The Washington Post (Professor George Sugai quoted in story about Federal Commission on School Safety field visit)
Sugai Joins Federal Commission on School Safety Field Visit
This morning, Neag School Professor George Sugai, an expert in positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), was invited to speak about PBIS and improving school climate with representatives from the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Commission on School Safety, who made a field visit to an elementary school in Maryland’s Anne Arundel County to learn more about the impact of implementing PBIS practices.
Sugai, as well as administrators, teachers, and students from the Anne Arundel County public school district, each shared with Commission representatives insight into PBIS during a panel discussion.
Sugai shared some background information about PBIS as well as the national Center of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, for which he serves as co-director. Currently, there are 26,000 schools nationwide that call themselves PBIS schools and that are working toward improving school climate, relationship building, and connectedness, Sugai said.
“One thing we’re learning is that schools that have a positive school climate are able to respond more quickly and more strategically to traumatic events.”
— Professor George Sugai
“One of the outcomes [of PBIS] is that the school builds a continuum of support. What that means is that all kids get what they need, but some kids need a little extra. And a few kids need something that is more individualized,” he said. “If you do PBIS well, these are the outcomes: You’re likely to see decreases in discipline referrals for major infractions; you’re likely to see decreases in bullying; you’re likely to see increases in organizational health and school climate. … The [PBIS] framework allows those outcomes to become real. The framework is really about helping the adults get to those kinds of outcomes.”
He then fielded questions from Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, as well as other representatives from the Commission. Questions touched on the flexibility of PBIS implementation and the prevalence of PBIS in schools across the country.
“One thing we’re learning is that schools that have a positive school climate are able to respond more quickly and more strategically to traumatic events,” Sugai said.
Virginia Dolan, coordinator of behavioral supports and interventions at Anne Arundel County Public Schools, also among those serving on the panel, spoke about Sugai’s involvement and the evolution of PBIS in the Anne Arundel County’s schools.
“George taught us about implementation science — that it takes three to five years. For five years, he came every summer and trained teams,” Dolan told the Commission. “Almost 18 years later, we have over 1,000 schools trained. In Anne Arundel County, we have 80 schools and growing — This summer, we will be training another five. We have pre-K programs, middle and high schools, and alternative schools that are trained in [PBIS] implementation. It’s like building a house; inside every house is different. That’s how we establish PBIS. Every school has a team leader and a coach who guides the team and establishes a set of expectations. … We’ve built these structures over a long period of time.”
According to a news release issued by the U.S. Department of Education, the field visit will serve as the first of several more to be made by the Commission over the coming months, focused on learning from practitioners in the field about improving school safety and school climate.
Sugai is a professor of special education in the Neag School and a research scientist for the Center for Behavioral Education and Research (CBER), which conducts and disseminates research that seeks to improve educational and social outcomes for all children and youth in schools in the areas of PBIS, behavior disorders, literacy, school psychology, and special education. He also serves as co-director of the national Center of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, established by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs.
Access the U.S. Department of Education news release about the field visit. Watch the online stream of the panel discussion here.
Related Stories:
Secretary Betsy DeVos to Visit Anne Arundel School Thursday
Baltimore Sun (George Sugai to meet with Commission on School Safety representatives as part of field visit focused on positive behavioral interventions and supports)
Creativity as a Sliding Maze: An Interview with Dr. James C. Kaufman
TechTrends (Professor James Kaufman interviewed by AECT’s TechTrends)
Cutaia Named Next Milford Schools Superintendent
New Haven Register (Neag School alumna Anna Cutaia named superintendent of Milford Public Schools)
Career and Technical Education Issue Brief: Current Trends and Results
Editor’s Note: Samuel J. Kamin, a doctoral student in the Learning, Leadership, and Education Policy program at the Neag School, prepared the following issue brief on career and technical education in affiliation with the Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA), a research center based at the Neag School that seeks to inform educational leaders and policymakers on issues related to the development, implementation, and consequences of education policies.
Both the means and the ends of American public education have long been debated by scholars, politicians, practitioners, and the public. Most stakeholders have come to agree that preparing students for both college and career is an obvious yet difficult goal. Career and Technical Education, or CTE, is one educational pathway that connects both of these goals. CTE programs offer both pre-service career training and opportunities to develop the skills necessary for success in college.
Is CTE meeting its goal to prepare students for career and college? A brief review of the limited literature suggests current CTE offerings may be beneficial for both professional and postsecondary outcomes. Further, current research provides one particularly salient and policy-relevant conclusion: students who take in-depth coursework in a single CTE program of study see particularly strong academic and career-oriented results.
