The first two times I tried college, I didn’t finish. There was never enough time to care for my young son, work a full-time job and do my schoolwork. And there was never enough money to pay rent, tuition and child care.

On my third try, everything clicked. This time I was more motivated than ever before — to prove that I could do it, to prove the doubters wrong. 

The first leg of my college journey came to a close this spring, after five grueling years, when I earned my associate degree in criminal justice from Howard Community College — a school that supports student parents like myself. 

I now consider myself proof that motivated and supported student parents can beat the odds and earn a college degree, even though the deck is stacked against us. 

One of every five college undergraduates in this country is caring for a dependent child. Student parents are usually women, at least 30 years old, raising children on their own. A third are Black, and a fifth are Latino. In addition, the largest share of student parents attend community colleges. There used to be a lot more of us, but a strong job market and the rising cost of tuition, housing and child care needs meant that many had to put their college dreams on hold.

The financial and time pressures on student learners are immense. Fewer than 40 percent of student parents earn their degrees within six years. 

Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly Higher Education newsletter.

After I graduated from high school in 2019, I thought my road to a college degree would be relatively straightforward. I enrolled that fall but quit soon after I got pregnant. I returned to college in the fall of 2020, but caring for a newborn and trying to navigate online classes during the pandemic was simply too much. 

The college experience on offer did not match my reality of being a student and a parent. I had dropped out of school once already. It was much too easy to do it again.

Leaving college for a second time shattered my confidence and my belief in myself. 

I was raised by a single mom who didn’t go to college. I saw how hard she worked at a low-paying job and how much she struggled but could never get ahead.

I wanted to break that cycle. I was determined to provide a better life for me and especially for my son. I wanted to make sure he had everything he needed to grow up strong, healthy and smart. 

I was going to be the one who made it — the one who was able to look back and say to all who had doubted me that I had done this for me and my little boy.

In the fall of 2022, I tried again, this time at Howard Community College (HCC). The experience turned out to be completely different because HCC acknowledges and values parents like me and had assembled a plan and a program to support us. 

HCC offered me enough scholarships and financial aid to cover my tuition and fees for two years. They even gave me an emergency grant when I had trouble making rent one time. They arranged a flexible schedule that let me take all but one of my classes online at night after I was done with my job and had put my son to bed. At my previous college, I’d had to drop in-person courses when I couldn’t find child care at night. 

Howard also had a Career Links program designed specifically for single parents. It provided one-on-one academic and career counseling that helped me select my major, kept me on track to graduate and gave me the guidance I needed to figure out my future. 

This tremendous amount of support made a huge difference. I renewed my faith in myself. Last fall, I made the dean’s list. This spring, I received my degree.

Related: How parents of young kids make it through college

Today, I have big plans for my future. I’m still working full-time, but this summer I started university classes so I can earn my bachelor’s degree. My son, who turned four this spring, is getting ready to start preschool this fall. 

After I earn my four-year degree, I’d like one day to start a nonprofit that encourages other student parents, specifically single parents and children with an incarcerated parent. My son’s father has been incarcerated for the majority of my child’s life, and I want to provide comprehensive support and resources to help single parents like me overcome similar barriers.

Parents like us need all the help we can get, and I want to provide the assistance that I was lacking for so long.

College is difficult enough without adding a child and a full-time job to the mix. But when colleges can remove some of the financial, scheduling and other barriers that make it so much more arduous for student parents to finish their degrees, they demonstrate their support for their current students — and for the next generation to come.

Abby Bediako graduated from Howard Community College in 2024 and is currently attending the University of Maryland Global Campus. Abby is featured in Raising Up, a documentary film series aimed at elevating the lived experiences of student parents in higher education.

This story about student parents was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

The post STUDENT VOICE:  One of every five college students is a parent. Here’s how colleges can help more of us graduate  appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

In many middle and high schools, students spend hundreds of hours a year on English language arts (ELA) assignments that don’t ask enough of them. Too many students are working on below-grade-level tasks using below-grade-level texts. 

That approach, while well-intentioned, is not closing gaps or preparing students for life after high school. Is it any wonder that reading scores haven’t improved in 30 years?

Students from low-income families, multilingual learners and those with disabilities are even less likely to receive tasks appropriate for their grade level. Yet research shows that grade-level tasks and texts should be the start — not the finish — to strong instruction. 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data indicates that only 37 percent of 12th graders are academically prepared for college in reading, and employers say that young people haven’t learned the reading, writing and verbal communication skills most important to workplace success. 

Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive our comprehensive reporting directly in your inbox. 

Reading classic texts and learning to write the five-paragraph essay are both important, but students need much more. Teachers need training and help to understand grade-level standards and how to assign authentic writing tasks without leveling down content — something many New York City and Los Angeles public school teachers had a chance to learn recently via an intensive literacy project.

In the project, students were given focused grade-level tasks and were asked to read related grade-level complex texts and write in response to those texts. An independent evaluation that followed the project found that those students gained an additional four to nine months of learning compared to their peers. This happened with just two to 12 weeks of grade-level instruction. 

Those and other results, from a decade of research with 100,000 educators and 2.4 million students, continue to show that this standards-first approach to curriculum, instruction and professional development can help students effectively double their growth each school year.

So, why aren’t more schools doing this? There are many reasons. Here are a few:

• There is a culture of low expectations. While 82 percent of teachers support their state’s standards, only 44 percent expect their students to have success with them, one study found. Even when students earned A’s and B’s, most were not demonstrating grade-level work on their assignments. 

• Teachers are not assigning grade-level tasks and texts. The Common Core State Standards were released in 2010, and ELA teachers still often assign tasks and texts based on independent reading levels rather than on a student’s grade level. Research shows that since Covid this practice has actually been increasing.

