Social-emotional learning, commonly referred to by its acronym, SEL, is a method of promoting holistic child development by teaching students skills such as self-regulation, persistence, empathy, self-awareness, and mindfulness.

2. Why are schools teaching social-emotional learning?

Social-emotional learning has practical benefits for the classroom by teaching students to regulate their emotions, pay attention, and work well with their peers. But it does a lot more than that: SEL has been shown to boost students’ test scores and grades, promote on-time graduation and college enrollment, increase students’ financial earnings as adults, and support their mental and physical well-being.

3. What specific skills should students learn?

SEL researchers and leaders on three areas:

Cognitive — Executive-function skills that help students manage themselves by regulating their own behavior, paying attention, remembering lessons, and organizing tasks.

Social — Skills that help students get along with others by teaching compassion, collaboration, communication, listening, conflict resolution, and social cue recognition.

Emotional — Skills that help students manage feelings like anger, frustration, and sadness, and teach them to recognize these emotions in others.

4. How do we know social-emotional learning helps students?

There is significant and growing research backing SEL.

A of more than 200 SEL programs showed that participating students performed 11 percentile points better in academic achievement and demonstrated improved emotional skills and attitudes than their peers who didn’t partake in similar programs.

A 2016 study of 82 programs found that even after 3œ years, the benefits of social-emotional learning programs persisted, as participating students scored 13 points higher in academics, and had 6 percent higher graduation rates, and 11 percent better college attendance rates. These students were less likely to be arrested or have sexual or mental health problems.

There’s even a monetary benefit: One found that every $1 invested in SEL resulted in a long-term return of $11.

5. Why are we talking about social-emotional learning right now?

The concept was popularized in 1995, after the release of the book “Emotional Intelligence.” It explored the idea that what makes people successful is not just their academic intelligence, but their ability to regulate their emotions and understand the world.

The idea caught on with business leaders who wanted employees with more than just a traditional high school diploma, but with “21st century skills,” including how to work with a team, communicate, and be self-directed.

Education leaders were excited about this too. Schools began to shift away from punitive disciplinary practices and instead embraced restorative justice. Federal education laws shifted away from strict testing standards, and the Every Student Succeed Act asked states to measure their schools’ successes not just by the number of students who passed tests, but with a nonacademic indicator, such as attendance or school climate.

6. Character, grit, self-awareness — what terms best describe SEL competencies?

While researchers and experts agree that SEL should develop social, emotional, and cognitive skills, the organizations leading this work have different lists of skills or definitions of competencies they want students to develop. For example, the Character Lab wants students to learn about , while the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning emphasizes . Differing definitions can be a problem for schools that are trying to refine assessments for gauging how well they teach SEL skills. That’s why researchers are working on a taxonomy to standardize how these words are used by different SEL organizations.

7. How can SEL help disadvantaged students?

Learning to regulate emotions is an important part of childhood development, but it is especially critical for students who come from stressful backgrounds, where factors like violence, abuse, neglect, and hunger have shaped their development. For these students, learning to control their emotions through steps like deep breathing, counting, and mindfulness have proven effective for improving relationships among students and teachers.

8. Which states have SEL standards?

All states incorporate some form of social-emotional learning in the classroom, but a found that the standards were inconsistent or lacking in developmental benchmarks for every grade. In fact, only four states — Maine, West Virginia, Illinois, and Kansas — have created SEL learning goals for all grades from preschool to high school.

However, just because states don’t have consistent guidelines, doesn’t mean districts don’t. Eight large districts serving 1 million students are part of a working to design best practices for SEL that can be shared across the U.S.

9. How do schools make sure their SEL practices are helping students?

Figuring out how to best assess social-emotional learning in the classroom is “one of the biggest missing pieces” for SEL, researchers say. Some of this is because there isn’t a shared definition for SEL skills, like “reading social cues” or “empathy.” And there’s a lack of funding behind SEL testing, especially compared with the funding behind academic testing.

The difficulty of measuring these skills became evident when states decided not to include social-emotional learning as a fifth indicator for school success in their Every Student Succeeds Act plans (though several will include school climate surveys). Researchers that data collected around soft skills could become corruptible if required to be a high-stakes accountability measure for federal funding.

