Categories for Education Outcomes
September 4, 2020
Teacher Induction. Teacher induction is a set of practices that help transferring and beginning teachers become competent and effective instructors. The goals of induction are to improve instructional practices; to help teachers in their first years understand and effectively integrate into school and community cultures; and ultimately to improve pupil learning. By supporting the teachers and facilitating their socialization into the profession, school systems could potentially reduce the significant turnover rate of teachers in the first 5 years of employment. Despite its substantial cost, induction has failed to meet most of the stated goals. Research reveals that despite setting high expectations, current models fall short in selecting evidence-based approaches for accomplishing the task. Goals and practices for induction activities are not clearly defined nor is performance effectively monitored. Finally, most models fail to provide effective implementation strategies necessary for sustainability. The overall message is that comprehensive teacher induction has the potential to positively impact teaching practices and pupil learning, but it requires careful reconsideration of current conceptual, procedural, and empirical foundations of the practice.
Citation: Cleaver, S., Detrich, R., States, J. & Keyworth, R. (2020). Overview of Teacher Induction. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/in-service-professional-induction.
Link: https://www.winginstitute.org/in-service-induction
September 3, 2020
The Summer Slide: Fact or Fiction? For over fifteen years, it has been conventional wisdom that disadvantaged students fall behind their advantaged peers during summer breaks. Correlational research appears to support this conclusion, Wing Institute Data Mining. This pattern has led researchers such as Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) and Allington & McGill-Franzen (2018) to conclude that differential gain/loss over the summer thoroughly explains the gap in achievement advantaged and disadvantaged students. Recent studies of summer slide are finding results that call summer slide into question (Kuhfeld, 2019; Quinn et al., 2016), or agree that summer losses are similar for advantaged and disadvantaged students (Atteberry & McEachin, 2020).
Citation: Slavin, R. (2020). The Summer Slide: Fact or Fiction? Baltimore, MD.: Bet Evidence Encyclopedia. https://robertslavinsblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/the-summer-slide-fact-or-fiction/
Link: https://robertslavinsblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/the-summer-slide-fact-or-fiction/
September 2, 2020
Leadership Models. Several major school leadership models have served to identify and organize the research literature regarding what is known about the competencies and characteristics of effective school leaders to enhance understanding and inform practice. Instructional leadership, which considers how school leaders influence teaching and learning and includes functions such as developing the school’s mission/vision/goals, managing every facet of the instructional program, and ensuring a positive school climate, has been consistently shown to influence teaching quality and student outcomes through several decades of research. The most recent models of instructional leadership have broadened to include examination of how factors, such as school context and teacher leadership, moderate the influence of instructional leadership. Distributed or shared leadership has also emerged as a leading model, with research suggesting that principals cannot “do it alone,” but must share leadership responsibilities among staff. Distributed leadership research has yielded positive associations between this style and a variety of teacher and student outcomes, but also suggests that effectiveness depends on allocating leadership tasks based on patterns of staff expertise to optimize outcomes. Transformational leadership, which stresses school leaders as change agents that inspire and motivate staff to improve collective efficacy and a positive school trajectory, has shown to be influential to teacher outcomes, but somewhat less influential for student outcomes than other types of leadership. Today, integrated models of leadership, which include elements of instructional, distributed, and transformation leadership are most common, and reflect how school leaders use different types of leadership in different situations and coordinate with teachers to influence instructional and learning. Also emerging are leadership frameworks for equity, such as culturally responsive leadership, that focus on how school leaders foster or inhibit equitable educational systems and student outcomes.
Citation: Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Leadership Models. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/quality-leadership-leadership-models
Link: hhttps://www.winginstitute.org/quality-leadership-leadership-models
August 31, 2020
Structured Environment Overview. An effective classroom behavior management program involves both proactive strategies to prevent challenging behavior, and reactive strategies to respond to challenging behavior when it occurs. One type of proactive strategy is attending to the physical environment of the classroom, including how desk arrangement, visual displays, and classroom noise can affect student behavior. Modifying characteristics of the physical environment is a primary intervention in a multitiered system of support (MTSS). This overview summarizes research on the effects of the physical classroom environment on student behavior.
