be extremely bad, indicated by a rating of 5.

School Social Climate

A quarter of respondents found their school climate to be extremely good (24.68%; rating 1), and 48.05% found their social climate to be fairly good (48.05%; rating 2).

In terms of morale, 54.55% of respondents felt that the morale of school staff as a whole was fairly good (rating 2), with 20.78% of respondents finding it to be extremely good (rating 1).

Student Morale

The evaluation of the morale of students was positively skewed towards fairly good as well (53.25%; rating 2), with the second highest rating being extremely good (27.27%; rating 1).

Absenteeism

In regards to absenteeism, other than a single respondent, most of the survey takers indicated experiencing low levels of absenteeism within their school districts (42.86%; rating 2 and 27.27%; rating 1).

SEL Initiative

In terms of currently operating SEL programs and general school funding, half of respondents stated that their school had an SEL initiative program currently in place. For the 50% that had an SEL program, 64.29% of them had an SEL program at the district wide level.

School Funding

Nearly half of respondents (45.45%) stated that state funding for their school was based solely on attendance, while 36.36% stated that it was attendance and enrollment in tandem. It should be noted, however, that the 82.43% of respondents from California gave mixed and occasionally contrasting responses on how state funding was issued and utilized in their state.

Bullying

When surveyed on bullying issues and programs, 44.59% of respondents felt that bullying presented a somewhat serious challenge in their school district. It should be noted that this marked recognition of bullying as a problem in schools contrasts sharply with respondents positively rating the social climate of their facilities.

Despite nearly three quarters of respondents evaluating their school’s climate as extremely good or fairly good, bullying is still identified as a severe issue in nearly half of these same respondents.

Survey takers stated that the types of bullying that concerns them the most is verbal (78.38%), spreading rumors (52.70%), cyber (44.59%), physical (39.19%), exclusion (31.08%), and threats (27.03%). Approximately 7% participants showed concern in almost all categories (excluding damage).

Bullying Prevention Programs

Having recognized bullying as a notable challenge, nearly three quarters of respondents (70.27%) have already implemented programs to prevent bullying in their schools. Of the remaining respondents, 20.27% are currently in the process of implementation and an additional 6.76% have yet to implement a program in their school, but would like to in the near future. Of the programs already in place, 89.86% are ongoing programs.

The majority of schools with one-time programs would like to change over to an ongoing program.

In regards to who the program is designed for, respondents were fairly divided in terms of which grade levels programs were directed towards (8.57% for K-2, 31.43% for 3-4, 27.14% for 5-6, and 32.86% for 6+).

Accessibility of Bullying Prevention Programs

Over half of respondents (61.43%) noted that a significant challenge for these programs in their districts is a lack of accessibility for students and parents. Of the programs currently in operation, 60.98% were accessed only in the classroom through either one-on-one counseling (17.07%) or through PBIS/group counseling (17%). An additional factor barring accessibility is the fact that many schools (81.82%) received no state funding for their program. Of the schools receiving funding, monetary sources that were identified included funding from the district (41.67%) and from grants (25%).

Measuring Outcomes

In measuring the effectiveness of these programs, 64.18% already measure the outcome of their program, while 26.87% do not but would like to. In terms of frequency of measurement, 69.05% measure the outcome of their programs more frequently than once a year, and 19.05% measure annually. There are various ways that schools measure their programs. 35.71% measure the outcome through ongoing evaluation, 26.19% through analyzing changes of other data they gather, and 16.67% use other measures like discipline referrals or a combination of surveys, ongoing evaluation, and data analysis.

Cost of Programs and Lack of Funding

When prompted if they had any potential interest in a complementary program to their existing ones, 68.75% of respondents were not interested. Reasons for not wanting to complement the program included the additional cost/lack of funding, already having several other programs in place, or the need for district approval. However, 43.08% of respondents stated that they would be interested in a program combining SEL and anti-bullying. For the 56.92% that were not interested in this combined program specifically, reasons included the costs of implementing a new program or the existence of an already working program.

