Thought-provoking to say the least…
News & Current Issues
Thought-provoking to say the least…
August 11, 2014
Original Article Here: http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/08/11/obama-signs-autism-renewal/19573/
With little fanfare, President Barack Obama signed a reauthorization of the nation’s primary autism legislation that includes more than a billion dollars in federal funding for the developmental disorder.
Signed on Friday, the law calls for $260 million annually through 2019 for autism research, prevalence tracking, screening, professional training and other initiatives.
The measure known as the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education and Support Act, or Autism CARES, serves as a renewal of what’s previously been called the Combating Autism Act. That law, which was first enacted in 2006, was set to expire September 30.
read on for more details: http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/08/11/obama-signs-autism-renewal/19573/
Summary from Autism Speaks:
“Washington, D.C. (March 27, 2014) – Today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new data on the prevalence of autism in the United States. This surveillance study identified 1 in 68 children (1 in 42 boys and 1 in 189 girls) as having autism spectrum disorder (ASD).”
10 Things You Need To Know About CDC’s Latest Report from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network:
The following estimates are based on information collected from the health and special education (if available*) records of children who were 8 years old and lived in areas of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin in 2010:
- About 1 in 68 children (or 14.7 per 1,000 8 year olds) were identified with ASD. It is important to remember that this estimate is based on 8-year-old children living in 11 communities. It does not represent the entire population of children in the United States.
- This new estimate is roughly 30% higher than the estimate for 2008 (1 in 88), roughly 60% higher than the estimate for 2006 (1 in 110), and roughly 120% higher than the estimates for 2002 and 2000 (1 in 150). We don’t know what is causing this increase. Some of it may be due to the way children are identified, diagnosed, and served in their local communities, but exactly how much is unknown.
- The number of children identified with ASD varied widely by community, from 1 in 175 children in areas of Alabama to 1 in 45 children in areas of New Jersey.
- Almost half (46%) of children identified with ASD had average or above average intellectual ability (IQ greater than 85).
- Boys were almost 5 times more likely to be identified with ASD than girls. About 1 in 42 boys and 1 in 189 girls were identified with ASD.
- White children were more likely to be identified with ASD than black or Hispanic children. About 1 in 63 white children, 1 in 81 black children, and 1 in 93 Hispanic children were identified with ASD.
- Less than half (44%) of children identified with ASD were evaluated for developmental concerns by the time they were 3 years old.
- Most children identified with ASD were not diagnosed until after age 4, even though children can be diagnosed as early as age 2.
- Black and Hispanic children identified with ASD were more likely than white children to have intellectual disability. A previous study has shown that children identified with ASD and intellectual disability have a greater number of ASD symptoms and a younger age at first diagnosis. Despite the greater burden of co-occurring intellectual disability among black and Hispanic children with ASD, these new data show that there was no difference among racial and ethnic groups in the age at which children were first diagnosed.
- About 80% of children identified with ASD either received special education services for autism at school or had an ASD diagnosis from a clinician. This means that the remaining 20% of children identified with ASD had symptoms of ASD documented in their records, but had not yet been classified as having ASD by a community professional in a school or clinic.
ASCD recently released their federal education agenda for 2014, which is pictured below and is available as a .pdf download here. Plenty of strong ideas including: access to high-quality learning, public accountability of achievement data on a SCHOOL level (not student level), increasing various resources and supports to both teachers and learners, flexibility at the local/district level to implement federal policies, use of formative assessments and nonacademic assessments (see details) for schools and students. Now for some policies to get the ball rolling….
Announcing TED-Ed Clubs, for any student interested in learning to give a TED talk!
Article originally printed here: http://blog.ted.com/2014/01/14/introducing-ted-ed-clubs/
January 14, 2014
The effect of laughter on someone who’s sad. The danger and excitement of dirt biking. The reason human beings need so much sleep. The thought of infinity.
These are just a few of the topics that students are exploring through TED-Ed Clubs. This new program, announced today by our educational initiative TED-Ed, is a way to celebrate the ideas of students around the globe. Through TED-Ed Clubs, students — with the help of an adult facilitator — identify and research the ideas that matter to them most. And while TED-Ed Clubs offer students the opportunity to connect with others who, like them, are unabashedly curious about the world, TED-Ed Clubs are also about presentation literacy. TED-Ed Clubs offer students a hands-on opportunity to work on the storytelling and communication skills that will be vital, no matter what career path they end up strolling down.
TED-Ed Clubs are for students ages 8 to 18, and can contain up to 50 members. An educator — who gets materials and a hands-on orientation from the TED-Ed staff — leads the club through a series of 13 meetings, designed to get students to permanently wear their thinking caps. For the first three meetings, students watch TED Talks, discuss them and begin to think: what idea most captures my imagination? From there, students learn how to frame their idea and present it in a TED-style talk. In meeting 11, students give their talks in front of the club and, in the next meeting, work on editing their video. As a final step, these talks are uploaded to the TED-Ed YouTube channel — some may even be featured on the TED-Ed website.
Before today’s launch of TED-Ed Clubs, two pilot sessions of the program were held with 125 clubs in total. More than a thousand students participated in over 20 countries, including the United States, China, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Brazil and Australia. The experience was pivotal for many students. One wrote, “I am not an excellent speaker. I hadn’t participated in much for the first 15 years of my life. … This [was], by far, one of the biggest opportunities I’ve ever gotten to express myself to an audience. My mind is always buzzing with ideas. Before now, I needed to be pushed into the spotlight.”
Educators were thrilled to see students get so into the program. Marc Siegel, a chemistry teacher in New Jersey, shared on his blog, “The most fascinating aspect of the club was the type of student who came to the meetings. Almost all of the students are those that you might classify as ‘wallflowers,’ excellent students who would prefer to sit quietly in class and complete their work rather than answer questions or have attention drawn to them. However, pull all of these students out of the classroom, give then a non-school related topic to discuss that actually interests them, and suddenly they won’t be quiet. Our meetings ran over time every time because the discussions were so interesting.”
TED-Ed Clubs are designed to create a generation of creative problem-solvers around the globe. Are you interested in bringing TED-Ed Clubs to your school? Find out how to start one »
Strong summary of edtech happenings:
Four CEOs share thoughts on what we can do better in 2014
November 23 at 11:30 am
Guest Post by Marion Brady
The emphasis on using standardized tests are the chief metric of student progress (not to mention teacher effectiveness) is leaving behind one of the key purposes of education: to stimulate the imagination. Here’s a post on the subject from Marion Brady, a veteran classroom teacher, who has written history and world culture textbooks (Prentice-Hall), professional books, numerous nationally distributed columns (many are available here), and courses of study. His 2011 book, “What’s Worth Learning,” asks and answers this question: What knowledge is absolutely essential for every learner? His course of study for secondary-level students, called “Connections: Investigating Reality,” is free for downloading here. Brady’s website is www.marionbrady.com.