Citation: Guinness, K., Detrich, R., Keyworth, R. & States, J. (2020). Overview of Structured Environment. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/classroom-structured-environments
Link: https://www.winginstitute.org/classroom-structured-environments
August 31, 2020
“Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019”.
Even before the Covid-19 pandemic closed down K-12 education and established an overwhelming interest in remote learning, there has been a rush towards creating virtual schools (also referred to as virtual charter schools, virtual academies, online schools, or cyber schools). There is a belief that virtual schools can customize online curriculum to individual students more effectively than curriculum in traditional classrooms, expand student choices, and attain greater student achievement than in traditional school models. And, the promise of lower costs makes this alternative attractive to both policymakers and for-profit provider. The question is, does research back up these claims?
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) report—Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019—is its seventh annual report attempting to answer these questions. This report is a comprehensive attempt to analyze the characteristics and performance of K-12 virtual schools, review the current research as it relates to virtual school practices and outcomes, examine state legislative efforts to monitor these programs, and make policy recommendations.
Even though the current number of schools represents a small portion of the overall K-12 system, they constitute some of the fastest-growing options. The report examined two models: virtual schools (in which students receive all of their instruction on-line) and blended schools (offering a combination of face-to-face and online activities). Both are models that will be receiving much attention as K-12 education tries to navigate the Covid-19 waters. As of the 2017-18 school year, there were 501 virtual schools serving 300,000 students across 35 states. This represents a 20% growth over the previous five years. Seventy-nine percent of these students were enrolled in virtual charter schools, twenty-one percent enrolled in district operated schools. Sixty percent of the total enrollment was in schools operated by for-profit organizations.
In the same year, there were 300 blended learning schools serving 132,960 students across 33 states. Enrollment in this model has grown dramatically, increasing from 36,605 students in 2015-16 to 132,960 students in FY 2017-18 (263% increase). Only 26.7% of blended schools were operated by for-profit organizations.
This report examined the relative performance of virtual schools, blended schools and traditional schools using annual state-assigned school performance ratings and high school graduation rates. School performance ratings varied somewhat across states, but generally included: student academic performance, graduation rates, achievement gaps, attendance, parent/student satisfaction, etc. The resulting data classified schools as academically acceptable or academically unacceptable. Less than fifty percent (48.5%) virtual schools had acceptable school performance ratings. Only 44.6% of blended schools had acceptable school performance ratings. There was no data provided for traditional district schools.
An analysis of high school graduation rate data produced similar results. Only 50% of students in virtual schools graduated on time from High Schools, compared to 61.5% for blended schools and 84% for traditional district schools.
Citation(s): Molnar, A., Miron, G., Elgeberi, N., Barbour, M.K., Huerta, L., Shafer, S.R., Rice, J.K. (2019). Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved August 25, 2020]from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2019.
Links:http://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Virtual%20Schools%202019.pdf
August 31, 2020
“Teachers’ Use of Technology for School and Homework Assignments: 2018–19 First Look”. This report was generated in response to the enormous role technology is, and will increasingly be, playing in providing remote learning opportunities for students, whether in supporting part-time “school based” education or temporarily replacing it altogether. The provides data on the access and availability of computers, smartphones, and the Internet to students at home, the impact that students’ access to technology outside of school has on teachers’ homework assignments, and ways that teachers provide assistance to their students who have limited access to technology and the Internet outside of school. The following are some of the more important findings.