/by
, , ,

Addressing Teacher Turnover in Public Schools

Teacher Turnover rates are at an all-time high in public schools, and they are disproportionately impacting kids from low-income households.

“When I applied for my job there were 70 applicants; when we advertised for new teaching positions last year there were three. The drop in numbers is scary – maths and English are struggling to recruit…” remarks Jonathan, teacher and head of his department for five years. Yes, it is getting harder and harder to recruit teachers for our public schools.

Here is what the Federal data tells us:

  • Over 17% of new teachers leave their jobs within four years. Over a quarter of these teachers leave involuntarily due to budget constraints or performance levels.
  • Teachers are more likely to leave if they are over the age of thirty and in their second career.
  • Male teachers are also more likely to leave their careers, as well as Alternative Certification Program teachers. For example, in the year 2011-2012, twenty-one percent of the Alternative Certification Programs teachers left their careers verses the sixteen percent of traditionally certified teachers.
  • Teachers with their first year in a high-poverty area are also more likely to quit or transfer to a more affluent area.

One of the problems that new teachers encounter is the stark contrast between what they envisioned their lives would be as a teacher verses the reality of actually teaching in our public schools. New teachers become overwhelmed by the basic fundamentals of the education system including standards, formal assessments, benchmark tests, collection of data & analysis, phone calls to parents, variability within student comprehension & ability, and advance curriculum planning.

To the new teachers, there seems to be an improper balance between time spent teaching, paperwork, and personal time—creating disillusionment, particularly for new teachers.

Gaby Proctor, 22, former teacher-in-training who quit after three months in the program says, “Now I’m going to work, doing my work and working hard, and I can go home and I don’t have to worry about it at home. There was no downtime with teaching. You have to take it home with you, you don’t have a choice. I have mental health issues anyway, with depression and anxiety disorders, and I found it made them so much worse. The pressure, it’s crazy.”

The Tragedy of Poverty

The real problem, however, is lack of funding, which is especially apparent in poorer areas.

“Low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places, policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it,” says former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The highest teacher turnover rates happen in the very areas that need good teachers—high-poverty areas in inner cities and rural districts.

For example, one reason well-funded schools attract highly qualified teachers is better work conditions. The schools are cleaner, well maintained, and well-provisioned with teaching supplies.

In the Teachers College Record Study of Teaching Conditions in Massachusetts Schools, it was found that 53% of the teachers in more affluent areas believed that their school is “a good place to work and learn,” while only 32% of teachers in the areas with the highest degree of poverty believed the same.

Unfortunately, far too often, socio-economic conditions become reliable predictors of student success.

Experienced Teachers are Leaving

Many teachers within high-poverty districts are leaving these schools. Often, these teachers relocate to school districts in more affluent areas, with better performing students, and less ethnic diversity. In 2013, The American Educational Research Journal stated that this “…results in organizational instability and concentration of less experienced, lower performing teachers, both of which hurt student achievement.”

Low Salary

The “Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the Five Years,” study focused on new teachers that began their careers in 2007-2008. A growing percentage of the teachers did not choose to continue their careers: 10% of teachers did not continue teaching in 2008-2009. This increased to 12% in 2009-2010, then 15%in 2010-2011, and 17% in 2011-2012.

A big reason for the turnover was salary. The study observed that 97% of teachers whose salary their first year was $40,000 or more continued teaching in 2008-2009. Furthermore, 89% of these teachers continued teaching into 2011-2012.

By contrast, only 89% of teachers whose salary their first year was less then $40,000 continued teaching in 2008-2009. This number dropped further to 80% of teachers who continued teaching into 2011-2012.

Wealthier schools with proper funding were able to afford to provide higher salaries. Therefore, they were able to attract and retain more qualified teachers. This further translated to better stability and moral, eventually resulting in more successful students – a sharp contrast to their cohorts in poorer areas.

