<<Back to Missouri Education News
Missouri
Education News
June 2008
Copyright ©
2008 Queue, Inc.
IN
THIS ISSUE:
Public Schools As Good As Private Schools in Raising
Math Scores, Study Says
Parental Involvement Strongly Impacts
Student Achievement
SIOP Institute from
Pearson will Provide Teachers with New, Practical Skills by Combining a Focus
on Content with a Focus on Language
In
Missouri, more than 18,670 English learners (ELs) are enrolled in 245 school
districts Ñ and that number is rapidly growing. Since 2000, the number of ELs
in Missouri schools has jumped 82 percent. To succeed in school, these students
must master not only English vocabulary and grammar, but also the way English
is used in core content classes. Common academic words like microscope, for
example, might be familiar to native English speakers, but not to many EL
students.
To
address this need, the Missouri Migrant Education and English Language Learning
(MELL) Program is offering teachers a professional development program that
provides training in a new framework to deliver appropriate and effective
content instruction for their English learners. From May 29 to May 31,
educators from across Missouri and beyond are invited to participate in the
SIOP I Institute, hosted by Pearson in St. Louis. The Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model (http://www.siopinstitute.net/) is a scientifically-based program that helps
educators teach academic content to English learners while promoting their
English language development.
Through
the three-day SIOP Institute, educators will develop an understanding of the
research-based framework of this sheltered instruction approach, become
familiar with the eight components and 30 features that make up the SIOP Model
of effective sheltered instruction lessons, and practice observing and evaluating
sheltered instruction lessons. In addition, the SIOP I Institute will provide
the foundation needed for additional SIOP component enrichment training offered
through the MELL Program.
ÒAbout
90 languages are spoken by students in Missouri schools,Ó said Shawn Cockrum,
director of the MELL Program. ÒTo address studentsÕ diverse needs, we
continually encourage districts to choose solutions that are proven to work.
ThatÕs why we direct them toward PearsonÕs SIOP training. The SIOP Model
emphasizes both language objectives and content objectives, which is something
we donÕt see with other programs. The SIOP Model takes the best initiatives and
teaching strategies, and brings them together in a way that benefits not only
English learners but all students. IÕve been impressed with the observation
protocol, the trainers, and the results weÕve seen here and across the
country.Ó
The
Missouri SIOP Initiative
In
2006, the MELL Program launched the Missouri SIOP Initiative to bring the SIOP
Model to schools across the state. Through the initiative, four schools,
including Bayless Junior High in south St. Louis County, received training in
the SIOP Model over a two-year period.
Bayless
Junior High worked with Pearson and a MELL Program coach to implement the SIOP
model to address its needs and improve student achievement. As a result,
Bayless Junior High has improved the quality of instruction, strengthened the
connections between teachers and students, and increased its Missouri
Assessment Program (MAP) scores in Communication Arts and Mathematics.
ÒWe
felt SIOP would help not only our EL students, but all students across all
subgroups Ñ and it has over the past two years,Ó said Ronald Tucker, principal
of Bayless Junior High. ÒThe SIOP Model works great. It is the most effective
way IÕve seen to address the issues of diverse student subgroups. Our teachers
say, of all the professional development theyÕve had in the district, SIOP has
been the most meaningful in terms of helping them professionally. In addition,
teachers like that SIOP is based on best practices and that it works so well
with what weÕre already doing. I would highly recommend it to other educators.Ó
About
the SIOP I Institute in St. Louis
The
SIOP I Institute will be held at the Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark, located
at One South Broadway in St. Louis. The institute runs from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. on May 29 and 30, and 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on May 31. The SIOP I Institute
fee is $700 and advance registration (http://www.siopinstitute.net/institutes.asp?area=enroll) is required.
SIOP is used as a model for lesson planning and implementation of high quality
sheltered instruction for all educators across content areas. SIOP goes beyond
instruction for ELs and has been shown to be effective in addressing the needs
of all students.
The
SIOP Model was developed by Dr. Jana Echevarria, a Professor of Education at
California State University, Long Beach; MaryEllen Vogt, Ed.D., Professor
Emerita of Education at California State University, Long Beach; and Deborah J.
Short, Ph.D., former director of Academic Language Research & Training and
senior research associate at the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) in
Washington, D.C. The model is the outcome of a seven-year research project (1996-2003)
conducted with grant funding from the Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) (http://www.cal.org/crede/), a national research center funded by the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (now
the Institute of Education Sciences). Its purpose was to identify key practices
for sheltered instruction and develop a professional development model for
teachers to effectively use sheltered instruction.
Public
Agenda and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality has released
research that points to two specific areas where teacher training may be
lacking, according to rookie teachers in the trenches and fresh from training:
preparedness for the diversity of the contemporary American classroom and
teaching students with special needs.