By Anthony Cody on December 11, 2013 1:50 PM
Perhaps because Common Core standards originated in a secretive process, and were adopted with little public discussion, their origins have become a subject of great interest among educators. As with ancient mythology, we care about where things come from, because the method of creation can reveal the nature of the creator, and the intentions at work. Critics of Common Core have complained about the way the standards were created – in secret, without significant teacher involvement. Many proponents of Common Core have, for this reason, felt compelled to offer some version or other of “Myths Vs. Facts about the Common Core,” attempting to resolve the complaints. The trouble is that, as we learn the true origins of Common Core, we find that most of these “Myths vs. Facts” documents offer up more myths than facts. Here are some examples:
Richard Rothstein: How High School Text Books Indoctrinate Youth With A False and Dangerous Sense of Our Racial History
Photo Credit: John Vachon for U.S. Farm Security Administration (Library of Congress) via Wikimedia Commons
In the last week, we’ve paid great attention to Nelson Mandela’s call for forgiveness and reconciliation between South Africa’s former white rulers and its exploited black majority. But we’ve paid less attention to the condition that Mandela insisted must underlie reconciliation—truth. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission that Mandela established, and that Bishop Desmond Tutu chaired, was designed to contribute to cleansing wounds of the country’s racist history by exposing it to a disinfecting bright light. As for those Afrikaners who committed even the worst acts of violence against blacks, they could be forgiven and move on only if they acknowledged the full details of their crimes.
In the current issue of the School Administrator, I write that we do a much worse job of facing up to our racial history in the United States, leading us to make less progress than necessary in remedying racial inequality. We have many celebrations of the civil rights movement and its heroes, but we do very little to explain to young people why that movement was so necessary. Earlier this week, the New York Times described how the Alabama Historical Association has placed many commemorative markers around Montgomery to commemorate civil rights heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks, but declined—because of “the potential for controversy”—to call attention to the city’s slave markets and their role in the spread of slavery before the Civil War. Throughout our nation, this fear of confronting the past makes it more difficult to address and remedy the ongoing existence of urban ghettos, the persistence of the black-white achievement gap, and the continued under-representation of African Americans in higher education and better-paying jobs.
One of the worst examples of our historical blindness is the widespread belief that our continued residential racial segregation, North and South, is “de facto,” not the result of explicit government policy but instead the consequence of private prejudice, economic inequality, and personal choice to self-segregate. But in truth, our major metropolitan areas were segregated by government action. The federal government purposefully placed public housing in high-poverty, racially isolated neighborhoods (pdf) to concentrate the black population, and with explicit racial intent, created a whites-only mortgage guarantee program to shift the white population from urban neighborhoods to exclusively white suburbs (pdf). The Internal Revenue Service granted tax-exemptions for charitable activity to organizations established for the purpose of enforcing neighborhood racial homogeneity. State-licensed realtors in virtually every state, and with the open support of state regulators, supported this federal policy by refusing to permit African Americans to buy or rent homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. Federal and state regulators sanctioned the refusal of the banking, thrift, and insurance industries to make loans to homeowners in other-race communities. Prosecutors and police sanctioned, often encouraged, thousands of acts of violence against African Americans who attempted to move to neighborhoods that had not been designated for their race.
By the time the federal government reversed its policy of subsidizing segregation in 1962, and by the time the Fair Housing Act banned private discrimination in 1968, the residential patterns of major metropolitan areas were set. White suburbs that had been affordable to the black working class in the 1940s, 50s and 60s were now no longer so, both because of the increase in housing prices (and whites’ home equity) during that period, and because other federal policies had depressed black incomes while supporting those of whites. It was not until 1964, for example, that the National Labor Relations Board for the first time refused to certify a union’s exclusive bargaining status because it openly refused to represent black workers as it did whites.
The myth of de facto segregation denies this recent history and prevents us from adopting policies to undo it. If we understood the important role that our government played in segregating our nation, we would feel a greater obligation to press our government to integrate it. But if we believe that segregation was an unintended byproduct of private forces, it is too easy to say there is little now that can be done about it.
We promote this result by mis-teaching our young people about our history. For example, in the more than 1,200 pages of McDougal Littell’s widely used high school textbook, The Americans, a single paragraph is devoted to 20th century “Discrimination in the North.” That paragraph devotes one sentence to residential segregation, stating that “African Americans found themselves forced into segregated neighborhoods,” with no further explanation of how this happened or how public policy was responsible. Another widely used high school textbook, Prentice Hall’s United States History, also attributes segregation to mysterious forces: “In the North, too, African Americans faced segregation and discrimination. Even where there were no explicit laws, de facto segregation, or segregation by unwritten custom or tradition, was a fact of life. African Americans in the North were denied housing in many neighborhoods.” History Alive!, a popular high school textbook published by the Teachers Curriculum Institute, also teaches students a distorted view by suggesting that segregation was only a problem in the South. “Even New Deal agencies,” it says, “practiced racial segregation, especially in the South,” failing to explain that the New Deal’s Public Works Administration established, for the North, a “neighborhood composition rule” in public housing (it could not alter the racial composition of a neighborhood where it was placed) or that the New Deal’s Federal Housing Administration instructed appraisers in the North to recommend denial of mortgage insurance in neighborhoods if natural barriers (rivers or highways, for example) failed to prevent the “infiltration” of “incompatible racial groups.”
Such indoctrination of today’s high school students with racial falsehoods minimizes the possibility of progress towards equality when these students become our country’s leaders. Nelson Mandela understood that glossing over the past undermined the possibility of reconciliation. It is a lesson from the celebration of Mandela’s life that we should not ignore.
Richard Rothstein is a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute and senior fellow at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at U.C. Berkeley.
Online and Blended Learning Policies in K-12 Education: The Case of Utah’s Statewide Online Education Program (SOEP)
Nicholas M. Lind
December 14, 2013
Policy Analysis written for course EDU413 – Contemporary Issues in Educational Policy at the Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester
Online and Blended Learning Policies in K-12 Education:
The Case of Utah’s Statewide Online Education Program (SOEP)
According to some educators, online and blended learning initiatives currently taking place in K-12 schools across the country offer a prospective glimpse into an inevitable future of learning. As the availability of technological resources in districts continues to grow – from internet connectivity and computer access to smart phones and tablet apps – students increasingly possess the opportunity to shift their education to new digital technologies which empower them with revolutionary learning capabilities.
Online and blended learning programs afford educators, learners, citizens, and policymakers alike with various luxuries. These incentives have driven the online and blended learning movement toward new educational paradigms. To be sure, as with many new educational policies, these transitions have been viewed unfavorably by some in the educational community and have certainly involved costs for stakeholders to consider. These new benefits and concerns will be reviewed below, specifically focusing on Utah’s Statewide Online Education Program (SOEP) as an educational policy case study.
Several observations form the basis of this analysis. Although Florida’s Virtual School continues to be recognized as a leading K-12 online learning institution, similar initiatives in Arizona, Minnesota, and Utah are moving in similar paths (Watson et. al., 2013). Due to the recent development and subsequently limited supply of literature on these programs, this review will concentrate on the learning scene in Utah while drawing from broader literature on the topic.
Second, rather than placing these initiatives within the matrices of Race to the Top, Common Core, and teacher evaluation policies taking shape across the country, the scope of this analysis is limited to the development of online and blended programs independent of alternative educational policies. Similarly, although the Statewide Online Education Program stems from a school choice approach of educational reform, the synthesizing of seminal research on school choice will not be pursued by this analysis. Instead, this report will investigate the policy process for SOEP in Utah and will describe the design and goals of the program according to the academic literature on online and blended learning programs. To be sure, school choice – and in SOEP’s case course choice – will perhaps have significant effects both on student achievement and on standing educational institutions in Utah, especially when compounded by other state and federal policies. But these outcomes will be more recognizable and measurable in the longer term, once SOEP has been fully implemented.
Defining Digital Learning Terms
Before proceeding, it is appropriate to define what constitutes “online” and “blended” learning programs. The International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL), the leading policy organization devoted to blended and online learning opportunities, defines these terms in the following ways:
“Blended learning (also hybrid learning): Learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and is based on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course” (Wicks, 2010, p. 48).
