NCLB, at the time of its passage, was intended to provide “increased accountability for States, school districts, and schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; more flexibility for States and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of Federal education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on reading…” The Act ties federal education dollars to performance on standardized testing.  In large part, this stipulation has been the foundation for continued criticisms of the program. 

With federal funds tied to the performance outcomes of standardized testing measurements, many claim that teachers began “teaching to the test.”  Rather than explore the entirety of the curriculum, many teachers and school districts have been accused of focusing solely on the materials that they know will be on “the test.”  This summer, NCLB took a significant hit to its already shaky reputation when more than 100 teachers, principals, and public school officials in Atlanta were allegedly involved in altering students’ answers on the state’s Criterion Reference Competency Test (CRCT) to make it appear as if students were scoring higher on that standardized test than was actually the case. 

Other critics of NCLB claim that the federal government is requiring significant expenditures of the states in order to meet the various requirements of the Act.  For example, by requiring schools to provide “highly qualified” teachers to every student, some school districts may have to increase their teacher salaries.  The federal government has never fully funded NCLB and many states bemoan the various costs associated with the Act that the federal government does not cover.  Some consider the situation a Catch-22: many states are failing because of inadequate and less-than-qualified teachers.  Requiring them to employ more qualified teachers and staff will also require them to spend money, money that many states are having difficulties finding.

Dan Lips, education analyst at The Heritage Foundation, reported in November 2006 that during the Bush Administration, federal spending on public education increased significantly.  The organization states, “Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent.”   Lips noted in his report that this increase in funding had done little to improve the quality of American public schools and many were facing the same challenges that were in front of them at the inception of NCLB.  Beginning in 2006, however, federal education spending dropped significantly until 2010 when it jumped again to levels even higher than federal education spending in 2006. 

Last week, President Obama announced that he would allow states to liberate themselves from the burdens of some of the elements associated with No Child Left Behind.  Obama stated that he was providing greater flexibility to states because “’We can’t let another generation of young people fall behind.’”  Specifically, States will have an opportunity to apply for a waiver which would allow them greater autonomy in dealing with troubled or failing schools.  In order to expect the waiver to be granted, however, states would be required to show that they have been raising standards. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, President Obama tied the imperative of improving educational standards in the United States to the current economic situation.  He stated to an audience of education leaders attending a meeting on the topic at the White House that, “’We are in the midst of an enormous economic challenge…the most important thing we can do is make sure that our kids are prepared for this new economy.’”  This sentiment aligns with the President’s consistently-stated goal of increasing the nation’s college graduation rates so that America is once again the preeminent nation in that ranking. 

President Obama’s announcement about his waiver program coincides with Congress’ reconsideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  Passed in the mid-1960s as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” the ESEA has been the overarching policy guiding elementary and secondary education in the United States since its passage.  President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act was the reauthorization of the ESEA in 2001.  By mid-October Congress is expected to begin an intense review of ESEA.  Given the current political situation, it will be interesting to see if any significant changes are proposed and, if so, how closely the final ESEA reauthorization bill lines up with President Obama’s latest initiative offering NCLB waivers for individual states. 
 

Regardless of the speaker or panel topic, if there was an underlying theme, it was “America’s education system is broken.  There are many good ideas.  If we don’t implement them soon, our nation will suffer.”  Whether it was James Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement, US Department of Education; Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University; Craig Barrett, retired CEO of Intel Corporation; or Joel Klein, EVP at News Corp and former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; all of them delivered the message that we need to reform our education system.  Dr. Crow talked about how the taxpayers of Arizona are paying twice for inadequately prepared high school graduates who have to take remedial math and reading courses when they matriculate in Arizona’s colleges.  Dr. Barrett listed the many policy studies beginning with A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform that identified the problems in our education system and yet little progress has been made.  Joel Klein said that the perverse incentives with K-12 leave little reason for striving for excellence in teaching and learning.

Despite the big issues that need to be solved, I think this nation has the ability to solve many of these problems.  I left the conference committed to not just focusing on higher education issues, but to see if there are ways that members of our institution can contribute to K-12 innovations and improvements as well.  We have reached the stage where it’s no longer appropriate to say that the problems are someone else’s.  Reforming education is all of our responsibilities and cooperation is needed if we want to improve the lives of the generations behind us.