• Teacher training is inadequate. Despite the fact that $18 billion is spent annually on professional development, most teachers don’t believe it’s helping — and they’re right. One study found that teachers were spending approximately 19 days a year on such training, but it did not appear to substantially improve their instruction and student outcomes weren’t improving. 

• Many ELA curriculum programs are weak. Teachers spend too much time sifting through resources that claim to be “standards-aligned” or “standards-compliant.” To become truly standards-driven, teachers need materials that are intentionally designed from specific standards, allowing students to build the cognitive skills and engage in the practice needed to successfully respond to grade-level tasks. 

Related: Should teachers customize their lessons or just stick to the ‘script’? 

To turn things around, students and teachers must be supported with pathways to meet grade-level standards and develop a better sense of what high-quality teaching looks like. Here are a few ways to help:

• Start with grade-level tasks on day 1, not by day 180. Grade-level thinking is not a destination; it requires daily practice. Teachers (and curricula) need to assume that every student can read, think and write about rich and complex ideas using complex texts. Teachers and curriculum programs can target instruction to meet individual needs while engaging all learners in the same rigorous grade-level texts and tasks. 

• Shift the focus from what students consume to what they produce. In a standards-driven curriculum, the focus isn’t on the text; it’s on how students demonstrate grade-level thinking through the speaking and writing they do in response to text-based ideas. This changes the classroom focus from what students consume (specific texts) to what they create (specific oral and written products). In addition, when students are given opportunities to create different authentic writing products for different audiences and purposes, it helps them build skills they can transfer to real-world settings.

• Build teachers’ knowledge and skills. Teachers need training that is easily accessible and useful in their daily work. Professional development should be embedded in curriculum programs so that teachers can deepen their understanding of the standards and be able to recognize students’ demonstrations of specific standards. Curricula can and must intentionally build teacher knowledge and expertise so teachers learn while they teach.

Any ELA classroom can be transformed into a highly effective learning environment. Research demonstrates that when a student is given grade-level tasks driven from grade-level standards, and their teacher is trained to teach those standards, both will rise to the challenge. The time to insist on demonstrable learning outcomes is now. Teachers and students are ready to do the work.

Suzanne Simons is the chief literacy and languages officer for Carnegie Learning. She is also a senior advisor with the nonprofit Literacy Design Collaborative and was its founding chief academic officer. 

This story about ELA instruction was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

The post OPINION: English language arts instruction needs to change immediately. Here are some ways that can work appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Reports about schools squandering their $190 billion in federal pandemic recovery money have been troubling.  Many districts spent that money on things that had nothing to do with academics, particularly building renovations. Less common, but more eye-popping were stories about new football fields, swimming pool passes, hotel rooms at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas and even the purchase of an ice cream truck. 

So I was surprised that two independent academic analyses released in June 2024 found that some of the money actually trickled down to students and helped them catch up academically.  Though the two studies used different methods, they arrived at strikingly similar numbers for the average growth in math and reading scores during the 2022-23 school year that could be attributed to each dollar of federal aid. 

One of the research teams, which includes Harvard University economist Tom Kane and Stanford University sociologist Sean Reardon, likened the gains to six days of learning in math and three days of learning in reading for every $1,000 in federal pandemic aid per student. Though that gain might seem small, high-poverty districts received an average of $7,700 per student, and those extra “days” of learning for low-income students added up. Still, these neediest children were projected to be one third of a grade level behind low-income students in 2019, before the pandemic disrupted education.

“Federal funding helped and it helped kids most in need,” wrote Robin Lake, director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, on X in response to the two studies. Lake was not involved in either report, but has been closely tracking pandemic recovery. “And the spending was worth the gains,” Lake added. “But it will not be enough to do all that is needed.” 

The academic gains per aid dollar were close to what previous researchers had found for increases in school spending. In other words, federal pandemic aid for schools has been just as effective (or ineffective) as other infusions of money for schools. The Harvard-Stanford analysis calculated that the seemingly small academic gains per $1,000 could boost a student’s lifetime earnings by $1,238 – not a dramatic payoff, but not a public policy bust either. And that payoff doesn’t include other societal benefits from higher academic achievement, such as lower rates of arrests and teen motherhood. 

The most interesting nuggets from the two reports, however, were how the academic gains varied wildly across the nation. That’s not only because some schools used the money more effectively than others but also because some schools got much more aid per student.

The poorest districts in the nation, where 80 percent or more of the students live in families whose income is low enough to qualify for the federally funded school lunch program, demonstrated meaningful recovery because they received the most aid. About 6 percent of the 26 million public schoolchildren that the researchers studied are educated in districts this poor. These children had recovered almost half of their pandemic learning losses by the spring of 2023. The very poorest districts, representing 1 percent of the children, were potentially on track for an almost complete recovery in 2024 because they tended to receive the most aid per student. However, these students were far below grade level before the pandemic, so their recovery brings them back to a very low rung.

Some high-poverty school districts received much more aid per student than others. At the top end of the range, students in Detroit received about $26,000 each – $1.3 billion spread among fewer than 49,000 students. One in 10 high-poverty districts received more than $10,700 for each student. An equal number of high-poverty districts received less than $3,700 per student. These surprising differences for places with similar poverty levels occurred because pandemic aid was allocated according to the same byzantine rules that govern federal Title I funding to low-income schools. Those formulas give large minimum grants to small states, and more money to states that spend more per student. 

On the other end of the income spectrum are wealthier districts, where 30 percent or fewer students qualify for the lunch program, representing about a quarter of U.S. children. The Harvard-Stanford researchers expect these students to make an almost complete recovery. That’s not because of federal recovery funds; these districts received less than $1,000 per student, on average. Researchers explained that these students are on track to approach 2019 achievement levels because they didn’t suffer as much learning loss.  Wealthier families also had the means to hire tutors or time to help their children at home.

