Categories for Societal Outcomes
November 12, 2020
Assessing the Cost of Instructional Coaching. Each year school systems spend approximately $15 million per school year, $230 per student, and $3,390 per teacher, totaling 2.9% of the operating budget, to provide a variety of professional development opportunities from workshops to coaching to whole-school development (Cleaver, 2020). Research suggests coaching is one of the most effective methods for increasing the effectiveness of professional development.
Over the past twenty years, the popularity of school-based instructional coaching has grown. But one obstacle to the wide-spread use of coaching is the cost of delivering the service. This paper examines the resources needed for coaching and offers a framework for measuring these costs. The author finds coaching costs range from $3,260 to $5,220 per teacher. These are substantial expenses. Given limited education budgets, policymakers need to conduct cost/benefit analyses that compare traditional professional development methods such as workshops. This study lays the groundwork for cost-effectiveness studies by presenting a framework for measuring costs and reporting costs of a specific program.
Another valuable resource for determining a return on investment for education interventions is Stewart Yeh’s 2007 study, The cost-effectiveness of five policies for improving student achievement. Yeh offers a framework for utilizing a practice effect size and costs of the practice to determine what method is best suited given a school’s current budget. Incorporating cost-benefit analyses into schools’ decision-making process is essential if educators make the most informed decisions impacting student outcomes.
Citation: Knight, D. S. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 52-80.
Yeh, S. S. (2007). The cost-effectiveness of five policies for improving student achievement. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 416-436.
October 30, 2020
2020 Teacher Prep Review: Clinical Practice & Classroom Management. This report is from the National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ), and organization that provides ongoing reviews of the effectiveness of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. This particular report examines two critical components of teacher preparation—clinical practice (also known as student teaching) and classroom management—and the degree to which current teacher preparation programs have adopted and implemented best practices for each.
It is generally accepted that new teachers benefit from high quality student teaching. The NCTQ report reviews specific evidence of just how beneficial quality clinical training can be, including research that: (1) identifies clinical practice as one of three “aspects of preparation that have the highest potential for effects on outcomes for students, and (2) provides evidence that first-year teachers can be as effective as typical third-year teachers if they spent their student teaching experience in the classrooms of highly effective teachers.
NCTQ has reviewed existing teacher preparation clinical programs in 2013, 2016, and 2020, assigning grades (A to F) based on their performance on three indicators (length, supervisory visits, and selection of the mentor teacher). Unfortunately only 9% earned an A or B, and 91% earned C’s or D’s. The data also showed that there had been no improvement over the seven-year time period between first and most recent reports.
The second critical component reviewed—classroom management—showed great progress but still lags in one of the most critical strategies for effective management. NCTQ identifies five critical components that should be taught in teacher preparation programs: 1) Establishing rules and routines that set expectations for behavior;, 2) Maximizing learning time by managing time, class materials and the physical setup of the classroom, and by promoting student engagement; 3) Reinforcing positive behavior by using speci c, meaningful praise and other forms of positive reinforcement; 4) Redirecting off-task behavior through unobtrusive means that do not interrupt instruction and that prevent and manage such behavior, and; 5) Addressing serious misbehavior with consistent, respectful and appropriate consequences. The good news is that there has been a 26% increase in the number of programs looking to research-based approaches to classroom management. The bad news is that one of the most effective and well documented classroom management strategies—praising good behavior—is the least likely to be taught.
Citation(s): Pomerance, L. & Walsh, K. (2020). 2020 Teacher Prep Review: Clinical Practice
and Classroom Management. Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality.
October 27, 2020
Corrective Feedback Overview. orrective feedback is a form of performance feedback used to improve student achievement. Teachers provide feedback to students to reinforce expectations and to correct student errors during lessons. Feedback is often noted as the single most powerful tool available for improving student performance, and more than seven meta-analyses conducted since 1980 support this claim. Classroom teachers use corrective feedback as a teaching technique every day. The feedback may be as simple as giving praise, returning assignments the next day, immediately correcting student misconceptions, or as a component of active student responding. Other effective strategies rely on peer review or self-assessment to increase feedback. For the best results, feedback must meet these four conditions: (1) It is objective, reliable, measureable, and specific; (2) it provides information about what was done well, what needs improvement, and how to improve; (3) it is delivered frequently and immediately following performance; and (4) it is about performance rather than personal characteristics.
Citation: Guinness, K., Detrich, R., Keyworth, R. & States, J. (2020). Overview of Corrective Feedback. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/instructional-delivery-feedback
October 27, 2020
2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection: The Use of Restraint and Seclusion on Children with Disabilities in K-12 Schools. The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights released a detailed survey on the use of restraint and seclusion in K-12 schools to address the possible inappropriate use of thee procedures. The survey was in part a response to a previous GAO report that flagged the significant absence or reliable data collection on the use of these procedures (Nowicki, J. 2020). This survey also makes available detailed school district and school level data at ocrdata.ed.gov
The survey also provides the following summary of the use of physical restraint, seclusion and mechanical restraint. Under the CRDC, physical restraint is a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs, or head freely. Mechanical restraint is the use of any device or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom of movement. Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving.