“Online learning (also cyber learning, elearning, and virtual learning): Education in which instruction and content are delivered primarily over the Internet; online learning is a form of distance learning. The term does not include printer-based correspondence education, broadcast television, or radio, videocassettes, and stand-alone educational software programs that do not have a significant internet-based instructional component” (Wicks, 2010, p.48).
Whereas blended learning programs deliver instruction within traditional brick-and-mortar settings and supplement with internet-based activities and assignments, online programs deliver the entirety of the learning process digitally. And while both models depend highly on strong communication between teachers and students, instructors of blended courses effectively tailor the balance between the amount of time spent in traditional settings with time spent online specifically according to the needs of their students. Although their teaching style may inform the initial balance between in-class and online activities, blended programs allow teachers to respond to their students’ progress and provide in-class support as necessary (Digital Learning Now!, 2010).
Internet-based modes of learning are often delivered through a Learning Management System. Wicks (2010) describes these systems as software programs that provide a platform to create, edit, share, communicate, and assess course content. Instructors can upload course materials onto the platform for students to access, or can simply provide links to media available on the internet. Students can communicate with each other via these systems and often submit assignments for instructors to review. In most cases, students are able to log on to these systems using a username and password, which allows them to access the course materials from anywhere with internet access.
Policy Problem & Issue Definition
Benefits of Online & Blended Learning
Online and blended learning models are promoted essentially for their potential to increase equitable access to high-quality educational services. This principle transcends various dimensions of educational policymaking including: challenging the norms of traditional teaching and learning, adapting the curricular and technical structures of education, and providing constituents – both voters and learners – with equitable and democratic schools.
Challenging traditional teaching and learning. Anthony Picciano, Professor at the Graduate Center and Hunter College, CUNY, has served as principle investigator on multiple analyses of online and blended learning programs nationwide. Picciano et. al (2011b) found that, “high schools in Illinois and nationally use a number of external providers rather than develop[ing] courses in house” (p.1). This separation of the design of curriculum from the delivery of instruction aims to ensure high-quality learning materials for all students, but to be sure depends entirely on the quality of coursework a third party organization provides. Ideally, only high-quality course providers would be authorized by state departments of education to supply materials. But this is not always the case, as is evident from recent controversy and outcries in New York regarding low quality Common Core modules widely purchased by school districts.
Online learning programs allow students to access certified teachers delivering subjects who wouldn’t be available for face-to-face instruction (Picciano et. al. 2011b). Personally speaking, I graduated from a rural high school that didn’t offer any Advanced Placement courses and only offered Spanish as a foreign language. I would have kindly greeted any opportunity for more diverse course offerings. Consequently, online programs provide teachers with career options to reach more students in more productive ways. Highly effective teachers can be reached across geographic areas, perhaps even facilitating online courses from their own homes (Lips, 2010). Downes (2004) also suggests that online and blended programs offer students an opportunity to learn and communicate using blogs, which encourage formative writing exercises and personalize writing in a way that directly increases its relevance to students.
These new programs are also uniquely positioned to meet the needs of diverse groups of learners. Muller (2009) explains how state-level virtual K-12 public school programs have developed ways to offer accommodations, assistive technology, and related services to students with disabilities according to their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Muller also notes that at-risk students who are prone to dropout, incarcerated students, students who are homebound, and migrant youth are all empowered by online learning opportunities (p. 3). While these programs require innovative solutions, states are continually expanding online and blended opportunities in ways to benefit diverse learners.
Adapting curricular and technical structures. Online learning programs introduce diverse opportunities for schools and students. Picciano et. al. (2011a) noted that, “offering courses not otherwise available [such as]…Advanced Placement or college-level courses,” attracted school administrators to explore online and blended models (p. 128). The flexible format of online coursework also decreased scheduling conflicts for students seeking to meet graduation requirements. Students who previously failed a course could retake it through an online program to receive credit promptly rather than waiting an entire year for the course to be offered again. Similarly, courses that would previously have been overscheduled – inappropriately increasing the student-faculty ratio beyond best-practices for effective class sizes – now could be offered through online or blended programs in order to accommodate schools with, “growing populations and limited space” (Picciano et. al., 2011a, p.129).
Providing democratic education. Providing freedom to students who seek to choose specific courses is an important driver of online and blended programs. Picciano et. al. (2011a) explained that in addition to offering additional courses, online and blended programs individualize educational services to best-fit the needs of students. For example, some district administrators reported that research pointing to the pedagogical strength of online programs as well as testimonies of students’ preference of online coursework played a role in developing programs within their schools. Lips (2010) writes that instead of grouping students according to their age, online learning can group them by achievement level or learning style. Additionally, students can learn at their own pace, providing advanced students with an infrastructure to accelerate ahead and allowing struggling students to receive ample support in order to reach total proficiency at their own pace rather than learn “enough” to pass a course while still lacking proficiency.
iNACOL (2009) notes that quality mathematics and science teachers, who are critical to the nation’s future economic competitiveness, are in short supply in many districts. Online programs can eliminate the geographical discrepancies currently experienced across the country. They also point out that, “online college prep, Advanced Placement, credit recovery, and dropout prevention programs ensure that more American students are ready for college” (p. 1). These opportunities can decrease the cost of college for students by minimizing remedial coursework necessary in their first several semesters or by covering coursework requirements altogether. Furthermore, research has shown that online and blended learning environments, “can produce significant cost savings for states and districts” (Bailey et. al., 2013c)
These programs additionally have more practical benefits. Online courses provide hands-on training using technology and computers, widely perceived as an essential twenty-first century literacy skill (iNACOL, 2009). Also, if local colleges are authorized as course providers, students may build linkages in a way that encourages future college attendance (Picciano et. al., 2011a). Students who take courses online within a flexible time frame can now use their time within traditional school settings – roughly speaking, between 7am and 4 pm – in ways that better-fit their personal interests. Since they’re taking a required science course online, perhaps their schedule allows them to take an elective arts or music course in school or perhaps they use their new flexible time to join an organization like student council or join a new sport (Lips, 2010).
Finally, administrators noted that the financial benefits to offering blended and online courses – such as offering credit recovery opportunities through an online program rather than offering a whole course for a few students – enticed them to begin programs. In this way, online and blended programs benefit student achievement, but also school efficiency and taxpayers’ return on investment.
Barriers to Online and Blended Learning
In addition to implementation challenges that will be addressed later on in this report, there are several factors that hinder the development of online and blended learning programs. Picciano et. al. (2011a) found that a small number of districts hesitated to introduce blended learning programs both due to “restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies” (p. 130). Other administrators cited a lack of human capital in terms of technological and online teaching pedagogical skills. Without federal or statewide grant programs covering the initial costs of preparing for online and blended courses, districts are short on the capabilities required to implement online programs.
Inadequate funding – both for teacher professional development and to purchase technological infrastructure – compounded with uncertainty regarding the sustainability of programs financed according to student attendance, both in terms of district contributions as well as the ambiguous resulting effects an online program would cause on the supply and demand of teacher labor markets. Nevertheless, online and blended learning programs have increasingly been developed throughout the country, as demonstrated by reviewing annual editions of Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Blended Learning, a seminal review of online and blended programs released annually since 2003.