The Vicious Cycle of Lack of Funding

Lack of funding creates a vicious cycle for schools in lower-income districts:

  • Because of the way schools are funded through local property taxes, these schools already start with less funding when compared with their counterparts in more affluent suburbs.
  • As a result, they have difficulty providing the salary or the working conditions necessary to attract high-quality teachers, or retain them once hired.
  • This high turnover of teachers only exacerbates the truancy rates that these schools already experience. The higher truancy now costs these schools sorely needed Federal funding.
  • With still lower funding, these schools continue to struggle, and lose teachers
  • This results in classroom disruptions, bullying and harassment, further leading to penalties and more truancy.

And the vicious cycle spirals down.

A Solution with a Catch

What can our public schools do to reverse this trend, and attract and retain high-quality teachers?

We know mentoring by seasoned older teachers helps. It is not unusual for new teachers to feel overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to do each day, without seeming to make any apparent impact.

“If I was having a problem with a child, someone would come into the room to observe and give me advice. I felt like they had my back,” says Jennifer Scoggins, 32, a teacher in New York, who is also on her way towards getting her Ph.D.

There is research evidence to support that mentoring programs work. In 2008-2009, 92% of teachers with mentors continued teaching into their second year compared to 84% without mentorship. In 2011-2012, these numbers 86% compared to 71% without a mentor. The results of this study induced the Federal Government to invest $21 million to create twenty-eight teacher-residency programs that provide prospective teachers with hands-on experience.

However, there is catch here. An increasing number of experienced teachers are leaving their teaching careers, resulting in a shortage of mentors for the programs.

“I can’t see myself doing this until the current retirement age. I can see teachers, working early mornings, late nights, demanding days, at 68 years old… I can see teachers dying in the classroom, I really can,” says Graham, 30, teacher and assistant head of her school.

So, what now?

Changing the Social Climate

As discussed above, schools in poorer areas have especially hard time recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. We also showed that this creates a vicious cycle that only deteriorates with time. So, how can these schools turn this situation around?

We know the answer lies in better funding, which would help create a better environment for both students and teachers. However, clearly there is not much that schools can do about  state and local funding. That formula is out of their control.

These schools, however, can do something about Federal Funding–if they can reduce their truancy and bullying rates. In California, public schools lose over $1 billion in funding each year to truancy alone. The vast majority of the schools that lose such funds are in low-income areas. Keeping this funding would go a long way in creating the climate that is conducive to high quality education.

The key is to create a positive social climate that is attractive to both teachers and students. But, how do we do that?

What if we get these kids to want to come to school and stay in class without disrupting? How can we make learning more accessible and more fun?

One way this can be done is through an emerging concept called Interactive Learning, which is more engaging and more effective than traditional teaching methods. Through the use of interactive animations and video modeling, students are able to grasp complex concepts and place them in real world situations, building strong cognitive skills. With interactive learning, real-life concepts become balanced and aligned with a thriving classroom atmosphere that includes teamwork and positive behavior, improving the educational climate for teachers and students.

This is why interactive learning has been proven to be an effective mechanism for delivering Social Emotional Learning (SEL), which can ultimately change behavior within the student population, leading to a reduction in bullying, classroom disruption, and absenteeism. Improve absenteeism and reduce bullying, and funding will begin to improve.

About Us

CoolSchool develops video based interactive lessons for teaching Social Emotional Learning, reducing bullying and absenteeism in public elementary schools.

Contact us today for a demo of the suite of products that significantly reduce both absenteeism and bullying.

/by
, , ,

Interactive Learning Is Here

cute elementary schoolboy using a tablet computer in classroom

Recent advancement in teaching methodology has created a new phenomenon called “interactive learning.”

Although, traditional teaching methods have generally claimed the foreground of the education system, there is a visible notion of change that has created a pathway for “interactive learning” to develop and expand.

Beginning at a young age, students are encouraged to use physical practices of memorization.

“Copy each word five times.”