10. How do schools know which SEL tools are best for their students?

Social-emotional learning has proven effective for students across geographies and demographics, but not every SEL program works best in every setting. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning’s District Resource Center is cultivating a list of best practices and tools for schools that it has uncovered during fieldwork with districts across the states.

11. Are educators prepared to teach SEL?

Research has found that most teachers and principals don’t have the support and training they need to effectively teach social-emotional learning to their students.

For example, while most principals want quality SEL programs in their schools, only 17 percent know which assessments to use for measuring how their students are doing socially and emotionally, according to a 2017 survey.

Few teacher prep colleges are adequately teaching educators how to teach social-emotional skills, despite state requirements that they do so, a recent found.

Teachers also find it difficult to teach students to regulate their emotions when they, as educators, are given little support for developing their own skills. This is a critical problem, as teaching is tied with nursing as the most stressful profession in the United States.

Significantly, whether measured by race or socioeconomic status. For instance, a by the Government Accountability Office found that about one-third of schools were composed primarily of either low-income black and/or Hispanic students or affluent, white students.

, from the UCLA Civil Rights Project, found that the average black or Hispanic student attends a school where about two-thirds of classmates are low-income. In contrast, the average white student attends a school where about 40 percent of students are low-income.

2. What is the history of school segregation?

Segregation in American schools has a long, sordid history. Some important milestones:

• Plessy: In 1891, the US Supreme Court handed down , which upheld Jim Crow laws mandating racial segregation, including in schools. The 7-1 decision stated, “We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”
• Brown: In 1954, overturned Plessy, ruling that having separate schools for black and white students violates the 14th Amendment. “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” the court famously declared in its unanimous decision.
• Resistance to integration: The push for integration — prompted in part by Brown and other court decisions — sparked massive resistance. Cities in Virginia to avoid integrating. The National Guard was sent in to the University of Alabama as segregationist Gov. George Wallace literally to block integration. Affluent white families left suburbs to avoid integrated schools, a phenomenon termed . There was tremendous backlash in Northern cities, including in the 1950s and ‘60s and in the 1970s and ‘80s. “Busing” would become a codeword to indicate opposition to integration. Richard Nixon as a vigorously anti-busing president. In 1974, in , the Supreme Court ruled that segregated school districts were not unconstitutional so long as separation of students by race was not explicitly mandated.
• Courts turn against integration: Between 1990 and 2011, over half the 483 districts under desegregation orders saw court and segregation in those districts increased. In a 2007 Supreme Court case, , school integration plans explicitly considering students’ race in Seattle and Louisville were struck down. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

3. Has school segregation gotten worse recently?

It depends on how segregation is measured and whether the question is about racial or socioeconomic segregation. Studies have found that in recent decades, segregation based on family income has gotten worse, regardless of how it is measured. On the other hand, racial segregation has held relatively constant by one measure, while by a different measure, it’s gotten worse. Segregation certainly appears to have deepened when simply examining the likelihood that a student of color will attend school with a white student, or vice versa. But when accounting for changes in population, the results indicate that the increase in racial segregation is simply because public schools have fewer white students and more students of color,

4. What impact does integration have on students?

A significant body of evidence shows that students of color and students living in poverty benefit from attending integrated schools.

One found that going to a desegregated school “significantly increased both educational and occupational attainments, college quality and adult earnings, reduced the probability of incarceration, and improved adult health status” among black students.

showed that attending more segregated schools led to lower test scores and graduation rates, as well as higher crime rates among students of color.

on socioeconomic integration has found that low-income students attending a low-poverty school made large test score gains (though no benefits came from attending a school with middling poverty).

produced similar results.

The research is much more mixed regarding the academic impact of integration on white and more affluent students. , one way or the other, on measurable outcomes, such as test scores or high school dropout rates. However, found that for white students, test scores, graduation, and college enrollment rates decreased after they attended a school with more students of color. 

This research has focused on the impacts of integration on certain measurable outcomes — test scores, graduation rates, adult income — and many argue that the benefits of diverse schools and include, for example, increased tolerance and social cohesion. Studies have found that interactions with more diverse individuals can prejudice and leadership skills.

An important caveat is that many, though not all, of these studies examine older integration programs, often from several decades ago. remains correlated with lower achievement and, in some cases, wider racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps.