Is career and technical education (CTE) meeting its goal to prepare students for career and college?
What Is CTE?
CTE programs integrate traditional high school coursework with career preparatory courses that build students’ technical skills in a variety of areas. This can range from the modern iterations of classic vocational courses in construction and mechanics to new, 21st century skills in computer science and engineering. Students may take a variety of courses, or “concentrate” by taking three or more courses in a program of study. Frequently, students participate in partnerships with local employers and/or take certification exams in their field. The amount of CTE coursework each student completes varies widely and depends on the program. In a typical, comprehensive high school, students may take one or two elective CTE courses as part of their regular curriculum.
At “technical” high schools, all students participate in a CTE program. Thus, academic and traditional coursework may be distinct from each other. For example, at some regional vocational technical schools (RVTS) in Massachusetts, students alternate weekly between their traditional coursework and technical CTE instruction.[i] Some districts offer a hybrid approach in which students take academic work at a traditional high school, and vocational/technical courses at a designated technical center.
CTE programs vary widely both between and within states and districts, but national trends exist. First, programs are typically grouped into “career clusters” at the state or district level. Both the number and type of clusters vary, but the general purpose is the same: to encourage students to focus on a particular set of courses that align with a particular career path. For example, clusters in Maryland include Arts, Media, and Communication, Information Technology, Construction and Development, and Health and Biosciences.[ii] Clusters may be developed by state or district-level CTE program offices or adopted in collaboration with national programs and advocacy groups.
A second and related trend is the development of “pathways” in CTE.[iii] These pathways are designed to support students’ progression through their secondary academic careers with specific benchmarks. These benchmarks may include the completion of a specific sequence of courses, the attainment of a field-specific technical certificate or credential, work-based learning experiences, or advanced, pre-college coursework. Pathways may be directly or informally associated with the clusters described above, and similar to clusters, may be locally developed by states or districts, or as branded programs that are developed in collaboration with national non-profit organizations.[iv]
Who Participates in CTE?
A significant portion of American high school students participate in CTE programs. As of 2009, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that almost 90 percent of students have at least one credit in a CTE area. In addition, more than half of students have at least 3 credits and more than one in four have five or more. Those with more credits are more likely to have taken occupational education courses, which encompass a wide variety of specific training, as opposed to courses in family and consumer sciences, or “general labor market preparation.”[v]
Students in these CTE programs and courses do not mirror the student population as a whole. Indeed, CTE has yet to shake the echoes of ability-based tracking that were clearly evident in 20th-century vocational education. Historically, males, students with high-incidence disabilities, low-income students, and students of color have been overrepresented in CTE programs.[vi] Trends exist within CTE program choices as well and societal issues are mirrored in students’ selection of pathway and cluster. For example, male students in Arkansas are overrepresented in manufacturing, but underrepresented in education and health sciences. Other student demographic trends exist that are worth monitoring as well.[vii]
Is CTE Working? Exploring the Value of In-Depth Coursework
There are two core categories of metrics by which to judge the success of CTE programs: career preparation and academic attainment. Further, the variety of participation and models of CTE may help provide some clues as to what types of CTE delivery are most beneficial, in what ways, and for whom. At this point, evidence across the board is generally mixed. However, one key trend has emerged: Students who take in-depth CTE coursework see academic and career-oriented benefits more consistently than other CTE students or similar students in non-CTE settings.
One key trend has emerged: Students who take in-depth CTE coursework see academic and career-oriented benefits more consistently than other CTE students or similar students in non-CTE settings.
Current literature suggests the gains in both academic and career-oriented metrics are tied to students’ in-depth concentration on particular CTE skills, supported by clusters or pathways. For example, recent research indicates that the value of CTE coursework on wages depends on advanced coursework in a particular field, and that each additional year of advanced coursework yields a 2 percent increase in wages. By contrast, there is no gain from introductory courses.[viii] Moreover, in Arkansas, CTE students who “concentrate” (took three or more courses) in an aligned “program of study” (similar to a pathway) saw higher graduation rates when compared to similar students who took the same number of CTE courses without alignment.[ix] Recent analysis also suggests that CTE courses taken later in high school are especially linked to lower chances of dropout and increased high school graduation, suggesting students who persist in taking CTE courses throughout high school may see these specific benefits rather than those that take courses only at the end of their high school program?.[x]
The methods of such in-depth study may be relevant as well. For example, students in the RVTS system in Massachusetts, in which all students take in-depth CTE coursework, saw higher graduation rates, higher likelihood of earning professional credentials, and similar probability of passing the required graduation exams when compared to similar students at traditional comprehensive high schools, despite spending significantly less classroom time on traditional subjects.[xi]
These gains from in-depth CTE coursework might be particularly important for students who are less likely to graduate from high school. Results from the RVTS system in Massachusetts show that students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch experienced greater benefits than other students in RVTS schools.[xii] Similarly, students with high-incidence disabilities were also more likely to graduate from high school within four years that similar students in non-CTE settings.[xiii]
Policy Recommendations
In conclusion, when considering the value of in-depth CTE coursework, there are three policy recommendations for school, district, and state leaders considering the value of Career and Technical Education:
- Expand and encourage “concentration” in in-depth CTE coursework: Although CTE has mixed success in general, there are clear benefits for students who take in-depth coursework in CTE subjects. These students attain increased graduation rates and wages, and these effects appear to be particularly notable for historically disadvantaged groups, namely low-income students and students with disabilities.
