Latest News
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 24, 2020
The Effect of Principal Behaviors on Student, Teacher, and School Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. School principals are commonly associated with improving teaching and learning conditions in schools, but what does the research tell us about the leadership strategies principals should focus on to boost student and teacher outcomes. This study offers four chief findings. First, there is evidence for the relationship between principal behaviors and student achievement. Secondly, there is evidence to support the school principal’s impact on teacher job satisfaction and effectiveness. Thirdly, research supports the role principals play in improving teacher instructional practices. Finally, principals are essential to sustaining the overall organizational health of the school. The study also concludes that more research is needed to establish a cause and effect relationship lacking in the current research base.
Citation: Liebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785-827.
Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654319866133
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 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
Distributed Leadership: Distributed leadership, in which the principal shares certain leadership work with teachers to optimize student and school outcomes, has emerged as a leading school leadership model, and indeed is reflected within recent principal leadership standards. The model’s origins lie in research that suggested that principals cannot “do it alone,” in today’s complex and challenging school environments, and that teachers have often performed leadership work that was not acknowledged. Rather than simple task delegation by principals, distributed leadership involves teacher leaders and administrators collaborating together to perform leadership practices, and sharing responsibility for outcomes. Research has shown positive associations between distributed leadership and a variety of teacher and student outcomes, including teachers’ professional efficacy and teaching effectiveness, and student academic performance. However, distributed leadership’s positive outcomes are contingent upon having leadership activities enacted based on patterns of staff expertise. Critics of distributed leadership note the potential for growing teacher workloads without corresponding compensation, and the possibility of exclusion of certain groups of teachers from leadership work. Careful planning and purposeful design, a collaborative work culture based on trust and respect, and having teachers at the school who possess leadership capacity, all appear to be needed ingredients in order for distributed leadership to be effective. School leadership teams, in which the principal works with a team of teacher leaders to share leadership work, represent an example of distributed leadership in action, and have been shown to accelerate and sustain school reform work.
Citation: Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Distributed Leadership. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed
Link: https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed
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