Students with disabilities make up 13% of the total student enrollment in U.S. schools. They account for 80% of students subjected to physical restraint, 41% to mechanical restraints, and 77% to seclusion.
Forty-eight percent of students with disabilities are white. They account for 52% of the students subjected to physical restraint, 33% to mechanical restraints, and 60% to seclusion. Black students are 1.3 times more likely to experience physical restraints and 2.8 times more likely to experience mechanical restraints than white students.
Eighteen percent of students with disabilities are Black. They account for 26% of the students subjected to physical restraint, 34% to mechanical restraints, and 22% to seclusion.
Twenty-seven percent of students with disabilities are Hispanic. They account for 14% of the students subjected to physical restraint, 28% to mechanical restraints, and 9% to seclusion. It appears that Hispanic students experience these procedures at lower rates than Whit and Black students.This survey suggests somewhat widespread use of these procedures and possible inequity in their application. Much more analysis needs to be completed to answer these critical questions fully.
Citation(s): Nowicki, J. (2020). K-12 Education: Education Needs to Address Significant Quality Issues with Its Restraint and Seclusion Data. Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-20-345. US Government Accountability Office.
2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection: The Use of Restraint and Seclusion on Children with Disabilities in K-12 Schools,U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, October 2020
October 14, 2020
Sustaining and Scaling Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Implementation Drivers, Outcomes, and Considerations. Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) is a system-wide conduct management approach designed to increase student behavior consistency in schools. PBIS was introduced with the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997. This paper examines the 25-year history of the PBIS implementation experience, including the core features of PBIS as a multi-tiered framework and the process and outcomes for implementing PBIS across over 26,000 schools. The authors summarize the national outcome data of PBIS implementation, and they propose future directions and considerations, improving scaling up services and sustainability of school-wide behavior management strategies.
Citation: Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral interventions and supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 120-136.
October 14, 2020
Using Coaching with Video Analysis to Improve Teachers’ Classroom Management Practices: Methods to Increase Implementation Fidelity. Research strongly supports effective classroom management as essential for quality instruction and teacher satisfaction. Unfortunately, in-service training for teachers in classroom management practices frequently fails to achieve the desired results. Didactic lectures do not offer sufficient opportunities to practice new techniques, and little time is available for feedback on the effective use of newly acquired skills. Coaching with embedded video-analysis is one method for providing teacher consultation services utilizing technology to record teaching sessions, watch and analyze recordings, identify a target area for improvement, and use the information gained to improve practice. As general education teachers’ role in working with students with challenging conduct grows, coaching with video-analysis may improve implementation fidelity and sustainability of evidence-based classroom management practices. This study finds coaching with video-analysis increased the implementation of evidence-based classroom management practices.
Citation: Lane, C., Neely, L., Castro-Villarreal, F., & Villarreal, V. (2020). Using Coaching with Video Analysis to Improve Teachers’ Classroom Management Practices: Methods to Increase Implementation Fidelity. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(3), 543-569.
September 28, 2020
Combatting COVID-19’s effect on children. This extremely thorough report provides the latest information on the impact that Covid-19 is having on children, particularly those who are poorest. It also outlines steps for governments to take to mitigate these impacts. From a purely medical perspective, early evidence suggests that children are not the most affected by Covid-19. It is the Covid-19 related economic and social effects that are having the greatest impact. Children increasingly face negative consequences from confinement, social distancing, being in challenging living environments, and facing worsening economic situations. The result is an exacerbation of problems such as poor nutrition, maltreatment, poor sanitation, sexual exploitation, etc. Additionally, poor children often live in environments that not suite for home learning, with little or no internet and computer resources to participate in remote learning. The report exhorts governments to greatly accelerate their efforts at providing food, protecting children from child abuse and neglect, offer ongoing physical and mental health services, and create more employment opportunities to help families.
Citation(s): Home, O. E. C. D. Combatting COVID-19’s effect on children.
Web Address: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=132_132643-m91j2scsyh&title=Combatting-COVID-19-s-effect-on-children
September 23, 2020
The Effect of Educational Leadership on Students’ Achievement: A Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis Research on Studies between 2008 and 2018. This meta-analysis examines leadership approaches and the relationship between educational leadership and student achievement. In the literature review identified 151 articles/dissertations, for inclusion in this study. The results revealed educational leadership has a medium-level effect on students’ achievement.
Citation: Karadag, E. (2020). The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement: a cross-cultural meta-analysis research on studies between 2008 and 2018. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 49-64.
Link: The Effect of Educational Leadership on Students’ Achievement: A Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis Research on Studies between 2008 and 2018
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/
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.