Rich states that the approach, called reading workshop, is catching on throughout America’s public schools as a way to teach students how to enjoy reading rather than forcing them to read traditional tomes such as Toni Morrison’s  Beloved or Harper Lee‘s To Kill a Mockingbird, a selection that McNeill used to require her students to read.  Selected school districts in Chicago, Seattle, and New York are employing similar tactics, according to Ms. Rich.  At the same time, she states that none are going as far as Ms. McNeill who attended a seminar in Atlanta taught by Nancy Atwell.  Atwell and Lucy M. Calkins at Columbia University’s Teachers College have emerged as “gurus” of the reading workshop movement.

Rich balances comments from critics of the reading workshop approach and proponents of the approach.  Some of the critics acknowledge that if allowing students to choose the books that they read leads to an enjoyment of reading, than it’s probably better than requiring just the classics to be read by the entire class.

Many critics of McNeill’s approach argue that reading a work as a group allows for meaningful exchange and insights into the substance of the book.  Other critics speculate that one teacher cannot possibly keep up with the many and varied selections of an entire class of students.  Diane Ravitch, professor of education at New York University and Assistant Education Secretary in the George H.W. Bush administration states in the article that students are more likely to pick up “’trendy and popular’” books and not the classic works like Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, perhaps leading to a generation of students who are completely unfamiliar with the works that have shaped American literature for decades and longer. 

Proponents of the methodology note that instilling a love of reading in students can be difficult when educators and administrators force them to read works with which students have a difficult time connecting.  According to Rich, John T. Guthrie, retired professor of literacy at the University of Maryland, has conducted several studies on how student choice impacts performance on reading comprehension tests and has found that “giving students…options can enhance educational results.”  While McNeill herself notes in the article that she struggles from time to time with students who neglect to challenge themselves by reading works that are substantive, her students are reading works that are arguably as challenging and thought-provoking as “the classics.”  Though it sometimes takes some guidance, McNeill’s students are reading works like Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, John Marsden’s Tomorrow, When the War Began, and Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings among others.

The article concludes with a summary of the state standardized testing scores for reading of McNeill’s eight graders, 15 of the 18 scored in the highest bracket.  Only four of the same students had done so the previous year before McNeill implemented the reading workshop program.  I wish Ms. McNeill and others continued success in finding innovative ways to improve the ways in which our children learn to enjoy reading.  Our nation’s future depends on it.

Chronicle Research Services released the first of a three part report last month that describes the characteristics they predict that we will see in college graduates of the class of 2020.  The fundamental themes of the report are that as the class of 2020 (today’s first graders) enter their college years, their demands on colleges and universities will be drastically different from what students have previously expected, forcing higher educational institutions to reconsider their curriculums, formats, and basic characteristics.

Even today’s youngest students have integrated technologies into their everyday lives.  The authors, Martin Van Der Werf and Grant Sabatier, note that approximately 50 percent of middle and high school students surveyed indicated that they would use mobile devices and online technologies to communicate with classmates outside of the classroom, conduct research for projects, and engage in proactive learning strategies if provided the opportunity.  This gives credence to the notion that these students feel hindered by school systems that have not yet embraced such technologies as supplemental learning and teaching tools.

As colleges and universities struggle under burdensome economic conditions, they will be forced to find new ways of attracting students.  In addition, if these institutions are to increase enrollments, middle and high schools must address the rising drop-out rates among students at an early age.  Citing the report, “Diplomas Count: School to College: Can State P-16 Councils Ease the Transition?” the authors note that “’nearly 1.23 million members of the public high-school class of 2008 will fail to graduate with a diploma.  That amounts to a loss of 6,829 students from the U.S. graduation pipeline per day.’”  In addition to addressing the issues associated with increasing high school dropout rates, colleges and universities will be faced with the task of educating students and their parents about the means by which students can achieve college educations, both academically and financially.

The demographic makeup of the student population in the United States is continuing to change in dramatic ways.  The growing number of minority students enrolling in public middle and high schools in the United States means that colleges and universities must find more creative and compelling ways of drawing them to their institutions.  The report notes that income differences between the various minority groups will impact the college choices of students from those groups. 

Interestingly, the report contends that many students are inadequately prepared for college curriculums.  One solution to this particular problem that the report provides is developing a five year curriculum in colleges and universities with the first year being remedial and providing students with the skills to be able to successfully complete subsequent college courses.  This seems somewhat contradictory; if students are forced by tough economic times to strongly consider college costs in making their choices, adding an additional year would mean adding additional costs.  Ideally, our college schools of education should work more with local K-12 systems to provide guidance on what works best to prepare students for college while in high school.