5. Why does integration seem to improve student outcomes?

One of the leading explanations is funding, especially in the case of older busing programs. Although not always the case, segregated schools are sometimes poorly resourced, while integrated schools may be better supported, perhaps because of a higher number of politically influential families in the school community — and research suggests that spending more money on schools leads to better outcomes for students.

One of desegregation efforts across the country showed spending on black students in integrated schools was much higher than on black students in segregated schools. “The results suggest that the mechanisms through which school desegregation led to beneficial socioeconomic outcomes in adulthood for blacks include improvement in access to school resources, which is reflected in reductions in class size and increases in per-pupil spending,” the study concludes. focused on Louisiana showed similar results, pointing out that the increase in funding was likely a key driver of gains in high school graduation rates rather than exposure to white students per se.

Another focusing on Nashville showed that concentrated poverty rates harm schools’ achievement levels but can be counteracted through increased resources.

However, other research has found mixed support for this theory. Specifically, a on the end of desegregation efforts in Charlotte-Mecklenburg showed that when the district allocated extra money to newly segregated schools, the negative impacts of segregation were partially — but not fully — offset.

More recent evidence has found that the concentration of poverty may be key. According to , “Racial segregation is strongly associated with racial achievement gaps, and the racial difference in the proportion of students’ schoolmates who are poor is the key dimension of segregation driving this association.” The research suggests that this may have a number of causes, including, “material resources, instructional focus and quality, parental social and economic capital, social norms, and peer effects.”

6. How common are integration efforts currently?

Not especially common. A number of school districts, particularly in the South, have from race-based integration as court orders were rescinded. In other places, desegregation efforts have ended because of .

But it’s to track down the precise number of school districts under desegregation orders. One 2014 investigation active integration decrees existed in 300 districts, down from 750. But the same piece noted that “officials in scores of school districts do not know the status of their desegregation orders, have never read them, or erroneously believe that orders have been ended.”

The Supreme Court made race-based integration more difficult with a striking down separate systems in Seattle and Louisville. Since then, there has been a rise in socioeconomic-based integration efforts. According The Century Foundation, a think tank that backs integration, more than twice as many school districts or charter schools (91) had some sort of system for advancing class-based integration in 2016 compared to 2007. Even with this increase, however, just 8 percent of public school students attended a school in such a district.

7. Have school choice programs, such as charter schools, helped integration efforts?

Overall, probably not, although it’s hard to generalize because there are many different choice programs in many different contexts. But while some charter schools have emphasized integration, on balance, there is not much evidence that school choice overall has ameliorated segregation.

In fact, the research debate regarding charters generally focuses on whether they have exacerbated segregation or had no impact on it. the former, pointing to studies in places including North Carolina, , , , and .

But small or no impacts — and in at least one , a positive impact — of charters on segregation. School voucher programs are much less common than charter schools and so have less potential to systematically affect integration. There is also limited research on the impact of vouchers. However, showed that Louisiana’s voucher program led to more integration in the state’s public schools, though slightly greater segregation in its private schools.

8. Is racial segregation the result of public policy (de jure) or choices by individual families (de facto)?

It’s often assumed that school (and housing) segregation is caused by a series of individual choices that resulted in de facto segregation. But that’s not really the case, since those individual choices are shaped by discriminatory policies and practices.

For instance, there is a long history of discriminatory housing practices, the legacy of which continues today and manifests itself in school segregation. According to an published by the Economic Policy Institute, specific examples include:

• “From its New Deal inception and especially during and after World War II, federally funded public housing was explicitly racially segregated.”
• “The federal government subsidized relocation of whites to suburbs and prohibited similar relocation of blacks.”
• “Bank regulators 
 and other agencies knowingly approved ‘redlining’ policies by which banks and savings institutions refused loans to black families in white suburbs and even, in most cases, to black families in black neighborhoods.”
• “Explicit racial zoning in some cities was enforced until the 1960s.”
• “Urban renewal programs of the mid-twentieth century often had 
 undisguised purposes: to force low-income black residents away from universities, hospital complexes, or business districts and into new ghettos.”

This is just a sample of the discriminatory policies that cemented residential segregation. As a result of such policies, African-Americans, regardless of their own socioeconomic status, are much to live in low-income neighborhoods. Black families also have been less able to through homeownership, reducing their ability to in affluent areas with more desirable schools. In sum, a variety of explicitly discriminatory policies perpetrated in recent history have led to patterns of segregation in housing and education that remain today. Although there has been in housing segregation in recent decades, much of the country segregated by race.

