Partner
Education sector on notice
By Todd Whitlock
If you’ve recently googled the latest findings and expert insights in employee engagement and performance, you’ve likely noticed a pattern: The traditional methods of performance management aren’t working in the modern educational system. Astute organizations are taking note and doing something about it.
In a piece for the Harvard Business Review, Marcus Buckingham of “Strengths Finder” fame and Ashley Goodall, director of leader development at Deloitte, argued that today’s organizations are in need of a performance management approach that’s “nimbler, real-time, and more individualized”—something that’s high-touch and adaptable to individual needs without bogging down staff with needless paperwork, inconsequential data, and wasteful tasks.
That need has spurred many schools to seek out technology as a way to tackle a handful of obstacles with one approach: cultivate a feedback-rich culture while freeing up time for more meaningful interactions and the application of data-driven, actionable insights by automating all that can be automated in the performance management process.
Technology-supported models in teacher performance management have ranged from using video for classroom evaluations (which got high marks in a study by the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard) to streamlining evaluations with software. We’ll focus on the latter—the most common scenario—although the applications described in this article remain important considerations for any performance management solution you choose.
Using tech to automate, reduce workload
First up, we’ll discuss key features your performance management technology should provide. Then, we’ll dive into the non-tech (read: human) practices that ensure your chosen tech tool truly benefits your organization, rather than just pile up more tasks on teachers’ plates.
That’s an important point, so allow us to stress it: Any performance management technology worth its salt should solve real problems on a regular basis—helping teachers be more productive, provide clear and easy-to-read data, and increase morale across the ranks.
At a minimum, your chosen performance management platform needs to tell you which teachers are performing at standard or optimum levels, and which are falling behind.
That requires a way to collect data and easily access reports on:
Your software should also enable you to do the following:
The acid test: The tool you’re using should alleviate workload and routinely solve problems in the classroom. While there might be some upfront training and setup involved, after the initial onboarding process, the solution should be decreasing the amount of time you’re spending on evaluations, not increasing it.
Train evaluators & teachers
The goal of performance evaluations should be to improve an individual’s performance—administrators aren’t doing them simply to follow compliance exercises and they don’t want to dismiss teachers. For performance evaluations to truly benefit teachers, students, and their communities, schools must train both evaluators and teachers on performance processes, tools and metrics.
Part of that essential training is mentoring evaluators to conduct difficult conversations—especially topics with a high potential to dampen someone’s spirit, affect relationships, or diminish the teacher’s loyalty to the organization.
To that end, researchers for the NeuroLeadership Institute advise managers to anticipate and provide topics for discussion in a structured conversation, and equip evaluators with recommendations for how to approach each topic. From there, guided conversations should focus on goals that employees set for themselves and how they see their progress.
Just as important, your process should include multiple observations by various administrative staff to increase reliability and consistency among evaluators. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the leadership team to track and analyze the data to ensure observations are equitable.
Up your feedback frequency, quality
Poor performance will always derail results and relationships if left unaddressed until too late. Similarly, when we wait months to tell someone his or her performance is subpar, it’s hard for that person to grasp what he or she must do to improve. As time passes, feedback becomes more ambiguous and reliant on memory, which can be faulty.
By contrast, in-the-moment or frequent feedback is far more fruitful. According to PwC, the global business advisory firm, nearly 60% of survey respondents said they’d like feedback on a daily or weekly basis, and that number climbed to 72% for employees under age 30.
Supporting this notion, Gallup reported employees whose managers hold regular meetings with them—whether face-to-face, by phone, or electronic communication—are almost three times as likely to be engaged compared to employees whose managers do not meet with them regularly. “And when employees attempt to contact their manager,” the report continues, “engaged employees report their manager returns their calls or messages within 24 hours. These ongoing transactions explain why engaged workers are more likely to say their managers knows what projects or tasks they are working on.”
…administrators aren’t doing them [evaluations] simply to follow compliance exercises and they don’t want to dismiss teachers.
Circling back to technology applications, a tool that enables easy check-ins, status updates, and the ability for teachers and evaluators to interact on-the-go can enable close and frequent follow-ups without disrupting anyone’s schedule.
