Last semester I took a course on Curriculum Design and one of our texts emphasized the importance of integrating technology into the curriculum. There is no doubt a digital divide between students in low-income communities and their suburban counterparts. With such large class sizes in many low-performing schools, adaptive technology can help teachers differentiate their instruction which is essential to getting all kids to grade level, yet there are no reforms being made to integrate technology. The following is an essay I wrote in my curriculum class that emphasizes the importance of technology in closing the achievement gap.
Closing the proficiency gap is a top priority for most principals serving students in low-income communities. In addition to lower proficiency, access to instructional technology within these schools, as well as within student’s homes, limits teacher’s ability to engage students. Despite these circumstances, some schools have been able to narrow the proficiency gap by building positive relationships with students while integrating technology. In his article, “Teacher Excellence Narrows the Achievement Gap”, Mariko Nobori (2011) attributes the turnaround of Cochrane Collegiate Academy in Charlotte, N.C. to professional development that supports an approach the school calls Interactive Learning. A TIME Magazine article, “A is for Adaptive”, by Kayla Webley (2013), describes a personalized learning technology called Knewton that is able to adapt to specific student’s needs and improve student achievement. The common thread of these two articles is that technology can be used to engage students and narrow the proficiency gap by making it easier for teachers to differentiate. Nobori (2011) attributes the success of one school to a strong emphasis on using technology to raise achievement while also building strong relationships with students. It seems as though a hybrid of relationship building, student-centered instructional strategies, and technology integration may be the way to close the proficiency gap.
At Cochrane Collegiate Academy, teachers use an instructional model called Interactive Learning (IL) which specifically promotes collaboration, inquiry, and a high degree of interaction. Teachers must implement ten IL non-negotiables in every class. Some of these non-negotiables include activation strategies, clear outcomes that are communicated to students, limited lecture, and student movement. In addition to adopting this model, Cochrane’s school district implemented a standards-based, targeted-assistance program called TI MathForward (Nobori, 2011). “Each student receives a graphing calculator so they can do practice problems and get instant feedback on the classroom’s electronic whiteboard. Teachers get a precise reading on how well the students understand key concepts, and the students stay engaged thanks to the cool gadgets (Nobori, 2011).” To support the implementation of IL and TI Math Forward, Cochrane’s academic facilitator, Shana Oliver, has taken a modeling approach to professional development. Oliver runs her sessions just like a class, using the same set of non-negotiables, and teachers confirm that seeing and experiencing themselves how it can be done has helped them implement the strategies in their classrooms (Nobori, 2011).
Knewton is a math program that uses algorithms to build a personal profile for each student. The program takes into account how long it takes for a students to answer a question, their answers to hundreds of other questions, and the answers of hundreds of thousands of other people to similar questions before determining the next question on the screen (Webley, 2013). This technology, also known as adaptive learning, is able to predict student outcomes and could be the future for differentiated instruction. “It is impossible to provide one-to-one teaching on a mass scale, but technology enables us to get closer than ever before (Webley, 2013).” The feedback that this technology gives teachers allows them to help struggling students before they fail and it is too late. Additionally, the technology has the ability to remediate students on prerequisite skills. “Students in the same math course go through different sets of lessons as Knewton adapts the material to fit their individual learning needs (8).” For example, Cienna Bungard, a middle school student states, “Knewton is based on what you can do, not what the class can do (Webley, 2013).” In addition to the technology keeping students engaged, they are able to get more out of their math courses because of it and it has transformed the classroom from one-size-fits-all instruction to tailored intervention.
The turnaround at Cochrane was not only possible due to the integration of technology and interactive learning practices, but also through a strong emphasis on building positive relationships with students. These relationships are built on a level of trust that allows teachers to challenge their students. Teachers greet students individually and pay attention if something seems off, they show up to sporting events, ask students questions about how they are doing and listen to the answers, and model politeness and respect. Since implementing these changes in 2007, Cochrane has more than doubled the percentage of students performing at grade level and reduced the achievement gap by thirty five percent (Nobori, 2011). “There are so many stigmas that seem to suggest that students from this demographic cannot learn; that they are destined to fail. But now we have data that proves that our students can go so far. That’s a testament to what education can do (Nobori, 2011).” Teachers and staff acknowledge that there is still work to do and have recently launched a one-to-one laptop program while working to build better relationships with parents and continuing to hone their instructional model to reach more students (Nobori, 2011).