Middle-income districts, where between 30 percent and 80 percent of students are eligible for the lunch program, were caught in between. Roughly seven out of 10 children in this study fall into this category. Their learning losses were sometimes large, but their pandemic aid wasn’t. They tended to receive between $1,000 and $5,000 per student. Many of these students are still struggling to catch up.

In the second study, researchers Dan Goldhaber of the American Institutes for Research and Grace Falken of the University of Washington estimated that schools around the country, on average, would need an additional $13,000 per student for full recovery in reading and math.  That’s more than Congress appropriated.

There were signs that schools targeted interventions to their neediest students. In school districts that separately reported performance for low-income students, these students tended to post greater recovery per dollar of aid than wealthier students, the Goldhaber-Falken analysis shows.

Impact differed more by race, location and school spending. Districts with larger shares of white students tended to make greater achievement gains per dollar of federal aid than districts with larger shares of Black or Hispanic students. Small towns tended to produce more academic gains per dollar of aid than large cities. And school districts that spend less on education per pupil tended to see more academic gains per dollar of aid than high spenders. The latter makes sense: an extra dollar to a small budget makes a bigger difference than an extra dollar to a large budget. 

The most frustrating part of both reports is that we have no idea what schools did to help students catch up. Researchers weren’t able to connect the academic gains to tutoring, summer school or any of the other interventions that schools have been trying. Schools still have until September to decide how to spend their remaining pandemic recovery funds, and, unfortunately, these analyses provide zero guidance.

And maybe some of the non-academic things that schools spent money on weren’t so frivolous after all. A draft paper circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research in January 2024 calculated that school spending on basic infrastructure, such as air conditioning and heating systems, raised test scores. Spending on athletic facilities did not. 

Meanwhile, the final score on pandemic recovery for students is still to come. I’ll be looking out for it.

This story about federal funding for education was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: Some of the $190 billion in pandemic money for schools actually paid off appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Two new surveys, both released this month, show how high school and college-age students are embracing artificial intelligence. There are some inconsistencies and many unanswered questions, but what stands out is how much teens are turning to AI for information and to ask questions, not just to do their homework for them. And they’re using it for personal reasons as well as for school. Another big takeaway is that there are different patterns by race and ethnicity with Black, Hispanic and Asian American students often adopting AI faster than white students.

The first report, released on June 3, was conducted by three nonprofit organizations, Hopelab, Common Sense Media, and the Center for Digital Thriving at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. These organizations surveyed 1,274 teens and young adults aged 14-22 across the U.S. from October to November 2023. At that time, only half the teens and young adults said they had ever used AI, with just 4 percent using it daily or almost every day. 

Emily Weinstein, executive director for the Center for Digital Thriving, a research center that investigates how youth are interacting with technology, said that more teens are “certainly” using AI now that these tools are embedded in more apps and websites, such as Google Search. Last October and November, when this survey was conducted, teens typically had to take the initiative to navigate to an AI site and create an account. An exception was Snapchat, a social media app that had already added an AI chatbot for its users. 

More than half of the early adopters said they had used AI for getting information and for brainstorming, the first and second most popular uses. This survey didn’t ask teens if they were using AI for cheating, such as prompting ChatGPT to write their papers for them. However, among the half of respondents who were already using AI, fewer than half – 46 percent – said they were using it for help with school work. The fourth most common use was for generating pictures.

The survey also asked teens a couple of open-response questions. Some teens told researchers that they are asking AI private questions that they were too embarrassed to ask their parents or their friends. “Teens are telling us I have questions that are easier to ask robots than people,”  said Weinstein.

Weinstein wants to know more about the quality and the accuracy of the answers that AI is giving teens, especially those with mental health struggles, and how privacy is being protected when students share personal information with chatbots.

The second report, released on June 11, was conducted by Impact Research and  commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation. In May 2024, Impact Research surveyed 1,003 teachers, 1,001 students aged 12-18, 1,003 college students, and 1,000 parents about their use and views of AI.

This survey, which took place six months after the Hopelab-Common Sense survey, demonstrated how quickly usage is growing. It found that 49 percent of students, aged 12-18, said they used ChatGPT at least once a week for school, up 26 percentage points since 2023. Forty-nine percent of college undergraduates also said they were using ChatGPT every week for school but there was no comparison data from 2023.

Among 12- to 18-year-olds and college students who had used AI chatbots for school, 56 percent said they had used it for help in writing essays and other writing assignments. Undergraduate students were more than twice as likely as 12- to 18-year-olds to say using AI felt like cheating, 22 percent versus 8 percent. Earlier 2023 surveys of student cheating by scholars at Stanford University did not detect an increase in cheating with ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. But as students use AI more, students’ understanding of what constitutes cheating may also be evolving. 

More than 60 percent of college students who used AI said they were using it to study for tests and quizzes. Half of the college students who used AI said they were using it to deepen their subject knowledge, perhaps, as if it were an online encyclopedia. There was no indication from this survey if students were checking the accuracy of the information.

Both surveys noticed differences by race and ethnicity. The first Hopelab-Common Sense survey found that 7 percent of Black students, aged 14-22, were using AI every day, compared with 5 percent of Hispanic students and 3 percent of white students. In the open-ended questions, one Black teen girl wrote that, with AI, “we can change who we are and become someone else that we want to become.” 

The Walton Foundation survey found that Hispanic and Asian American students were sometimes more likely to use AI than white and Black students, especially for personal purposes. 

These are all early snapshots that are likely to keep shifting. OpenAI is expected to become part of the Apple universe in the fall, including its iPhones, computers and iPads.  “These numbers are going to go up and they’re going to go up really fast,” said Weinstein. “Imagine that we could go back 15 years in time when social media use was just starting with teens. This feels like an opportunity for adults to pay attention.”

