Prevalence of Security Measures

Public schools use a variety of practices and procedures to promote the safety of schools and staff by monitoring behaviors either internally or externally, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Externally, practices such as locked or monitored doors or gates are intended to limit or control access to school campuses, while practices such as metal detectors, security cameras, and regulating access to social networking websites are intended to monitor or restrict students’ and visitors’ behavior on campus. As shown in the chart below, the most common types of security measures are locked buildings and grounds, requirements for faculty and staff to wear ID badges, video surveillance cameras, and electronic notification systems.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

Many of these security measures have increased in prevalence in just the last decade; according to the NCES, between 1999-2000 and 2009-2010, there was an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the use of the following safety measures:

• Controlled access to the building during school hours (from 75 to 92 percent)
• Controlled access to school grounds during school hours (from 34 to 46 percent)
• Faculty required to wear badges or picture IDs (from 25 to 63 percent)
• The use of one or more security cameras to monitor the school (from 19 to 61 percent)

In addition to these, the NCES also reports that the use of security personnel on campus has increased over the same period, with over two-thirds of students now reporting that their middle or high school has at least one security guard or assigned police officer. Many of these school security officers are armed, with the New York Times reporting that as many as one-third (23,200) of all public schools had armed guards in the 2009-2010 school year, including schools in Albuquerque, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami and St. Louis. The use of armed guards within these districts may vary by school level; for instance, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (North Carolina) uses armed guards at its 28 high schools, but not at its 88 elementary schools.

Effectiveness of Security Measures

Overall, the available literature on the effectiveness of these security measures has produced only mixed findings. A 2006 RAND Corporation study found that only a handful of security measures, such as metal detectors, security guards, and student conduct regulations, have been evaluated, and “even fewer have been deemed effective or even promising.” Furthermore, a 2011 review of scholarly literature on school crime prevention concluded that “despite these well-intended efforts of prevention practices, the literature remains mixed as to their effectiveness in reducing both actual crime and fear of crime.”

Police and School Resource Officers

Use of security guards and police officers ranks among the most common physical surveillance measures currently used in schools. The responsibilities of school resource officers typically range from assisting administrators with student discipline issues to patrolling school grounds, and there have even been noted cases of campus officers successfully intervening in school shootings. Overall, however, the benefits of security guards have been widely contested in the relevant literature.

While some sources have argued that school officers serve as a deterrent to violence, others are far more skeptical. For instance, a post-Columbine study of 37 school shootings by the U.S. Secret Service, in 2002, found that, despite prompt police responses, only a little more than a quarter of these attacks were stopped by law enforcement intervention – in most cases, the attack was stopped by teachers or school staff, by other students, or by the shooter ceasing of his own volition or committing suicide. On the other hand, a recent study of data from the NCES found that the presence and number of school resource officers is significantly associated with a lower incidence of serious school violence. Overall, there seems to be no unanimous agreement regarding the effects of school officers, and the decision to deploy such personnel will depend on the circumstances of the individual school or district.

Physical Access Barriers and Technology-Based Security

In addition to personnel-based security, districts are increasingly using physical access control mechanisms and other technology-based security tactics to protect students. Examples of common safety measures include video surveillance cameras, closed circuit television systems, weapon detection systems (such as metal detectors), and access-control systems (such as electronic key cards). As with the use of security officers, there are both benefits and drawbacks associated with physical and technology-based safety measures. The 2006 RAND study, for instance, reported that the use of weapon detection systems (e.g., metal detectors, locker searches) appears to deter students from bringing weapons to school, but raised the question of whether such measures “can prevent a well-planned incident” or a determined shooter; this hypothesis was confirmed in the recent study of NCES data, which found that, although “the installation of weapon-detection devices appears to stymie generalized violence,” these systems have “no significant impact in preventing serious violence.”

The general consensus appears to be that if districts can afford physical barriers and have the personnel to operate them, security measures such as weapons detectors, surveillance cameras, and access control mechanisms can serve as an effective deterrent for campus violence. However, as with security officers, the key for any school is to examine their options based on the emotional climate and the culture of the individual school, because different schools will have different threats and vulnerabilities. In other words, there is no universal set of school security guidelines, and each school district must make its own decision based upon local circumstances.

