Tag: Problems

  • Basing K-12 Funding on California School Enrollment Could Bring Problems – The 74

    Basing K-12 Funding on California School Enrollment Could Bring Problems – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    For years, California schools have pushed to change the way the state pays for K-12 education: by basing funding on enrollment, instead of attendance. That’s the way 45 other states do it, and it would mean an extra $6 billion annually in school coffers.

    But such a move might cause more harm than good in the long run, because linking funding to enrollment means schools have little incentive to lure students to class every day, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Without that incentive, attendance would drop, and students would suffer.

    If the Legislature wants to boost school funding, analysts argued, it should use the existing attendance-based model and funnel more money to schools with high numbers of low-income students, students in foster care and English learners.

    When it comes to attendance, money talks, the report noted. For more than a century, California has funded schools based on average daily attendance – how many students show up every day. In the 1980s and ’90s, the state started to look at alternatives. A pilot study from that time period showed that attendance at high schools rose 5.4% and attendance at elementary schools rose 3.1% when those schools had a financial incentive to boost attendance.

    This is not the time to ease up on attendance matters, the report said. Although attendance has improved somewhat since campuses closed during the pandemic, it remains well below pre-COVID-19 levels. In 2019, nearly 96% of students showed up to school every day. The number dropped to about 90% during COVID-19, when most schools switched to remote learning, but still remains about 2 percentage points below its previous high.

    Attendance is tied to a host of student success measurements. Students with strong attendance tend to have higher test scores, higher levels of reading proficiency and higher graduation rates.

    “It’s a thoughtful analysis that weighs the pros and cons,” said Hedy Chang, president of the nonprofit research and advocacy organization Attendance Works. “For some districts there might be benefits to a funding switch, but it also helps when districts have a concrete incentive for encouraging kids to show up.”

    True cost of educating kids

    Schools have long asked the Legislature to change the funding formula, which they say doesn’t cover the actual costs of educating students, especially those with high needs. The issue came up repeatedly at a recent conference of the California School Boards Association, and there’s been at least one recent bill that addressed the issue.

    The bill, by former Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from the La Cañada Flintridge area, initially called for a change to the funding formula, but the final version merely asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office to study the issue. The bill passed in 2024.

    A 2022 report by Policy Analysis for California Education also noted the risks of removing schools’ financial incentive to prioritize attendance. But it also said that increasing school funding overall would give districts more stability.

    Enrollment is a better funding metric because schools have to plan for the number of students who sign up, not the number who show up, said Troy Flint, spokesman for the California School Boards Association.

    He also noted that schools with higher rates of absenteeism also tend to have higher numbers of students who need extra help, such as English learners, migrant students and low-income students. Tying funding to daily attendance — which in some districts is as low as 60% — brings less money to those schools, ultimately hurting the students who need the most assistance, he said.

    “It just compounds the problem, creating a vicious cycle,” Flint said.

    To really boost attendance, schools need extra funding to serve those students.

    Switching to an enrollment-based funding model would increase K-12 funding by more than $6 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Currently, schools receive about $15,000 annually per student through the state’s main funding mechanism, the Local Control Funding Formula, with an additional $7,000 coming from the federal government, block grants, lottery money, special education funds and other sources. Overall, California spent more than $100 billion on schools last year, according to the Legislative Analyst.

    Motivated by money?

    Flint’s group also questioned whether schools are solely motivated by money to entice students to class.

    “Most people in education desperately want kids in class every day,” Flint said. “These are some of the most dedicated, motivated people I’ve met, and they care greatly about students’ welfare.”

    Josh Schultz, superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, agreed. Napa schools that are funded through attendance actually have lower attendance than schools that are considered “basic aid,” and funded through local property taxes. Both types of schools have high numbers of English learners and migrant students.

    “I can understand the logic (of the LAO’s assertion) but I don’t know if it bears out in reality, at least here,” Schultz said. “Both kinds of schools see great value in having kids show up to school every day.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Why new math problems won’t solve our nation’s math problem

    Why new math problems won’t solve our nation’s math problem

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #4 focuses on making math instruction more relevant to students.

    Key points:

    How much longer will we keep trying to solve our nation’s dismal math proficiency problem by writing new math problems? Clearly, if that was the answer, it would have worked by now–but it hasn’t, as evidenced by decades of low proficiencies, historic declines post-COVID, and the widest outcome gaps in the world.

    The real question students are asking is, “When am I ever going to use this?” As a former math teacher, I learned that addressing this question head-on made all the difference. Students’ success in math wasn’t found in a book–it was found in how math applied to them, in its relevance to their future career plans. When math concepts were connected to real-world scenarios, they transformed from distant and abstract ideas into meaningful, tangible skills.