Our definition of traditional college students is that they fall in the 18 to 24-year-old age range.  The authors note that is changing and institutions of higher education must develop ways of attracting older students if they are to succeed in the decades to come.  Van Der Werf and Sabatier write that “in 2000, 60 percent of college students were ages 18 to 24, and 21.1 percent were ages 25 to 34.  In 2016, 58.8 percent will be 18 to 24, and 24 percent will be 25 to 34.” 

The authors have provided substantial support for their claim that for-profit educational institutions are leading the charge in revamping the world of higher education to suit the needs of today’s students.  For example, they contend that “computers will be even more central to the educations of younger students now rising through elementary and high schools.”  They cite the findings of the “Speak Up 2008” report published by Project Tomorrow which conclude that today’s K-12 students are “’in fact a ‘Digital Advance Team’ illuminating the path for how to leverage emerging technologies effectively for teaching and learning.’”  According to the report, for-profit institutions are far more likely to provide distance education courses to students, allowing flexibility for students to pursue careers, families, and other opportunities while continuing their educations.  Thanks to this flexibility, for-profit institutions are able to attract students older than the traditional college student, benefitting from the fact that more adults are returning to college to supplement their skills in order to advance their careers in an increasingly competitive job market. 

Data cited in the report indicates that between 2000 and 2007, “enrollment in distance-education courses nearly quadrupled, from 3,077,000 to 12,153,000.”  Arguably more “nimble” than their non-profit counterparts, for-profit institutions have managed to develop a market niche in the higher education industry that has allowed for their overwhelming growth in enrollments.  Whereas more traditional institutions struggle to integrate new and existing technologies in the classroom, technologies that students are already and will increasingly expect and demand, the for-profit educational sector has responded more quickly with the implementation of innovative and modern technology in the classroom.  Citing a 2008 paper published by Harvard Business School professor (and, author of Disrupting Class), Clayton M. Christensen, the report states that “by 2019 half of courses in Grades 9 to 12 will be delivered online.” 

K-12 students in many states are already enjoying the benefits afforded by online education.  The Florida Virtual School, for example, enrolled some 63,000 Florida students for the 2007-08 school year.  According to Van Der Werf and Sabatier, “all 16 states represented by the Southern Regional Education Board now have a virtual public school at some stage of development.” 

Undoubtedly, the most elite schools in America will continue to attract significant numbers of applicants; they have successfully developed a brand and reputation that will allow them to weather the current financial storm.  For-profit colleges will also remain strong in the face of economic uncertainty and will surely gain in popularity.  Other colleges and universities, however, particularly those without well-known names and brand recognition, will struggle to attract students who will continue to make demands for innovative uses of technologies and flexibility in learning formats as they make their choices in which colleges to attend. 

While some of these publications are available to the public, the report was a worthwhile purchase in that it provided greater focus to the issue of what to do to prepare for future college students.  Indeed, as described in a May 31 article in The Boston Globe, the “traditional” college path is no longer the norm.  Four-year graduation rates are mythical, according to Neil Swidley, author of the article.  At the most elite private schools, four-year degree completion rates remain steady.  At other schools, however, the four-year degree is quickly turning into six years or even longer.  According to Swidley’s article, the number of adults who took the “’traditional’” path through college, receiving their bachelors degrees within four years, is less than ten percent, based on data from 2005.  In short, the definition of “traditional” is changing both in the way we characterize students and in the path we expect them to take to earning their degrees.  If higher education is to meet President Obama’s goal of bringing America back to its preeminent position as a global leader in college graduation rates, the industry as a whole must realize that fact.

McKinsey & Company

The authors state that “the United States lags significantly behind other advanced nations in educational performance and is slipping further behind on some important measures.”  An interesting element of this particular analysis is that this international disparity in educational achievement affects every American student equally, regardless of race, income, or location.  Citing research published by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the authors provide some discouraging statistics.  For example, “American 15-year-olds are on par with students in Portugal and the Slovak Republic, rather than with students in countries that are more relevant competitors for service-sector and high-value jobs like Canada, the Netherlands, Korea and Australia.”  Additionally, the report finds that whereas 40 years ago, the United States was a world leader in high school graduation rates, today it ranks 18th out of 24 industrialized nations in this category.  Further, the report’s findings reveal that low-income students in the United States fare significantly worse than low-income students in other industrialized nations in educational attainment.