Which security measure would you feel most comfortable implementing? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Overview and Definitions

The term “year-round calendar” is usually defined as a modified educational schedule that groups instructional days into smaller units with more frequent breaks throughout the year. More often than not, year-round schedules do not add days of instruction to the approximately 180 days typical in a traditional school year. Most year-round schedules simply group the instructional days into smaller units with more frequent breaks throughout the year.

There are two main models of the year-round calendar: either single track or multi-track. A single-track structure provides a balanced calendar for a more continuous period of instruction; all students and faculty follow the same instructional and vacation schedule. Multi-track year-round education enables a school to make greater use of its facilities by staggering the attendance schedules of the students, teachers, and staff by groups so that one vacations while the others study and work. Schools may find this model favorable because it allows schools and districts to increase capacity without incurring additional capital or building costs. On the other hand, the characteristics of multi-track calendars make it potentially more complicated to administer.

Benefits of a Year-Round Calendar

The primary motivation for many schools and districts in adopting year-round schedules, and particularly multi-track schedules, may be financial, as these schedules can lead to reduced costs. The California Department of Education’s Year-Round Education Program Guide, for instance, highlights some cost savings of year-round education:

• Avoided Costs: capital outlay for additional facilities; avoided extra‐site operation and staffing, including classified, certificated, and administrative personnel, furniture, supplies and equipment, utilities and maintenance, and transportation.
• Potential Savings: additional average daily attendance (ADA) generated; shared materials (library, computer, audio visual, science resources, textbooks); benefits (calculated on a 12‐month basis for most employees), reduced absenteeism (additional ADA and decreased requests for substitute teachers); and decreased vandalism.

Beyond financial benefits, it has also been argued that year-round schedules can improve student achievement. Research has found that year-round education at least holds its own in this area, producing achievement gains “generally equal to and in many cases better than the traditional calendar structure.” Advocates of year-round calendars have suggested that such systems reduce teacher burnout and decrease the likelihood that students will become stressed, demonstrate ill-discipline, or drop out, and that these schedules may lead to better student retention, as well as improved achievement rates.

And while research in Virginia schools found that state test scores for the general student population only improved at the same rate in year-round schools as in traditional schools, it also showed that “black, Hispanic, limited-English proficient and economically disadvantaged students [at year-round schools] improved at a faster rate than their peers at traditional calendar schools.” For instance, black students at 74 percent of the year-round schools studied improved their English test scores faster than the average at traditional schools, and 65 percent improved their math test scores faster than the traditional school average. Possible factors in these improvements are decreased summer learning loss and supplemental instruction time for these students during  intersessions.

Costs of a Year-Round Calendar

Although the increased cost of implementing a year-round calendar system appear to be modest – about a 3 percent increase in annual school expenditures – it has clearly discouraged some schools from employing such a system. The primary cause of these higher costs appears to be remedial or supplemental instruction offered during intersession breaks, but the California Department of Education’s Year-Round Education Program Guide makes note of a number of other areas where year-round education requires greater resources, including:

• Transition Costs: administrative planning, staff development, communication, storage units, storage space, and air conditioning.
• Operational Costs: expanded office and administrative staff; increased utilities, maintenance, and transportation costs.

In Virginia, costs have played a role in deterring year-round education. Of the eight intermediate school divisions in the state, all have discontinued year-round calendars at some or all of their schools between 2000 and 2012, and six of the divisions stated that “cost-related issues” were a reason behind these decisions.

Beyond the financial costs associated with a year-round calendar, these systems can place additional, non-financial burdens on stakeholders, including:

• Parents and families. Some argue that year-round schedules place a burden on families due to more irregular vacation schedules and, in multi-track calendars, different schedules for children in the same family.
• Teaching staff. Organizational difficulties for teachers seem to arise more frequently with multi-track versus single-track calendars. Because school facilities are being used by different groups at different times, teachers must often become mobile. The lack of a long summer vacation can also prevent teachers from enrolling in professional development courses.
• Administrators. In Virginia, some administrators found scheduling professional development and extracurricular activities more difficult with year-round calendars.
• Extracurricular activities. For single-track schedules, extracurricular events may sometimes occur during intersession breaks, which requires advance planning by administrators for transportation and other needs. However, multi-track calendars pose more substantial scheduling complications. For example, an individual participating in sports in a multi-track school may have other members of their team on different tracks, making it hard to coordinate practice sessions. Additionally, even if students within a year-round system can coordinate their schedules, they may still be out-of-sync with other schools in a district, potentially posing obstacles in terms of scheduling competitive matches.
• Facility maintenance. Facility maintenance can become more difficult with a multi-track year-round calendar system, since all of the facilities are in near-continuous use.