    My first-hand experience proved the premise of education innovator Dr. Bill Daggett’s “rigor-relevance-relationship” framework. If students know what they’re learning has real-life implications, meaning and purpose will ensure that they become more motivated and actively engaged in their learning.

    Years later, I founded the nonprofit Pathway2Careers with a commitment to use education research to inform good policy and effective practice. From that foundation, we set out on a path to develop a first-of-its-kind approach to math instruction that led with relevance through career-connected learning (CCL).

    In our initial pilot study in 2021, students overwhelmingly responded positively to the curriculum. After using our career-connected math lessons, 100 percent of students reported increased interest in learning math this way. Additionally, they expressed heightened curiosity about various career pathways–a significant shift in engagement.

    In a more comprehensive survey of 537 students spanning grades 7–11 (with the majority in grades 8 and 9) in 2023, the results reinforced this transformation. Students reported a measurable increase in motivation, with:

    • 48 percent expressing “much more” or “slightly more” interest in learning math
    • 52 percent showing greater curiosity about how math skills are applied in careers
    • 55 percent indicating newfound interest in specific career fields
    • 60 percent wanting to explore different career options
    • 54 percent expressing a stronger desire to learn how other skills translate to careers

    Educators also noted significant benefits. Teachers using the curriculum regularly–daily or weekly–overwhelmingly rated it as effective. Specifically, 86 percent indicated it was “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in increasing student engagement, and 73 percent highlighted improved understanding of math’s relevance to career applications. Other reported benefits included students’ increased interest in pursuing higher education and gaining awareness of various postsecondary options like certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees.

    Building on these promising indicators of engagement, we analyzed students’ growth in learning as measured by Quantile assessments administered at the start and end of the academic year. The results exceeded expectations:

    • In Pre-Algebra, students surpassed the national average gain by 101 Quantiles (141Q vs. 40Q)
    • Algebra I students achieved more than triple the expected gains (110Q vs. 35Q)
    • Geometry learners outpaced the average by 90 Quantiles (125Q vs. 35Q)
    • Algebra II showed the most significant growth, with students outperforming the norm by 168 Quantiles (198Q vs. 30Q)

    These outcomes are a testament to the power of relevance in education. By embedding math concepts within real-world career contexts, we transformed abstract concepts into meaningful, tangible skills. Students not only mastered math content at unprecedented levels but also began to see the subject as a critical tool for their futures.

    What we found astounded even us, though we shouldn’t have been surprised, based on decades of research that indicated what would happen. Once we answered the question of when students would use this, their mastery of the math content took on purpose and meaning. Contextualizing math is the path forward for math instruction across the country.

    And there’s no time to waste. As a recent Urban Institute study indicated, students’ math proficiencies were even more significant than reading in positively impacting their later earning power. If we can change students’ attitudes about math, not just their math problems, the economic benefits to students, families, communities, and states will be profound.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Teenage Problems with Parents: 3 Types of Conflicts Parents MUST Learn to Resolve

    Teenage Problems with Parents: 3 Types of Conflicts Parents MUST Learn to Resolve

    Parenting teens is a rollercoaster.

    The highs can be incredibly rewarding. You feel pride and joy in seeing them learn new things, reach new milestones, and grow more confident in their identity.

    But the lows can also hit very hard. Conflicts become more intense, and misunderstandings last longer. Sometimes, your teen’s desire for independence can feel like rejection.

    Many changes happen during the teenage years, so tension at home is bound to rise.

    Common teenage problems with parents include communication issues, power struggles, and emotional distance.

    In this article, we’ll look at three common problems teenagers face in family relationships, especially with their parents. We’ll also explore ways you can rebuild trust, improve communication, and strengthen your bond with your teens.

    (Make sure to download your free quick action guide below.)

    Problem #1: Communication breakdown

    As your teenagers grow older, you may notice a shift in how they communicate with you.

    Conversations now feel shorter, and arguments happen more often. When you do talk, your teen might sound distant, dismissive, or impatient. Instead of proper replies, you might be met with a one-word answer, an exasperated sigh, or a dramatic eye roll.

    What it seems like to you

    When your teens stop talking, it’s easy to see it as disrespect or defiance.

    When your once-chatty child no longer seems interested in your company, it’s understandable to feel hurt or frustrated.

    Why this happens

    There are a few reasons why your teens might withdraw or avoid conversations with you, including the following:

    • They’re craving independence and privacy. Adolescence brings major changes—physical, emotional, mental, and social. Your teens may keep more to themselves, especially if they think you might try to fix their problems.
    • They’re juggling many new expectations and responsibilities. When they’re stressed or tired, they don’t have the energy for long talks.
    • They fear judgment or consequences. Teens won’t open up if they’re worried you’ll scold, judge, or punish them.
    • They want to protect you. Some teens keep their struggles to themselves because they don’t want to worry you.