Seventy-six
percent of new teachers said that teaching an ethnically diverse student body
was covered in their training. But only 39 percent say that their training in
this area helps them a lot now that they are in the classroom, which puts their
evaluation of the effectiveness of this aspect of their training near the
bottom of the list of subjects the new teachers had studied. The survey covered
12 areas of teacher training ranging from direct instruction to their study of
history, philosophy and policy debates in public education. No other factor
examined in the Public Agenda research showed nearly as great a gap between how
many received training in a given area and new teachers' assessments of the effectiveness
of said training.
This
final report of the "Lessons Learned" series, "Teaching in
Changing Times" focuses on the strengths and possible deficits of the
training new teachers say they receive. The new report and complete
questionnaire are available to media prior to release at: http://www.publicagenda.org/LessonsLearned3
.
The
first report in the "Lessons Learned" series (http://www.publicagenda.org/LessonsLearned1) described the
differences between the views and experiences of new secondary and elementary
teachers. The second looked at the views of teachers coming into the field from
three prominent alternate route programs (http://www.publicagenda.org/LessonsLearned2).
Many
new teachers also reported inadequacies in the training they received for
teaching children with special needs. Most new teachers (82 percent) say their
training in had covered this aspect of teaching, but only 47 percent say their
training helps a lot. This is a particularly important area for training, the
report notes, because nearly every new teacher reported having at least some
children with special needs in their classroom - only 5 percent reported having
no students with special needs.
The
entire "Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges
and Long-Term Plans" series is online at: http://www.publicagenda.org/LessonsLearned
.
Suburban Surprise
The
anxiety about dealing with diverse classrooms - the sense of being unprepared
and untrained in this area - is greater among new teachers in more upscale
communities. Most new teachers working in both high-needs and in wealthier
schools say they were taught how to teach in an ethnically diverse student
body, but new teachers who work in high-needs schools are significantly more
likely to say that their training does, in fact, help them, with nearly half
(47 percent) saying that their training helps them a lot. By contrast, less
than a third (32 percent) of the new teachers in more affluent schools find
their training in this area helpful.
Experts and school critics have sometimes attacked teacher-training programs
for being out of touch with reality, but many first-year teachers do not agree.
They report that their training covered a wide number of topics from teaching
specific subject areas to knowing how to manage a classroom and maintain
discipline.
Ninety-two
percent say their training included coursework on children's cognitive,
emotional and psychological development and roughly half (49 percent) find it
to be helpful in the classroom. When it comes to direct instruction, of the 84
percent who learned the technique in training, 68 percent say it helps them a
lot now. And on classroom management and discipline, large majorities (78
percent) said their training addressed the subject, with 58 percent reporting
that their training was helpful.
The challenge of diverse classrooms is also reflected in the judgments new
teachers make about what would really help them improve teaching and student
learning. The researchers presented new teachers with a list of 14 proposals to
improve teacher quality. Two items topped the list and were significantly ahead
of all the others. Seventy-six percent of new teachers say reducing class size
would be very effective at improving teacher quality, and 63 percent say the
same about preparing teachers to meet the needs of a diverse classroom.
The
first edition of the "Lessons Learned" series ("They're Not
Little Kids Anymore: The Special Challenges of New Teachers in High Schools and
Middle Schools") reported that, for strong majorities of the new teachers
regardless of their grade level, the same two items topped their list of
recommendations for improving the profession overall. In the second edition of
the series, focusing on the experiences of teachers who come to teaching
through alternate routes rather than traditional university teacher training
programs ("Working Without a Net"), both new alt-route teachers and
new traditionally-trained teachers placed smaller class size at the very top of
their reform wish list, and there was substantial interest in beefing up
preparation to teach in ethnically diverse schools and classrooms.
Students
in public schools learn as much or more math between kindergarten and fifth
grade as similar students in private schools, according to a new University of
Illinois study of multi-year, longitudinal data on nearly 10,000 students.
The
results of the study appear in the May issue of the influential education
journal Phi Delta Kappan.
ÒThese
data provide strong, longitudinal evidence that public schools are at least as
effective as private schools in boosting student achievement,Ó according to the
authors, education professor Christopher Lubienski, doctoral student Corinna
Crane and education professor Sarah Theule Lubienski.
The
new study is the first published study to show that public schools are at least
as effective as private schools at promoting student learning over time, they
say.
Combined
with other, yet-unpublished studies of the same data, which produced similar
findings, Òwe think this effectively ends the debate about whether private
schools are more effective than publics,Ó said Christopher Lubienski, whose
research has dealt with all aspects of alternative education.
This
is important, he said, because many current reforms, such as No Child Left
Behind, charter schools and vouchers for private schools, are based on that
assumption.
After
controlling for demographic differences among students and schools, the
researchersÕ found that public school students began kindergarten with math
scores roughly equal to those of their Catholic school peers. By fifth grade,
however, they had made significantly greater gains, equal to almost an extra
half year of schooling.