Overall, the available research suggests that year-round schools are at least as effective for student learning as traditional schools, and may be even more effective for disadvantaged student populations. However, the research base is not extensive and in some cases is poorly designed, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Financially, some districts may find year-round schedules appealing, particularly in multi-track systems which maximize the use of available facilities and reduce the need for new construction. However, additional administrative and instructional costs, such as intersession support for struggling students, should be factored into any financially based decision to adopt year-round schooling. This balance of factors no doubt explains why year-round schooling has yet to become – and may never become – universal, but for the right situation, year-round calendars can be an appropriate approach for school leaders to consider. 

Given the chance, would you consider implementing a year-round calendar system? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Several factors can be at play here: most school discipline plans are reactive, not proactive; suspensions themselves are not typically accompanied with either instruction or intervention to encourage positive behaviors; and zero-tolerance policies, which don’t discriminate between severe and lesser infractions, consequently result in greater numbers of suspensions.

In order to get a better handle on disruptive cases, school administrators are starting to look elsewhere for more effective discipline programs. In particular, these searches have focused on providing proactive discipline programs that give proper support to those who most need it, and only use suspension as a method of last resort. Two common approaches include school-wide positive behavior support and restorative justice.

School-Wide Positive Behavior Support

School-wide positive behavior support, or SWPBS, is a particularly effective proactive approach to problem behavior prevention, supported by additional interventions for small groups and individual students with further needs. A hallmark of the SWPBS approach is derived from a simple concept: a setting of basic behavioral expectations for students and establishing a culture where everyone is aware of these expectations and clear strategies on how to meet them.

School personnel model these behaviors with students and acknowledge when students display appropriate behaviors as a means of positive reinforcement. Students requiring more intensive interventions may participate in small-group interventions such as a Check-in/Check-out program that features daily contact with a staff member and continual reminders of appropriate behavior. More serious cases may prompt a functional behavioral assessment to determine the root cause of the behavior and the development of an individualized behavior intervention plan.

Though no two school-based programs will look alike, SWPBS features a series of key elements:

• Prevention – Schools should seek to prevent problem behavior rather than responding to misconduct after it occurs. This is a more effective, cost-efficient, and productive approach to student behavior than traditional, reactive methods.
• School Culture and Behavioral Expectations – Children should be taught appropriate social behavior in the school setting, as they may come from different backgrounds where social expectations vary.
• Recognition of Appropriate Behavior – Instances of appropriate student behavior should be recognized on a regular basis. Elsewhere this is described as a “gotcha” system, where students are “caught in the act” of behaving appropriately.
• Data – Schools should carefully track data regarding student behavior and use it to inform decisions regarding approaches to problem behaviors.
• Investment – In addition to their focus on student behavior, schools and districts must invest in the personnel implementing SWPBS through the establishment of teams, policies, and data structures, as well as provide needed funding and administrative support.

Restorative Justice

A second common alternative to suspensions is restorative justice, which has been framed as a valuable alternative to zero-tolerance policies that mandate suspension or expulsion. Instead, this program seeks to address student misbehavior while simultaneously keeping students in school and holding them accountable for their actions. A 2010 presentation by the Minnesota Department of Education highlighted the differences between a more “standard” approach to discipline and a restorative approach, as presented in the following figure.

As the above figure shows, restorative approaches focus more on the practical consequences of misbehavior, rather than the specific rule that was broken. The response to misbehavior seeks to make sure the offending student understands the consequences of his or her actions, allows the student to restore balance to the situation created by the misconduct, and therefore holds the student accountable for his or her actions.

Additionally, restorative justice relies heavily upon dialogue between the different parties involved in a conflict, including the victim, the offender, and members of the impacted community. These meetings are an attempt to have the offender realize the effect of their behavior and address it, while providing the victim and community members the opportunity to voice suggestions for appropriate consequences.  The dialogue helps heal the community and reduces the likelihood of future behavior violations.