    Try to understand why your teen is pulling away. Every teenager is different.

    How to foster healthy communication

    How to foster healthy communication

    Here’s how to communicate with your teens in a healthy way:

    • Listen without interrupting. Your teenagers need to feel heard and safe when talking to you, or they’re less likely to open up to you the next time. You don’t have to agree with everything they say. But give them your full attention without any interruptions, interrogations, or big reactions.
    • Keep your tone calm and your reactions measured. Teens are bound to make mistakes. When they do, it’s important to respond calmly. Avoid yelling, shaming, or name-calling. Stay firm but respectful. If you need time to cool down, let them know you’ll revisit the conversation once you’ve both had a chance to reflect.
    • Guide them instead of nagging. When your teens share something, acknowledge their perspective. Avoid jumping right into blame or criticism. Encourage reflection by asking questions such as, “What did you learn from this?” or “What might you do differently next time?” Then, offer your feedback calmly and constructively.
    • Find shared moments and interests. Meaningful conversations can happen in casual settings, such as during car rides, walks, or mealtimes. You can also explore new hobbies or activities together.
    • Model humility and honesty. If you’ve said or done something wrong, own up to it. This will help create a culture of respect and humility in your family.

    Over time, these small, consistent efforts can help rebuild trust and improve communication with your teens.

    Problem #2: Rebellion and struggles over rules and independence

    Your teens may stay out later, spend more time online or with friends, or want more privacy. They might refuse to follow the boundaries you’ve set and ignore consequences.

    Such disagreements can easily turn into power struggles. These will often leave your teens feeling controlled and you feeling disrespected.

    What it seems like to you

    From a parent’s perspective, these clashes can look like rebellion or defiance.

    You set boundaries because you care about their safety and well-being, but your teens might see them as signs of mistrust or control. Every time they break a rule, talk back, or test a boundary, it can feel like they’re challenging your authority.

    Why this happens

    During adolescence, teens naturally crave more freedom and independence. Even reasonable boundaries can feel restrictive to them; it’s part of growing up.

    This creates conflict, but it’s also an opportunity to guide them. Instead of controlling every decision, you can help your teens learn to make good choices on their own.

    Keep in mind that the parts of the brain that handle impulses and decision-making are still developing in teenagers. So your teens might not foresee the consequences of their actions.

    But your teens can still make mature choices. Research shows that adult support and a safe space to think help them make wise decisions.

    How to set effective rules and boundaries

    How to set effective rules and boundaries

    You play a vital role in teaching and guiding your teen, but it’s important to do so in a way that doesn’t strain your relationship.

    Try these strategies:

    • Set and negotiate the house rules. Involve your teens in setting boundaries and deciding on consequences for breaking them. Be open to hearing their opinions. When they feel heard, they’re more likely to cooperate.
    • Set boundaries around health and safety, not control. Too many rules can feel like micromanaging and may push your teen to rebel.
    • Explain the “why.” When teens understand the reason behind a rule, like finishing homework before video games, they’re more likely to respect it.
    • Set reasonable consequences. Connect consequences to the broken rule. For example, if your teen plays video games before finishing homework, they might lose their gaming privileges the next day. Stay consistent so they take the rules seriously.
    • Show trust when it’s earned. Your teens may prove that they can handle responsibility over time. If so, gradually loosen certain rules and reward them with more independence.

    Discipline and rules are important, but pick your battles wisely. Step in when safety or values are at stake, but allow your teenagers space to learn from their own choices. Sometimes, natural consequences can also teach good lessons.

    Problem #3: Emotional distance and mood swings

    Your teens may seem distant and no longer eager to spend time with the family.

    They might retreat to their rooms, spend hours on their phones, or respond to simple questions with short, snappy answers. Sometimes, it feels like your teenagers are shutting you out.

    Their moods can also change in an instant. One moment they’re cheerful and affectionate, the next they’re cold, withdrawn, or defiant.

    What it seems like to you

    As a parent, this emotional distance is heartbreaking. You might feel helpless, frustrated, or even rejected when your attempts to connect are met with silence.

    It can seem like the bond you once had is slipping away, or that your teen no longer values your guidance and reassurance.

    Why this happens

    Emotional ups and downs are a regular part of adolescence. Your teen’s brain is still developing, and hormonal changes can trigger sudden shifts in mood. Add in peer pressure, academic stress, and self-image struggles. No wonder teenagers get overwhelmed by emotions.