Policy Design & Formulation
Background: Online and Blended Learning in Utah
The 2013 Keeping Pace report identifies Utah as a national leader of online and blended learning (Watson et. al., 2013 see also Parker, 2013, April 2). According to Keeping Pace, Utah offers student choice at both a school and course level through four fully online charter schools, a fully online public Utah Electronic High School, and through the newly developed Statewide Online Education Program. Keeping Pace identifies Utah’s efforts as, “among the first and best-known course choice programs in the country” (p. 150). Despite this attention, Utah’s SOEP remains small. Total enrollment for the 2012-2013 school year served 1,279 course enrollments to only 664 unique students. However, the Electronic High School served 10,308 course enrollments in the same period, rendering the public school’s course choice program significantly more popular (Watson et. al, 2013).
Setting the Agenda: Formulating Policy in Utah
Given Utah’s existing access to online and blended courses, the process of developing the SOEP aimed to expand opportunities beyond those offered by traditional public institutions. Salt Lake Tribune journalists Lisa Schencker and Ray Parker chronicled the SOEP’s journey through the state legislature, with various contributions from writers at The Deseret News, and The Daily Herald offering alternative perspectives.
Utah State Senator Howard Stephenson, a Republican representing the Draper district, sponsored the original bill in the state legislature to create the SOEP. Stephenson argued to other senators, “I urge you to set our children free. Allow them to take more online courses and serve their needs rather than serving the needs of institutions” (Schencker, 2011, February 18). By creating an infrastructure for authorizing private institutions to deliver courses, Stephenson’s bill expanded student choice beyond public institutions, a controversial policy in education circles and public education advocates.
An initial vote failed 13-10-6 to send the bill to the Utah House of Representatives. But although some opponents were vocally opposed to the bill, labeling it as a “school voucher bill,” Democratic Senator Karen Morgan cautioned only against the cost of the proposal and offered that, “maybe this is something we shouldn’t do this year” (Schencker, 2011, March 6). Optimistic editorials were soon published in The Deseret News, a major daily paper based in Salt Lake City, and Stephenson revised the bill and redoubled awareness of the program’s perceived benefits prior to introducing it again for a vote (see Horn, 2011, March 2; Daw, 2011, July 24; and Odell, 2012, June 16). A later vote passed the Senate 17-12-0, moved on to the House where it passed 48-27-0, and was signed by the Governor on March 30, 2011 (S.B. 65, 2011). Stephenson amended S.B. 65 to expand the regulations of the SOEP in Senate Bill 178, which easily passed through the state legislature and was signed by the Governor on March 20, 2012 (S.B. 178, 2012).
Opponents of the bill feared the unintended consequences of SOEP. Stakeholders were concerned with harming public school systems by transferring public funds to private organizations, the logistical challenges of providing a location to supervise students completing online coursework during their normal hours at brick-and-mortar schools, and the implications for public schools when an influx of students decide to drop courses in September in favor of alternative online courses on school finance, which typically is prepared months in advance (Farmer, 2011, June 15).
Tami Pyfer, a representative of District 1 on the Utah State Board of Education and Clinical Instructor of Special Education and Rehabilitation at Utah State University, speaking prior to the passage of S.B. 178, noted that S.B. 65 actually limited student choice by capping the number of courses students may take. For every course students enrolled for through SOEP, they would have to drop a course at their traditional school (Pyfer, 2011, September 23). Senator Stephenson noted that the provision was included in order to manage the costs of SOEP, but adapted it in S.B. 178 to allow the number of courses students may take to gradually increase over the next several years (S.B. 178, 2012).
S.B. 178 also differentiated the cost of each course a student takes. Whereas districts initially would credit online course providers with $727 per course, S.B. 178 initially set the price of courses between $400 to $700 depending on the type of class, but Stephenson compromised to allow districts to negotiate the costs of each course with authorized online providers in order to solidify support to pass the bill (see Schencker, 2012, February 22 and Schencker, 2012, March 2).
Interestingly, a bill originating in the Utah House called for the establishment of a state-wide voucher program for students. Under House Bill 123, a pilot program would be established to fund “savings accounts” for students to use toward their education on a course-choice level at authorized public, charter, private, and online institutions. The bill’s sponsor, Representative John Dougall, supported the measure in terms of transparency of funds spent on education, but the bill failed to clear the House, losing a vote 26-46 (Hesterman, 2012, March 6).
Although in-depth descriptions of the policy process are largely limited to press reporting and floor speeches, the ultimate format of the SOEP in its current existence is more straightforward.
Summary: The Statewide Online Education Program
Utah’s Statewide Online Education Program complements the wide array of online learning policies already established in the state, as referenced above. S.B. 65, the bill that initially created the system and S.B. 178, which slightly amended the program, established an infrastructure for educational agencies authorized by the Utah Board of Education to deliver online courses to students across the state (S.B. 65, 2011; and S.B. 178, 2012). Students may choose individual courses to take through SOEP, and those courses replace requirements they would otherwise complete within their traditional school district (Watson et. al., 2013). Provider agencies may be programs created by public LEAs or may be provided by outside third parties, as long as the agency is approved by the LEA (S.B. 65, 2011; and S.B. 178, 2012). Students may currently only enroll for a maximum of two credits per year through SOEP – unless they elect to pay out-of-pocket for courses – but that figure increases annually over the next five years and students (Murin, 2011).
The SOEP is provided an annual appropriation of $250,000 from the Utah State Legislature to sustain the infrastructure and support staff. Funding typically allocated to students’ local education agency (LEA) through local tax dollars follows them to the provider of any online courses they take through SOEP. The costs of each course are between $400 and $700, with the exact price negotiated between the traditional school district and the authorized providing agency.
Provider agencies receive half of the funding when students enroll in the course and receive the balance when students successfully complete the course. There are specific stipulations regarding the amount of time students may take to complete a course. Agencies receive only 80% of the total negotiated price if students fail to complete the coursework within an agreed upon time frame. This deadline is typically congruent with traditional class schedules of roughly nine months for a full-year, one-credit course, and four months for a one-semester, half-credit course (Watson et. al, 2013).
It is too early to generalize the effects of Utah’s SOEP to form broader conclusions regarding statewide course choice programs. Indeed, measuring student outcomes can arguably only produce reliable comparisons once the program is fully implemented, which won’t be for several years. Even then, researchers and policymakers will likely find themselves arguing the classic nature versus nurture debate of educational choice: Does course and/or school choice increase student achievement or are the students who choose naturally better-equipped to achieve higher? An expansive 2010 meta-analysis completed by the Department of Education found that online learning, particularly blended learning, has statistically significant positive effects on student achievement, but this review did not include the element of course choice (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Barbour (2010) similarly notes that,
“while online learning may allow for educational improvements such as high levels of learner motivation, high quality learning opportunities or improvement in student outcomes, it certainly did not guarantee any of these potential benefits would be realized” (p. 7).
These questions and more can’t be answered until the nuanced details of SOEP and other online learning policies in Utah are fully implemented and subsequently analyzed from an academic perspective, as the current literature on Utah is limited to private institutions and local newspaper testimonies. Still, there are a number of evident preliminary outcomes that future studies might consider.
Utah has set a precedent for public choice on a course level. By offering these courses entirely with public tax dollars, no additional cost is accrued to students. This allows students to make individual course choices which in turn pressures schools to compete on a lower level for students. Whereas traditional choice models pushed schools to be more attractive as a whole to students, Utah’s SOEP course choice program pressures schools and outside agencies to offer individual courses that entice student interest. The effects of this shift on student achievement, teacher labor markets, and the financial sustainability of public schools have yet to be realized.