The McKinsey report notes that “on average, black and Latino students are roughly two to three years of learning behind white students of the same age.”  Adding urgency to this particular disparity is the authors’ finding that “in eighth grade math, US Latino students perform below students in Malta and Serbia and about as well as students in Malaysia; US black students lag behind Romania and Bulgaria and roughly match students in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” As these population groups are growing faster than the white population in America, this gap will compound the problem if steps are not taken to improve the education achievements of blacks and Latinos.

The income achievement gap is equally as severe as the international and racial achievement gaps in American schools.  Students living in poverty (for purposes of this report defined as those eligible to receive free school lunches), according to the McKinsey report, are approximately two years of learning behind the “better-off” students.  On a larger scale, schools located in predominantly underprivileged areas and serving students of lower economic statuses are underperforming schools in more affluent areas of the country.  Even within states that have high National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) achievement scores overall, income disparities among students reflect in their state-wide test scores.  In Massachusetts, for example, a state with one of the highest overall NAEP scores, “students eligible for free lunch are six times more likely to be below ‘basic’ in fourth grade math than ineligible students.” 

The system-based achievement gap examined in the McKinsey report provides another striking example of how the United States is failing to provide adequate educational opportunities for many American students.  There are obvious differences in teaching methods, funding, and overall student achievement between the states, within the states between different school districts, and even within the same school districts between different schools.  For example, the report notes that “poor black students in Washington, DC, are roughly 4 years of learning behind poor white students in Massachusetts.”  (emphasis in original)

The report takes a dual-focused approach, examining the benefits for individuals as well as for the nation and economy as a whole in closing the achievement gap in American schools.  There are obvious benefits for individual students in the United States working to mitigate the achievement gap.  For example, the report states that in New York City, “students who scored in the top quartile in math in eighth grade had a 40 percent higher median income twelve years later than students who scored in the bottom quartile.”  Other significant benefits would come to individual students if the United States reduced the achievement gap.  The authors contend that “the less educated a person is, the likelier that person is to end up behind bars” and that “a high school dropout is five to eight times more likely to be incarcerated than a college graduate.”  According to the report, the better educated an individual is, the more likely he is to live a healthier lifestyle, including maintain health insurance and avoid high-risk health activities like excessive drinking or smoking.

The various elements of the achievement gap in American schools are well-documented.  The McKinsey report takes the analysis of the situation to a further level, however, documenting the economic implications of such achievement gaps in the United States.  It is this portion of the report that is perhaps most disturbing.  Analyzing the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the report notes that if the United States had heeded the warning of the 1983 report titled, “A Nation at Risk,” which warned of a “’rising tide of mediocrity’ in American education,” national GDP could have been increased substantially.  For example, if the United States had succeeded in raising performance between 1983 and 1998 to levels found in nations like Finland and Korea, GDP in the United States in 2008 could have been between $1.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion higher.  Considering the large increase in minority student enrollment in American schools over the last several decades, if the United States had worked to minimize or even eliminate racial disparities in academic achievement in its minority student populations, not only would those individual students be more successful later in life, the GDP of the United States could have been $400 billion to $670 billion more in 2008 than it actually was.

There is still reason for optimism, however, and for all its doom and gloom the McKinsey report drives home the message that all hope is not lost for American students.  The report points out that “in some areas, the racial gap has been overcome,” citing Latino students in Ohio who are outperforming white students in 13 other states on the eighth grade NAEP reading test.  In addition, some students who find themselves in low income households manage to maintain the motivation to do well in school despite the various achievement disparities described in the report. 

Overall, the McKinsey report reiterates the findings of many other reports that describe the achievement gap among students of varying racial, economic, and geographic backgrounds.  The substantial and striking difference in the McKinsey report, however, is its analysis of the individual and national economic ramifications of such disparities.  In considering the educational standards of other nations in comparison to those of the United States, the McKinsey report leaves little doubt that if American students are to compete for jobs with their international counterparts, we must work diligently at minimizing the achievement gaps described in the report.