Practices associated with restorative justice may take a variety of forms, though all embody the main principles discussed above. Examples of specific practices that have been used in schools include:

• Victim-offender mediation – A trained mediator facilitates a meeting between a student who has clearly broken school standards of conduct and the victim of such actions. The victim is prompted to share his or her side of the story, enabling the offender to better understand the consequences of his or her actions. In addition to the mediator, other individuals supporting the victim and offender (e.g., family, teachers, or social workers) may also be invited to participate. The process will often result in a “restitution plan” to re-form relationships between victim and offender and make amends for the offender’s actions.
• Peer mediation – A process where student mediators are trained to facilitate meetings between students involved in a conflict. The conflict may or may not feature a “clear offender.”
• Circles – In this process, a group of students or a group of teachers and students sit in a circle. The group passes an item around the circle, indicating when it is an individual’s turn to talk while the others listen. The circle may be used to address situations similar to those in which victim-offender mediation is used, as well as serve as a means to create community in a classroom or reintegrate offenders into their school setting.

It isn’t always easy to know the proper way to handle a student or a situation that is disruptive to a learning environment. But removing the disruptive presence from the classroom – in a sense, avoiding addressing the inappropriate behavior – is not an effective long-term solution for either the student in question or the overall learning environment. Programs that address the issue – and even better, provide a proactive support system – are steadily becoming more prevalent, and for good reason. Programs such as SWPBS and restorative justice are being shown to provide better overall learning environments, deter future misbehavior, and stimulate parental involvement more effectively than do zero-tolerance policies relying on suspensions.

The public perception of college admissions tends to see the process as a “frenzy” that is becoming “more complicated” every year. On one view, it might seem that part of this complexity and frenzy comes from the increasing emphasis on taking a “holistic” view of applicants, as students exert themselves to build up a resume of participation in athletics, community service, music and theater, or other extracurricular activities in order to flesh out a “holistic” persona for the application committee. In the process, more formulaic metrics, such as high school class rank, become less important. As one prominent admissions officer writes in the influential book College Unranked, the size and diversity of modern applicant pools require more nuanced forms of evaluation:

Dealing with such diverse applicant pools defies the use of formulas, fixed criteria, specific weighting of various factors, or segmenting the applicant pool into groups of “similar” candidates . . . admissions officers cannot rely upon simple formulas of class rank and/or grade point averages and standardized admission tests to make decisions that are informed, equitable, and appropriate.

It is indisputable that class rank, in particular, has become less important in college admissions over the past two decades, although it is less clear that this is attributable to the ostensibly greater emphasis on holistic factors. In its annual survey of admissions offices, the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) asks them to rate which factors are of “considerable importance” in the admissions decision. The graph below, from NACAC, shows how class rank has declined from being rated “considerably important” by 42 percent of colleges in 1993 to only 19 percent of colleges rating it such in 2011.

The Real Causes of the Shift Away from Class Rank

According to the latest NACAC survey, however, class rank has not been replaced by more subjective, or “holistic,” factors such as recommendations, extracurriculars, or personal interviews. Instead, the factors most widely rated as of “considerable importance” in the admissions decision continue to focus on academic achievement, including, in descending order:

• Grades in college prep courses;
• Strength of curriculum;
• Standardized admissions test scores; and
• Overall high school grade point average.

So what explains the decline of the importance of high school class rank? Some indications suggest that this shift has come from the bottom up, rather than the top down, with high schools, rather than colleges and universities, abandoning the metric. A 2006 article from the The New York Times reported that high schools were dropping class ranks in order to avoid harming their less-than-the-best students in the college admissions process, driving “exasperated” college admissions officers to “essentially recreate an applicant’s class rank” using, e.g., class grade distributions. NACAC itself suggests a similar cause and effect, noting that currently, “nearly one-third of high schools do not report class rank information to colleges. Accordingly, colleges have de-emphasized class rank as a factor in the admission decision over the past decade.”

Thus, class rank may in fact be a victim of the frenzied contemporary admissions process – not because of a more “holistic” approach to admissions, but rather as just one more step in the “cat-and-mouse maneuvering” over admissions between high schools, colleges, parents, and students.

Should High Schools Keep the Class Rank?

Because of this, some high schools may feel pressure to drop the class rank, in a sort of arms race with other high schools to best position their students in the college admissions struggle. However, there are at least some reasons that a high school should consider keeping the class rank. At a practical level, NACAC survey results indicate that more selective colleges are more likely to rate class rank as “considerably important” for the admissions decision, as shown in the table below.