As previously mentioned above, Utah’s SOEP program empowers students with diverse course offerings that wouldn’t otherwise be available to them in their traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Teachers working in high-need fields, offering foreign languages, college preparation courses, or Advanced Placement courses can now provide geographic equity to students in Utah. For example, Brigham Young University offers courses for college credit through the BYU Independent Study Program, which can be transferred from high schools to cover coursework at any college accredited by the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools (Watson et. al., 2013). Similarly, The Juilliard School began offering music education courses to students through the SOEP, expanding world class instruction to rural residents in Utah free of charge (Parker, 2013, March 19). This confirms Picciano’s suggestion that students will form bonds with higher education institutions (2011a). Whether these relationships transition into increased college attendance is also yet to be measured.
Researchers have also pointed out the potential for online learning to allow traditional schools to transition away from cohort-based organization and instead focus on competency education. Bailey et. al. (2013a) argues that the traditional “factory model” of education limits students in two fundamental ways: “It holds back students who could be excelling,” and “it moves on students who aren’t ready” (p. 125). Under competency education models, students advance upon subject mastery rather than on proficiency and seat time. Their achievement is based on “explicit, measurable, transferable learning objectives that empower students” (p. 128). Assessments are used as a tool to diagnose rather learning challenges and students receive “timely, differentiated support based on their individual learning needs” (p. 128).
Researchers point out that competency education does not rely on online learning, but may be easily facilitated through online and blended programs that already allow students to advance as they reach mastery, such as Utah’s SOEP program. Patrick and Sturgis (2013) importantly note that the terminology associated with competency education varies and has been referred to as “proficiency-based education,” “standards-based education,” and “mastery-education” (p. 5). Regardless of its terminology, researchers have acknowledged the potential for online and blended learning programs to offer evolutionary changes to traditional education paradigms.
The implementation process for Utah’s SOEP remains in progress. With the amount of credits students may enroll in increasing annually, a more holistic perspective of the program’s implementation must also be analyzed by future researchers. But much like the effects of SOEP, there are several early points worth noting regarding SOEP’s implementation as well as the implementation of similar online and blended learning programs noted by researchers thus far.
The role of Senator Stephenson in adapting the program to accommodate the concerns of fellow legislators, educators, and community stakeholders shouldn’t be overlooked. Datnow and Park (2009) note that within the co-construction model of policy implementation, stakeholders and policymakers actively work to design and implement educational policies in ways that benefit specific school environments. In this way, Stephenson’s response to criticism, and resulting sponsorship of S.B. 178, provided stakeholders with an opportunity to contribute to the policy in a way that would benefit its implementation and ultimately to support educational agencies to deliver high student outcomes.
Muller (2009) offers several general implementation challenges associated with online and blended programs. In addition to adopting a co-construction mindset during the design and implementation stage of policymaking, educators and policymakers must educate parents about online education and the market of choices available to students. Also, as new technologies arise – including learning management systems, computer software, and internet-based programs – both educators and policymakers must remain well-informed in order to provide the most effective learning opportunities to students. Muller also notes that funding issues can hamper implementation, but the sustainability of Utah’s SOEP has yet to be systemically analyzed.
Bailey et. al. (2013d) explains that schools can take several steps toward implementing blended learning including: placing computers in classrooms, delivering a digital curriculum, experiment with flipped classroom strategies, increase access to computer labs and tablet devices. But importantly, although “these strategies may be beneficial…if they do not change instructional practices, schedules, relationships, and resource allocations, they are not considered blended learning (p. 19). Bailey et. al. (2013d) also include a set of practices to assist schools in transitioning from some of the strategies mentioned above to fully online or blended environments, often based on competency education.
Including successful testimonies from around the country, Bailey et. al. (2013d) include a variety of extensive frameworks for schools to adapt. Each plan includes strategies which address challenges made to a school’s infrastructure, broadband capabilities, network equipment and management, electrical power supply, facilities management, and hardware and software acquisition. Furthermore, schools must address challenges posed by professional development demands as well as the existing school culture, which in some cases can hinder policy implementation. Bailey’s implementation guide provides an in-depth primer on issues schools face when implementing online programs, including several ways schools can overcome these challenges. The insights provided by the guide are highly recommended for policymakers, researchers, and educational leaders alike.
As legislated by S.B 65 and S.B 178, Utah should continually reflect on the SOEP implementation process and make changes as necessary to address financial and academic concerns that may arise (S.B. 65, 2011; and S.B. 178, 2012). Researchers and educators must also analyze the SOEP and reflect on its effectiveness for student achievement, as well as its financial sustainability, and its impact on the traditional public school system.
Policymakers should introduce online and blended learning policies which support the transition to competency education. Under these models, students are more likely to achieve mastery of subjects rather than advance merely as a product of their seat time. Policies that adopt a co-construction approach to implementation and provide schools with flexibility to fit their students’ needs are most likely to deliver those outcomes (iNACOL, 2012).
Providing incentives, especially state and federal grant programs to districts that adopt online and blended learning models will catalyze the transition. iNACOL (2012) suggests these incentives are translated to the course level, allowing students the optimal choice. Funding structures that simply transfer funding from one educational entity to another allow this transition to be more financially viable, although future studies must analyze the long-term sustainability of such approaches.
Lips (2010) offers a number of general actions educators and policymakers can take to support online and blended learning programs. Lips calls for every state to develop a statewide virtual school, enabling course choice on a supplementary or full-time basis. Lips also suggests expanding hybrid (blended) learning programs to support learning out of the classroom. Specifically, districts should share best practices with each other regarding how to implement digital curricula into existing programs. Importantly, Lips notes that federal policymakers should amend and revise federal policies to support online learning by providing control and flexibility to state education agencies.
Online and blended learning programs such as Utah’s SOEP offer a prospective glance into an inevitable future. Although some states have forged ahead of others in this educational opportunity, as technological infrastructure and awareness of existing programs continues to increase online and blended programs will become available to more and more students. These programs have numerous benefits – from increasing access to equitable learning opportunities to balancing district budget sheets – but uncertainty about the long-term challenges to implementation sustainability continue to hinder broader involvement across the country.
Future researchers must analyze these outcomes including comparing design techniques, implementation procedures, and measures taken to adapt policies over time to fit the needs of students. Researchers must also carefully design studies to compare student achievement within online and blended course choice programs against their peers in an effort to determine the most effective learning structures and environments for a given population of students.
Bailey, J., Martin, N., Schneider, C., Vander Ark, T., Duty, L., Ellis, S., Owens, D., Rabbitt, B., &
Terman, A. (2013a). Blended learning implementation guide: Version 2.0. Digital Learning
Now! DLN Smart Series.
Bailey, J., Schneider, C., Strugie, C., Vander Ark, T. (2013b). The shift from cohorts to competency.
Digital Learning Now! DLN Smart Series.
Bailey, J., Schneider, C., Vander Ark, T. (2013c). Funding the shift to digital learning: Three
strategies for funding sustainable high-access environments: Implementation strategies at the
intersection of digital learning and the common core state standards. Digital Learning Now!
DLN Smart Series.
Bailey, J., Schneider, C., Vander Ark, T. (2013d). Navigating the Digital Shift: Implementation Strategies for
Blended and Online Learning. Digital Learning Now!: DLN Smart Series.
Barbour, M. K. (2010). Researching K‐12 online learning: What do we know and what should we
examine? Distance Learning, 7(2), 7‐12.
Barbour, M. (2012). Review of overcoming the governance challenge in K-12 online learning.
[Review of the book, Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning, by J. E.
Chubb]. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from:
Collins, A. and Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in
the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 26. pp. 18-27.
Datnow, A. & Park, V. (2009) Conceptualizing policy implementation: large-scale reform in an era
of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy
research (pp.348-361). New York: Routledge.