Both articles mentioned the ability for technology to engage students while providing teachers with quick feedback about student performance that allows for the differentiation and adaptation of instruction. Coupled with a focus on student-centered instruction and relationships, technology has allowed Cochrane to be able to significantly reduce the achievement gap at their school. What both articles miss is the ability to use technology in the classroom in creative ways that may further engage students. Tim Tyson (2010) states, learning will be made irresistible when students’ positive emotional connection to curriculum is authentically engaged in a learning process that focuses on producing high-quality, digital-knowledge products for everyone – the students, their peers, their parents, the community at large (Jacobs, p. 123). Schools should also use technology to engage students in authentic, creative assessments that will make learning irresistible in all content areas.
The proficiency gap is a hurdle that many school leaders are faced with. Unfortunately, there is often a lack of funding that allows for schools with low proficiency to integrate technology. If this is the case, as Cochrane has shown, gains can still be made by targeting professional development for teachers in a structured way that will model student-centered instructional approaches as well as foster positive relationships with students. The gap could be further reduced, or in many cases, virtually eliminated, by implementing technology that provides teachers with instant feedback to differentiate instruction while engaging students through interactive technology. Furthermore, students can be engaged through technology not just through the use of “cool gadgets” but by using it in ways that will allow them to develop 21st century skills through the creation of high-quality products for authentic audiences. Focused professional development that models student-centered instruction, building supportive relationships, and integrating technology could enhance the curriculum across disciplines, thus making learning irresistible and ultimately reducing the proficiency gap.
Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World by H. H. Jacobs
What is staggering here to me is the unemployment rate by education level. I continuously hear critics saying that students who don’t go to college or don’t graduate high school will become our “blue-collar” workers. The numbers here suggest that that is just not true. There aren’t nearly enough jobs for students in low-income communities where nearly half don’t graduate high school and even fewer go off to college.
I’ve always preached to my students the importance of going to college so that they could have choices in their lives, but as the data suggests, college isn’t about choices anymore, it’s about quality of life. College is how we can end generational poverty, and yet, we don’t support students in getting to or staying there.
I started the school year last year with an activity where students cut clippings out of magazines to represent their goals, hobbies, people they admire, and what makes them unique. The boards that students created were filled with images of expensive clothes, cars, beautiful homes, families, etc. Even in this middle school, where 85% of the students were considered low income, kid’s goals and aspirations were to have families, and support a comfortable lifestyle for them.
It’s not enough for a teacher to simply talk about college and for the school to post college banners in the hallways. When our students go to high school for four years, they may have college on the mind, but do they know how to get there?
Although I’m a first generation college student, my parents played an instrumental role in getting me to college. My suburban high school did little other than sign me up for the PSAT. My mother filled out the FAFSA, took me on college tours, and my dad prompted me to make fiscally responsible decisions; especially since paying off big loans would be difficult as a teacher. Without their guidance, I wouldn’t have known where to start.
Whether they are absent parents, do not speak English, or just don’t make time to take their children on college tours, we need to be sensitive to the fact that students in low-income households may not have parents who have made college a priority for their children as my parents had.
This is an issue of equity. If we are truly going to close the achievement gap, we need to think beyond the 12 years that we have students. In high schools with hundreds of kids there isn’t nearly enough funding to allow for guidance counselors to do all the work. In my middle school of over 500 students, we only had two counselors and the case loads are not much smaller at the high school level. Furthermore, we need services in place to support students while they’re in college so that they can make it through. This is how we can close the gap and address the cycle of poverty.
Wealthy families often purchase SAT tutors for their students, a luxury that low-income households cannot afford.
How many times have you heard people like Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, Joel Klein (remember him?) and other so-called reformers say that poverty doesn’t matter, that poverty is an excuse for poor teaching?
I have always believed that poverty imposes tremendous burdens on students and their families: hunger, homelessness, lack of medical care, illness, etc.