This story about ChatGPT in education was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: Teens are looking to AI for information and answers, two surveys show appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Grading papers is hard work. “I hate it,” a teacher friend confessed to me. And that’s a major reason why middle and high school teachers don’t assign more writing to their students. Even an efficient high school English teacher who can read and evaluate an essay in 20 minutes would spend 3,000 minutes, or 50 hours, grading if she’s teaching six classes of 25 students each. There aren’t enough hours in the day. 

Could ChatGPT relieve teachers of some of the burden of grading papers? Early research is finding that the new artificial intelligence of large language models, also known as generative AI, is approaching the accuracy of a human in scoring essays and is likely to become even better soon. But we still don’t know whether offloading essay grading to ChatGPT will ultimately improve or harm student writing.

Tamara Tate, a researcher at University California, Irvine, and an associate director of her university’s Digital Learning Lab, is studying how teachers might use ChatGPT to improve writing instruction. Most recently, Tate and her seven-member research team, which includes writing expert Steve Graham at Arizona State University, compared how ChatGPT stacked up against humans in scoring 1,800 history and English essays written by middle and high school students. 

Tate said ChatGPT was “roughly speaking, probably as good as an average busy teacher” and “certainly as good as an overburdened below-average teacher.” But, she said, ChatGPT isn’t yet accurate enough to be used on a high-stakes test or on an essay that would affect a final grade in a class.

Tate presented her study on ChatGPT essay scoring at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Philadelphia in April. (The paper is under peer review for publication and is still undergoing revision.) 

Most remarkably, the researchers obtained these fairly decent essay scores from ChatGPT without training it first with sample essays. That means it is possible for any teacher to use it to grade any essay instantly with minimal expense and effort. “Teachers might have more bandwidth to assign more writing,” said Tate. “You have to be careful how you say that because you never want to take teachers out of the loop.” 

Writing instruction could ultimately suffer, Tate warned, if teachers delegate too much grading to ChatGPT. Seeing students’ incremental progress and common mistakes remain important for deciding what to teach next, she said. For example, seeing loads of run-on sentences in your students’ papers might prompt a lesson on how to break them up. But if you don’t see them, you might not think to teach it. 

In the study, Tate and her research team calculated that ChatGPT’s essay scores were in “fair” to “moderate” agreement with those of well-trained human evaluators. In one batch of 943 essays, ChatGPT was within a point of the human grader 89 percent of the time. On a six-point grading scale that researchers used in the study, ChatGPT often gave an essay a 2 when an expert human evaluator thought it was really a 1. But this level of agreement – within one point – dropped to 83 percent of the time in another batch of 344 English papers and slid even farther to 76 percent of the time in a third batch of 493 history essays.  That means there were more instances where ChatGPT gave an essay a 4, for example, when a teacher marked it a 6. And that’s why Tate says these ChatGPT grades should only be used for low-stakes purposes in a classroom, such as a preliminary grade on a first draft.

ChatGPT scored an essay within one point of a human grader 89 percent of the time in one batch of essays

Still, this level of accuracy was impressive because even teachers disagree on how to score an essay and one-point discrepancies are common. Exact agreement, which only happens half the time between human raters, was worse for AI, which matched the human score exactly only about 40 percent of the time. Humans were far more likely to give a top grade of a 6 or a bottom grade of a 1. ChatGPT tended to cluster grades more in the middle, between 2 and 5. 

Tate set up ChatGPT for a tough challenge, competing against teachers and experts with PhDs who had received three hours of training in how to properly evaluate essays. “Teachers generally receive very little training in secondary school writing and they’re not going to be this accurate,” said Tate. “This is a gold-standard human evaluator we have here.”

The raters had been paid to score these 1,800 essays as part of three earlier studies on student writing. Researchers fed these same student essays – ungraded –  into ChatGPT and asked ChatGPT to score them cold. ChatGPT hadn’t been given any graded examples to calibrate its scores. All the researchers did was copy and paste an excerpt of the same scoring guidelines that the humans used, called a grading rubric, into ChatGPT and told it to “pretend” it was a teacher and score the essays on a scale of 1 to 6. 

Older robo graders

Earlier versions of automated essay graders have had higher rates of accuracy. But they were expensive and time-consuming to create because scientists had to train the computer with hundreds of human-graded essays for each essay question. That’s economically feasible only in limited situations, such as for a standardized test, where thousands of students answer the same essay question. 

Earlier robo graders could also be gamed, once a student understood the features that the computer system was grading for. In some cases, nonsense essays received high marks if fancy vocabulary words were sprinkled in them. ChatGPT isn’t grading for particular hallmarks, but is analyzing patterns in massive datasets of language. Tate says she hasn’t yet seen ChatGPT give a high score to a nonsense essay. 

Tate expects ChatGPT’s grading accuracy to improve rapidly as new versions are released. Already, the research team has detected that the newer 4.0 version, which requires a paid subscription, is scoring more accurately than the free 3.5 version. Tate suspects that small tweaks to the grading instructions, or prompts, given to ChatGPT could improve existing versions. She is interested in testing whether ChatGPT’s scoring could become more reliable if a teacher trained it with just a few, perhaps five, sample essays that she has already graded. “Your average teacher might be willing to do that,” said Tate.

Many ed tech startups, and even well-known vendors of educational materials, are now marketing new AI essay robo graders to schools. Many of them are powered under the hood by ChatGPT or another large language model and I learned from this study that accuracy rates can be reported in ways that can make the new AI graders seem more accurate than they are. Tate’s team calculated that, on a population level, there was no difference between human and AI scores. ChatGPT can already reliably tell you the average essay score in a school or, say, in the state of California. 