Often, students are assigned to draft a set of words and definitions a particular number of times. If you’re familiar with the American School System, you probably remember doing this yourself. There is, in fact, no beneficial agenda behind this mundane, repetitive work. The theory remains that the physical movement (writing) enhances recollection, as it begins to include not only your brain but your body, as well.

Although this practice has been in place for countless years, critics of this theory still remain at large.

Interactive learning is more effective than traditional learning. Recent studies and reports support this claim.

An article by Richard E. Mayer[1], “Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?” observes and explores the idea of effective interactive learning. Mayer examines the best way to explain “cause-and-effect systems” to University students – for example: “how a pump works, how the human respiratory system works, or how lightning storms develop.” One idea that he draws upon is “multimedia presentation of explanations in visual and verbal formats.” Mayer illustrates this concept by explaining how a pump works through both visual and verbal representations. He goes on to collect data to support the use of this technique.

In support of the effectiveness of his technique, Mayer finds that students who were shown visual and verbal formats produced “75% more creative solutions on problem-solving transfer tests than did students who received verbal explanations alone”. His next review, including 10 studies, showed a result of “50% more creative solutions to transfer problems when verbal and visual explanations were coordinated (integrated group) than when they were not coordinated (separated group).” His last review also supports these findings, but additionally finds that these effects were most significant on students with “low prior knowledge and high spatial ability”. Mayer’s studies prove that the best way  to explain cause-and-effect to students is through verbal and visual multimedia combination.

Another research study[2], “Boys’ and Girls’ Use of Cognitive Strategy When Learning to Play Video Games” by Fran C. Blumberg and Lori M. Sokol, proposes that children also use a significant amount of cognitive strategies when they interact with media, for example video games. In this study 2nd & 5th grade students were asked what they did to learn the video game that they were provided with. Their responses were recorded as either “external” or “internal,” regarding whether they looked within themselves for answers or sought out other sources for help “(i.e., reading a manual vs. asking for help, respectively)”. Children who played these games more often, as well as older children in general, became more likely to use internal problem-solving skills, supporting the idea that video learning promotes self-sufficiency.

/by
, ,

Educational Funding and our Public Schools

Do you know which sector of the US economy is worth $1.3 trillion dollars? Here’s a hint: it is the second largest economic sector in the United States, claiming almost 9% of the US GDP.

Yes, it is the education sector, comprising of 100,000 public schools, 30,00 private schools, and 4,000 charter/other k-12 schools—all leading into a total of $1.3 trillion-dollar giant sector of our economy.

But, is that the whole story? If the education sector is worth such a large monetary number, why are especially public school educators feeling the pinch of the budget in their schools? How much of this money is actually being allocated to individual districts and schools? Why are there inconsistencies with the values of these numbers and the district-level experiences?

Whether schools have sufficient funding to successfully fulfill their mission of educating students depends on at least the following factors:

  • The Sources of Funding
  • Factors that affect the allocation of these funds

Both have their own challenges and we will examine each in turn.

Variability in the Availability of Funding

According to Marguerite Roza, Director of the Edunomics lab at Georgetown University, the amount of dollars that school districts spend is more a function of available dollars than actual cost of educating students. School Districts typically will spend what they get and that depends on sources of funds. If a school districts funding source is more State than local government (property tax), the school district will likely get less funding, and spend less. Therefore, the largest spending school districts are in areas of high-property tax value.

The unit of measure of public school funding is money allocated per pupil. The chart below shows the funding rates from 2006 through 2014 (adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars. Source: The US Census)

US k-12 Education Spending Per Student

US k-12 Education Spending Per Student

This chart holds true for nearly every state—funding was highest during the early days of the Great Recession due to the impact of the Recovery Act, and slipped down each year after that.

Where the state provides the vast majority of funding for schools, the disparity between school districts is minimal. For example, in Vermont, the State provides 87.3% of the funding for public schools.

On the other, the state of Illinois only provides 32.5% of the funding and schools have to obtain the rest from local sources. In such a case, the school districts in the more affluent neighborhoods with higher property tax rates are significantly more funded than those in poor neighborhoods. For example, Fairfax VA public schools received only $2,764 per pupil from the State, but provided nearly $10,000 per student, while Price William County, while receiving the same funding level from the State of VA, was able to provide only $4,813 per student.