Teacher Awareness of Home Computer Availability and Use: Teachers are on the front line of interfacing with students about their access to computers and the Internet at home. Yet, they often have inexact information in this area. Teachers reported that they get information by doing surveys of students or parents (51 percent), talking to students or parents individually (84 percent), and developing a sense while working with students. Yet, among all teachers, a little over one in five reported being very knowledgeable and one in two reported being somewhat knowledgeable about their students’ access to computers and the Internet at home.School Support for Access to Computers and Internet: Only twenty-six percent of teachers reported that their students have district- or school-provided computers for students to take home on a long-term basis during the school year. Thirty-six percent of teachers reported that the teachers estimated the percentage of their students who have access to a computer at home, including district- or school-provided computers for students who take them home. About two-thirds of teachers estimated that 75 percent or more of their students have access to a computer at home. While computers and Internet service might exist in students’ households, computer availability for homework and the reliability of computer connections to the Internet can vary considerably. About a third (35 percent) of teachers estimated that their students’ home computers were very available for school assignments. Twenty-nine percent of teachers thought it very likely that their students’ home computers had reliable Internet access.
Access to Technology and Homework Assignments: About half of the teachers reported that their students’ access to technology and the Internet outside of school has a moderate (28 percent) or large (20 percent) influence on the homework they assign to them. About a fifth (19 percent) of teachers reported that they often assign technology-based homework and an additional 28 percent reported doing so sometimes. The teachers who assign technology-based homework, at least rarely, were asked the extent that their students have difficulty completing this type of homework because they are not familiar with how to use technology.
Among the 98 percent of teachers whose students are given online or computerized assessments by the state, district, or school, 44 percent reported that their students were very prepared and 39 percent reported students to be somewhat prepared to use the technology required for these assessments.
The overall conclusions of this survey is that, while there have been successes along the way to integrating technology into education, there is a long way to go in terms of data systems, resources, accountability, and ongoing support to meet the new needs for remote learning.
Citation(s): Gray, L., and Lewis, L. (2020). Teachers’ Use of Technology for School and Homework Assignments: 2018–19 (NCES 2020-048). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020048
Link: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020048.pdf
August 25, 2020
“Amid Pandemic, Support Soars for Online Learning, Parent Poll Shows: Education Next released the findings from its 14th annual survey of American views on education. The survey was conducted in May 2020. While this was early in the Covid-19 pandemic, unemployment was already 14.7%, the economy in recession, and the schools were shutdown. This survey provides one of the first opportunities to evaluate the public’s views on education in this context. Survey participants were asked their views on: teacher pay, school funding, online education, home schooling, school choice, vouchers, charter schools, school reform, overall satisfaction with teachers and schools, the impact partisan politics has on people’s opinions, cost of higher education, and the impact of populism in public schools. The following examines several of these catagories in greater detail.
The public’s greatest support for increasing teacher pay and K-12 school funding occurred in the previous year’s (2019) survey. This support declined slightly in 2020, but remains close to the all-time high for the past 14 years. Fifty-five percent of participants say teacher salaries should increase. There remains a significant distance between Democrat’s support (66%) and that of Republicans (40%). Increases to school funding was supported by 45% of participants, with 47% saying it should stay the same and 10% favoring a reduction. As with the previous issue, opinions divided significantly along partisan lines with 56% of Democrats in favor of increasing spending compared to 31% of Republicans. While it is encouraging that overall support for increasing teacher salaries and school funding has held steady or increased over recent years, the current support for each issue is still only half of those surveyed.
One of the most relevant and timely areas of the survey was participant views regarding online education and homeschooling. In 2020, 73% of parents say they are willing to have their child take some (almost half) high school courses via the internet, representing a 17% increase from the response in 2009. Support for homeschooling has remained steady over the years with 49% of parents supporting the right of parents to education their children at home.
Overall, those surveyed gave public schools and school teachers high marks. Fifty-eight percent gave their “local” schools and A or B, and 30% gave the “nation’s” schools a similar high grade. The latter score was the highest ever recorded by the surveys. Participants were asked what percentage of teachers were excellent, good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. They rated 61% of teachers as excellent or good, with 14% being unsatisfactory.Results from the 2020 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion”
Citation(s): Henderson, M. B., Houston, D. M., Peterson, P. E., West, M. R. & Shakeel, M. D. (2020). Amid Pandemic, Support Soars for Online Learning, Parent Poll Shows Results from the 2020 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion. Education Next, 20(13), 8-19.