Thus, high schools that withhold a class rank may in fact place their students at a disadvantage when applying to the nation’s m­­ost competitive colleges and universities. Beyond this practical consideration, there is also research to support the use of class rank as a predictor of college performance. One study of Texas universities found that class rank was a “better predictor of college performance than standardized test scores,” which nevertheless continue to rate highly among the “considerably important” factors in the annual NACAC surveys. The finding of the Texas study is particularly ironic given that the withholding of class rank has forced many admissions directors to “give more weight to scores on the SAT and other standardized exams,” in order to give the context to the GPA that class rank once did.

The effects of the shift in the use of class rank by high schools and colleges are continuing to play out, and many high schools may continue to feel pressure from parents and students to drop the metric. However, while class rank has declined in importance for college admissions officers, it has not become entirely irrelevant, particularly at more selective institutions, and any high school contemplating the issue should fully consider the implications before taking the decision to abolish the class rank.

Teacher education geared toward emotional and behavioral disorders has historically been characterized by a lack of focus on academics, and perpetuated by several key misconceptions – most notably that “students must learn to behave appropriately before instruction can occur,” and “that behavior and instruction are separate entities.” Fortunately, recent approaches have become more clearly directed toward meeting the academic needs of students with (or at risk for) EBD. Peer-assisted learning strategies and self-management interventions are two approaches that have been recognized by scholars of EBD as especially effective in increasing levels of student engagement and achievement.

Peer Assistance

Research strongly supports the use of peers for improving the academic achievement, time on task, and behavior of students with disabilities and EBD. Of peer-assisted techniques, “classwide peer tutoring (CWPT) is the most researched and widely recognized effective peer-tutoring model.” CWPT involves assigning students to pairs to peer tutor each other by reading, asking questions, and providing prompts and feedback on correct and incorrect responses in a highly structured format. CWPT is suitable for many different content areas, and can be incorporated into existing curricular materials. The following is one recommended way to go about using CWPT:

• Group students in pairs of high- and low-performers, based on assessments from the previous week (Use for approximately 20 minutes a day, with each student taking the role of tutor for 10 minutes and learner for 10 minutes. This need not be done every day; several times a week is adequate)
• Teachers should model and practice with students as the first step in implementation
• The procedure for the tutoring commences after students read a section of text
• The tutors read teacher-provided questions to assess the tutees’ understanding of the reading
• Tutors have the answers and provide positive feedback and acknowledgment for correct answers; tutors interrupt and model correct answers when the learner provides an incorrect answer. The tutors then ask the question again to provide the learner with the opportunity to answer correctly
• The teacher circulates and randomly awards points to the pairs for students’ responses and appropriate interactions. The pairs may be grouped into larger ‘teams’ to compete for points
• End-of-unit test scores are added to group points, and winners are announced and reinforced (e.g., going to recess early, earning a certificate) the following week

Self-Management Interventions

Another strategy with support in the research is self-management interventions, which can help students with EBD practice appropriate academic behavior while learning self-management skills that they do not already possess. Such interventions can be effectively implemented at various grade levels, according to both the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center and the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders. There are several types of self-management interventions, which are shown in the chart below.

As the chart suggests, these interventions essentially seek to create a structure in which students can recognize their own behavior and its effect on their academic performance. A typical self-management intervention could include the following steps:

• After deciding on the academic subject to be targeted, begin with a student conference. During that conference:
  > Provide examples of the student’s academic work that have met the expected criteria.

  > Discuss the relevance of staying on task and paying attention to detail when doing classwork, as well as the importance of academic task completion.
  > Emphasize that both the quality and quantity of the assignments will be evaluated.
  > Introduce the student to self-monitoring by proposing that he or she manages independent work by using self-monitoring and graphing.
  > Show the student an example of a progress-monitoring chart.
  > Give examples of how to calculate the scores for completion and accuracy and how to use the progress-monitoring chart.

• Have the student complete an assignment.
• Allow the student to correct the assignment as the teacher gives the correct answers.
• Have the student compute the accuracy and productivity score, and then record and graph these scores on the progress graph.
• Encourage the use of self-monitoring across different subject areas.

Both peer assistance and self-management interventions can provide effective tools for teachers to address the students’ EBD issues while also enhancing their academic performance, and as such should be in the toolkit of any teacher struggling with these issues.