Daw, B. M. (2011, July 24). My view: Online learning is the new player in the education arena. Deseret
Digital Learning Now! (2010, Dec. 1). The 10 elements of high quality digital learning. Foundation for
Excellence in Education.
Downes, S. (2004). Educational blogging. Educause Review, September/October 2004 edition. pp. 14-
Farmer, M. (2011, June 15). New online learning law full of ‘unintended consequences’. Deseret News.
Farmer, M. (2011, July 3). State gears up for new online education program that begins this fall.
Deseret News. Retrieved from http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375627/State-gears-up-for-new-online-education-program-that-begins-this-fall.html.
Felix, J. P. (2007). Edublogging: Instruction for the Digital Age Learner (Doctoral Thesis). University of
California, San Diego.
Halverson, R. and Smith, A. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching
and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Vol 26 (2). pp. 49-54.
Hesterman, B. (2012, March 6). House rejects Dougall’s education savings account bill. Daily Herald.
Hesterman, B. (2012, September 28). Follow the money – if you can. Daily Herald. Retrieved from
Horn, M. B. (2011, March 2). Michael B. Horn: Utah online education proposal would expand
access and accountability. Deseret News. Retrieved from http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700114966/Utah-online-education-proposal-would-expand-access-and-accountability.html.
International Association for K-12 Online Learning (INACOL). (2009) K-12 Online Learning: A
Smart Investment NOW More Than Ever. Accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.inacol.org.
International Association for K-12 Online Learning (INACOL). (2012). Statement of Principles for
Model Legislation in States. Accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.inacol.org.
Lips, D. (2010). How online learning is revolutionizing K-12 education and benefitting students.
Backgrounder, No. 2356. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from:
Muller, E. (2009). Serving students with disabilities in state-level virtual K-12 public school
programs. inForum: September 2009. Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of
Special Education. Alexandria, VA
Murin, A. (2011, April 14). S.b. 65 poised to change online learning in Utah. Keeping Pace Blog.
Odell, S. (2012, June 16). At the crossroads of education reform. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved
Parker, R. (2013, February 5). Online education celebrated for expanding. The Salt Lake Tribune.
Retrieved from http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=25304241&itype=storyID.
Parker, R. (2013, March 19). Utah teens can take Julliard’s groundbreaking virtual music classes free.
The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=25960359&itype=storyID.
Parker, R. (2013, April 2). Utah surpasses all others in digital education, new study finds. The Salt
Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
Patrick, S. and Sturgis, C. (2013). Necessary for Success: Building Mastery of World-Class Skills. A
CompetencyWorks Issue Brief, International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., and Swan, K. (2011a). Examining the extent and nature of online
learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Internet and Higher Eduucation, Vol. 15. pp. 127-135.
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., and Day, S. (2011b). Online learning in Illinois high schools: Has the time come?
Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Pyfer, T. (2011, September 23). My view: Change online education in Utah. Deseret News. Retrieved
Quillen, I. (2011, November 11). Virtual education sees shift to accountability. Education Week.
Accessed November 9, 2013. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2011/11/more_on_keeping_pace_emb
Revenaugh, M. (2005). K-8 virtual schools: A glimpse into the future. Educational Leadership, Vol. 63
(4). pp. 60-64.
Schencker, L. (2011, February 18). Senators advance bill to shift money for online education. The
Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
Schencker, L. (2011, March 1). Senate shoots down online education bill. The
Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
Schencker, L. (2011, June 27). Emergency rule for online ed passes but some still have concerns. The
Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
Schencker, L. (2012, February 22). Bill to chance costs under online education law advances. The Salt
Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
Schencker, L. (2012, February 24). Bill to rewrite controversial online education law advances. The
Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from
Schencker, L. (2012, March 2). Utah senate passes bill to tweak controversial online education law.
The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=19878774&itype=storyID.
Statewide Online Education Program, Utah S.B. 65, 2011 General Session. (2011). Retrieved from
Statewide Online Education Program, Utah S.B. 178, 2012 General Session. (2012). Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010).
Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of
online learning studies. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Vander Ark, T. (2013, November 2). What’s next? A flex plus school model by Connections
Education. Education Week. Accessed November 9, 2013.
Vander Ark, T. (2013, November 8). Ten lessons from Florida virtual. Getting Smart. Accessed
November 9, 2013. http://gettingsmart.com/2013/11/10-lessons-florida-virtual/.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online &
blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.
Wicks, M. (2010). A national primer on K-12 online learning. International Association for K-12 Online
Learning, Second Edition.
Wood, B. (2013, November 11). Lawmakers discuss responsibilities of parents, schools, Legislature.
Deseret News. Retrieved from http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590369/Lawmakers-discuss-responsibilities-of-parents-schools-Legislature.html.
Young, J. (2011, March 29). Making e-learning work: Insider tips from a virtual school. The Huffington
Post. Accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-young/florida-
Enjoy this brief but warranted post by Carol Hunter at SmartBlog on Education: http://smartblogs.com/education/2013/11/25/balancing-the-art-and-science-of-education/
As we continue to fight to keep the arts in education, it is time to realize that the real fight is keeping the art in education. When I first started teaching many years ago, teaching was primarily seen as an art — an innate ability to use creative skill and imagination to communicate and build relationships that facilitate learning. The curriculum guide was a small gray book covering all subjects. Now, teaching is seen primarily as a science. Attention is paid to specific teaching techniques, core curriculum, testing and narrowly-focused results. Data is collected, analyzed and used more for accountability than to personalize student programs.
We need to create a balance of art and science as we nurture the students in our care. Granted, research over the past few decades has provided us with evidence of how the brain functions, how students learn in different ways and that they have multiple intelligences. This valuable information has only found its way into the education debate in limited instances. The focus has been more on defining what students need to know, how they should be taught and measuring results. This is much easier and more scientific than using brain functioning, learning styles and multiple intelligences to empower teachers to personalize education and create safe and caring learning environments.
The science of teaching helps us to understand concepts such as that the brain remembers information when it is relevant and evokes an emotional response, that we have a basic human need for safety and that living in poverty has a definite impact on a child’s ability to maximize his potential. Science creates the structure underlying the art of teaching.
It takes artists to see the big picture, think creatively and critically, and begin to shape the future of education. Artists celebrate human individuality. The art of teaching requires that we:
- Apply what science teaches us in a holistic way.
- Know our students as individuals.
- Empower students to be the best they can be.
- Understand that students must first feel safe and secure if they are to take the risks necessary for them to become the person they want to be.
- Focus on creating positive, supportive school cultures.
- Engage students in their learning at the deepest level possible by creating an emotional response.
- Ensure that curriculum is personalized and meaningful.
- Focus on building connections and relationships.
- See the big picture by dealing with the whole child.
- Seek the complexities and depth in the big picture.
Although this blog post may evoke a response of: “Yeah, but we’re accountable for raising test scores through processes and programs that come from above…,” I hope you will let your inner artist shine through and see what you need to do as a teacher and as a leader. It is only when we find the balance between the art and science of education that we will begin to make a real difference in the lives of our students.
Carol Hunter is an award-winning, retired elementary-school principal and author of “Real Leadership Real Change”. She is president of Impact Leadership, a consulting company focused on bringing real change to public education. Learn more atwww.impactleadership.ca.
This is a great primer to the problems (on multiple levels) with high stakes testing trend we’re seeing in the United States.
