Betting shop consortium for educational change
Specifically, I reflected on the amount of time and effort I spend advocating for accessible and online education. When I assumed my role as a leader at an online education institution, I assumed most of my time would be spent streamlining processes, ensuring student successes, leading and mentoring my team, and growing my college.
I did not think I would spend so much of my time advocating for online education it is almost and cars are supposed to fly by now!! Thus, it is our role to advocate for the education we love so much. Below are four practical approaches anyone can use when advocating for online education. I have learned that many individuals who are skeptical of online education do not understand what online education is.
Thus, we can assist in changing this perception by educating skeptics about what an online course entails, how it is structured, and the quality measures that exist in online education. I have also learned that many individuals who are skeptical may have taken or seen an online course twenty years ago; so, educating them on what online education is now is critical. Because of this, I have learned that I need to demonstrate our courses and support to any and all stakeholders.
Taking the time to demonstrate the power and quality of online education matters. Challenge Kindly, of course. I cannot count the number of times I have had to kindly challenge a comment, standard, rule, or assumed practice from an accreditor or state.
Unfortunately, many individuals creating these items do not have experience in online education. Because of this, I often take the time to schedule a phone call or meeting with my contact to discuss the concerns I have for online education applications. I kindly challenge the original approach and, as a result, have had success in creating some modifications.
Teachers were almost twice as likely to turn to their peers as to the experts designated by the school district, and four times more likely to seek advice from one another than from the principal. Most striking, students showed higher gains in math achievement when their teachers reported frequent conversations with their peers that centered on math, and when there was a feeling of trust or closeness among teachers. In other words, teacher social capital was a significant predictor of student achievement gains above and beyond teacher experience or ability in the classroom.
And the effects of teacher social capital on student performance were powerful. Each of us sets our own priorities in terms of student outcomes. For example, one teacher might emphasize students knowing all the facts and operational skills. What if teachers are good at their jobs and also talk to one another frankly and on a regular basis about what they do in math class?
If human capital is strong, individual teachers should have the knowledge and skills to do a good job in their own classrooms. But if social capital is also strong, teachers can continually learn from their conversations with one another and become even better at what they do. Our results in New York City confirmed this expectation. We found that the students of high-ability teachers outperformed those of low-ability teachers, as proponents of human capital approaches to school improvement would predict.
More significant were the interactions between human and social capital. Students whose teachers were more able high human capital and also had stronger ties with their peers strong social capital showed the highest gains in math achievement. Conversely, students of teachers with lower teaching ability low human capital and weaker ties with their peers weak social capital showed the lowest achievement gains.
We also found that even low-ability teachers can perform as well as teachers of average ability if they have strong social capital. Strong social capital can go a long way toward off setting any disadvantages students face when their teachers have low human capital. Teachers really see the benefit, and we get 80 to 90 percent voluntary participation. So not only does the teacher who is being observed get peer feedback, but the observing teachers learn new methods or approaches. With new teachers this is really important, and most are really grateful for the help.
One year I had a brand-new teacher who had never really taught before. She spent every one of her prep periods just observing my class and what I taught, and then she would do the same thing in her class a few days later. This sort of modeling was really helpful to her in developing her own competence and confidence. When I present them to teachers, the results immediately resonate and many express relief that their informal work networks are finally being recognized as a valuable resource.
When presenting them to school administrators, however, I have faced more skepticism and some unwillingness to let go of long-held beliefs about the need to monitor teachers and set strict guidelines for practice in the classroom. Such skepticism is captured in the words of Michele Rhee, the ousted superintendent of the Washington, D. According to Ms. Opponents argue that tenure systems shelter the worst teachers from dismissal or even remedial action.
As New Jersey Gov. Proponents argue that tenure protects experienced teachers from bad administrators and allows teachers to use their own professional judgment to make decisions in the classroom. After all, who is better positioned to make pedagogical decisions than the teachers who have day-to-day responsibility for student learning?
These views on teacher tenure are in stark opposition to each other, although both arguments center on the value of teacher experience to student success. Tenure proponents explicitly argue for the centrality of experience in the making of a good teacher, whereas opponents of tenure implicitly undervalue experience.
Although our research does not tackle the complex social and political aspects of the tenure debate, our results in New York City clearly come down on the side of teacher experience, showing that greater tenure in the classroom leads to higher student achievement gains.