    Because teens are still learning to manage their emotions, they may cope by withdrawing, shutting down, or lashing out at others. Their need for independence and their desire to fit in can drive them to spend more time online or with friends rather than with family.

    The truth is, they still need your support and assurance. They just struggle to show it.

    How to support your teens

    How to support your teens

    Parents play a huge role in helping their teens feel emotionally safe and supported. In fact, research shows that a strong parent-teen bond can help teens build better emotional regulatory skills.

    Here’s what you can do:

    • Show consistent support, even when it’s hard. Empathy goes a long way. Remind your teens that they can talk to you about anything. When they do, give them your full attention.
    • Validate their feelings. You won’t always agree with your teenagers. Even so, avoid dismissing or minimizing their opinions and emotions. Let them know it’s normal to feel upset, frustrated, or sad sometimes. What matters most is how they manage and respond to those feelings.
    • Encourage healthy coping habits. Help your teens develop a stress-management routine. You can suggest activities such as journaling, drawing, or playing music. Encourage physical self-care, too. For example, exercise together, prepare healthy meals, and teach them good sleep habits.
    • Normalize seeking help. Many teens view getting professional help as a sign of weakness. Reassure them that reaching out for support takes courage and strength. Offer to help them find a supportive professional when they’re ready to seek help.

    Supporting your teenagers through emotional ups and downs takes patience, empathy, and consistency. They might not admit it, but your support will help them feel more secure and confident.

    Conclusion

    Parenting teenagers is no easy task. But every disagreement or challenge is also an opportunity to understand each other better and to strengthen your bond.

    The key is to listen with empathy, set fair boundaries, and offer consistent support. By doing so, you create a safe and loving space your teens can always return to while they learn to navigate the outside world.

    Teens can also benefit from extra guidance from a coach or mentor. Through my coaching program, I’ve helped teens around the world build strong values and improve their communication. This empowers them to form healthier relationships with family and friends.

    So check out the coaching program today!

    (And if you haven’t already done so, download your free quick action guide below.)

    Source link

  • Let’s stop talking about problems as if they can’t be solved

    Let’s stop talking about problems as if they can’t be solved

    Doesn’t it seem as if the world gets more complicated every day? It is difficult to keep track of all the global calamities, let alone make sense of them.

    When News Decoder came into being 10 years ago, it was to combat one thing: the problem of too much news and information in a world of constant streaming and posting and too little context and understanding of what all this news and information means. News Decoder Founder Nelson Graves called this a “knowledge gap.”

    But 10 years on, this gap is even more difficult to close. That’s because the problems have metastasized and each one seems more unsolvable — climate change, disease, hunger, genocide, racial hatred, homelessness, mass unemployment. How can you work to solve each problem when they are all interconnected? The result is widespread despair caused by the belief that these problems are unsolvable.

    We need an antidote to this despair.

    It is no longer enough to close the knowledge gap. We need to bust the myth that problems are unsolvable, when really they are just overwhelming. And they are overwhelming because too often the news and information young people get focuses on obstacles to solutions — the inability of governments and organizations to work together, and politicians who prioritize winning elections at all cost. Too often, media focuses on the same problems in the same places so young people don’t see the solutions that can be found in places media ignore.

    Determination, not despair

    Once young people see problems as solvable, they can find the energy to work towards those solutions. That’s why solutions journalism has become a cornerstone of our educational mission.

    We teach students to apply a critical, curious lens to the media and the world around them — continually questioning, taking nothing at face value. And at the same time we show them how to find the solutions and the people working on those solutions all over the world. In doing so they might just see that the problem in their community that seemed unsolvable is being tackled elsewhere and those solutions can be applied back home.

    Consider the story we published on Monday by University of Toronto Fellow Natasha Yu Chia Hu. In looking at the overwhelming and connected problems of food insecurity, poverty, obesity and diabetes she focused on a program New York City has launched to make the foods young people get in school healthier, and how other places around the world are tackling the problems in similar ways.

    At News Decoder, students don’t just read about these solutions, they seek out the stories themselves. In the United States, student Aiden Huber explored the problem of food deserts. In Switzerland, Liv Egli explored the disconnect between environmentally-minded consumers and the beef they eat. In France, Clover Choi looked at the connection between war and food shortages. 

    And they engage in thoughtful conversations on these topics with experts and with their peers in other countries through our school-to-school cross-border webinars and our Decoder Dialogues.

    From disempowerment to agency

    By encouraging global perspectives and enabling cross-continental exchange, by nurturing their voices and giving them a platform to communicate with global audiences, we transform young people’s sense of disempowerment into agency.

    Going into our second decade, News Decoder wants to do this in more ways.

