Money, Money, Money, Money

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The most frequently discussed topic in education is . . . school funding. Well, maybe mathematics and readings, but, after them, it is definitely school funding. Why? Scarcity. There is never enough money. Have you ever heard anyone in education say, “you know, we should give this money back because we really don’t need it”? No, never.

Raising funds for schools from local property taxation was quite common for most of the history of public schools – and in many places still is. That practice creates vast inequalities between school districts. Communities that have a large tax base can raise money that communities without a decent tax base – or communities whose citizens send their children to private schools – cannot or will not raise. In the United States, there is a $23billion dollar gap between school districts serving predominantly Black students and those serving predominantly white students.

Inequalities such as these affect the quality of schooling. From maintaining the buildings and equipment to paying teachers, severe inequalities affect student outcomes. Those who can, flee districts where conditions are poor and where teachers are poorly paid. The less affluent – families that cannot afford to move and whose children lack the advantages that money can buy – are left behind. However, children from economically disadvantaged families attending schools in relatively more affluent communities fare better that students who live in homogeneously poor communities.

Although there are inequalities among school districts in Canada, the inequalities are much smaller than in the United States because most of the basic funding that school districts receive comes from provincial governments. Provincial governments use formulas to ensure equity in the distribution of funds. The funding for school districts that are more remote is adjusted to account for the additional cost of transportation. The funding for school districts in northern climates is adjusted to reflect that fact that heating schools is more expensive and lights are on longer because there are fewer hours of daylight during the school year. As I have written in another blog, the outcomes students achieve in Canadian schools are better in part because of greater equity in school funding.

No matter. Almost everyone wants more money, and almost everyone wants new formulas for the disbursement of government funding. But there is little agreement about what they want the money for. It is hard to make a case for additional funding when jurisdictions want the money for different purposes or simply want more money and the discretion to use it as they see fit.  And, by the way, if there isn’t going to be more money don’t bother changing the funding formula because changing the formula will just take money from one district and give it to another – creating what are perceived as ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’  

Governments are typically unwilling to allocate funds for specific purposes without accountability for the use of the money. Thus, when funds are allocated for a specific purpose they are designated (‘targeted’ or ‘earmarked’) for that purpose alone. School boards don’t like designated funding because it fetters their discretion and requires them to be accountable for the use of the funding.

The acceptance of designated funding can produce unanticipated consequences. Consider special needs funding. Many local school boards receive designated funding for students who manifest special needs. Where this is the case, the number of students with special needs sometimes increases over time. It isn’t clear whether, in their attempt to get more funding for student needs, school boards identify greater numbers of students whose conditions attract funding or whether the funding draws attention to students with conditions that, though recognized, went unaddressed prior to the board’s receiving additional funding.

Money matters. In education, there is a natural desire to want to do more for students. No one wants to do less. Claims for additional resources sometimes try to paint a picture of students whose needs are neglected - ‘students falling through the cracks.’ But I have not ever seen evidence of neglected students.

Claims for additional resources for education would be easier to justify if (a) there was agreement on where those funds were most needed, and (b) those seeking the additional funds could show that the funding they received in the past made a visible (measurable) difference for students.

Rethinking Education for Mass Unemployment

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 COVID-19 has caused business failures and high levels of unemployment. Many of the failed businesses and lost jobs will not return . . . ever. As deeply concerning as that is, Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA) may also produce permanent, unemployment of unprecedented levels. Social policies such as guaranteed annual wages may help to mitigate the economic impact of mass unemployment. I think it is time to look ahead and consider the part that education should play in preparing successive generations for their responsibilities as productive citizens.

For much of its history – especially in the post WWII period – education has been associated with preparation for employment. Even when a smaller proportion of the population attended secondary school, those who did were often people preparing for the professions and the clergy. In the post war period, the link between schooling and work became stronger for the growing number of students. “Stay in school and get a good job,” parents admonished their offspring. Mine certainly did.

It paid off for most of us who stayed in school through to graduation. The booming post-war economy was fueled by consumer-demand for goods. The growing population needed more teachers, doctors, nurses, police . . . almost everything. Generous benefits made it possible for soldiers to attend school, obtain training and post-secondary education.

Those who heeded the advice about staying in school benefitted in direct proportion to their educational tenure. High school graduates were more likely to find steady employment and earned higher wages than those who did not graduate. Those who acquired training and post-secondary education did better than the high school graduates. That relationship persists today . . . for those who are employed . . . though not as strongly as it once did.

STARA has begun to change that relationship for many people and the trend is projected to grow exponentially. Most of the high school graduates who once found employment in the burgeoning industrial sector have been replaced by robots. The same is true in the resource sector. Fallers, miners, and derrick-hands are fewer in number because of mechanization of the work.

The post war service industry exploded as consumer wages increased. High school students once earned income from part-time work in drive in restaurants, diners, and service stations. Today many of those service jobs are performed by early school leavers and seniors who do not get the benefits typically associated with full-time employment. Those positions will also decline as the fast-food sector automates. Robots can work 24/7 (except for downtime for maintenance) and do not get benefits.