“The Race to the Top-District competition invites applicants to demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools.” With nearly 900 Intents to Apply submitted as of late August, school districts across the nation have demonstrated their willingness to adopt personalized learning as a priority. Currently, there are several excellent articles exploring why the Race to the Top Competition Matters. In this post, we aim to clearly define and contextualize “personalized learning” with an emphasis on how it relates to Race to the Top.

Defining Personalized Learning

Despite the prevalence of the term in national conversation, there is not a universally accepted definition of “personalized learning.” Thus, it is often misunderstood and conflated with similar initiatives like individualization or integrating technology. As of yet, the best definition comes from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in their 2010 National Education Technology Plan, “Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology” which defines personalized leaning by contrasting it with two kindred concepts, differentiation and individualization. The plan presents the three related concepts as follows:

Individualization

This concept refers to instruction that is paced to the learning needs of different learners. Learning goals are the same for all students, but students can progress through the material at different speeds according to their learning needs. For example, students might take longer to progress through a given topic, skip topics that cover information they already know, or repeat topics they need more help on.

Differentiation

This concept refers to instruction that is tailored to the learning preferences of different learners. Learning goals are the same for all students, but the method or approach of instruction varies according to the preferences of each student or what research has found works best for students like them. Differentiation focuses on channels of instruction and how changing the mode of a lesson may improve student understanding and engagement.

Personalized Learning

Personalized learning refers to instruction that is paced to learning needs, tailored to learning preferences, and tailored to the specific interests of different learners. In an environment that is fully personalized, the learning objectives and content as well as the method and pace may all vary (so personalization encompasses differentiation and individualization).

Effects of Personalized Learning

Although results on student achievement are mixed across classrooms implementing personalized learning and control groups, research suggests that the real effect of personalized learning can only be observed over time by metrics such as subject matter retention. The good news is that there are a few generally agreed-upon practices regarding its implementation: 1) The enhanced role of the educator and 2) The incorporation of Technology.

The Role of the Educator

Personalized learning highlights the important role of educators in strategically guiding instruction. Instructors must design and reinforce an engaging, supportive learning environment that fosters learning among all students. In order to truly implement “personalized learning” as it is currently defined by the ED, educators must now make decisions about pace and modality, all while catering to individual learning preferences. In other words, teachers will spend more time exploring and catering to an important triad: individuation, differentiation, and personalization. Teachers will of course still devote plenty of time to content when designing lesson plans. However, as we move forward, in addition to a firm grounding in appropriate content, lesson plans will expand to include an anticipation of individual student needs for pacing and learning modalities.

The Role of the Technology

Technology can be used to shorten the feedback loop which provides students, parents, and educators with timely information that can be used to create an increased understanding of individual student needs related to differentiation and individuation. Research also suggests that the use of technology in the classroom can better facilitate 21^stcentury learning skills. While access to technology like iPads, electronic clickers, and assessment portfolios certainly aid in implementing personalized learning, it is worth noting that the 2010 guidelines laid out by the ED can all be accomplished without the assistance of technology. Although most programs leverage technology to better accomplish these ends, at least one academy does not. At the time of this research, the Academy of Personalized Learning located in California, does not provide students with devices, but does make use of several online course options.

The Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan (NETP) lays out as a clear aspiration for public education that “all students and educators will have access to a comprehensive [technological] infrastructure for learning when and where they need it.” Towards this end, the NETP recommends that every student and teacher have at least one Internet access device – in other words, that 1:1 computing become the standard for all schools.

Given the costs of 1:1 computing, which have been estimated to be at least $250 per student per year (and to range as high as $1,000 per student per year), such a standard could remain merely aspirational for many school districts. Enter Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiatives, which seek to harness the prevalence of personal devices such as smartphones and tablets among students – often a cause of disruption and contention in schools – by incorporating them into the instructional program, and simultaneously reducing the technology hardware and maintenance costs that the district must bear. The NETP itself recognizes the importance of BYOD, suggesting that its 1:1 goal could be met with devices “owned by the student or family, owned by the school, or some combination of the two.”  