Conversations, not monologues. Progress, not process.
Gallup reports manager behavior accounts for 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores, and less than one-third of Americans are engaged in their jobs in any given year. Even worse, one in two adults in the U.S. has left a job “to get away from their manager to improve their overall life at some point in their career.” This means most managers aren’t creating environments where employees feel motivated or comfortable.
It goes without saying, but we’ll say it anyway: Be human. Empathize. Involve teachers in setting their own goals, self-assessing, and shaping evaluation processes. Make it an ongoing conversation, prioritizing dialogue and progress over one-way pronouncements and processes. Just as important, enable teachers to respond to the evaluator’s feedback and give input on how they perceive their own performance.
Make teachers the real winners
As you digest what we’ve covered so far, you may be thinking (1) much of this is common sense, and (2) each school or district is different, and requires a different mix of tools and tactics. You’re right on both counts.
Common sense isn’t always common practice, however, and human needs remain the same, whatever the makeup of your organization and the challenges it faces.
In the end, the right performance management strategy or tool for your organization will invariably be one that makes teachers the real winners, elevating them above red tape, without sacrificing compliance. By automating that red tape and dialing up the human connection, you’ll find you can make a lot of mistakes and still get teacher engagement and growth right.
Author
Todd Whitlock is the CEO of Standard For Success. He spent 20 years in public education and served as a classroom teacher, coach, and district administrator overseeing technology, curriculum, testing, and early college programs. Todd was recognized as the TechPoint 2012 Bridge Builder Award Recipient, was the 2008 winner for contributions to K-12 education and was recognized as a National School Board Association (NSBA) “20 to Watch” school leader.
As an entrepreneur, Todd has founded or co-founded three companies in the technology and service area during the last 21 years. His passion for helping people be successful in the classroom, office, and workplace motivates him to continue to think outside the box in bringing solutions to Standard For Success clients.
Further Reading
New roles beg new questions
By Dr. Paula Love
I fondly remember the day I received my first driver’s license—and the newly found sense of independence it offered. But I also recall the realization that my freedom came with a trade-off: the huge liability of operating a vehicle. The weight of that responsibility was felt as I paid my insurance premiums, navigated a near-miss with another car in a parking lot, and of course, minded the speed limit.
In a similar way, State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have been given a new license of freedom under the education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). However, that freedom comes bound with greater fiscal and programmatic responsibilities. In many regards, SEAs and LEAs will move from implementers to designers under the new education law. The success of this shift will be determined by the state and local agencies’ ability to meet the expanded expectations of their role under ESSA.
Freedom from mandates, but increased responsibility for SEAs
Though education in the United States has always been primarily the responsibility of state and local agencies, the federal government has had varying degrees of authority. Under the previous education law, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), federal mandates significantly increased. Strict requirements included meeting adequate progress, or being forced to implement prescribed interventions.
ESSA reverses this trend, handing much of the responsibility back to states. From accountability requirements to the funding of key programs, many decisions previously dictated by the U.S. Department of Education (USED) will now lie with state or local agencies. For the first time in several decades, SEAs and LEAs have an opportunity to set new priorities and enact meaningful reforms and programs.
More local and state control over accountability & standards
Though the federal government still dictates testing for specific grades under ESSA, states now can decide which tests are used, so long as they are high-quality. The federal parameters for testing have been simplified to move away from the “high-stakes” nature of previous assessments, but accordingly, ESSA requires more indicators. States must include five indicators: student proficiency on tests, another measure of academic achievement such as student growth, high school graduation rates, progress toward proficiency for English Language Learners, and another measure of school quality (e.g. school climate) that can be tracked for subgroups.
However, because these indicators can—and will—vary widely among states, designing assessments that align to those indicators may be a challenge. States also must be prepared to address a new requirement of ESSA: assessing higher-order thinking skills.