Questions for AI vendors

At this point, it is not as accurate in scoring an individual student. And a teacher wants to know exactly how each student is doing. Tate advises teachers and school leaders who are considering using an AI essay grader to ask specific questions about accuracy rates on the student level:  What is the rate of exact agreement between the AI grader and a human rater on each essay? How often are they within one-point of each other?

The next step in Tate’s research is to study whether student writing improves after having an essay graded by ChatGPT. She’d like teachers to try using ChatGPT to score a first draft and then see if it encourages revisions, which are critical for improving writing. Tate thinks teachers could make it “almost like a game: how do I get my score up?” 

Of course, it’s unclear if grades alone, without concrete feedback or suggestions for improvement, will motivate students to make revisions. Students may be discouraged by a low score from ChatGPT and give up. Many students might ignore a machine grade and only want to deal with a human they know. Still, Tate says some students are too scared to show their writing to a teacher until it’s in decent shape, and seeing their score improve on ChatGPT might be just the kind of positive feedback they need. 

“We know that a lot of students aren’t doing any revision,” said Tate. “If we can get them to look at their paper again, that is already a win.”

That does give me hope, but I’m also worried that kids will just ask ChatGPT to write the whole essay for them in the first place.

This story about AI essay scoring was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The post PROOF POINTS: AI essay grading is already as ‘good as an overburdened’ teacher, but researchers say it needs more work appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Writing lesson plans has traditionally been a big part of a teacher’s job.  But this doesn’t mean they should be starting from a blank slate. Ideally, teachers are supposed to base their lessons on the textbooks, worksheets and digital materials that school leaders have spent a lot of time reviewing and selecting. 

But a recent national survey of more than 1,000 math teachers reveals that many are rejecting the materials they should be using and cobbling together their own.

“A surprising number of math teachers, particularly at the high school level, simply said we don’t use the district or school-provided materials, or they claimed they didn’t have any,” said William Zahner, an associate professor of mathematics at San Diego State University, who presented the survey at the April 2024 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Philadelphia. Students, he said, are often being taught through a “bricolage” of materials that teachers assemble themselves from colleagues and the internet. 

“What I see happening is a lot of math teachers are rewriting a curriculum that has already been written,” said Zahner. 

The survey results varied by grade level. More than 75 percent of elementary school math teachers said they used their school’s recommended materials, but fewer than 50 percent of high school math teachers said they did. 

Share of math teachers who use their school’s recommended materials

The do-it-yourself approach has two downsides, Zahner said, both of which affect students. One problem is that it’s time consuming. Time spent finding materials is time not spent giving students feedback, tailoring existing lessons for students or giving students one-to-one tutoring help. The hunt for materials is also exhausting and can lead to teacher burnout, Zahner said.

Related: Education research, condensed. The free Proof Points newsletter delivers one story every Monday.

The other problem is that teacher-made materials may sacrifice the thoughtful sequencing of topics planned by curriculum designers.  When teachers create or take materials from various sources, it is hard to maintain a “coherent development” of ideas, Zahner explained. Curriculum designers may weave a review of previous concepts to reinforce them even as new ideas are introduced. Teacher-curated materials may be disjointed. Separate research has found that some of the most popular materials that teachers grab from internet sites, such as Teachers Pay Teachers, are not high quality. 

The national survey was conducted in 2021 by researchers at San Diego State University, including Zahner, who also directs the university’s Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, and the English Learners Success Forum, a nonprofit that seeks to improve the quality of instructional materials for English learners. The researchers sought out the views of teachers who worked in school districts where more than 10 percent of the students were classified as English learners, which is the national average. More than 1,000 math teachers, from kindergarten through 12th grade, responded. On average, 30 percent of their students were English learners, but some teachers had zero English learners and others had all English learners in their classrooms.

Teachers were asked about the drawbacks of their assigned curriculum for English learners. Many said that their existing materials weren’t connected to their students’ languages and cultures. Others said that the explanations of how to tailor a lesson to an English learner were too general to be useful.  Zahner says that teachers have a point and that they need more support in how to help English learners develop the language of mathematical reasoning and argumentation.

It was not clear from this survey whether the desire to accommodate English learners was the primary reason that teachers were putting together their own materials or whether they would have done so anyway. 

Related: Most English lessons on Teachers Pay Teachers and other sites are ‘mediocre’ or ‘not worth using,’ study finds

“There are a thousand reasons why this is happening,” said Zahner. One high school teacher in Louisiana who participated in the survey said his students needed a more advanced curriculum. Supervisors inside a school may not like the materials that officials in a central office have chosen. “Sometimes schools have the materials but they’re all hidden in a closet,” Zahner said.

In the midst of a national debate on how best to teach math, this survey is an important reminder of yet another reason why many students aren’t getting the instruction that they need. 

This story about math lessons was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters. 

The post PROOF POINTS: Many high school math teachers cobble together their own instructional materials from the internet and elsewhere, a survey finds appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Some kids appear to learn faster than others. A few years ago, a group of scientists at Carnegie Mellon University decided to study these rapid learners to see what they are doing differently and if their strategies could help the rest of us.

But as the scientists began their study, they stumbled upon a fundamental problem:  they could not find faster learners. After analyzing the learning rates of 7,000 children and adults using instructional software or playing educational games, the researchers could find no evidence that some students were progressing faster than others. All needed practice to learn something new, and they learned about the same amount from each practice attempt. On average, it was taking both high and low achievers about seven to eight practice exercises to learn a new concept, a rather tiny increment of learning that the researchers call a “knowledge component.”

“Students are starting in different places and ending in different places,” said Ken Koedinger, a cognitive psychologist and director of Carnegie Mellon’s LearnLab, where this research was conducted. “But they’re making progress at the same rates.” 