9. Do parents and families want their children to attend integrated schools?

It’s difficult to generalize. Certainly it’s clear that both historically and , white families have often fiercely fought integration. Many have protested, moved to the suburbs, or sent their kids to less diverse private or schools. Income-based school segregation has also as wealthy parents have bought houses zoned for affluent schools.

On the other hand, some families clearly want integrated schools. A of the school lottery system in Washington, D.C., showed that many families want diversity. In middle schools especially, the research found that families, across races, preferred schools that weren’t segregated in one direction or the other. This suggests that there is at least some demand for integrated schools.​â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹

10. Is most school segregation within districts or between districts?

Most school segregation is between school districts rather than within schools in the same district. In other words, school segregation can be thought of as driven largely by school district segregation. found that “about two-thirds of income segregation between schools in metropolitan areas occurs due to segregation between districts.”

This is significant because it shows the limitations of desegregation efforts by single districts: one district’s ability to integrate schools is severely restricted by the fact that the composition of other districts drives segregation. As put it, “No amount of within-district reassignment of students can overcome high levels of between-district segregation.” Some areas have addressed this issue by consolidating districts or busing students between districts. ​â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹â¶Ä‹

11. What are some arguments against pursuing school integration?

Some say integration is politically controversial and therefore ; that it by eliminating the idea of a neighborhood public school; that it the message to children of color that they can learn only when in a class with white, more affluent students; that students will have to spend too much time on buses; that it cannot succeed absent residential integration; that high-performing charter schools with few white students show that integration is ; that it’s a , such as ; and that the benefits of integrations . Skeptics might also point out that studies showing benefits of integration often evaluate older programs and thus may not apply to initiatives enacted today. White and affluent parents have also often opposed integrated schools, arguing that they will harm their children — though there’s not much evidence to support this.

12. Has the federal government pursued integration in recent years?

To some extent, but .

For instance, the government has funded designed to pull from diverse student populations in different communities, while diversity in grants for charter and pre-schools.

But former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told Âé¶čŸ«Æ· that he would give himself “a pretty low grade” on school integration, a policy that was in the Obama administration’s signature education initiative, Race to the Top, or in No Child Left Behind waivers.

Former Secretary of Education John King, a for integration, has supported such efforts by, for instance, using diversity as a criterion in awarding grants, publicly for more integrated schools, and proposing a to advance integration. (The budget item was by Congress, however.)

King that he supports voluntary integration efforts, as opposed to mandated busing or school reassignment. Notably, he will have only a short tenure and limited power to make significant changes in this area. However, the Trump administration seems unlikely to back school integration. The president-elect has talked about the issue little, if at all, and his education advisers have been of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

is an approach to school discipline that emphasizes making the victim and offender whole, as opposed to more traditional, punitive measures. Instead of employing detention, suspension, or expulsion when students commit infractions, restorative justice uses mediation between the offender(s) and the victim(s) involved in an incident. As its adherents describe it, this mediation involves an open discussion of feelings toward each other, possible acceptance of fault on one or more sides, and an agreement of reparations or next steps.

2. How does restorative justice work?

Instead of the initial response to a disciplinary infraction being punitive, restorative justice generally begins with a conference between all those involved in an incident. This includes the victim and perpetrator of any incident, along with at least one facilitator who is grounded in restorative practices. This facilitator or group of facilitators usually includes at least one adult. The conversation that ensues is loosely organized to cover the following points:

• What occurred between the victim and the perpetrator, and why
• How the incident made the victim and perpetrator feel
• The perpetrator’s intent in causing the incident
• Advocacy for reparations from the facilitator(s) and the victim
• Discussion of and resolution for a particular form of restitution
• Agreement from the perpetrator to make restitution and, in some cases, the victim as well, depending on what conflict led up to the incident at hand

3. How did restorative justice start?

Historians trace the first school-based restorative practices to . (Not coincidentally, Australia was one of the first countries to employ restorative justice as an alternative to criminal justice.) As schools experienced success with the techniques, the movement spread. It remains unclear when these techniques began to be adopted by American schools. is recognized as one of the first and most vocal proponents of restorative justice in the American criminal justice system. Zehr grew the movement . Concurrently, , and the seeds of interest were planted in juvenile justice and school discipline reform advocates.