Unless states change their funding model, this disparity between school districts found in rich and poor neighborhoods will continue to persist.

The balancing story so far has come from Federal aids that target these poor communities.

Why This Matters

According to the a 2012 report by the Alert Shanker Institute, author of the report and Rutgers University Professor Bruce Baker stated, “Sustained improvements to the level and distribution of funding across local public school districts can lead to improvements in the level and distribution of student outcomes.” The report continues, “Schooling resources that cost money, including smaller class sizes, additional supports, early childhood programs and more competitive teacher compensation (permitting schools and districts to recruit and retain a higher-quality teacher workforce), are positively associated with student outcomes.”

Clearly, more funding for schools generally means better outcomes for students.

But the challenges that poor school districts face do not stop with just the sources of funds. It is further exacerbated by how those scarce resources are allocated.

States Consider Allocating funds by Attendance

More and more states are moving from funding based on enrollment funding which is based on student attendance.  With this change, state funding is being distributed differently throughout regional school districts, placing a numerical value on the head on each child, approximately $48.30 per student.

Unfortunately, this is a nationwide problem that is causing a drain on the education system.

What is the dollar value of each student? According to KPBS and the Watchdog Institute: $5,230.

Not just an empty seat.

  • One sophomore at Lincoln High School in Southeast San Diego is reported as having missed 87 days of school, “or nearly half of the 10th grade,” totaling a loss of -$2,464.71 of funding.
  • In one school year (2009-2010), the San Diego Public Schools have reported a loss of “at least $102 million in state funding because of absences.”
  • Five years of this chronic absenteeism has cost this school district a total of “$624 million.”

The vast majority of chronically absent kids are those who would benefit the most from attending school—children from poor households.

It is doubly daunting for school districts in poorer districts, who are already lack the funds necessary to create the ideal learning environment, further lose funds due to absenteeism, which is likely at least partially caused by the lack of funds to start with.

This is a vicious cycle within which poor schools are trapped—one problem causing another, which feeds into yet another and so on.

Net gain vs. social gain

Not only does absenteeism cause a loss funding, but also a loss of student learning potential, causing students to have lower testing scores, individually and district-wide. Studies also show that students from low-income families are “more likely to be absent from school and to experience greater losses in achievement for each missed day of school.”

What This Means

According to Sam Matteson, “consistent attendance helps students lay a foundation for the development of more complex skills. Poor student attendance is a reliable predictor of failure to graduate from high school, as well as the odds of early college success.”

The Children’s Aid Society reports

  • “75% of chronically absent sixth graders drop out before graduation”
  • “80% of juveniles arrested in New York City have a history of poor attendance”

Clearly, improving attendance and reducing chronic absenteeism is one of the most effective initiatives that schools can undertake to improve overall positive outcomes for students.

The question is: how do schools do that?

About Us

Cool School, by The Social Express, is the next generation of Social Emotional Learning

and Anti-Bullying solutions.  Cool School was developed by psychologists and is based on proven video modeling techniques, which engage students while providing a safe place for students to learn how to communicate effectively.

/by
,

Video Modeling as a Powerful Educational Tool

As technology begins to play a significant role in the education system, video modeling becomes the new and enhanced way of teaching, transforming learning into an interactive and engaging model that motivates students to learn, increasing their comprehension of the subject. Unfortunately, there is still some headway to be made. Critics of the system, claim otherwise. Researchers, however, are working hard to prove the beneficial mechanics of the video modeling system.

A study conducted by Multimedia University and Daffodil International University at the primary school Ahsania Mohila Mission High School in Dhaka, Bangladesh tested these statements. Students were taken and divided into three sections: traditional learning, visual learning, and blended learning. These three groups were taught about the solar system according to their technique, and then tested on their comprehension and attention to the subject matter. The results of this study showed that the students were “enthusiastic” about learning, and wanted to see “more” of the video, when it was stopped.