Link: https://www.educationnext.org/amid-pandemic-support-soars-online-learning-parent-poll-shows-2020-education-next-survey-public-opinion/
August 14, 2020
Returning to School Toolkit for Principals. This toolkit is designed to help structure principal’s thinking about the return to school, in whatever form that takes. The toolkits is structured to point and direct administrators to where to find help. The guidelines offer context for the use of the tools and tip sheets, and suggestions for actions you might consider.
The Returning to School: A Toolkit for Principals is organized around four sections:
- Change
- Communication
- Collaboration
- Care
These sections of the Toolkit for Principals are not meant to be sequential; one is not more important than the others. Scan the four sections and consider how they might support your preparation for a successful return to school, and your transition to schooling in this new reality.
This publication is one of eight in a series of resources Return to School from the National Comprehensive Center.
- Guide to After-Action Reviews
- Better Together: A Coordinated Response for Principals and District Leaders
- Mitigating Harm for Vulnerable Populations
- Rapid Response: Informational Resources on Improving Social and Emotional Learning and Outcomes
- Scenario Planning
- Budgeting in a Crisis
- Considerations for supporting a successful start to the 2020-2021 school for students with disabilities
Citation: Benton, K., Butterfield, K., Manian, N., Molina, M., Richel, M. (2020). Returning to School Toolkit for Principals. Rockville, MD: National Comprehensive Center at Westat. https://www.compcenternetwork.org/sites/default/files/local/5704/Returning%20to%20School%20Toolkit%20for%20Principals%20(07-16-2020).pdf
Link: https://www.compcenternetwork.org/sites/default/files/local/5704/Returning%20to%20School%20Toolkit%20for%20Principals%20(07-16-2020).pdf
July 6, 2020
The story of professional development is illustrative of problems common to educational interventions. The American education system values in-service training, spending range from $18,000 annually per teacher. Like many promising practices found effective in controlled conditions, in-service training fails in the field. Ample evidence points to new teachers being insufficiently prepared, and in-service training is used to fill the gap. Schools invest extensively in teacher induction in the early years of a teacher and supplement this with continuous development over a career. Unfortunately, training is delivered in the least productive ways, such as emphasizing theory and demonstrating skills in simulated exercises rather than on real students. These efforts produce poor results—not surprising since they ignore the research, which shows the value of giving teachers opportunities to practice in real-world settings, tying training to existing procedures, and following up with monitoring and feedback. Only a fraction of the money is directed toward coaching, the method that research shows produces long-lasting results.
Citation: Cleaver, S., Detrich, R., States, J. & Keyworth, R. (2020). Overview Teacher Professional Development. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. quality-teachers-in-service.
Link: https://www.winginstitute.org/quality-teachers-in-service
June 30, 2020
Remote forms of K-12 instruction have become increasingly prevalent as schools expand their use of educational technologies to allow for learning beyond that which takes place in brick and mortar classrooms. Remote instruction may offer a number of benefits, including reduced costs and increased student access to courses and instruction that would not be available otherwise. However, while research is limited, evidence to date suggests that fully remote instruction and virtual schools are not as effective as the face-to-face instruction that takes place in traditional schools, particularly for struggling students. Blended instructional models have shown more promise, particularly those that enable differentiated instruction through technologies such as intelligent tutoring. The success of remote instruction likely in part depends on a number of implementation factors, such as the degree to which equitable access to digital tools and resources is provided, whether and how students’ metacognitive skills that are essential for more independent, self-regulated learning are developed, the capacity of preparation and professional development to foster teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, and the extent to which parents can engage in ways that allow them to effectively support their children’s learning at home.
Citation: Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Remote Learning Overview. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/effective-instruction-computers.
Link: https://www.winginstitute.org/effective-instruction-computers