- Develop and adopt clusters and/or pathways that support student learning and curricular choice: CTE can take many forms; states and districts who adopt a cluster and/or pathways approach to delivery will encourage students to take more in-depth CTE coursework, and thus produce the most positive effects.
- Encourage students to go beyond clusters and pathways traditionally associated with “students like them”: While CTE maintains a negative association with the low-track, vocational programs of the past, CTE can be a path to college, not a path away from it. Further, CTE offerings present the opportunity for students to go in-depth in experiences that may not be traditionally associated with students of their gender, race, or socioeconomic status. CTE can (and should) be a mechanism to shift past social mores, not reinforce them.
Learn more about CEPA at cepa.uconn.edu. Access this issue brief, as well as other CEPA presentations and publications, in PDF format here.
Related Stories:
- Preparing a School District for a 1:1 Technology Initiative: Issue Brief
- The Impact of Undocumented Status on Children’s Learning
References
Dougherty, S. M. (2016). Career and Technical Education in High School: Does It Improve Student Outcomes? Fordham Institute. Retrieved from edexcellence.net/publications/career-and-technical-education-in-high-school-does-it-improve-student-outcomes
Dougherty, S. M. (2018). The Effect of Career and Technical Education on Human Capital Accumulation: Causal Evidence from Massachusetts. Education Finance and Policy, 13(2), 1–30. doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00224
Dougherty, S. M., & Lombardi, A. R. (2016). From Vocational Education to Career Readiness: The Ongoing Work of Linking Education and the Labor Market. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 326–355. doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16678602
Gottfried, M. A., & Plasman, J. S. (2017). Linking the Timing of Career and Technical Education Coursetaking With High School Dropout and College-Going Behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 0002831217734805. doi.org/10.3102/0002831217734805
Hehir, T., Dougherty, S., & Grindall, T. (2013). Students with disabilities in Massachusetts Career and Technical Education programs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Kreisman, D., & Stange, K. (2017). Vocational and Career Tech Education in American High Schools: The Value of Depth Over Breadth(Working Paper No. 23851). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi.org/10.3386/w23851
Maryland’s Career Clusters. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/careerclusters.aspx
Oakes, J. (1983). Limiting Opportunity: Student Race and Curricular Differences in Secondary Vocational Education. American Journal of Education, 91(3), 328–355. doi.org/10.1086/443693
Pathways to Prosperity Network | Jobs for the Future. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from jff.org/initiatives/pathways-prosperity-network
Table H123. Percentage of public high school graduates who earned any credits and various minimum numbers of credits, by career/technical education (CTE) area: 2009. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/h123.asp
Visher, M. G., & Stern, D. (2015). New Pathways to Careers and College: Examples, Evidence, and Prospects. MDRC.
[i] Dougherty (2018)
[ii] http://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/careerclusters.aspx
[iii] Visher and Stern (2015)
[iv] Note: Visher and Stern (2015) provides a comprehensive, national review of pathway programs. Also, see Pathways to Prosperity (n.d.) for a large-scale, national example of unified policy action towards the pathway approach.
[v] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/h123.asp
[vi] Dougherty and Lombardi (2016), Oakes (1983)
[vii] See Dougherty (2016), p36 for more detailed breakdowns
[viii] Kreisman and Stange, 2017
[ix] Dougherty (2016)
[x] Gottfried and Plasman (2017)
[xi] Dougherty (2018)
[xii] Ibid
[xiii] Hehir, Dougherty, and Grindal (2013)
It’s Time to Reinvent Teacher Education
Diane Ravitch’s Blog (Ravitch discusses recent commentary by Rachael Gabriel and Sarah Woulfin)
A Rural School Turns to Digital Education. Is it a Savior or Devil’s Bargain?