    We want to meet educators where they are and within their real-world constraints and opportunities to help them implement experiential learning and AI-resilient methodologies. This means more than listening; it means an active partnership.

    We want to expand our reach to enable as many educators and young people as possible to benefit from our approach and build a truly diverse global community.

    We intend to find new ways to diversify our network of correspondents, emphasising those in Global South nations to enable us to explore solutions in places the mainstream media ignores. And we want to create new ways for young people, journalists and experts to connect across borders — through live virtual roundtables and in-person workshops.

    Working together across borders

    In a world where so many laudable nonprofit organizations are vying for funds, we need to forge partnerships with like-minded organizations and share our knowledge and expertise in ways that benefit everyone working in the field.

    At News Decoder, we keep our mission foremost: Informing, connecting and empowering young people to be engaged citizens and changemakers locally, nationally and globally. We need funds to do that, but fundraising isn’t our mission. Where we can work with other organisations to fulfill our mission and where we can share our resources towards that purpose, we will.

    We have been doing this all along. With the University of Toronto we take on journalists-in-training and give them a platform to report on important, complicated issues. With The Environment and Human Rights Academy at the European School of Brussels II, we created a teaching curriculum for climate change that educators can implement in their classes, complemented by a 3-day in-person teacher training workshop. With Prisa Media of Spain and some seven other organizations, we joined WePod, a cross-border project to support the growth and sustainability of the European podcasting ecosystem. And with Mobile Stories in Sweden, we helped create open-access resources — video tutorials, articles and educators’ guides — to help young people report and write trustworthy news stories grounded in ethical practice.

    All this is part of our desire to create a global community of young people who refuse to be discouraged by news and who instead use news to drill down into problems to identify solutions and work towards those solutions — whether that means pushing their government representatives to pass laws, voting out representatives who foment division, pressuring corporations to change their ways or using social media to rally the people around them to fight for change.

    Moving forward, we’re making our educational experiences accessible to more young people by expanding open-access materials and creating public engagement forums. We’ll continue to adapt our classroom work to individual school needs while prioritizing communities where we can make the greatest difference: under-resourced or under-represented groups.

    Together, as a global community, we can fight the despair that comes with the myth that problems are too overwhelming to solve.

    Anyone who has worked with young people knows this: When they are inspired and energized, it is hard for anyone to stand in their way.

    Source link

  • How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages. 

    In Part 1, I looked at how the low grades given at GCSE languages – up to a grade lower than in pupils’ other subjects – is a manufactured situation, easily solved at the stroke of a pen. The narrative around languages being harder is nothing to do with the content of the course or the difficulty of the exam. It is simply a historical anomaly of how the grades are allocated. There is also a false narrative that this unfair grading is due to pupils’ individual ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. And I made a subtle plea for commentators to avoid reinforcing this narrative to push their own diagnosis or solutions. 

    In Part 2, I will consider what happens in post-16 language learning. This has also been the subject of reporting in the wake of A-Level results and the recent HEPI report. I am not going to deny that A-Level languages are in crisis. But the crisis in A-Level and the crisis of language learning post-16 are not one and the same. 

    There are specific problems with the current A-Level specification for languages. The amount of content to be studied, comprising recondite details of every aspect of the Spanish / French / German speaking world, is unmanageable. Worse, as this post explains, the content is out of kilter with the exam. All the encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, history, popular culture and high culture which takes up the bulk of the course, is ultimately only required for one question in just one part of the Speaking Exam. The difficulty of the course is compounded by the extremely high standards required, especially for students who have learned their language in the school context. I personally know of language teachers and college leaders who have discouraged their own children from taking A-Level languages in order not to jeopardise their grades for university application. It is getting to the point where I can no longer, in good conscience, let ambitious students embark on the course without warning them of the overwhelming workload and doubtful outcomes. 

    So A-Level could be improved. But as an academic course, it will always remain the domain of a tiny few. Similarly, specialist Philology degrees at university – the academic study of the language through the intersection of literary and textual criticism, linguistics and the history of the language – only attract a very small minority. Neither university language degrees, nor A-Level, are a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    It is a particularly British mentality to only value language learning if its intellectual heft is boosted by the inclusion of essays, abstruse grammar, linguistics, literature, politics, history, and a study of culture. In other words, philology. Philology is not the same as language learning.  

    Universities do offer language learning opportunities for students of other disciplines. However, in sixth form, because of the funding requirement to offer Level 3 courses, there are no mainstream language learning options available to the vast majority of students who do not study A-Level languages. We have a gap in 16-19 provision where colleges do not offer a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    This gap is fatal to language study. It means GCSE is seen as a dead-end. It means that universities have a tiny pool of students ready and able to take up language degrees or degrees with languages as a component. 