Preparing for the Implementation of BYOD

However, implementing BYOD is easier said than done – schools cannot simply invite students to start bringing their iPhones into the classroom and be done with it. Aside from the fundamental question of whether a district should adopt BYOD, which of course must be carefully considered, there are a variety of issues that any district committed to BYOD will face, and without proper planning, “BYOD may not work as people had hoped.” To get a sense of what school districts considering BYOD should be planning for, Hanover Research recently studied the issue and identified some key implementation guidelines.

Acceptable/Responsible Use Policies: Acceptable use policies are nothing new for most school districts, but the introduction of student-owned devices to the official network raises new concerns and challenges. At a minimum, districts will need to review their existing policies to ensure that they adequately address the risks posed by student-owned devices. However, some experts are recommending the adoption of “responsible use” policies, which focus less on punishing poor behavior and more on encouraging appropriate behavior. A key element of the “responsible use” approach is “educat[ing] students about online safety and security,” and equipping teachers with the skills to do so through professional development.

Professional Development: As the advent of responsible use policies suggests, BYOD will bring new responsibilities and opportunities for teachers. However, they must be prepared with professional development on how to handle the challenges of 1:1 computing in the classroom and on how to exploit the opportunities. In one anecdote, a school equipped each classroom with five iPads, but neglected to train the teachers in their use – teachers who didn’t know how to operate the devices, much less incorporate them into their teaching, ended up letting students use them for game-playing.

Technological Infrastructure: BYOD relieves districts from purchasing and maintaining a great deal of computing hardware, but it places its own new strains on a school’s IT infrastructure. According to IT firm CDW’s 2011 survey of school IT managers, “most schools spend a year (or more)” preparing their infrastructure for the demands of a BYOD program. Chief among these is the need for an adequate wireless network, including both adequate bandwidth and enough access points to handle the projected load of devices – many schools must upgrade their bandwidth, add new access points, or simply rebuild the network entirely.

BYOD remains somewhat controversial, not least because of the equity concerns it raises, and the initial decision on whether to adopt BYOD or not may remain the most difficult BYOD issue a district will face. But those districts that have committed to BYOD, whether out of necessity or desire, should not underestimate the range of issues and the planning involved in preparing for its successful implementation.  

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a voluntary initiative supported by the National Governors Association to establish national learning standards for English language arts and mathematics. With all but four states adopting some portion of the CCSS by 2014, state departments of education, school districts, and educators are scrambling to ensure that implementation is done as thoroughly and effectively as possible.

Professional Development a Major Challenge

In many states, departments of education are keenly giving school districts the resources they need to implement the Common Core. However, educators are often left without the professional development skills they feel they need to meet the demands of the new standards. Indeed, according to a study published this year by the Center on Education Policy, delivering professional development in “sufficient quality and quantity” has been considered “a major challenge” in 20 Common Core states.

So far, according to the study’s authors, the most commonly adopted approaches to providing CCSS-related professional development have been to distribute materials to school districts for their own use in providing professional development (34 states), or to initiate some sort of statewide professional development program (33 states).

In order to drill down into the CCSS-related professional development activities going on in the states and to determine best practices, Hanover Research recently examined the five representative states of South Dakota, Utah, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Based on this diverse group, we identified some of the following professional development methods being used to adapt to the Common Core.

Training-the-Trainer

The popularity of the train-the-trainer model―training small teams of administrators and teacher leaders who will then deliver training at the local level―is evident in many states’ implementation plans. Tennessee provides one example of the approach. The state’s Common Core Leadership Council selects exemplary educators to serve as ‘Core Coaches’ who facilitate training sessions across the state. Core Coaches participate in state-led training during the spring term and then lead three-day training sessions during the summer months. The training sessions open with a broad introduction to the standards, then narrow the focus to specific topics related to assessment, instructional strategies, and the vertical alignment of content and assessments.

Direct Delivery

While many states have utilized a train-the-trainer model to facilitate Common Core training, there are examples of professional development being delivered directly to classroom educators by state agencies. South Dakota, for example, uses summer workshops, school year workshops, and online professional learning to train teachers in Common Core implementation. Training agendas focus on topics such as curriculum alignment, lesson design, exposure to model lessons, formative and summative assessments, higher order instructional practices, and familiarity with the implementation roadmap.

Utah also funds training opportunities focused on Common Core implementation, hosting four-day summer academies at regional locations across the state. Participants volunteer or are selected by their districts to attend the summer academies and then share their experiences and knowledge with their peers. While the summer academy’s mathematics sessions broadly cover the learning content and instructional practices required to meet the Common Core State Standards, the English language arts sessions focus on appropriately integrating writing into the curriculum and using strategic instructional design to invoke higher levels of student response.