Student Loans and U.S. Prosperity
Author: Steven J. Markovich, Contributing Editor
October 17, 2013
A conversation with three veterans:
25 Ideas for Online Learning Success – K12
EdWeek has assembled a 15-page document featuring a variety of articles on Literacy and the Common Core, available for download here:
Ed Week Spotlight – On Literacy and the Common Core – March 2013
Valerie Strauss, Washington Post
Written for EDU 413 – Contemporary Issues in Education Policy, Warner School of Education, University of Rochester.
“I think success in America is defined by how much money you make not by how happy you are with your life. That’s just not how it is in other countries. They’re like, ‘Oh, okay so they have a modest living: cool!’ But here it’s like, ‘Okay, so if you don’t earn a lot of money, something went wrong.’”
-Student (Abeles et. al., 2010).
“The common force that drives kids toward so many negative behaviors is stress. It’s coming from schools, it’s coming from colleges, and it’s coming from all of the places that it’s always came from during adolescence. Don’t forget: adolescence is a tough time!”
–Dr. Ken Ginsburg, Adolescent Medicine Specialist, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Abeles et. al., 2010).
Vicki Abeles’ 2010 documentary, Race to Nowhere: The Dark Side of America’s Achievement Culture, aggressively cautions against the staggering emotional and psychological effects that have rippled behind contemporary measures of education reform. Positioned within a culture intensely focused on “student achievement” and college admissions, Abeles assembles a defended narrative of stressed and over-pressured kids through interviewing a broad assemblage of students, parents, community members, teachers, administrators, and medical personnel. But despite the passionate convictions from interviewees with soppy eyes and the seemingly comprehensive representation of stakeholders in the film, Abeles nonetheless depicts an incomplete explanation of how achievement culture has been manifested in American education.
The message argues that growing measures of accountability, specifically standardized testing and an increased amount of homework, have created additional pressures on children that are resulting in unintended negative effects. Interviewees explain how the pressure to perform has forced teachers to give more homework, decreased the free time students have (including time to sleep), has induced insurmountable stress, and has likewise caused various psychological, emotional, and health concerns from spending less time with friends, to depression, eating disorders, insomnia, self-mutilation, and, in one case, to suicide. John Merrow, reviewing the documentary for the Huffington Post lamented,
“In my thirty-five years of reporting for NPR and PBS, I have covered these issues more times than I care to remember. In the late seventies I spent several weeks in mental institutions for children and met kids like those in this movie. In the late eighties I reported on adolescent suicide…a segment that still wakes me up in the middle of the night from time to time. And in 1995 we produced ‘A.D.D.: A Dubious Diagnosis?’ for PBS and saw some of the same pressures being put on kids. I promise you that this movie is telling the truth” (Merrow, 2010).
The problem is aggravated by performance standards for teachers who are increasingly pressured to “teach to the test” and by the enormous pressure placed upon students and their families to get into top tier university programs. Parents arrive at high school orientations and are bombarded with information about college readiness, the college admissions process, Advanced Placement courses, and the necessity of extracurricular activities. One parent concluded, “I guess this is what everyone is going to be doing.” A teacher added that, “We’re all caught up in it, we’re all afraid that our children won’t be as successful as we are. It’s out of love, it’s out of concern, it’s out of fear, it’s out of all of these things that parents normally have.” Echoing the quote preceding this review, role models push students be the best in high school in order to get into a great college so they can land a great job so they can make a lot of money. The connection is sometimes dubious and misguided, but the pressure is very real.
Race to Nowhere warns viewers of the consequences of this phenomenon. Numerous students point out that, “high school is about learning how to pass tests.” With fewer than three percent of students refraining from cheating, it has “become another course,” for many students. The private tutoring industry has boomed in the United States, largely around tests that predict college success such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Notably however, the study in the film referred to students who had never cheated rather than students who regularly cheated and, to be sure, many college admissions offices have in recent years decreased their value of standardized test scores when considering applicants.
Despite these more recent trends, Clinical Psychologist Wendy Mogel regretted that students are trained to always look for the next step, continually focusing on the next level. “We’ve stolen eleventh and twelfth grade from them,” Mogel said. One student, speaking before a forum of peers, commented that the worst question a parent can ask is: “And?” A simple conversation may go:
Student: “I made the honor roll!”
Student: “I’m the President of the Drama Club!”
Student: “I joined the soccer team!”
Conversations like these push successful kids to the brink by continually pressuring them to do more. In the eyes of the student, “Everyone expects us to be superheroes. I think sometimes parents just need to step back and say, ‘you know what, you’re doing a really great job.’”
While Race to Nowhere masterfully layers striking testimonies of students who are increasingly placed under stress, it’s portrayal of homework as a significant factor in the race is perhaps misguided. As Jay Mathews at the Washington Post pointed out, according to the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, students age 15-17 spent roughly three and a half hours a day on leisure activities such as watching television while spending only forty-two minutes on homework. When Abeles countered that the study also showed that homework for students aged 6-9 tripled in the 1990s, Mathews replied that the documented increase was (in real terms) only from eight minutes in 1981 to twenty-two minutes in 2003, which is, “less time than watching an episode of Hannah Montana.” The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute similarly found that two-thirds of high school students did less than sixty minutes of homework per night (Mathews, 2011).
Later on in the film, a teacher comments that when teaching a class for the first time, he cut the amount of homework previously assigned in the curriculum in half and saw AP scores increase. Seemingly portraying a causal relationship between decreasing homework and increasing test scores, the film overlooks a much more important variable: the new teacher. Having a higher-quality teacher in the room is far more likely to cause an increase in test scores, regardless of the amount of homework assigned.
Another speaker claims that, “Parents need to educate themselves about the fact that homework is not going to make their kids any smarter.” Without distinguishing between specific goals of assigning homework (i.e. for independent practice, to check for understanding, to introduce to new content, for formative assessment, etc.) or citing any evidence for her case, she continues,
“The schools have our kids for seven hours a day. That should be plenty for them to impart the kind of knowledge that they want to and then the kids should go home and there is so much more to a child’s life than what’s going on in school.”
This is a classic characterization of the “banking model” of education, whereby students are merely “‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher” (Freire, 2003). Possessing all knowledge, the teacher is the hegemonic authority of the classroom. The teacher teaches and the student are taught. The teacher talks and the students listen. The teacher chooses content and the students comply. Freire (2003) writes, “The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world.” The idea that teachers merely impart knowledge to students is irreconcilable with the types of educational philosophies and models Abeles encourages, such as The Blue School in New York City. While it is admirable to encourage students to spend time away from the books, the film seems to support a “learning is only for school” mindset which is grossing outdated for twenty-first century learners. Furthermore, the film fails to acknowledge how contemporary practices in curriculum development, especially flipped classrooms and blended learning, might negate some of the criticism of homework or how assigning homework as a strategy for engaging parental involvement may be a valuable practice at certain grade levels.
Critics have also mentioned the limited scope of participants in the film. “Most of the families in ‘Race to Nowhere’ are suburban and privileged, and the film has found its audience in those communities where parents often move for excellent schools,” wrote Trip Gabriel in the New York Times (Gabriel, 2010). Indeed, a significant portion of the film’s interviewees are from upper-class suburban neighborhoods in southern California. The narrow group of speakers leaves out the many perspectives of oppressed students who already face significant hurdles to high school completion and college readiness, a group whose race to achievement is undoubtedly more complex.
After documenting the effects of the achievement culture, Race to Nowhere finally (belatedly) begins to address possible ways to turn things around. Cautioning that there are no simple solutions and that many small changes can make a significant difference, the film’s interviewees call for a reform of college admissions expectations, a shift in priorities as parents, and a general change in the culture of achievement. Building on previous claims to decrease homework, Race to Nowhere calls for the education community to rethink achievement and learning. Current incentives align multiple layers of schools and their participants against the actual learning process.