    The crisis is not one of how to channel more people into studying A-Level languages. It is a question of finding radical new ways of offering mainstream language learning post-16, and how to make this the norm. We know from the HEPI report that young people in the UK are among the most avid users of the online language learning app Duolingo. Young people are choosing to engage with language learning, but in terms of formal education, we are leaving a two-year gap between GCSE and the opportunities offered by universities. 

    If this hiatus in language learning is the problem, is there a solution? I have two suggestions. One of which is relatively easy, if we agree that action is needed. If universities genuinely believe that a language is an asset, then they could send a powerful message to potential applicants. 

    Going to university means joining an international organisation, including the possibility of studying abroad, using languages for research, engaging with other students from across the globe, and quite possibly taking a language course while at university. The British Academy reports that universities are calling for language skills across research disciplines, so I hope that they would be able to send a strong message to students in schools and colleges. 

    The message around applications and admissions could be that evidence of studying a language or languages post-16 is something that universities look for. At the very least, they could signal that an interest in self-directed language learning is something they would value. 

    I understand that most universities would stop short of making a qualification in a language a formal entry requirement, because they fear it could exclude many applicants, especially those from disadvantaged groups. But a strong message could help reverse the situation where language learning opportunities are currently denied to many under-privileged school pupils, who aren’t getting the message around the value of pursuing a language. 

    And my second, more difficult suggestion? Would it be possible to plug the two-year gap with a provision at sixth form or college? An app such as Duolingo has attractions. There is the flexibility and independence of study, as well as the focus on motivation by level of learning, hours of study or points scored. It is very difficult to imagine how a sixth form or college could provide language classes for their varied intake from schools, with different language learning experiences in different languages. 

    Is there scope here for a new Oak Academy to step in and create resources? Or for the government to commission resources from an educational technology provider? Is there a role for universities here? The inspiring Languages for All project shows what can happen when a university engages with local schools to identify and tackle obstacles to language learning. The pilot saw Royal Holloway University working with schools across Hounslow, to increase participation at A-Level in a mutually beneficial partnership. Many of the strategies could equally apply to more mainstream (non A-Level) language learning partnerships. These included strong messaging, co-ordinated collaboration between colleges, face-to-face sessions and events at the university, and deployment of university students as mentors. 

    The aim would be to transform the landscape. Currently we have a dead-end GCSE where unfair grading serves as a deterrent, and where there is no mainstream option to make continuing with language learning the norm. A strong message from universities, along with an end to unfair grading, could make a big difference to uptake at GCSE. A realisation that A-Level and specialist philology degrees are not sufficient for the language learning needs of the country could lead to alternative, imaginative and joined-up options post-16. It could also boost the provision or recognition of self-study of a language and may even lead to the reinvigoration of adult education or university outreach language classes. And it could even see a larger pool of candidates for philology degrees at university. 

    Source link

  • The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • How the manufactured narrative of “failure” is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part One.

    How the manufactured narrative of “failure” is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part One.

    Author:
    Vincent Everett

    Published:

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages at https://whoteacheslanguages.blogspot.com.

    We have to bring an end to the Culture Wars in “Modern Foreign Languages” in England. Since 2019 we have been convulsed in an internecine political fight over whether our subject is about Communication or Intellectual Conceptualisation. Of course, it’s both. The same goes for Literature, Linguistics, Content Integrated Language Learning (CLIL), and Culture. Likewise, we can encompass transactional travel language, personal expression, professional proficiency, creative or academic language. Teachers have all of these on their radar, and make decisions on how to select and integrate them on a daily basis.

    Our subject benefits from the richness of all these ingredients, and to privilege one or to exclude others, is to make us all the poorer. Teachers work in the rich and messy overlap between Grammar and Communication, engaging with pupils at every stage through their encounters with and progression through another language.

    Meanwhile, we have allowed the culture wars to allow us to be distracted from the very real problems facing our subject. The first is unfair grading at GCSE. The allocation of grades in languages is harsher than in their other subjects. Above a grade 3, this widens to a whole grade’s difference compared to a subject like History.

    The narrative that it is harder to succeed in languages is accurate. Not because of the difficulty of the course content or the exams, but because of the determination of the allocation of grades. It’s not accurate to say that this is a reflection of pupils’ progress or the quality of teaching compared to other subjects. That calibration has not been made. In fact, grades are not calibrated one subject to another. The only calibration that is made, is to perpetuate grading within the subject year on year.