The results of the study varied as such:

  • In a traditional learning environment, eleven students gave 6-10 correct answers
  • In the video modeling system, fourteen students gave more than 5 correct answers
  • In the blended learning environment, most of the students gave 11-15 correct answers

As you can see, one significant difference is defined within the blended learning environment, where the students were exposed to the video modeling system of the solar system, as well as teacher facilitation of the material. These results are further supported by a claim, also the basis of this study, made by Rebeka Lukman , who studied “non-traditional learning methods,” suggesting that there is no difference between “face-to-face” learning and the “online system,” other than discussion facilitation. 

Not only did these children learn, but they also had fun and played along the way, engaging the children’s attention, but also making them feel more involved in the classroom. A study by Yigal Rosen , on the “effects of an animation based on-line learning environment” affirmed this outcome.  Rosen gathered four hundred and eighteen, 5th and 7th grade students for the duration of a 2-3-month study. These students then participated in a once a week, video-modeling lesson based on science and technology. The study examined the following questions:

  1. “What is the effect of the environment on transfer of knowledge, within the context of science and technology learning?”
  2. “What is the effect of the environment on motivation for science and technology learning?”

These students were then asked six questions based upon the “earth and space or materials and their properties,” and then given a short questionnaire to test the amount of interest the children showed in learning more about the subject with statements such as “I enjoy learning science and technology”, reporting on scale of 1-5, with “1= strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree.” The results of this study showed that children were not only interesting in learning about science and technology, but they changed their perception on the idea of learning, itself.

Video Modeling and Social Emotional Learning

However, the reach of video modeling is not limited to academics. Students can also benefit in grasping ideas that are a bit more abstract, such as emotional learning – becoming more confident and empathetic.

One study, by researchers at Texas Tech University, tested this statement. Researchers gathered “127 preschoolers between the ages of 2 to 6, plus one parent per child,” with “two-thirds” of the group being students from low-income families. These participants were then divided into four groups.

1.Children who watched “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood” with their parent/guardian, and then continued to discuss the topics

2. Children who watched the show with their parents, but did not partake in discussion

3. Children who watched the show by themselves, without discussion

4. Children who watched a documentary on nature

The students were then presented with two sets of puppets and asked to point to the one they relate to the most, with statements, such as “I am good at making friends” or “I am not good at making friends” being attributed to them, and tested on their “empathy, emotional recognition and self-efficacy.” Results showed that the students that benefited the most were the children with “regular parent-child communication” about television. This statement is also true for children of poverty, as well as their parents, who benefit from learning socio-emotional skills they may have missed out on, due to a generational history of poverty. Just as children are able to identify themselves within these young characters and their new experiences, the parents are also able to model their own behavior to the adult characters in the show

These benefits continue to affect another group of children who may have problems developing their social and emotional skills, children on the autism spectrum. This is due to the design of each episode, basing its foundation on learning “a skill or experience,” by demonstrating a skill and then asking the child to partake in the experience. This was tested in a study conducted on “two high-functioning 5-year-old boys with ASD,” where they were each asked to watch Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, without any adult intervention, and observed their replication Daniel’s skill set. The results showed both of the boys attempted and succeed in carrying out the steps by Daniel, in this case, trying a new food, reinforcing the results of the other studies by showing how video modeling enhances learning and builds a critical foundation in aiding children to form cognitive and social functioning.

This set of research proves how technological advancement, such as video modeling, can help further the learning process of children and engage them in ways where traditional learning falls short.  There appears to be sufficient evidence to warrant further exploration of how video modeling can play a powerful role in General Education, especially in elementary and early childhood education.

About Us

Cool School, by The Social Express, is the next generation of Social Emotional Learning and Anti-Bullying solutions.  Cool School was developed by psychologists and is based on proven video modeling techniques, which engage students while providing a safe place for students to learn how to communicate effectively.

/by