NBC News (Neag School’s Preston Green is quoted on consolidation and budgets of rural schools)
Why We Need to Rethink How to Teach the Holocaust
Editor’s Note: Alan Marcus, Neag School associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, writes this piece originally published for The Conversation. Read the original article.
A recent national survey reported that millennials are struggling with their knowledge of the Holocaust. The survey results show that 22 percent of millennials have not heard of, or are not sure if they have heard of the Holocaust, and that 66 percent could not identify Auschwitz.
As a scholar of Holocaust education and teacher education, I argue that knowledge of specific facts is only a small part of knowing about any historical event, including the Holocaust. A more important question to consider is: What do we want students to learn from the Holocaust, and given there are fewer and fewer survivors alive to tell their story, is there a need to rethink how it is taught?
Why learn about Holocaust?
History educator Sam Wineburg argues that history as a discipline has the unique capacity to humanize us. More specifically, scholars Keith Barton and Linda Levstik argue that history education can and should promote reasoned judgment, help students develop an expanded view of humanity, and encourage deliberation of the common good.
What do we want students to learn from the Holocaust, and given there are fewer and fewer survivors alive to tell their story, is there a need to rethink how it is taught?
From this perspective, the most important rationale for Holocaust education would be to create a better society. Indeed, when studying the Holocaust learners need to grapple with complicated moral issues that blur the lines between right and wrong. It also challenges ideas about how individuals could (or should) act in society. In other words, the Holocaust provides lessons in human rights and human conduct.
It is not surprising that more state legislatures are now requiring Holocaust and genocide education as a way of dealing with the increase in hate crimes. Noting a spike in anti-Semitism, on May 7, 2018, the Connecticut House followed their Senate colleagues and voted unanimously to require Holocaust and genocide education in Connecticut schools. Kentucky also recently passed a Holocaust education law, increasing the total number of states with such requirements to 10.
Connecticut and Kentucky were among the 20 states last year whose lawmakers pledged to mandate Holocaust education in their states.
The changing context for Holocaust education
While for many states the position appears clear, for educators, it is not so simple. Teaching the Holocaust is an evolving and challenging context.
Foundational to the work of Holocaust educators and many teachers have been the survivors, whose presence – physically, emotionally, intellectually – has shaped every aspect of Holocaust education and representation.
Holocaust survivors are the ones who provided the moral and political will to create many of the Holocaust museums and memorials that exist today. Many Holocaust education programs were designed in collaboration with survivors and rely on survivor testimony as a key element.
This education, however, is nearing an end. In 2001, there were estimated to be over 160,000 survivors in the U.S. That number is expected to drop to about 67,000 by 2020 with more than half over the age of 85.
Historian Sam Wineburg reminds educators of the important difference between lived memory and learned memory. Survivors, and their lived memory of having experienced the event, help young people connect to the past and make learning about the Holocaust relevant. Without survivors, the Holocaust will pass into being taught strictly from learned memory.
It is difficult to imagine a more powerful experience in Holocaust education than hearing from the people who survived. Interactions with survivors helps learners to personally connect to the Holocaust and develop empathy. The Holocaust, which may seem distant to many students today, becomes more real with eyewitness experiences.
The future of Holocaust education
This raises important dilemmas for teachers, curriculum developers and museum professionals about the future of Holocaust education. How do educators inform future generations? And how do they recreate the powerful empathetic moments?
Museums are taking the lead in adapting Holocaust education to a post-survivor world. One example is the Forever Project at the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in England, where staff are taking video of survivors in 3D and students can watch survivor testimony, and using the latest technology, ask questions and listen to answers.
The Shoah Foundation in the U.S. has a similar project working with Holocaust museums and using multidimensional video recordings of Holocaust survivors. The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect in New York is working on applying the lessons of the Holocaust to today, including its 50 State Genocide Education Project, which aims to encourage all 50 states to teach about the Holocaust and genocide with specific connections between events in the past and the present.
Holocaust education has the potential to encourage young people to think about how to improve humanity through individual and group actions. Its real test lies in how young people live out their daily lives. What happens, for example, when they see someone being bullied? How do they respond to a political leader whose words or policies promote stereotyping or hatred?
The effectiveness of Holocaust education is not one that we can readily measure, but it is more important than ever.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Why We Need to Rethink How to Teach the Holocaust
The Conversation (Neag School’s Alan Marcus publishes an article on the need to rethink how the Holocaust is taught)