Some argue that “. . . automation displaces workers who are doing highly automatable work and tasks, but it does not affect the total number of jobs in the economy because of offsetting effects. . . . It is important to keep in mind that even though technology can be a net job creator, it does not mean that the new jobs created will show up right away, be located in the same place or even pay the same as the ones that were lost. All it means is that the overall need for human work has not gone away” [my emphasis]. As Statistics Canada analysts Marc Frenette and Kristyn Frank point out “. . .  even the most carefully chosen statistical methods can fail to accurately predict the future.”  

The dislocation of employment that may arise from automation and the difficulty in predicting the future suggest that it is prudent to anticipate and plan for an education for a society characterized by increasing unemployment and, possibly mass unemployment. What might such an education entail?

Literacy will continue to be important. People will need to read and the ability to evaluate media messages and images (media literacy). Literature courses should increase in number. There should be greater emphasis on poetry, composition, especially for artistic expression and written argumentation, i.e., rhetoric

History, economics, government, philosophy, ethics, sociology, and law will take a more prominent part in education because citizenship will become more active. People will take a fuller part in the affairs of their communities and societies. Scientific and environmental knowledge will allow citizens to understand the impact of their decisions. Languages should flourish, too, because the world will become increasingly integrated.  

Elective courses offered at the margins of a school career today will become more important in an education that takes into account mass unemployment. Music, carpentry, photography, painting and sculpture, electronics, and filmmaking will flourish.

These areas of study look familiar, but their priority in the curriculum and their focus will have been transformed. The cultivation of the human mind and its capacity for understanding will replace the cultivation of marketable skills. To the extent that there is a desire for the development of marketable skills, those courses will become the elective courses at the margins of the school curriculum.

Of course, I am no more adept at predicting the future than anyone else. But there is consensus that there is simply not enough work to engage everyone today and that STARA will increase unemployment, eventually on a mass scale. It is prudent to anticipate today what education for such a future might entail.

Will limiting Donald Trump’s access to social media make addressing cyberbullying easier?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

It took a seditious incursion by an angry mob into the American Congress to limit Donald Trump’s four plus years of online deceit and cyberbullying. During that period, the world’s population was exposed to his use of social media to promote aggression toward almost everyone. His behaviour was egregious, providing license to behaviour for which children and youth are admonished by parents and teachers: name calling, demeaning characterizations, misogynistic rants, taunts, incitement of violence, and lies.

The last four years have shown that connectivity is a two-edged sword. Better and more rapid access to information on the one hand, increased susceptibility to manipulation and damage on the other. Online aggression – also called cyberbullying or cyberharassment – is a form of bullying that has serious negative consequences for the victim and for the perpetrator. According to a 2017 meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization by Chen and her colleagues, those with greater access are more likely to become involved in online aggression.

Online aggression can lead to anxiety, stress, depression, poor self-esteem, negative school performance, a higher chance of dropping out, and suicide. Pediatricians, mental health workers, and social workers express concerns about the exposure that children and youth have to social media. It is common to find parents giving their smartphones to infants to distract or entertain them. Children and youth – like most of us - are rarely untethered from their phones.

Access to information and communication technology has given us enormous advantages and opportunities. Evident in the extreme from Trump’s behaviour, those same technologies can victimize. In a wired world, denying or restricting access are not realistic means of addressing the issue. In the case of children and youth, denying or restricting access encourages students to seek covert access. Children and youth are reluctant to disclose their victimization for fear that their access will be limited or cut off completely.

Technological solutions – apps that detect and prevent the transmission of negative language and harassment or apps that facilitate the reporting of harassment – are of limited usefulness. As is often the case, education is a more promising approach, but it too has limitations.

In 2019, my colleagues and I reviewed 35 programs designed to address cyberbullying among children (ages 6-11), youth (ages 12-17), and young adults (ages 18-25). The programs focused on: creating awareness of cyberbullying; developing knowledge about cyberbullying topics; equipping participants with skills to address cyberbullying (coping strategies, social skills, skills to form improved/respectful relationships, self-empowerment, and empathy); on creating safe, respectful, bullying-free school environments and policies; building teacher capacity to address cyberbullying and bullying issues; and increasing knowledge and awareness among parents.

We found that most programs have not been systematically studied. But we were able to formulate recommendations that ought to help educators think about selecting or designing programs to address cyberbullying. Not surprising, the first recommendation is that you need to know what you are trying to achieve and for whom. Are you trying to influence behaviour change among young children or youth? Develop empathy for others or specific skills for improved communication and better relationships with others? Is the program aimed at a specific segment of the population or the entire school? You get the idea.

Clarity of purpose is indispensable to the selection of the relevant practices and to ensuring that they are aligned with the goals. Programs aimed at increasing awareness of unhealthy behaviours differ from programs that seek to equip students with the skills they need to extricate themselves from situations in which those behaviours are present.