Similarly, ESSA offers states the flexibility to adopt their own challenging academic standards—a welcome move for some states previously wedded to the Common Core State Standards. However, this freedom means that state-specific standards must be implemented in ways that are reflected in accountability measures and align with state higher education entrance requirements and career/technical education standards. Again, these requirements may prove to be a challenge for SEAs.
More funding flexibility with block grants, Title 1 funds
One of the biggest ways that ESSA offers state and local flexibility is through funding. A new $1.6 billion block grant, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant, will be given to states to pass along to districts within a very flexible framework of guidelines. For districts with allocations of $30,000 or more, at least 20 percent of funding must be spent on activities to help students become well-rounded, and another 20 percent must be spent on an activity that helps students be safe and healthy. The remaining 60 percent may be used for the effective use of technology in the classroom, with no more than 15 percent used for infrastructure.
It is fair to assume that this funding will open the door for more local choice at the LEA—and perhaps even school—level. This funding can be used to support district or school programs to expand arts education, career, and technical education (CTE), and a wide variety of other options.
Title 1 funds are also poised to offer more flexibility to LEAs. Under NCLB, Title 1 funds could only be used for “schoolwide programs” in schools in which more than 40 percent of students come from low-income backgrounds. Under ESSA, a state may grant a school a waiver from that 40 percent threshold after considering the impact of those funds on student achievement. As a result, more Title 1 funds could be spent on schoolwide expenditures in states that are willing to grant the new waiver.
States, districts determine improvement efforts
Prior to ESSA, federal School Improvement Grants (SIG) required the implementation of one of a handful of federally-prescribed intervention models. Now, state and local education agencies can work together to create intervention plans that meet localized needs. Each state gets to decide whether to make improvement funds available using formula or competitive grants.
SEAs also have the flexibility to determine how they will identify schools in need of improvement interventions. These tasks have proven to be time-intensive for states, leading the USED to extend the states’ deadline for comprehensive plans until the 2018-19 school year, and for identifying schools until the 2019-20 school year.
How much involvement LEAs have in the process of creating those plans and developing turnaround models will vary widely by state.
All states have provided stakeholders—both within the school system and the general public—an opportunity to weigh in, but it is unclear how much of that feedback will be reflected in state plans.
Amidst new program management, concerns arise over SEA capacity
Under ESSA, SEAs will take on additional responsibilities, including designing rigorous standards, creating high-quality assessments that are aligned to those standards, and developing evidence-based turn-around models. In some cases, SEAs also must create and fund new positions. For example, the new law requires that SEAs establish set-aside funds to provide equitable services to eligible children enrolled in private schools, and to create an ombudsman position to ensure equity for those students.
However, these new responsibilities bring concerns of expertise and capacity. Consider the various states’ size disparities in terms of ability and resources – from both perspectives. Los Angeles Unified School District alone has three times more students than the combined total of every district in the state of Maine. This variance brings challenges and opportunities alike to SEAs and LEAs as they decide how they will design programs under ESSA. Larger states may have more expertise, funding, and staffing to develop new programs, but they also tend to deal with larger populations of struggling students. Smaller states might have the ability to directly meet the local needs of their schools but might struggle to find local expertise. In both situations, third-party vendors might be called upon to help.
Who ultimately holds a state’s decision-making power?
Many stakeholders are asking who will make the final decisions around ESSA plans: a state board of education, legislators, or the SEA? The answer varies widely from state to state and is not always clear. In some states, such as Colorado, control over decisions is being contested between legislators and the state board of education. In Louisiana, educators felt that the state board of education was not listening to their input during ESSA engagement meetings. As a result, the governor formed a separate ESSA advisory board. How the two groups will marry the collective input is unclear.
It’s worth noting that the current federal administration echoes ESSA’s goal to empower state and local decision-makers. During his campaign, President-Elect Trump suggested that he might eliminate the USED altogether. His pick for U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has been a vocal proponent of school choice, localized education, and dismantling the Common Core State Standards. The tone of the administration leans heavily toward more state and local control, fueling stronger authority for SEAs and LEAs.