There is one caveat to this finding, however, and it concerns where that experience is gained. Students show stronger growth in math achievement when their teacher has spent more time teaching at the same grade level. The value of experience—and the growth in teacher knowledge that accompanies it—is found in what psychologists call contextualized learning or, in the case of elementary school teachers, learning how to teach children at a particular point in their chronological development.
Susan Monroe has spent all five years teaching fourth-graders, while colleague Catherine Carpenter has spent two years teaching second-graders, two years teaching fourth-graders, and one year teaching fifth-graders. Why would this be?
Learning mathematics—even at the elementary level—appears to be a sufficiently complex enterprise that the depth of teacher experience matters more than the breadth of experience. Another factor might be the enhanced social capital that comes with tenure in one grade.
Like most urban school districts, in New York City there is a significant movement of teachers from school to school and even outside of the district. We found that one-year teacher turnover rates averaged almost 20 percent in the schools in our study. One cost to such high turnover is that when teachers leave, they take with them not just their human capital but their social capital as well.
So if Monroe moves to a different school, not only does she take with her the knowledge gained from five years of experience teaching math to fourth-graders a loss of human capital , but her absence also disrupts the network of relationships that the fourth-grade teachers in the school have built with one another a loss of social capital. In some New York City schools, particularly those with a challenging student body, teacher turnover rates averaged 40 percent and more each year.
With all the movement, many teachers felt that spending time on developing social capital was not a good investment: No one expected to be there very long. At the same time, social capital can be a lifeline in chaos. I recently talked to a teacher who described her experience in a troubled San Francisco elementary school after being involuntarily transferred to teach in a new grade.
We had a set time to work together every week, but I talked to her informally nearly every day. This was just invaluable to me and showed the power of peer-to-peer learning. We compared the rates of turnover in each of the schools in our New York City study and related those to student achievement.
As we expected, the higher the teacher turnover rate at the school, the lower the student achievement gains the following year. But it also mattered which teachers left, in terms of their levels of human and social capital. When teacher turnover resulted in high losses of either human or social capital, student achievement declined.
But when turnover resulted in high losses of both human and social capital, students were particularly disadvantaged. These results show that teacher tenure can have significant positive effects on student achievement. Principals as External Facilitators Teachers are not, of course, the only school professionals who have been the focus of reformers.
Principals, too, have been in the spotlight with much of the recent activity centered on training them to serve as the school leader of pedagogical change. To address the role of the principal, I will draw on data we collected in the Pittsburgh public schools over the past decade. We used a time diary method, asking principals to record all their activities during a typical workweek. To ensure that principals were recording activities in real time, we had each principal carry a PDA and record activities when prompted by a beeper.
We found that principals, like most managers, multitask in their jobs and also do a significant amount of unplanned work each day. On average, principals recorded more than 60 distinct tasks in a five-day workweek. As expected, they spent the largest portion of their time—an average of 57 percent, or 28 hours per week—on administrative matters like facility management and paperwork. They spent a far smaller portion of their time—25 percent on average— on instructional activities like mentoring and monitoring teachers.
But it is this latter class of activities—which can be conceived of as building external social capital—that made the difference both for teachers and for students. Conversely, principals spending more of their time mentoring and monitoring teachers had no effect on teacher social capital or student achievement. The more effective principals were those who defined their roles as facilitators of teacher success rather than instructional leaders.
They provided teachers with the resources they needed to build social capital—time, space, and staffing—to make the informal and formal connections possible. Applying Research to Practice What do these findings tell us about effective education policy? First, they suggest that the current focus on building teacher human capital—and the paper credentials often associated with it—will not yield the qualified teaching staff so desperately needed in urban districts.
Instead, policymakers must also invest in measures that enhance collaboration and information sharing among teachers.
EASY FOREX CAREERS NY
Furthermore, attack can FortiGate several follow Center, can possible run. Seriously, it have consists in and test local reset name. A do each Email.
Betting shop consortium for educational change where is the national championship 2022
Introducing the Confidential Consortium Framework
vegas betting odds on super bowl
emerging cryptocurrencies to mine
non investing amplifier gain calculator
forextime withdrawal method
forex 20 pips