Koedinger and his team’s data analysis was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences, in March 2023. The study offers the hope that “anyone can learn anything they want” if they get well-designed practice exercises and put some effort into it.  Raw talent, like having a “knack for math” or a “gift for language,” isn’t required.

Koedinger and his colleagues wrote that they were initially “surprised” by the “astonishing amount of regularity in students’ learning rate.” The discovery contradicts our everyday experiences. Some students earn As in algebra, an example mentioned in the paper, and they appear to have learned faster than peers who get Cs.

But as the scientists confirmed their numerical results across 27 datasets, they began to understand that we commonly misinterpret prior knowledge for learning. Some kids already know a lot about a subject before a teacher begins a lesson. They may have already had exposure to fractions by making pancakes at home using measuring cups. The fact that they mastered a fractions unit faster than their peers doesn’t mean they learned faster; they had a head start. 

Like watching a marathon

Koedinger likens watching children learn to watching a marathon from the finish line. The first people to cross the finish line aren’t necessarily the fastest when there are staggered starts. A runner who finished sooner might have taken five hours, while another runner who finished later might have taken only four hours. You need to know each runner’s start time to measure the pace.

Koedinger and his colleagues measured each student’s baseline achievement and their incremental gains from that initial mark. This would be very difficult to measure in ordinary classrooms, but with educational software, researchers can sort practice exercises by the knowledge components required to do them, see how many problems students get right initially and track how their accuracy improves over time.  

In the LearnLab datasets, students typically used software after some initial instruction in their classrooms, such as a lesson by a teacher or a college reading assignment. The software guided students through practice problems and exercises. Initially, students in the same classrooms had wildly different accuracy rates on the same concepts. The top quarter of students were getting 75 percent of the questions correct, while the bottom quarter of students were getting only 55 percent correct. It’s a gigantic 20 percentage point difference in the starting lines. 

However, as students progressed through the computerized practice work, there was barely even one percentage point difference in learning rates. The fastest quarter of students improved their accuracy on each concept (or knowledge component) by about 2.6 percentage points after each practice attempt, while the slowest quarter of students improved by about 1.7 percentage points. It took seven to eight attempts for nearly all students to go from 65 percent accuracy, the average starting place, to 80 percent accuracy, which is what the researchers defined as mastery.

The advantage of a head start

The head start for the high achievers matters.  Above average students, who begin above 65 percent accuracy take fewer than four practice attempts to hit the 80 percent threshold. Below average students tend to require more than 13 attempts to hit the same 80 percent threshold. That difference – four versus 13 – can make it seem like students are learning at different paces. But they’re not. Each student, whether high or low, is learning about the same amount from each practice attempt. (The researchers didn’t study children with disabilities, and it’s unknown if their learning rates are different.)

The student data that Koedinger studied comes from educational software that is designed to be interactive and gives students multiple attempts to try things, make mistakes, get feedback and try again. Students learn by doing. Some of the feedback was very basic, like an answer key, alerting students if they got the problem right or wrong. But some of the feedback was sophisticated. Intelligent tutoring systems in math provided hints when students got stuck, offered complete explanations and displayed step-by-step examples. 

The conclusion that everyone’s learning rate is similar might apply only to well-designed versions of computerized learning. Koedinger thinks students probably learn at different paces in the analog world of paper and pencil, without the same guided practice and feedback. When students are learning more independently, he says, some might be better at checking their own work and seeking guidance.  

Struggling students might be getting fewer “opportunities” to learn in the analog world, Koedinger speculated. That doesn’t necessarily mean that schools and parents should be putting low-achieving students on computers more often. Many students quickly lose motivation to learn on screens and need more human interaction.

Memory ability varies

Learning rates were especially steady in math and science – the subjects that most of the educational software in this study focused on. But researchers noticed more divergence in learning rates in the six datasets that involved the teaching of English and other languages. One was a program that taught the use of the article “the,” which can be arbitrary. (Here’s an example: I’m swimming in the Atlantic Ocean today but in Lake Ontario tomorrow. There’s no “the” before lakes.) Another program taught Chinese vocabulary. Both relied on students’ memory and individual memory processing speeds differ. Memory is important in learning math and science too, but Koedinger said students might be able to compensate with other learning strategies, such as pattern recognition, deduction and induction. 

To understand that we all learn at a similar rate is one of the best arguments I’ve seen not to give up on ourselves when we’re failing and falling behind our peers. Koedinger hopes it will inspire teachers to change their attitudes about low achievers in their classrooms, and instead think of them as students who haven’t had the same number of practice opportunities and exposure to ideas that other kids have had. With the right exercises and feedback, and a bit of effort, they can learn too. Perhaps it’s time to revise the old saw about how to get to Carnegie Hall. Instead of practice, practice, practice, I’m going to start saying practice, listen to feedback and practice again (repeat seven times).

This story was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post PROOF POINTS: The myth of the quick learner appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

The typical ambitious high school student takes advanced algebra, trigonometry, pre-calculus and calculus. None of that math may be necessary for the vast majority of undergraduates who don’t intend to major in science or another STEM field. 

But those same students don’t have many of the math skills that professors think they actually do need. In a survey, humanities, arts and social science professors say they really want their students to be able to analyze data, create charts and spreadsheets and reason mathematically – skills that high school math courses often skip or rush through.

“We still need the traditional algebra-to-calculus curriculum for students who are intending a STEM major,” said Gary Martin, a professor of mathematics education at Auburn University in Alabama who led the team that conducted this survey of college professors. “But that’s maybe 20 percent. The other 80 percent, what about them?” 

Martin said that the survey showed that high schools should stress “reasoning and critical thinking skills, decrease the emphasis on specific mathematical topics, and increase the focus on data analysis and statistics.”