New law brings new opportunities for success and failure alike
As ESSA begins its official roll-out, there are many uncertainties. Will this shift to state and local decision-making have the intended impact of increasing student proficiency and outcomes? Who will ultimately decide how to prioritize funding and programs? How much say will LEAs have in determining their own priorities? In most states, it is too early to say.
But one thing is clear: states and districts are no longer merely implementers—they are also serving as creators and designers. Whether they are up to the task remains to be seen.
Author
Further Reading
By Connie Bosley
School district leaders are looking for a better approach to improving student achievement and a smarter way to spend their technology dollars. Districts are facing challenges regarding:
Money has been tight since the last recession and in some cases is becoming even tighter. This can lead to poor classroom/school climate and inadequate support to correctly integrate and implement the new tech. The result? Tech is blamed for not working when implementation is at fault. This becomes expensive for the districts because of the high costs (tech price tags and man hours) of putting new tech into action. Educator leaders and researchers are creating tools school districts can use to evaluate if the Ed Tech actually does what it says it will do, how schools can successfully implement and integrate the product into the classrooms and get the promised results before they spend their scarce dollars.
Digital Promise and Johns Hopkins have developed such a tool. Its aim is to meet the needs of K-12 districts and educational technology companies. It is designed to help districts objectively measure product–effectiveness through studies and research, and test the claims of Ed Tech companies as well as promote districts’ smart future buying. The questionnaire used to do this is divided into 3 sections with step-by-step questions on product information, study relevancy, survey’s source and study design.
The results are supplied to the district. The purpose is to help districts decide if they should conduct a pilot. This is an important step because pilots are difficult to effectively carry out. If the district does not need the pilot, they can focus on cost and whether it fits their current IT system.
The questionnaire used to do this is divided into 3 sections with step-by-step questions on product information, study relevancy, survey’s source and study design. The results are supplied to the district. The purpose is to help districts decide if they should conduct a pilot. This is an important step because pilots are difficult to effectively carry out. If the district does not need the pilot, they can focus on cost and whether it fits their current IT system.
The questionnaire used to do this is divided into 3 sections with step-by-step questions on product information, study relevancy, survey’s source and study design. The results are supplied to the district. The purpose is to help districts decide if they should conduct a pilot. This is an important step because pilots are difficult to effectively carry out. If the district does not need the pilot, they can focus on cost and whether it fits their current IT system. Common Sense Graphite (launched in 2013) provides trustworthy advice to districts interested in purchasing Ed Tech tools. Graphite has reviewed 2,200 tools as of this year with only 5 percent earning a ‘5 star’ rating.
It uses a three-pronged rubric:
Engagement – does it grab student’s attention and imagination? Does it keep them engrossed? Is it something they will enjoy?
Pedagogy – what is the design and depth for learning? Are students getting a conceptual understanding? Is the tool adaptive? What experience will students have by playing this game or using this tool?
Support –Does the digital resource support various types of learning? What type of feedback do students get if they are struggling? What type of support do teachers receive?
The Jefferson Education Accelerator (JEA) offers research that may prove company’s marketing claims and is used by school districts and higher education groups that can apply to try out the technology without investing millions of dollars in products that don’t fit their needs or deliver on their promises. Learn Trials (Lea(R)n) is a different approach.
It provides a platform that enables educators to see and share their experience and outcomes, manage rapid product pilots and conduct impact analyses to provide districts the chance to understand the quality and efficacy of the Ed Tech in their local situation.
Teachers can find out what is working specifically enough to find information on a 4th grade English Language Learner in a rural district like theirs where more than 50 percent of students get free or reduced lunch.
Their Rubric is being used by thousands of teachers and their districts to figure out which tools are working right now. The EdSurge Guide to Choosing, Vetting and Purchasing K-12 Ed Tech Products and Concierge offers in-depth guidance and support to school districts and an introduction of tech companies to districts. The services are free to those districts that have signed the Future Ready Pledge.