4. Do schools practice restorative justice the same way?

The terms restorative practices, circles, and mediations have been used to mean similar things by different schools. There is certainly a range of practices that can be described by one or more of these terms. Each emphasizes different steps in the restorative process, and may employ different protocols for dialogue and agreements. For instance, some schools run circles on a regular basis to build community. These schools feel that they can preemptively make their communities stronger and avoid conflict between members if circle talk is a regular occurrence. When this practice becomes a part of a school’s fabric, dialogue around cultural exchanges between community members, ideas about how to improve understanding and relationships, and ways to grow student-centered processes at school. Other schools might only run mediations to handle conflicts, or have a stricter or looser set of protocols. Many likely combine restorative and traditional approaches. All forms of restorative approaches focus on consequences that have a meaningful relationship to the infraction.

5. Is restorative justice becoming more popular? Who is employing it, and who is advocating for it?

Restorative justice appears to be gaining traction in American public schools. The New York City Department of Education invested in pilot programs with restorative approaches to discipline at 20 district schools in June 2015. This year, they added for students returning to school from superintendent suspensions. Oakland Unified School District has been implementing restorative practices for . National advocacy groups (among them ) have joined the chorus of voices for restorative practices.

California and Maryland have moved to restrict suspension practices. At the district level, so have and . With schools in these areas no longer able to suspend students for a wide range of infractions, they may turn to restorative justice. This is already the case in and .

The federal government’s 2014 on school climate demonstrated a growing belief about the importance of school disciplinary systems that are less punitive. Both U.S. Education Secretary and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have called for dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline.

International use of restorative practices as well.

6. Why do some support restorative justice?

Advocates for restorative approaches often emphasize that are correlated with a number of negative outcomes for students, and have stark racial disparities.

Generally, proponents of restorative justice argue that practicing it, in some form, communities together and racial biases and misconceptions, which advocates say are reflected in school suspension and expulsion rates. Additionally, restorative justice supporters feel that students have a significantly better chance of learning and graduating if they are in class as much as possible.

Even a number of charter schools — some of which have been known for strict disciplinary approaches — have embraced less punitive policies, including restorative justice.

7. Why are some people skeptical of restorative justice?

Skeptics of restorative justice often argue that traditional methods of discipline — especially suspensions — get an unfair rap. They claim that disruptive students peers by taking away learning time and that suspensions can deter misbehavior, while improving outcomes for non-suspended students. (Evidence on this question is mixed, with some showing positive results of suspensions for students who remain in class, while other show negative effects of suspension across the board.)

Other of restorative justice worry about the cost, implementation, and potentially time-consuming nature of implementing these practices.

Finally, some advocates of charter schools that suspensions are an important tool for managing student behavior, pointing to large for many so-called “no excuses” schools that have strict disciplinary policies.

8. Is restorative justice working? How do we know?

It’s hard to say because rigorous scientific studies yielding conclusive evidence on the effect of restorative justice have yet to be conducted. However, relay the following positive outcomes:

• Lower suspension and expulsion rates
• Fewer major disciplinary incidents in school
• Less long-term absenteeism
• Survey responses indicating improved school climate

Very little research on academic improvement as it relates to schools with restorative practices exists, and the qualitative studies that do are mixed. have been suggested along with a significant . However, these data, along with the school climate, truancy, and discipline metrics, should be read cautiously because of methodological limitations. More research needs to be done to conclude with confidence that restorative justice leads to improvements in school climate and student outcomes.

9. Is restorative justice expensive?

Restorative justice can potentially cost significant amounts of money, which many advocates of the practice acknowledge. However, precise estimates of additional costs are hard to come by. The ideal program, according to supporters, includes staff members exclusively dedicated to  planning mediations, assisting with facilitation of mediations, and tracking outcomes of mediations. In addition to the cost of additional staff members, staff and faculty should be trained, which could draw significantly on a school’s or district’s budget for professional development.

According to a representative of Teachers Unite — a non-profit that runs workshops in restorative justice for public schools — proper professional development in restorative justice takes significant amounts of time and effort. Additionally, the mediation and restitution process itself generally takes more time to implement than traditional methods.