    This was most famously set up in advance when we moved to a new GCSE in 2018. The unfair grading of the old GCSE was carefully and deliberately transferred across to the new GCSE. So pupils taking the new course and the new exam, even though it was proposed to be a better course and a better exam, had no chance of showing they could get better grades. Furthermore, where under the old A-G grading system, the difference between languages and other subjects had been around half a grade, the new 9-1 grading meant that the difference in the key area of grades 4 and above, was now stretched to a whole grade, because of the way the old grades were mapped onto the new ones.

    The lower grades given out in languages are a strong disincentive for take up at GCSE. There is the accurate narrative that pupils will score a lower grade if they pick languages, which acts as a deterrent not only for pupils, but also for schools. One way to score higher in league tables is to have fewer pupils taking MFL. There is also the inaccurate narrative that this is a reflection of the pupils’ own ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. The allocation of grades is a historical anomaly perpetuated year-on-year, not a reflection of actual achievement.

    This is the biggest issue facing modern languages. It would also be the easiest to fix. Grade boundaries in other subjects are used in order to bring standards in to line. If an exam is too easy  or too hard, and many pupils score a high mark or a low mark, the grade boundaries are used to make sure the correct number of pupils get the grade. Except, that is, in modern languages, where the thresholds are used to make sure that grades are out of line with other subjects. Imagine if languages grades were allocated in line with other subjects, would there be a clamour of voices insisting they should be made more difficult?

    There is a very real danger of misinterpreting this manufactured narrative of “failure” in languages. It features in every report or proposal, but often instead of identifying it as an artificial anomaly, it is used to diagnose a deficit and prescribe a solution. Often this is a solution taken from the culture wars, ignoring the fact that schools and teachers are already expertly blending and balancing the elements of our subject.

    Unfair grading at GCSE is the greatest of our problems, and the easiest to sort out. In Part 2, I shall look at the trickier question of what happens post-16.

    Source link

  • New Government, familiar problems – By Chris Husbands

    New Government, familiar problems – By Chris Husbands

    The higher education sector had high hopes of a new government last July. Early messaging from ministers suggested that they were justified.  The Guardian quoted Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, declaring an ‘end to the war on universities’. Speaking to the Commons in September 2024, the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that ‘the last Government ..use[d] our world-leading sector as a political football, talking down institutions and watching on as the situation became…desperate. I [want to]…return universities to being the engines of growth and opportunity‘.  In November, she announced a rise – albeit for just one year in the first instance – in the undergraduate tuition fee, with the prospect of alleviating pressure on higher education budgets.

    Ten months on, the hopes look tarnished as financial, political and policy challenges mount. The scale of the higher education funding challenge is deepening, it seems, by the week. The OfS has reported that four in ten universities will report a deficit this year.  Restructuring programmes are underway in scores of universities, with some institutions on their second, third or even fourth round of savings.  The post-study graduate visa, an important lifeline for international student recruitment, appears to be under threat.

    There are eerie echoes of headlines and comments under the last government.  The Daily Telegraph declared that a ‘record number of universities [are] in deficit’. The Times claimed that universities that appeared to report relatively poor progression to graduate-level jobs were to be ‘named and shamed’. Following the success of Reform UK in local elections, some backbench Labour MPs have been sharply critical of universities: ‘I would close half our universities and turn them into vocational colleges’, wrote the Liverpool MP Dan Carden (BA, London School of Economics, since you ask), whilst Jonathan Hinder, MP for Pendle (MA Oxford) declared himself ‘happy to be bold and say I don’t think we should have anywhere near as many universities and university places‘. Philip Augar, who reviewed skills funding for Theresa May’s Government, wrote in the Financial Times that the ‘English higher education market is broken‘ as a result of a ‘failed free market experiment’. It seems terribly familiar: a sector in financial crisis, losing political traction and friends.

    Policy direction appears to be unclear. The English higher education sector is still largely shaped by the coalition government’s policy decisions between 2010 and 2015. Its key design principles include uncapped student demand since number controls were abolished in 2013, assumed cross-subsidies across and between activity streams allowing for institutional flexibility, access to private capital markets since HEFCE capital funding was removed in 2011, diverse missions but largely homogenous delivery models based around traditional terms and full-time, three-year undergraduate provision, and jealously protected institutional autonomy. Familiar though these principles are in higher education policy, some are in truth relatively recent, and are creating tensions between what the nation wants from its university system, what universities can offer and what the government and others are willing to pay for.   

    Moreover, the sector we have in 2025 is not the sector which the 2017 Higher Education and Reform Act (HERA) envisaged: HERA was expected to significantly re-shape the sector. The government’s impact assessment of HERA suggested that there would be in the order of 800 HE providers by the mid-2020s.  This did not happen, though the impact of private capital, often channelled through established institutions and now rapidly growing for-profit providers, should not be underestimated as a longer-term transformative force in the sector.