The district chooses which products to examine further and connect with the companies to learn more. RTEP is developing a toolkit and training material to use in product evaluation. The first deliverable product will be an online ‘wizard’ (Turbo Tax type software) due early 2017 that walks administrators through a series of questions to determine what kind of product they are trying to evaluate and the best research design to use. The Administrators Guide to Ed Tech Purchasing published September 25, 2015, by LearnBop is aimed at K-12 schools and district administrators. The document has three major sections:
EdCredible provides EdCred, a new Transparency in Purchasing Platform tool. Founder Kurt Fichtman said in our recent interview, “I got tired of school districts spending millions of dollars on Ed Tech that had already been discontinued by other similar districts.” He created a product that gave more transparency on Ed Tech already in use by districts nationwide. Recently adopted by the Florida School Boards Association, EdCred contains over 23,000 reviews written by the technologies’ end users – teachers. It identifies other school districts that are already using a product being evaluated and gives non-vendor information by classroom teachers who have used the technology more than a year.
Nationwide, school administrators are looking outside their districts for clues to deal with the ever-changing Ed Tech and the need to make smart decisions about its use. They still turn to their peers but now use digital tools such as Smartphone app, Voxer, that enable users to communicate with groups of peers through short recorded messages. In the past, superintendents networked during professional conferences. Now using social media, online networking, technology associations and school tours, they are collaborating and crowd sourcing solutions with other education leaders throughout the country. Using digital networks like
In the past, superintendents networked during professional conferences. Now using social media, online networking, technology associations and school tours, they are collaborating and crowd sourcing solutions with other education leaders throughout the country. Using digital networks like Meetup.com they can solve problems and copy successful strategies surrounding Ed Tech implementation.
According to AASA Superintendent-in-Residence Mort Sherman, “It’s not the universities or the government researching education technology, but the superintendents and staff in school districts doing the actual work.” Eighty-nine percent of superintendents visit vendor sites to research, purchase as well as pursue other avenues of research. Increasingly, they are using collaboration and crowd-sourcing for research.
The trend will continue to grow because it is convenient and they get the information they need to be smart consumers of Ed Tech and smart shoppers getting value for every dollar spent. It is important to note that although educators trust collaboration, they still welcome reliable information based on best evidence research about current successes of tech integration and implementation in the classroom. This situation guarantees the continued need for tools for smart Ed Tech consumerism.
Author C onnie Bosley is a retired K12 teacher with over 30 years’ experience in the classroom. She has served on multiple school and district curriculum and tech committees as well as on the local newspaper education board. She continues to study and write about the K-12 Districts’ issues with tech purchase, as well as the problems Ed Tech companies have in understanding and working with educators. Connie is currently working as a freelance business-to-business writer for the Education industry. For information, visit
Further Reading
The conveniences that make online education attractive also create new opportunities for academic dishonesty. Despite this, pedagogy and technology may be deployed to encourage academic integrity and ensure a level playing field for online students. Providing eLearners with a sense of community decreases their feelings of isolation and apathy while instilling a shared notion of academic integrity.
Academic dishonesty frequently results from a combination of opportunity, culture, and desperation. Cheating not only diminishes learning but also devalues degrees and undermines institutional missions. Reducing the incentives and opportunities for cheating improves student mastery of course material while increasing the value of online degrees and certifications. Course design, sense of community, and proctoring technology combine to limit the impact of cheating on assignments that are difficult to monitor, and ensure that students are consistently and impartially observed during more high-stakes assessments.
Digital classrooms offer advantages and challenges for distance learners as well as educators. Automated, remote proctoring is one part of ensuring that online assessments are given on a level playing field while adding value to online degrees. Educators must not only enact technological safeguards against academic dishonesty, but also engage eLearners in definitions of academic integrity, community and, ultimately, education. Institutions that emphasize mastery and personal integrity over performance and rule compliance produce better learning outcomes for their students and increase the value of their degrees while satisfying accrediting agencies. Although eLearners often view technologies that detect plagiarism or remotely proctor assessments negatively, it is possible to change attitudes toward these safeguards through transparency, consistency, and affirmations of academic integrity. As a result, institutions that consistently emphasize academic integrity through pedagogy and technology are better positioned to deal with increased state and federal oversight, affirm core values, and fulfill their missions.