10. Is restorative justice worth it?

It’s too soon to say, but if the results from qualitative studies are validated by empirical research, the answer may be yes. Given , and the connection between both drop-outs and incarceration and , well-run restorative programs could save a great deal of money. Most importantly, the approach has the potential to improve student outcomes and to counteract the school-to-prison pipeline. However, any benefits of restorative justice programs would have to be weighed against additional costs.

11. What’s necessary for restorative justice to be done right?

Even according to advocates, there are many when implementing restorative justice: staff-wide buy-in, training, and the resources to carry out the work. Restorative justice can easily fall apart if it is not practiced consistently or there is insufficient follow-up to ensure agreements are upheld post-conference. This is difficult if some staff members do not believe in its value, training lacks precision or depth, models of practice within a building differ substantially, or there aren’t staff members dedicated to implementing restorative justice effectively.

1. What is cognitive science?

Cognitive science is a catchall term for the many different fields that study how the mind works. It encompasses psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science that explores artificial intelligence, and more. Practitioners in these fields explore how we speak, reason, remember, and solve problems. In short, cognitive scientists are trying to understand issues related to the most important question of the educational process: how we learn.

Over the past fifty years, researchers have made great advances in understanding language development, reading comprehension, critical thinking, and problem solving. We’ve compiled a handful of insights from this body of evidence that can help educators improve classroom practice and policy-makers develop more supportive policies.

2. What’s the key to reading comprehension?

Reading comprehension is a that can be distilled to two fundamental abilities: sounding out words and understanding those words. The first ability, known as, is a skill that most children master in the first few years of schooling. With systematic instruction, virtually all children — including — can be fluent decoders within two to three years. The second ability, which is what most people mean by comprehension, is not easily mastered. Understanding depends on the reader’s, both of which build slowly over many years, inside and outside of school.

To see the massive impact of knowledge and vocabulary (which is really a type of knowledge) on comprehension, let’s look at a few sentences from a  on private ventures into space travel: “The first and most visible consequence of the new entrepreneurial era will be restoring America as a spacefaring nation. Yes, I know we do spectacular robotic explorations. But our ability to toss humans into space disappeared when NASA retired the space shuttle — without a replacement.

“To get an astronaut into just low Earth orbit, therefore, we have to hitch a ride on Russia’s Soyuz with its 1960s technology.”

This is not a technical paper; it’s an opinion piece aimed at a very broad audience, but it assumes that readers have a massive amount of relevant knowledge. None of the key terms is defined. Readers are supposed to know entrepreneurial era, spacefaring, NASA, space shuttle, etc. They also have to fill in missing information: What’s wrong with using 1960s technology? Why would we care that it belongs to Russia?

Assuming the reader has a great deal of knowledge is inevitable. Just imagine how long—and boring—the op-ed would be if every term were defined. Every time we communicate, we have to make guesses as to what information we need to provide and what we can assume. If, for example, your preschooler asks “Why is the sky blue?” you’d give a very different answer than if your physics professor asked.

In terms of comprehension ability, getting from preschooler to professor requires learning a massive amount of knowledge — and the vocabulary that represents that knowledge.

3. Who has better comprehension: students with higher reading test scores or students with more relevant knowledge?

Here’s a quick summary of an (which has been): researchers took a group of junior high students and gave them two tests — one was a standard reading comprehension test, the other assessed their knowledge of baseball. Researchers were then able to break the students into groups: high or low reading ability, and high or low knowledge of baseball.

The students were then given a passage describing part of a baseball game. They were asked to retell what happened and, using a model of the field and players, show what happened.

As expected, the students who scored high in reading and baseball performed the best, and those who scored low in both did the worst. But what about those two groups in the middle? Did the strong readers without much knowledge of baseball outperform the weak readers who knew a lot about baseball? No. The more knowledgeable students outperformed the stronger readers. In fact, they performed almost as well as the students who were both knowledgeable and strong readers.

4. How important are reading comprehension strategies?

Comprehension strategies are useful, but they are not essential to reading in the way fluent decoding and broad knowledge are.

Comprehension strategies offer students multiple ways of interacting with the text. Common strategies include finding the main idea, summarizing, and asking and answering questions.  have found that using such strategies improves students’ comprehension but cognitive scientists are still investigating how different strategies work. As , a researcher at Harvard, has noted, “Comprehension strategies often taught as part of today’s standard instruction — predicting, summarizing, making inferences — can be leveraged only if the student has the relevant vocabulary and background knowledge needed for the passage.” In other words, the strategy itself isn’t creating the understanding. If the reader does not have enough relevant knowledge, such strategies can’t even be used.