    We are expecting both a three-year comprehensive spending review and a post-16 White Paper in a couple of months’ time. In my 2024 HEPI paper, ’Four Futures’, I sketched out possible scenarios for a sector facing intense challenges. The near-frozen undergraduate fee was reducing the unit of resource for undergraduate teaching as costs rose. Undergraduate demand seemed to be softening amongst (especially) disadvantaged eighteen-year-olds. International student demand remains volatile and subject to political change in visa regulations.  The structural deficit on research funding deepened.  ‘Four Futures’ outlined four scenarios, summarised in Table 1.

    Of course, we all want a mixture of cost control, thriving universities, regional growth and research excellence, but it is difficult to have all of them. Governments and universities set priorities based on limited resources, so there are choices to be made and trade-offs to be confronted for both policymakers and institutional leaders. 

    Government needs to make decisions about universities in the context of competing and changing policy imperatives. It needs to balance restoring government finances, allocating resources to other needy sectors, securing economic growth, and, more obviously important than a year ago, protecting sovereign intellectual property assets and growing defence-related R&D. The Secretary of State’s letter to Vice-Chancellors in the Autumn identified growth, engagement with place, teaching excellence, widening participation and securing efficiencies, but did not unpick the tensions between them.  That depends on articulating a stronger vision for higher education given the Government’s priorities and resources and the economic challenges facing institutions, and it is a task for the forthcoming White Paper.  

    But there are urgent choices too for institutions, and those need to be made quickly in many universities.  Institutional and sector efficiencies are vital, and a key theme of the UUK Carrington Review, but they need to be considered in the light of sustainable operating models for both academic delivery and professional services. Institutions need a clearly articulated value proposition, communicated strongly and effectively and capable of driving the operating model. In the past, too many universities have tried to do too many things – and with resources scarce, the choices cannot be ducked. That means there is a consideration which links the choices facing government and those facing individual institutions.  If a core strength of the English system lies in its diversity and its distributed excellence, individual institutions need to think about their place in, and responsibilities to, the wider HE system. For a sector characterised by intense competition, that is a profound cultural shift, notwithstanding the economic and legal challenges of collaboration.

    The higher education sector now is not the sector we have always had, and therefore it won’t be the sector we always have. How the sector collectively, and institutions individually, confront choices is a test for policymakers and institutional leaders.

    Source link

  • Solving the Right Problems –

    Solving the Right Problems –

    I write this post to e-Literate readers, Empirical Educator Project (EEP) participants, and 1EdTech members. You should know each other. But you don’t. We should all be working on solving problems together. But we aren’t.

    Not yet, anyway. Now that EEP is part of 1EdTech, I’m writing to ask you to come together at our Learning Impact conference in Indianapolis, the first week in June, to take on this work together.

    1EdTech has the potential to enable a massive learning impact because we have proven that we can change the way the entire EdTech ecosystem works together. (I recently posted a dialogue with Anthropic Claude about this topic.) I highlight the word “potential” because, as a community-driven organization, we only take on the challenges that the community decides to take on together. And the 1EdTech community has not had many e-Literate readers and EEP participants who can help us identify the most impactful challenges we could take on together.

    On the morning of Monday, June 2nd, we’ll have an EEP mini-conference. For those of you who have been to EEP before, the general idea will be familiar but the emphasis will be different. EEP didn’t have a strong engine to drive change. 1EdTech does. So the EEP mini-conference will be a series of talks in which the speakers propose ideas about what the 1EdTech should be working on, based on its learning impact. If you want to come just for the day, you can register for the mini-conference for $350 and participate in the opening events as well. But I invite you to register for the full conference. If you scan the agenda, you’ll see sessions throughout the conference that will interest e-Literate readers and EEP participants.

    EEP will become Learning Impact Labs

    We’re building something bigger. Nesting EEP inside Learning Impact is just a start. Our larger goal is to create an umbrella of educational impact-focused proposals for work that 1EdTech can take on now and a series of exploratory projects for us to understand work that we may want to take on soon. You may recall my AI Learning Design Assistant (ALDA) project, for example. That experiment now lives inside 1EdTech. As a community, we will be working to become more proactive, anticipating needs and opportunities that are directly driven by our collective understanding of what works, what is needed, and what is coming. We will have ideas. But we need yours.

    Come. Join us. If you’ve been a fellow traveler with me but haven’t seen a place for you at 1EdTech, I want you to know we have a seat with your name on it. If you’re a 1EdTech member who has colleagues more focused on the education (or the EdTech product design) side, let them know they can have a voice in 1EdTech.

    Let us, finally, raise the barn together.

    Come.

    Source link