While this theme is accurate and well-received by educators, the film seems to leave specific strategies for post-screening discussion sessions. But to the filmmaker’s credit, copies of the documentary come with a thick 246-page facilitation guide filled with handouts, fact-sheets, planned audience activities, sample surveys, and answers to frequently asked questions. If the film falls short of advocating specific policy solutions, it nevertheless provides facilitators at the local level with the necessary guidance to begin brainstorming solutions that would best-fit the needs of their districts, which has been a common theme of education reform policies in recent years.
Advocating changing culture, both in respect to parental and collegial practices, is, as the film notes, a challenging task. Abeles is wise to include such an expansive package of screening materials in order to use the documentary as a vehicle for conversations and reform, but the change process is nonetheless slow. All in all, Race to Nowhere is a striking, though incomplete, critique of achievement culture in America education. The takeaway message is encompassed by Stanford Professor, Denise Pope, who says, “When success is defined as high grades, test scores, and trophies, we know that we end up with unprepared, disengaged, exhausted, and ultimately unhealthy kids. It’s no longer about learning.”
Abeles, V. and Congdon, J (directors) & Attia, M. (writer). (2010). Race to nowhere (DVD). ReelLink Films (producer).
Cataldo, J. (2010, September 6). Film review: race to nowhere. Slant Magazine.
Catsoulis, J. (2010, September 9). The overscheduled child. The New York Times.
Freire, P. (2003). From pedagogy of the oppressed. In A. Darder, M.
Baltodano, & R. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp.57-68). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Gabriel, T. (2010, December 8). Parents embrace documentary on pressures of school. The New York Times.
Linden, S. (2010, September 9). Movie review: ‘race to nowhere’. The Los Angeles Times.
Jennings, N., Lovett, S., Cuba, L., Swingle, J., Lindkvist, H. (2013). “What would make this a successful year for you?” How students define success in college. Liberal Education, 99 (2).
Mathews, J. (2011, April 3). Why ‘race to nowhere’ documentary is wrong. The Washington Post.
Merrow, J. (2010, October 10). ‘Race to nowhere:’ it’s no ‘waiting for superman’, ‘but it’s honest. The Huffington Post.
Rifion-Meisels, G. (2011). Editor’s Review. Harvard Educational Review, 81 (4).
 Some of the sources in the bibliography are not directly cited in the review, although they were referenced while I was researching the film in order to assess what aspects of opinion have already been established and what I could build upon and expand in this paper.
1) Brain-based teaching
2) Game-based learning
3) Power of perseverance
4) Questioning homework
5) Cultivating creativity
“Let’s Stop Blaming Students | In Their Own Words | Big Think” http://feedly.com/k/166XTvg
Interview with Valerie Strauss at the Washington Post
Review by Anthony Cody at Education Week
Adobe completed a study of creativity in education and (unsurprisingly) found a serious lack thereof. The method was an interview of 4,000 teachers and parents and their results are compiled in the infographic below.
I haven’t read the actual study, but I’m a bit confused with the across-the-board perception that a lack of resources is a perceived hindrance to creativity. A lack of resources (in sort of an unfortunate way) necessitates creativity regarding instruction. Students often need special resources to complete projects that teachers feel are creative, but I’m not convinced that all of the projects the students would deem “creative” require substantial resources. It seems that with the rise of technology, accessibility to internet access is really the main concerns as far as resources (along with the skills to utilize that technology). I’m not arguing we have a great educational infrastructure by any means either (we definitely do not), including internet access in far too many schools. I just feel that creativity is more of a solution in and of itself to many of our problems rather than something that is inhibited in an absolute sense by any given factor or collection of factors.
The graphic is below, or can be found here: http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/education/pdfs/creativity-study-infographic.pdf
I can’t say that I agree with everything Niall Ferguson says or writes, particularly concerning politics, but he’s got some good points here about technology and learning. We can compare our school systems against others around the world or instead we can engage in a much more intimate process of ensuring a great education for each student. Rather than working to structure a system that is designed to (hopefully) produce a well-rounded citizen (after a decade and a half or so of studies), we should work harder with students to maximize their proficiency in technologies that aid their own teaching and learning.
I’m not saying the traditional school system is obsolete, but we surely need to totally rethink how we “do” school. I also certainly wouldn’t go as far as Ferguson does by claiming that our educational problems will solve themselves due to new technologies. I think we’ll always need (and desire) a teacher, leader, or learning facilitator within a well-organized system (I’m refraining from saying “bureaucracy” because of negative connotations, but more or less…) who assists students as they use technologies and other new forms of learning created by technologies. I recommend the article to fans of online learning, the future of ed., ed tech, etc.
New, big app for education, teaching, and learning. I’ll soon be adding my learnist profile somewhere on this blog once I get going. For now, check out the videos below to learn more.
Anyone who misses this is really overlooking a golden piece of inspiration to share with students.
Excellent article by John Hunter
– Necessary reading for anyone who works with kids, especially teachers
In Their Own Words | Big Think” http://feedly.com/k/15B7luP
“Smarter Balanced Practice Tests Help Teachers Prepare for the Common Core” http://feedly.com/k/11HVurF
A Tragic Day for Public Education in North Carolina | Diane Ravitch’s blog
Yvonne Brannan of Public Schools First NC sent the following comment:
“It is a tragic day in NC for our public schools, their teachers and students. The cuts to education reflect a very aggressive attack on public education. Eliminating $110 million for teacher assistants, eliminating teacher tenure, eliminating class size limits for K-3, no raise again this year, all of these unnecessary cuts wipe out three decades of steady progress. The most damaging is allowing for our hard earned tax dollars to be transferred to private schools. The privatization of public schools threatens the very cornerstone of our democracy and violates our state constitution. This is beyond comprehension and represents the worst public policy I have ever witnessed in NC History. These cuts to public education will have a direct impact at the classroom level, impacting every single one of our 1.5 million public school children. The General Assembly has abandoned the heart and soul of what makes our schools work and has set us on a course that will end public education as a common good in NC. We hope the business community will realize today that this attack on public education is an attack on our economic viability.”
” Key questions begging for answers about school reform” http://feedly.com/k/16L71Fd
Arthur H. Camins, director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology, poses some excellent points to consider when challenging assumptions of current ed.policy reform.
Very exciting model to adopt!
By Orion Jones
“Can Dutch iPad Schools Revolutionize Education? | IdeaFeed | Big Think” http://feedly.com/k/11b3Gmc
A selection of recent articles that have stood out:
“Laurene Powell Jobs Engages Education Secretary Arne Duncan On School Reform, Immigration Legislation – Forbes”
“I wish we had a lot more parents demanding a world-class education for our kids,” he said in response. “You watch the presidential debates, education was not a big issue… When you poll the American public, everyone says that their school is OK, but the rest of the country’s schools aren’t. That is physically impossible.”
“Laurene Powell Jobs Engages Education Secretary Arne Duncan On School Reform, Immigration Legislation – Forbes” http://feedly.com/k/105x07u
“Brazil’s Rousseff insists oil royalties should fund education” http://feedly.com/k/105wEhf
“Computer Problems in Three States Hamper Student Proficiency Tests – NYTimes.com” http://feedly.com/k/105wwhz
“I’m a big supporter of the Common Core. I wrote the best-selling book about it,” Calkins said. “But this makes even me question it.”
“Articles: The Education of the Romeiki Family” http://feedly.com/k/ZOKrZo