Part
of the explanation, Sarah Lubienski said, might lie in the fact that Catholic
schools have fewer certified teachers and employ fewer reform-oriented
mathematics teaching practices Ð something they found in research for another
study, accepted for publication in the American Journal of Education.
Public
school students also Òrivaled the performance of students in other
(non-Catholic) private schools,Ó the researchers wrote. After adjusting for
demographics and initial kindergarten scores, they found that achievement gains
between kindergarten and fifth grade were roughly equal.
Put
another way by Sarah Lubienski, Òschool type alone doesnÕt explain very much of
why these scores vary É in truth, whether the school is public or private
doesnÕt seem to make that much difference.Ó
The
researchers go on to write that they Òpersonally see private schools as an
integral part of the American system of educationÓ and Òthere are many valid
reasons why parents choose private schools and why policymakers may push for
school choice.Ó
Academic
achievement, however, may no longer be one of those reasons, they write.
ÒClaims that simply switching students from one type of school to another will
result in higher scores appear to be unfounded.Ó
They
suggest Òmoving away from a simple focus on school type and instead examining
what happens within schools.Ó
Twenty-six
percent of secondary-level science and math students in public schools were
taught by teachers who did not have "in-field" majors or state
certification in the 2003-04 school year, according to a new Child Trends
study, Qualifications of Public School Teachers for Science, Mathematics, And
History. Students in higher poverty schools and students with less experienced
teachers were more likely to be taught by "out-of-field" teachers.
Among
secondary-level science and math students in the 2003-04 school year:
- 58 percent had a teacher with a postsecondary major in the specific science
or math field that they were teaching.
- 61 percent had a teacher with an in-field regular state certification.
- 45 percent had a teacher with both qualifications.
- 26 percent had a teacher with neither qualification.
Students
of both math and science in lower poverty schools (where fewer than 50 percent
of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) were more likely to
be taught by teachers with in-field qualifications than were students in higher
poverty schools (where 50 percent or more of students were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch).
- 64 percent of students in lower poverty schools had teachers with an in-field
state certification, compared to 53 percent of students in higher poverty
schools.
- 23 percent of students in lower poverty schools had a teacher with no
in-field certification or major, as opposed to 35 percent of students in higher
poverty schools.
Students of veteran teachers (with 6 or more years of teaching experience) had
in-field certified teachers more often than students of newer teachers (with 5
or fewer years of experience).
- 67 percent of students of veteran teachers had an in-field certified teacher,
compared to 45 percent of students with newer teachers.
- 11 percent of students with veteran teachers were taught by teachers without
a regular certification in any subject, compared to 58 percent of students of
newer teachers.
The
study also examines secondary-level history teachers. Among history students in
the 2003-04 school year:
- 62 percent had a teacher with a postsecondary major in the specific science
or math field that they were teaching.
- 79 percent had a teacher with an in-field regular state certification.
- 53 percent had a teacher with both qualifications.
- 12 percent had a teacher with neither qualification.
New
research from the University of New Hampshire shows that students do much
better in school when their parents are actively involved in their education.
Researchers
Karen Smith Conway, professor of economics at the University of New Hampshire,
and her colleague Andrew Houtenville, senior research associate at New Editions
Consulting, found that parental involvement has a strong, positive effect on
student achievement.
The
research is reported in ÒParental Effort, School Resources, and Student
Achievement,Ó which appears in the spring 2008 issue of the Journal of Human
Resources.
ÒParental
effort is consistently associated with higher levels of achievement, and the magnitude
of the effect of parental effort is substantial. We found that schools would
need to increase per-pupil spending by more than $1,000 in order to achieve the
same results that are gained with parental involvement,Ó Conway said.
Parents
seemed particularly interested in the academic achievements of their daughters.
The researchers found parents spent more time talking to their daughters about
their school work during dinnertime discussions.
ÒThere
are a number of theories about why girls seem to garner more attention from
their parents than boys. One possibility is that girls are more communicative
with their parents so these conversations about academics are easier for
parents to have with their daughters,Ó Conway said.
The
researchers also found that parents may reduce their efforts when school
resources increase, thus diminishing the effects of improved school resources.
ÒAs
an economist, I look for reactions to a specific action so it is not surprising
to me that parents may scale back their involvement with their childÕs
education when a school adds resources. As a result, increasing school
resources may not be as effective as we expect since they may diminish parental
involvement,Ó Conway said.
The
researchers used national data from more than 10,000 eighth-grade students in
public and private schools, their parents, teachers, and school administrators.
The researchers were particularly interested in how frequently parents
discussed activities or events of particular interest to the child, discussed
things the child studied in class, discussed selecting courses or programs at
school, attended a school meeting, and volunteered at the childÕs school.