Online education has gained tremendous momentum in the last several years.  A November 2008 report titled, “Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008” published by the Sloan Consortium notes that during the fall 2007 semester, some 3.9 million students were taking at least one course online, representing a twelve percent increase over the previous year.  During the same semester, twenty percent of all college students were taking at least one course online.  An Eduventures report from November 2006 predicted this growth; that report found that half of the 2,000 potential students surveyed indicated that they would be interested in completing a degree online.

Though the recently released Department of Education report focuses on online formats for K-12 education, the findings are relevant for online education in general.  The 2006 Eduventures report notes that online education was most popular among adult learners.  The Department of Education report, however, notes that “the number of K-12 public school students enrolling in a technology-based distance education course grew by 65 percent in the two years from 2002-03 to 2004-05.”  In total, the report states that more than a million K-12 students took online courses during the 2007-2008 school year.  Such statistics are promising for online colleges and universities like APUS.  If K-12 students excel in online education in their early education, it seems likely that they may continue with the online format for undergraduate, graduate, and even doctoral degrees.  In Disrupting Class, authors Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson predict that 25 percent of K-12 classes will be online by 2014 and 50 percent by 2019.  (For a review of Disrupting Class, see my August 2008 blog article.)

In considering the reasons why online courses are growing in popularity, the Department of Education report notes that the ability for students to use their time in a flexible manner boosted online education’s popularity.  According to the study, “learners in the online condition spent more time on tasks than students in the face-to-face condition” finding “a greater benefit for online learning.”  There are obvious cost-saving benefits to online formats and some that are not as obvious including the ability to attend class from one’s home and saving money on the gas a traditional student needs to commute to classes at a brick and mortar institution. 

Additionally, online education expands access to many who may otherwise lack educational opportunities.  Online education could provide significant benefits to those living in rural areas, for example.  The diverse student population found in online classrooms promotes a meaningful exchange of ideas and points of view that is often absent in more traditional classrooms which, especially in traditional K-12 schools are comprised of students from a particular geographic location.  Christensen and his co-authors argue that advances in technology will allow K-12 educators to meet the needs of their students more than ever before.  In the event of smaller school districts with limitations of special teachers, foreign languages like Arabic and Mandarin Chinese could be offered online.  Already, there are providers who offer online advanced placement courses for school districts unable to find qualified teachers.

The implications of the report’s findings for the online education industry are significant.  A recent article in Inside Higher Ed quotes Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as saying of the meta-analysis and its findings, “’This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide.’” 

Today’s students are embracing technology in almost everything they do.  Cell phones, MP3 players, laptop computers, and portable gaming devices are the norm for anyone who can afford them and the cost of technology continues to decrease every day.  The online education market is a part of the technology revolution.  Institutions that embrace online degree programs are expanding access to education for many of America’s students.  Higher education is notorious for its perceived conservation of traditional pedagogies and unwillingness to utilize new technologies to transform the ways that students learn.  With the advent of online education, however, the world of higher education is breaking out of that mold and students are benefitting in the process. 

In addition to affording students some flexibility in their schedules, opportunities for learning are dramatically increased in the online format.  Because students are not tied to classrooms and able to complete work on a more flexible schedule, they are also able to dedicate time to even more non-traditional educational opportunities including volunteer work, memberships in clubs and organizations, and other extracurricular activities that certainly provide invaluable experience.  Working individuals often find that earning a degree online allows them the ability to continue with their careers while working toward attaining their degrees.  In general, I believe that such opportunities help encourage the development of a more well-rounded student and individual.

The meta-analysis released Friday by the Department of Education is not the first study that recognized the advance of online education for students’ learning outcomes.  Coming from the arm of the federal government, its recognized stature makes this report more significant.  As the nation struggles to develop citizens who can effectively compete in our globalizing world, online education is becoming an appealing alternative to traditional brick and mortar classrooms.  With the current economic crisis unfolding as it is, many more individuals will find the economic benefits of online education (ie: lower tuitions, no commuting costs, etc.) worthwhile, allowing online program providers the opportunity to enhance the technologies offered in their classrooms.

A 2006 estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau states that there are 6.8 million teachers in the United States, approximately one-third of them teaching at the elementary, middle and high school levels (the other two-thirds teach at preschool, kindergarten or college levels).  According to the Census Bureau report, teachers in Connecticut enjoyed the largest salaries in the nation, an average of $57,300, while teachers in South Dakota earned only $33,200 per year, the lowest in the nation.  The national average teacher salary in 2006 was $46,800.  Considering the importance of the job the nation’s teachers perform, such striking salary discrepancies are disappointing.  The recent budget crises in most states don’t offer much hope that teacher salaries will improve in the near future.