The best evidence of the difference that poverty makes is SAT scores. The poorest kids have the lowest scores, the most affluent have the highest. The difference from bottom to top is nearly 400 points. To be exact, it is 398 points.
The Wall Street Journal suggests a new name for the SAT: the Student Affluence Test.
What does the SAT measure? Family income and family education.
Those with vast resources of their own probably think that poverty is a personal defect rather than the inevitable result of an inequitable tax system.
I spent the better part of the morning on Friday reviewing my student’s standardized test scores and here is what I learned:
- My 2013/14 8th graders scored generally better than my 2012/13 8th graders in English Language Arts
- My deep analysis of interim assessment data and focus on reader response writing seemed to pay off in 2013/14
- Some students made great gains
- Some students scores dropped from 7th grade to 8th grade
- 69% of my students were proficient while only 44% of the 8th graders at the school were proficient
- 79% of 8th graders in the state were proficient; while I’m narrowing the gap in my school, my students are still falling behind when compared to the state
Now, none of this really matters at this point. These students are off in high school with some other teacher looking at their scores who knows very little about them at this stage in the school year. To compare the 2012/13 students with the 2013/14 students seems odd to me since one of the classes I taught last year had higher scores overall than my classes the previous year. I had more special needs students in 2012/13 and in 2013/14 I had zero special needs students and a handful of English Language Learners. Also, the students I had in 2012/13 had different teachers in 7th grade than the students in 2013/14 did. How can I truly tell that what I did differently from one year to the next made a difference? There are some other clues, like interim assessment data that I received throughout the school year that do point to successes in my practice, but overall, to look at my data from one year to the next is comparing apples to oranges.
And this is why standardized test scores are meaningless to teachers. Administrators, politicians, and parents want to hold us accountable, but how can you hold us accountable when we test students in the Spring and don’t receive the results until the Fall while we have a whole new group of students in front of us? My point is that while the scores may tell us a little bit about our teaching practice, they tell us a lot more about our students; and by that time it’s too late. I’m so proud of the students who made gains last year in my class, I’m also proud that I had a higher percentage of students proficient than my school did, but I won’t ever get the chance to see what went wrong with the kids who’s scores dropped or did not score proficient. To reasonably hold teachers accountable for this data, we either need to receive the data while the students are in front of us or teach the same cohort for more than one year; otherwise, its a total waste of time and money.
This summer I had the amazing opportunity to attend the Freedom Writer Teacher’s Institute with Erin Gruwell and her students in Long Beach, CA. One of the activities we were asked to do was to use a graphic with the shape of a head on it to describe one of our most struggling students. On the inside of the empty head, we were asked to use words to describe the student’s thoughts and feelings, and on the outside we wrote words to describe the external factors in this student’s life. Below is a letter that I wrote to my “empty head” and it is a symbol of not only the challenges we’re up against, but of the painful reality that we don’t ever have enough time to reach all of our kids…
I really wish you came to school more often. Remember that conversation we had while I was sitting at my desk and you were standing over me asking what work you had to do to be able to pass for the semester? You ended up doing all that work in just two days from the in-house suspension room! Even though it ended up being a “D” on your report card, you were happy to have passed despite all the absences. I know you really want to do well and you really want to be successful, why else would you ask me how I can afford to wear Ferragamos on a teacher salary? I mean, what eighth grader even knows what Ferragamos are?! I know that you deal drugs so that you can build an image for yourself, but I want you to know that with your determination, confidence, charm, and desire, you could do so much more than just “look” successful. I know you were listening to me when I told you that clean money is better than dirty money and I hope you always remember that conversation, because I can’t seem to get it out of my mind.
Since I’ve been involved in education reform issues, I’ve heard a lot about the costs of education. The haves and have nots. Money following the child. Merit pay for teachers and students. What gets sacrificed during lean budget years.
But we still talk to little about the costs when we don’t provide all kids with a great public education or what happens when we allow race, family income, or zip code determine how good a “good” public education really is.
When I saw this from Californians for Safety and Justice, it helps bring it all into perspective. Yes, we need to make sure that tax dollars are spent wisely. But can we really argue about where our priorities should be?