Recognizing motivations for academic dishonesty is an essential precondition for developing a holistic approach to academic integrity. Administrators, instructors, and students all have a role to play in acknowledging why students resort to cheating. Every member of the academic community must be a part of any meaningful solution. Issues of academic dishonesty are not unique to digital classrooms, but eLearners face unique challenges that deserve specific attention. Isolated learners without a clear sense of belonging and purpose are more susceptible to the pressures of cheating, and learning online can exacerbate these feelings.
A student’s ability to recall and distinguish information is generally measured through objective questions that ask him or her to correctly identify answers through multiple choice, true/false or fill-in-the-blank responses. These types of exam questions are more susceptible to cheating than subjective questions requiring interpretive, applied or evaluative responses. However, subjective or in-depth responses also require more time to grade, and not all course content lends itself to such inquiry. One way to measure objective knowledge while reducing instances of cheating is to offer frequent, low-stakes quizzes throughout the semester. Additionally, applied projects with specific stages of completion help instructors evaluate student progress while discouraging cheating.
Developing assignments that prohibit cheating is easier said than done. Until institutions are willing to reward educators who rethink traditional grading and incentivize instructional designers to create assessments that are more experiential and less susceptible to cheating, the motivation for change will not materialize. As traditional classroom practices are being called into question through more competency-based assignments and flipped classrooms, online educators must resist the temptation to simply transfer traditional lecture-based instructional materials to online courses.
Academic integrity is strongly correlated with a sense of community. Distance learners are particularly susceptible to feelings of isolation that weaken students’ attachment to academic honor codes and learning objectives. Despite the perception that community is difficult to cultivate online, discussion boards and collaborative projects – along with real time (synchronous) sessions – can help foster a sense of camaraderie that makes honor codes and academic integrity proclamations more meaningful. Specific reminders and affirmative statements to uphold academic integrity can also be effective barriers to cheating, particularly when given prior to completing an assessment or turning in an assignment. The more students feel connected to one another, the less motivated they are to engage in deviant behavior.
Again, understanding motivations for academic dishonesty is essential. Just as instructors and instructional designers need appropriate signals and incentives from administrators to create courses that are less susceptible to cheating, learners require cues and explanations that link academic integrity to their coursework. Many students are motivated to cheat out of feelings of competition, apathy or fear. Recognizing and addressing these feelings within the context of specific learning objectives will allow students to understand not only what academic integrity is, but also how it relates to their learning. Too often students are left with the impression that the end of an assessment is a grade, or that not perfecting an assignment on the first attempt is failure. Continual reinforcement of the concept of academic integrity as a shared value and integral part of education can help foster a sense of community and engender purpose in learning.
Establishing clear boundaries for individual work and academic integrity provides a solid foundation for student success. The assumption that other students are cheating is a driving factor in many instances of academic dishonesty. Without a belief that others are competing on a level playing field, students feel pressured to cheat to keep up with their peers. Technological safeguards can prevent cheating by reassuring learners that testing conditions are consistently monitored for fairness.
Automated, remote proctoring is available at a low cost and allows every assessment to be proctored. When proctoring becomes a routine part of online quizzes, tests, and exams, students not only believe others are playing by the rules, but their attitudes toward online proctoring also improve. Employing automated, remote proctoring early, and often, in online courses reinforces presumptions of academic integrity while allowing students to become familiar with this less intrusive technology during low stakes assessments. The more commonplace fully automated proctoring becomes, the less students believe their peers are cheating and the more comfortable they are being monitored remotely.
Trusting, but verifying, student work can go a long way toward developing expectations of academic integrity. Learners who are confident in reasonable safeguards that equitably prevent cheating are more likely to uphold expectations of academic integrity. The limitations of exclusively relying on technology should be clear, however. After all, technology can also facilitate academic dishonesty; without courses designed to limit opportunities for cheating–along with a strong sense of community reinforcing academic integrity–students and instructors will merely engage in a never-ending arms race of evasion and detection.