Across the nation, teachers and even students are uniting to bring attention to the plight of America’s public schools in the face of drastic budget cuts.  A Washington Times article from last month noted that Broward County, Florida is facing a $160 million deficit in its education budget, forcing that county’s school board to have some tough discussions which may lead to the cessation of several sports and other after-school programs.  The same article describes how students in Richmond Heights, Ohio may be facing the possibility of no school sponsored sports at all in the next school year.  In that school district, school sponsored band programs have already been eliminated.  The situation in some public schools is so dire, according to the article, that one principal in Detroit “drew national attention after she called on parents to donate light bulbs and toilet paper to get them through the school year.”

A National Public Radio (NPR) report from April 15 notes that Los Angeles public schools are facing one of the biggest deficits in the nation (some $600 million) and are anticipating slashing thousands of jobs in the coming year.  The school district, according to the article, is expecting to receive $360 million from President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as “the stimulus package”) but that falls tremendously short of the total needed just in Los Angeles public schools, not to mention the hundreds, possibly thousands, of millions that would be required to cover the deficits facing all the nation’s public school systems.

Even with the best intentions of law makers, including California’s Governor Schwarzenegger who claimed that 2008 would be the “Year of Education” in California, there is little doubt that teachers are forced to work harder with fewer resources.  While America’s public schools are grossly underfunded, public policy researchers are calling for better preparation of our K-12 students for college in order that President Obama’s goal of “ensuring that America will regain lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.”  Additionally, President Obama has expressed his intent that all Americans enroll in at least one year of higher education or job training.  Looking at the trends in our higher population growth states, that level of preparation will be a tough challenge with the increasing percentage of students who do not speak English as a native language and the lack of funding for our teachers in order to work with students with language, culture, and other issues.  The Pew Research Center estimates that seven-in-ten Hispanic students enrolled in US public schools, for example, speak a language other than English at home.  The 2008 Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) “Challenge to Lead” report for Texas noted that that Texas could expect a 24 percent increase in K-12 student enrollment between 2006 and 2016 while the national average for the same time frame is only 14 percent.  The growth in student enrollment in Texas will be predominantly from Hispanic populations and the Texas public school system will be required to find ways to integrate these students who may require additional attention to develop their English language skills.

Similar projections are estimated for California, Florida, and North Carolina, as well.  A 2008 report published by the Pew Research Center notes that in 2006, Hispanic students accounted for nearly half of all public school students in California, up from 36 percent in 1990.   According to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), California’s Hispanic population will continue to grow so that by the 2015 white non-Hispanic students will account for only 28.9 percent of the California’s public school graduates while Hispanic students will represent nearly half of California’s graduates.  Between 2006 and 2016, according to SREB, Florida’s population is expected to increase by 20 percent, the highest growth rate in the region.  The number of Hispanic students in Florida public schools is expected to increase from 19 percent to 36 percent between 2004 and 2018.  In North Carolina, for the same time period, the number of Hispanic students in public schools is expected to increase from 3 percent to 33 percent.

Our nation’s colleges and universities need to update our teacher education curriculums to prepare teachers, principals, and counselors for some of the ongoing and future challenges.  Technology can help, according to Clayton Christensen in his book, Disrupting Class, by leveraging the skills of skilled teachers with the multiple learning differences experienced in today’s classroom (see my August 2008 blog article for more information on this book and Christensen’s analysis of how technology can be used to develop student-centric teaching styles).  We have to identify and instruct future teachers how to use the technologies.  States and cities have to assure that funding for training and equipment purchases is available as well.

Given the current state of affairs vis-à-vis the nation’s economic situation, teachers today are without question forced to perform one of the most important public services with very few resources.  This week and indeed all year, teachers, I commend you for your efforts and applaud your dexterity in managing bureaucratic stresses while continuing your focus on educating our nation’s young minds for the future.  Thank you for all you do!

Chuck Resor of Jackson Hole, Wyoming invented FlashMaster after becoming frustrated with other educational technologies.   The short biography provided on the FlashMaster website states that Chuck’s most relevant qualification for inventing the product is that he is a parent himself who also struggled with how to most effectively supplement the math training his own children received.  He hired an engineering firm to craft his concept and a Chinese manufacturing firm to build it.  The gadget is a little bigger than a Nintendo DS and probably not as much fun.  However, for those of you who think that today’s elementary school programs do not teach the basic fundamentals of math (math facts) and whose children do not respond well to flash cards, this is the tool for you.