Leveraging Technology

The use of technology to facilitate training is a theme that runs through numerous states’ professional development plans and infrastructures. Kentucky’s Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System, for instance, provides teachers statewide with access to Common Core 360, an online database of multimedia instructional resources linked with the new academic standards, while its Blackboard system enables educators to share agendas, handouts, and resources from regional meetings.

At a more basic level, technology can be used to deliver supplementary materials and support to educators via state agency websites. Ohio teachers have reported that the state Department of Education’s website featuring crosswalks aligning the old state standards with the Common Core standards have been helpful. Other resources provided by the Ohio website include model curricula for all grade levels and subject areas; webinars and PowerPoint presentations from past professional development events; documents that answer frequently asked questions; links to external training providers and relevant reports, videos, and websites; and transition toolkits.

As these examples suggest, states are approaching this issue in a variety of ways. The common theme, however, is the importance of providing ample professional development opportunities for teachers as they prepare for the sea change of the Common Core.

You’ll find them in almost any discipline. Used in and out of context, clear and yet unclear – buzzwords inevitably crop up in any conversation. The most buzzed-about phrase in education right now? Flipping the classroom. Here’s a quick breakdown on what it means, and how it might work for your school or district.

What it is not:

The oft-used “flipping a card” classroom discipline technique.

What it is:

When implemented effectively, “flipping the classroom” requires students to learn material at home through reading assignments and video lectures. Classroom time is dedicated to applied knowledge and reinforcement, through collaborative group projects, hands-on learning, and integrated technology.  By requiring students to engage in work  ahead of time, “flipping the classroom” mimics the seminar-style format often found at four-year universities.

What the fuss is about:

Are K-12 students ready to assume the responsibility this method requires? Researchers note that multiple variables may influence effectiveness, including student age, classroom environment, and school technological capacity. To date, a meta-analysis examining the utility of the method has not been conducted. As a result, general best practices are somewhat difficult to pinpoint. Nonetheless, ‘flipping’ remains a key issue in discussions of student learning.

Created by Knewton and Column Five Media

In states that do not mandate prescribed evaluation instruments, comprehensive, district-wide administrator evaluation systems are somewhat uncommon—a situation that may result from diverse obstacles, including decentralized administrative structures, procedural variation, and divergent opinions on which leadership characteristics to prioritize. According to a 2011 ILDI report, “Valid and reliable principal evaluation instruments designed to address leadership behaviors are very limited in number and in the sophistication of their research designs.”

Given this climate, recent research has examined strategies for improving the quality of administrator evaluation systems, specifically with regard to validity and reliability.  The Wallace Foundation, a leader in promoting research on school leadership, defined high-quality assessments as follows.

High-Quality Assessments -

• measure what they are designed to measure.
• are consistently applied and tested for fairness.
• are seen as an ongoing process for professional growth, not just a “tool” or an isolated event.
• are based on the best available evidence, often from multiple sources.
• reinforce the organization’s core goals.
• provide actionable feedback on what matters most.
• help build a culture of continuous improvement.

In sum, the Wallace Foundation argues for an approach to assessment that is reliable, accurate, continuous, and constructed in alignment with strategic priorities.

Effective Administrator Evaluation Instruments

Several approaches to principal evaluation have been addressed in the literature. Evaluation standards developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), for instance, have been widely utilized by districts and state departments of education to develop administrator evaluation tools. The ISLLC standards assess the responsibilities of principals in the context of their roles as instructional leaders—promoting student success through instructional leadership, guiding instructional quality, developing teacher talents and promoting learning and achievement in schools. Evaluations are thus centrally tied to student learning and achievement.

In terms of established effectiveness, the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) is a clear leader among tools and instruments used to measure principal effectiveness. VAL-ED has been verified through secondary research on the basis of validity and reliability and for the purposes of diagnostic analyses, performance feedback, progress monitoring, professional development planning, and summative evaluation. VAL-ED adheres to ISLLC standards and the principles underlying 360-degree models (which incorporate data compiled from multiple stakeholders).

Sample VAL-ED Items

In our next blog entry, we will examine best practices in the evaluation of superintendents and central office administrators.