Some cyberbullying programs treat cyberbullying like ‘bullying with technology,’ but there are important differences between bullying and cyberbullying: the anonymity of perpetrators, the almost limitless opportunities for victimization, and long-lasting impact because the attacks are difficult to expunge. So, it is important to pay attention to the similarities and differences between cyberbullying and traditional bullying.

Making certain that the approach is age appropriate and sensitive to vulnerable populations (racialized students, LBGTQ2S, for example) is important. Equally important is developing the capacity of those who will implement the program. Most established programs go off the rails when applied to other contexts because those in the new context do not faithfully implement the program.

Trump makes me think of two significant challenges that cyberbullying programs must face. One is motivating behaviour change. The other is the example set by socially prominent models. Trump’s visibility and the position he occupied made his behaviour seem acceptable, and he has shown that he has no desire to change. I am guessing that it will be a bit easier to address cyberbullying when Trump is gone, but it still won’t be easy.

If you want brief descriptions of the 35 programs or a copy of the full  report that my colleagues and I prepared for Public Safety Canada, please send me an email at oneducationcanada@gmail.com

More effective online instruction during COID-19 and beyond

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

There is no doubt that the fall term was extremely challenging for everyone. Many of the teachers with whom I have talked or corresponded over the holidays are feeling guilty about the quality of their online instruction. They know that they have not been prepared for teaching online and believe that students are suffering as a result.

I have tried to explain to some of them that they know more about online instruction than they think they know. I’ve done this by asking them questions about their classroom teaching methods to get them to recognize and make use of what they already know. I have distilled those conversations into an interview format, calling upon what the teachers said in response to my questions. My questions are in bold with a composite of the teachers’ answers beneath edited for economy and clarity.

“What do you do in your classroom to reduce the challenges students face when they confront new material?

I check to see what students already know about the material. When I do that, I build upon what students know and can do and avoid asking them to engage with material for which they do not have the necessary prior knowledge or experience. I review with them what they know and can do.

I break the new material into small chunks or steps so that students are not asked to bite off more than they can chew. What I mean by that is that it is easier for me to check to see if they have mastered a small amount of learning before I move on.

“What do you do if there are students who are struggling to get to the next step?”

I build scaffolds and use cue cards or models to help them along. I create diagrams of the processes I am asking them to follow or a timeline or a chart. I use key terms or phrases as reminders of the ideas they are trying to wrestle with. I prepare lots of examples so that, if a student is struggling, I have a second or third or fourth example I can use. If I have checked for prior understanding, I can usually link the material back to something the student already knows or use an example within the student’s frame of reference.

If there is a process or procedure that I am asking the students to follow, I try to model it for them. As I am modelling the procedure, I talk about what I am thinking at each step. I try to phrase what I am thinking in terms that are familiar to the students. Linking to the student’s prior knowledge or experience reminds them of what they know and shows them they are being asked to make a small step up – not a big leap.

I try to build in frequent opportunities for practice for two reasons. First, it allows me to observe them working through the problems, checking their work for accuracy, and giving them hints or prompts that will help them to succeed at the task. It builds their confidence to see their own success. Second, if more than one or two students are struggling, I know that I haven’t been successful in communicating the ideas or the process that I expect them to learn. I need to go back and start that step again, but with a different approach, examples, etc.

“What do you say or do for the students who are on track to succeed or who have already succeeded in the task?”

I let them know that I recognize their success. But I try to avoid saying, “good for you.” Someone is always saying “good for you,” but that’s too vague. They need to know what specifically they have done well. I say things like “you were careful in following each step,” “you remembered to look for X,” or “you showed your work each step of the way.” If they are on track, but not quite there, I try to nudge them in the right direction. “Check to see if you have all of the steps in the right order,” “Where would I look to see X?” or “Here’s an example that might be helpful” are some of the things I say to give them a gentle push.

If they are working through a problem on paper or showing me their work on a white board, I sometimes say, “let’s mark each of the steps to see if they are all there.” Gently, but firmly providing little corrections and feedback goes a long way to building understanding and confidence. Asking students to use an assessment rubric that is familiar to them lets them check their own work. If they do that often enough, checking their own work may become habitual. That makes them more independent learners.

“What do you do when you are confident that students have achieved the next level?”

Even when they have achieved the next level, they need practice . . . and lots of it. I try to create opportunities for practice that allow them to represent what they know. “Draw a diagram or make a chart,” “Find examples that fit the model we’ve been working with,” “Teach [another student] or teach me how to do that.”

“Is there anything that you’ve said that you cannot do online?”

Not really. But when I teach online, I have tried to overpackage the experience and made a lot of other mistakes. I really haven’t checked for prior learning or broken things up as I would have in class. I’ve spent too much time talking at students rather than with them. The lessons are too long. Not enough examples. Too little practice. It’s hard to give feedback online. But, no, you are right. In the classroom I have done what I described. Now I need to put it into practice online.

Managing student behaviour, technology, and the learning environment is very difficult in an online situation. My hunch: Online teaching and its technologies threw teachers with sound teaching practices off their game. If they did what they do with their students – inventory what they know – the task might be a bit easier . . . but not easy.