FlashMaster comes with an instruction booklet; but it is written for teachers and parents.  On the front page, the guide recommends that the device be handed to children to learn as much as they can about how it works without reading the directions.  There are nine levels each of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.  You can set the level of difficulty for each as well as the time that you want to answer all thirty questions at each level.  The problem is displayed on a screen and you type in the keys corresponding to the numeric answer.  If you get an answer wrong, a little beep is registered and the question is automatically stored for a review at the end.  You can also change the format of your question from straightforward (1+2 = ?) to (? + 2 = 3) or (1 + ? = 3).  At the highest level and the shortest time, you really have to know your math facts to answer thirty multiplication and division questions correctly.  There’s even a memory function that allows the student or the student’s teacher or parents to review which questions the student missed while using Flashmaster. 

Our girls enjoy using the device and challenge each other with how many questions they could answer correctly in a sixty second, 150 second, or 180 second time period.   I am confident that they will improve their math facts while playing with the Flashmaster.  I am not related to Chuck, do not know Chuck, and do not have a financial relationship with Chuck.  Chuck, many thanks for inventing this device.  I wish that I had.  I think it is one of the best tools for improving basic math skills and I think we need millions of them in America, particularly in elementary classrooms.

Some of the prescient points that the authors make in the book are:  increasing spending on the wrong items (like more computers) won’t necessarily help improve K-12, blaming the problems solely on the teachers’ unions won’t improve K-12, and unless students and teachers are motivated, problems won’t necessarily get solved.

I have already recommended this book to several people I know who serve on Boards of Education at the state and county levels.   My reason for recommending the book is that it presents a well-organized and researched approach to resolving some of today’s biggest educational dilemmas.  The authors provide cogent reasoning about students learning in different ways, the positive force behind disruption, and how K-12 education in America is constantly changing.  They provide examples of how technology can be harnessed to develop student-centric teaching, tailoring the education program to a specific student’s learning style.  Christensen’s expertise is in innovation, and he and his co-authors discuss the difficulties in getting to stage two learning by implementing the disrupting technologies outside of K-12 education before bringing them inside the K-12 classroom. 

A fascinating read for me was the research supporting the fact that changes in education need to occur before individuals reach the age of three, primarily citing the work done by Drs. Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley.  The authors add that education research in schools of education in higher education have not consistently supported consistent results with consistent improvement.  Lastly, they provide a toolkit for administrators to implement a successful improvement plan.

For those of you looking for a thoughtful read on K-12 education improvements, this is one of the best that I’ve read.  With improvements in technology leading to disruption in how children are educated, Christensen and his team predict that by 2019, half of high school classes will be delivered online and 25% will be online by 2014.  Reading the book will provide an understanding of the factors influencing his prediction, but it will also provide educators with some thought-provoking ideas that are not out of the realm of practical possibilities for implementation.

In the K-12 market, online schools have been gaining popularity too.  K-12 may be the most famous of the online programs, having gone public in December of 2007 after beginning its online programs in 1999.   K-12 offers online charter schools in 26 states (including the District of Columbia) as well as private programs.  Connections Academy is another educational company that runs online charter school programs in 15 states.   K-12 and Connections Academy aren’t the oldest K-12 distance education programs, but have the advantage of being started after the advent of the internet.

There are several ways that online K-12 programs and classes provide advantages to students, educators, and parents.  Homeschooling has become more popular over the past 20 years.  Not every parent is talented enough to provide supervision and direction to their child through kits from correspondence schools or publishing houses.  Online courses can provide qualified instructors for subjects where the parent feels uncomfortable explaining the content.  In states where there are shortages of qualified teachers, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics, online courses can provide an avenue of instruction for schools unable to find qualified teachers locally.  In thinly populated areas, online instruction could provide a source of education for areas unable to afford or to attract specialists such as advanced placement teachers.   In the event of a natural disaster, school fire, or other disruption, online schools could provide a continuation of education even if the students and faculty were located in separate states.  In such situations, it is unlikely that traditional brick and mortar schools could do the same. Rules and regulations governing K-12 education may block online opportunities in many school districts around the country and have convinced our management team to continue to focus on the opportunities in post-secondary education.