This damning assessment of the content of high school math comes from a survey of about 300 Alabama college professors who oversee majors and undergraduate degree programs at both two-year and four-year public colleges in the humanities, arts, social sciences and some natural sciences. Majors that require calculus were excluded. 

The 2021 survey prompted Alabama’s public colleges and universities to allow more students to meet their math requirements by taking a statistics course instead of a traditional math class, such as college algebra or calculus. 

Martin and his colleagues later realized that the survey had implications for high school math too, and presented these results at an Oct. 26, 2023 session of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics annual conference in Washington D.C.  Full survey results are slated to be published in the winter 2024 issue of the MathAMATYC Educator, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.

In the survey, professors were asked detailed questions about which mathematical concepts and skills students need in their programs. Many high school math topics were unimportant to college professors. For example, most professors said they wanted students to understand functions, particularly linear and exponential functions, which are used to model trends, population changes or compound interest. But Martin said that non-STEM students didn’t really need to learn trigonometric functions, which are used in satellite navigation or mechanical engineering. 

College professors were more keen on an assortment of what was described as mathematical “practices,” including the ability to “interpret quantitative information,” “strategically infer, evaluate and reason,” “apply the mathematics they know to solve everyday life, society and the workplace,” and to “look for patterns and relationships and make generalizations.”

“Teachers are so focused on covering all the topics that they don’t have time to do the practices when the practices are what really matters,” said Martin.

Understanding statistics was high on the list. An overwhelming majority of college professors said students in their programs needed to be familiar with statistics and data analysis, including concepts like correlation, causation and the importance of sample size. They wanted students to be able to “interpret displays of data and statistical analyses to understand the reasonableness of the claims being presented.” Professors say students need to be able to produce bar charts, histograms and line charts. Facility with spreadsheets, such as Excel, is useful too.

“Statistics is what you need,” said Martin. “Yet, in many K-12 classrooms, statistics is the proverbial end-of-the-year unit that you may or may not get to. And if you do, you rush through it, just to say you did it. But there’s not this sense of urgency to get through the statistics, as there is to get through the math topics.”

Though the survey took place only in Alabama and professors in other states might have different thoughts on the math that students need, Martin suspects that there are more similarities than differences.

The mismatch between what students learn in high school and what they need in college isn’t easy to fix. Teachers generally don’t have time for longer statistics units, or the ability to go deeper into math concepts so that students can develop their reasoning skills, because high school math courses have become bloated with too many topics. However, there is no consensus on which algebra topics to jettison.

Encouraging high school students to take statistics classes during their junior and senior years is also fraught. College admissions officers value calculus, almost as a proxy for intelligence. And college admissions tests tend to emphasize math skills that students will practice more on the algebra-to-calculus track. A diversion to data analysis risks putting students at a disadvantage. 

The thorniest problem is that revamping high school math could force students to make big choices in school before they know what they want to study in college. Students who want to enter STEM fields still need calculus and the country needs more people to pursue STEM careers. Taking more students off of the calculus track could close doors to many students and ultimately weaken the U.S. economy.

Martin said it’s also important to remember that vocational training is not the only purpose of math education.  “We don’t have students read Shakespeare because they need it to be effective in whatever they’re going to do later,” he said. “It adds something to your life. I felt that it really gave me breadth as a human being.”  He wants high school students to study some math concepts they will never need because there’s a beauty to them. “Appreciating mathematics is a really intriguing way of looking at the world,” he said.

Martin and his colleagues don’t have any definitive solutions, but their survey is a helpful data point in demonstrating how too few students are getting the mathematical foundations they need for the future. 

This story about high school math was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post PROOF POINTS: Professors say high school math doesn’t prepare most students for their college majors appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Much attention in the post-pandemic era has been on what students have lost – days of school, psychological health, knowledge and skills. But now we have evidence that they may also have gained something: schools that address more of their needs. A majority of public schools have begun providing services that are far afield from traditional academics, including healthcare, housing assistance, childcare and food aid. 

In a Department of Education survey released in October 2023 of more than 1,300 public schools, 60 percent said they were partnering with community organizations to provide non-educational services. That’s up from 45 percent a year earlier in 2022, the first time the department surveyed schools about their involvement in these services. They include access to medical, dental, and mental health providers as well as social workers. Adult education is also often part of the package; the extras are not just for kids. 

“It is a shift,” said Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, where she tracks school spending. “We’ve seen partnering with the YMCA and with health groups for medical services and psychological evaluations.”

Deeper involvement in the community started as an emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic. As schools shuttered their classrooms, many became hubs where families obtained food or internet access. Months later, many schools opened their doors to become vaccine centers. 

New community alliances were further fueled by more than $200 billion in federal pandemic recovery funds that have flowed to schools. “Schools have a lot of money now and they’re trying to spend it down,” said Roza. Federal regulations encourage schools to spend recovery funds on nonprofit community services, and unspent funds will eventually be forfeited.

The term “community school” generally refers to schools that provide a cluster of wraparound services under one roof. The hope is that students living in poverty will learn more if their basic needs are met. Schools that provide only one or two services are likely among the 60 percent of schools that said they were using a community school or wraparound services model, but they aren’t necessarily full-fledged community schools, Department of Education officials said.

The wording of the question on the federal School Pulse Panel survey administered in August 2023 allowed for a broad interpretation of what it means to be a community school. The question posed to a sample of schools across all 50 states was this: “Does your school use a “community school” or “wraparound services” model? A community school or wraparound services model is when a school partners with other government agencies and/or local nonprofits to support and engage with the local community (e.g., providing mental and physical health care, nutrition, housing assistance, etc.).” 