Rather than waiting to react to instances of academic dishonesty in a punitive or ad hoc manner, educators must engage learners in conversations about academic integrity before unethical behaviors occur. No system that merely seeks to detect instances of cheating will adequately confront the motivations for academic dishonesty. Every educator must identify expectations of academic integrity beyond the common boilerplate language that appears on most institutional websites and course syllabi. Without a comprehensive strategy, individual instructors are left to police student work while disaffected learners are tempted to put their academic careers in jeopardy.
Administrators, instructors and students have a shared interest in stopping cheating before it occurs, but it cannot be assumed that all agree about its meaning. Frequent and specific conversations are needed to clarify and underscore standards and penalties. Defining academic integrity in the context of each course not only allows learners to better understand what constitutes cheating, but also provides educators with valuable opportunities for explicating learning objectives. Together, teachers and students can develop an understanding of education that fundamentally links academic integrity to learning. Only through a holistic approach toward developing academic integrity can institutions increase the value of online degrees while improving learning outcomes within digital classrooms and beyond.
Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.
By Howard Pitler, Ed.D.
This month in Spain, parents are launching a month-long weekend homework strike.
Parents of students in Spanish state schools have given their children notes to bring into class explaining why they have not done the tasks assigned as homework this month. According to a study published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 15-year-old Spanish students spend an average of 6.5 hours a week on assigned homework.
One Spanish parent of four said, “I feel the current amount of homework leaves little or no time for children to relax, pursue other interests, play or be with family. My son gets very tired and bored doing this work and isn’t efficient at all. I’m not sure by the end of it he has learned anything; he just goes through the motions to get it done and misses out on playing outside. It affects the whole family because we cannot leave the house until it’s done, and often this means that we miss trips to the park or afternoon walks, etc.” By comparison, 15-year-olds in the USA spend an average of 6.1 hours a week on homework, while students in the highly-rated schools of Finland only have 2.8 hours of assigned weekly homework on average.
What Spanish parents are focused on however is what I think is the more critical issue: homework has been shown to have a negative effect on families. Students forego outdoor activities and time with family because of homework. Entire families reorganize their weekend schedules so that students can spend their afternoons in the library or at their desks. Homework becomes a driving force, and not in a good way.
When presented with this data I often hear teachers cite a need to cover the required content as their reason for assigning homework. The argument is that there just aren’t enough hours in the school day to cover the content so homework is unavoidable. I suggest before pointing outward, schools look inward. Are schools using their time well?
I spend a great deal of my time engaged in classroom observations and I frequently have to schedule around myriad programs and required tests the school is required to administer. In addition, I find entire half days or more spent on pep assemblies, concerts, fund-raising kick-off events, and other school-wide gatherings. When I question the wisdom of moving the entire student body into the gym for an assembly I am usually told some old platitude like, “These are the kind of things that make school fun and motivate the kids.” That sounds a lot like the argument that parents in Spain are making about the effect of homework on their families.
Parents are a driving force regarding homework in some schools. They falsely equate homework with rigor. Schools should educate parents on why homework is or is not assigned and what the specific purpose of homework is. If there is not a specific purpose for homework that supports student learning, there shouldn’t be homework assigned.
In A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works, 2nd edition, I quote a high school student who said, “When seven classes worth of homework is piled on us nightly, we’re up until midnight studying for things that, at that hour, don’t even make sense. In the morning, we stumble into class, sometimes unshowered, and then the teacher complains. Let’s think about this: We do homework but get nothing out of it. Then we get into trouble, plus we stink. To me, there’s no benefit here.” Students need to have a rich life outside of school. They should not be required to spend seven hours a day in school and another two -three hours at home engaged in schoolwork. They need to have time to explore and experience their world, putting their academic knowledge to use in a real-world setting.
Howard Pitler, Ed.D. is an author of Classroom Instruction that Works, 2nd edition., Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, and A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works, 2nd edition. He has worked with teachers and administrators internationally for over a decade to improve outcomes for kids. He was named a National Distinguished Principal be NAESP and is an Apple Distinguished Educator. He can be reached at hpitler@gmail.com, on Twitter , or on his website, www.hpitler.com.