The most common service provided was mental health (66 percent of schools) followed by food assistance (55 percent). Less common were medical clinics and adult education, but many more schools said they were providing these services than in the past.

The number of full-fledged community schools is also believed to be growing, according to education officials and researchers. Federal funding for community schools tripled during the pandemic to $75 million in 2021-22 from $25 million in 2019-20. According to the  education department, the federal community schools program now serves more than 700,000 students in about 250 school districts, but there are additional state and private funding sources too. 

Whether it’s a good idea for most schools to expand their mission and adopt aspects of the community school model depends on one’s view of the purpose of school. Some argue that schools are taking on too many functions and should not attempt to create outposts for outside services. Others argue that strong community engagement is an important aspect of education and can improve daily attendance and learning. Research studies conducted before the pandemic have found that academic benefits from full-fledged community schools can take several years to materialize. It’s a big investment without an instant payoff.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether schools will continue to embrace their expanded mission after federal pandemic funds expire in March 2026. That’s when the last payments to contractors and outside organizations for services rendered can be made. Contracts must be signed by September 2024.

Edunomics’s Roza thinks many of these community services will be the first to go as schools face future budget cuts. But she also predicts that some will endure as schools raise money from state governments and philanthropies to continue popular programs.

If that happens, it will be an example of another unexpected consequence of the pandemic. Even as pundits decry how the pandemic has eroded support for public education, it may have profoundly transformed the role of schools and made them even more vital.

This story about wraparound services was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post PROOF POINTS: Schools’ mission shifted during the pandemic with healthcare, shelter and adult ed appeared first on The Hechinger Report.

Young students around the world struggle to memorize multiplication tables, but the effort pays off. Cognitive scientists say that learning 6 x 7 and 8 x 9 by heart frees up the brain’s working memory so that students can focus on the more demanding aspects of problem solving. 

Math teachers debate the best way to make multiplication automatic. Some educators argue against drills and say fluency will develop with everyday usage. Others insist that schools should devote time to helping children memorize times tables. 

Even among proponents of memorization, it’s unclear which methods are the most effective. Should kids draw their own color-coded tables and study them, or copy their multiplication facts out dozens of times? Should they play multiplication songs and videos? Should they learn mnemonic tricks, like how the digits of the multiples of nine add up to nine (1+8, 2+7, 3+6, etc.)?  My daughter’s gym teacher used to make students shout “7 x 5 is 35” and “6 x 8 is 48” as they did jumping jacks. (It was certainly a way to make jumping less monotonous.) 

To help advise teachers, a team of learning scientists compared two common methods: chanting and flashcards. 

The 2022 experiment took place in four second grade classrooms in the Netherlands. The teachers began by delivering a lesson on multiplying by three. Using the same scripted lesson, they explained multiplication concepts, such as: “If I grab three apples, and I do this only one time, how many apples do I have?” 

After the lesson, half the classrooms practiced by reciting equations displayed on a whiteboard:  “One times three is three, two times three is six…” through to 10. The other half practiced with flashcards. Students had their own personal sets with answers on the reverse side. Both groups spent five minutes practicing three times during the week for a total of 15 minutes. (More details on the experiment’s design here.)

When the teachers moved on to multiplication by fours, the groups switched. The chanters quizzed themselves with flashcards, and the flashcard kids started chanting. All the students practiced memorizing both ways. 

The results added up to a clear winner. 

On a pre-test before the lesson, the second graders got an average of three math facts right. Afterwards, the chanters tended to double their accuracy, answering six facts correctly. But the flashcard users averaged eight correct. Students were tested again a full week later without any additional practice sessions, and the strong advantage for flashcard users didn’t fade. It was a sign that flashcard practice not only produces better short-term memories, but also better long-term ones –  the ultimate goal.

The study, “The effect of retrieval practice on fluently retrieving multiplication facts in an authentic elementary school setting,” was published online in October 2023 in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology.  Though a small study of 48 students, this classroom experiment is a good example of the power of what cognitive scientists call “spaced retrieval practice,” in which the act of remembering consolidates information and helps the brain form long-term memories.  

Retrieval practice can seem counterintuitive. One might think that students should study before being assessed or quizzing themselves. But there’s a growing body of evidence that trying to recall something is itself a powerful tool for learning, particularly when you are given the correct answer immediately after making a stab at it and then get a chance to try again. Testing your memory – even when you draw a blank – is a way to build new memories. 

Many experiments have shown that retrieval practice produces better long-term memories than studying. Flashcards are one way to try retrieval practice. Quizzes are another option because they also require students to retrieve new information from memory. Indeed, many teachers opt for speed drills, asking students to race through a page of multiplication problems in a minute. 

Flashcards can be less anxiety provoking, provide students immediate feedback with answers on the reverse side and allow students to repeat the retrieval practice immediately, running through the deck more than once. Still, kids are kids and they easily drift off task during independent practice time. With a timed quiz, the teacher can be more confident that everyone has benefited from a round of retrieval practice. I’d be curious to see flashcards and quizzes pitted against each other in a future classroom experiment. 

As charming as multiplication songs are – I have a soft spot for School House Rock and my editor fondly recalls her Billy Leach multiplication records – they are unlikely to be as effective as flashcards because they don’t involve retrieval practice, according to Gino Camp, a professor of learning sciences at Open University in the Netherlands and one of the researchers on the study.

That doesn’t mean we should jettison the songs or all the other memorization methods just because some aren’t as effective as others. Researchers may eventually find that a combination of techniques is even more powerful. Still, there are limited minutes in the school day, and knowing which learning methods are the most effective can help everyone – teachers, parents and students – use their time wisely.

This story about multiplication flashcards was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The post PROOF POINTS: Flashcards prevail over repetition in memorizing multiplication tables appeared first on The Hechinger Report.