How, then, do comprehension strategies work? Daniel Willingham, a cognitive scientist at the University of Virginia, thinks they probably help young students realize that understanding (not merely sounding out words) is the purpose of reading and give children a way to focus on extracting meaning from the text. Because that six lessons in comprehension strategies are generally just as effective as, say, twenty-five lessons, that these strategies are more akin to tricks than skills: “I think that the answer may be that successfully implementing a reading comprehension strategy is not a skill at all. It may be more like a trick in that it’s easy to learn and use, and the only difficulty is to consistently remember to apply it. An analogous process may be checking one’s work in mathematics. There is not a lot to learn in checking your work; it’s not a skill that requires practice. But you do have to remember to do it. Checking your work is analogous to reading strategies in another way. Checking your work will make it more likely that you get a problem right, but it doesn’t tell you how to solve the problem. Similarly, reading strategies don’t get reading comprehension done.”

Comprehension strategies appear to be most useful in the upper elementary grades as children transition from practicing decoding skills to reading for pleasure and acquiring new information. Throughout the elementary years, the best way to build comprehension is to focus on increasing students’ subject-matter knowledge and vocabulary. Fortunately, comprehension strategy instruction need not take more than a handful of lessons.

5. What’s the key to critical thinking?

Much like reading comprehension, the key to critical thinking is. But while broad knowledge is essential to being a good reader,  is needed for critical thinking. Consider the difference between reading a newspaper and a technical journal article. The newspaper’s various articles will assume the reader has basic knowledge of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different topics. The journal article will be focused on one topic, but will assume the reader has expert-level knowledge (otherwise the journal would be useless to actual experts). It’s the difference between  and the .

The idea that  should be fairly obvious. Pick a topic you know a good deal about, perhaps the American Revolution. Now think critically about its causes: taxation, lodging for British soldiers, a growing sense of independence, etc. Easy. Let’s switch to a topic you know very little about, perhaps black holes in outer space. Now think critically about their causes. Not so easy. You’re not lacking the ability to think critically; you’re lacking deep knowledge of the topic.

The implications for education are clear: if we want students to think like  or , we have to teach them the academic content that scientists and historians know. As with reading comprehension strategies, tips like “scientists use unexpected results to form hypotheses” or “historians consider the source when interpreting a text” can be helpful reminders — but they can’t be acted upon without the relevant, knowledge.

6. Why memorize facts now that we have Google?

 We’ve established that knowledge is important, but does it really have to be in your head? Can’t it just be at your fingertips? In a word, no.

For an engaging discussion of the cognitive science as to why a substantial foundation of academic knowledge must be lodged in memory, see Daniel Willingham’s Here, we’ll address the issue as a practical matter by considering what a challenge reading is when key terms and concepts are not known.

Let’s revisit the op-ed on  that we examined in the second question:   “The first and most visible consequence of the new entrepreneurial era will be restoring America as a spacefaring nation. Yes, I know we do spectacular robotic explorations. But our ability to toss humans into space disappeared when NASA retired the space shuttle — without a replacement.

To get an astronaut into just low Earth orbit, therefore, we have to hitch a ride on Russia’s Soyuz with its 1960s technology.”

Consider robotic explorations. For educated adults, these two words conjure up a wide range of information, from the Mars rover to Star Wars. The same is true of NASA, the space shuttle, Russia, and the 1960s. But imagine if those terms meant nothing to you. Looking each one up would turn a quick skim of the newspaper into an hour-long research project.

Not only are you unlikely to invest that level of effort, even if you do Google all the unfamiliar terms, you probably won’t be able to develop a solid understanding of the op-ed. First, just like with the original op-ed, you’ll likely struggle to understand the information Google returns. Second, even if you find sufficiently basic explanations, you’ll struggle to assimilate all this new information at once and harness it to grasp the op-ed. Third, since you don’t know much about the topic, you will have to assume information you dig up and comprehend is accurate; you’ll have a hard time analyzing the veracity of your sources.

The bottom line is that Google is a great tool for learning, but it’s .

7. What happens if children don’t acquire a broad foundation of academic knowledge?

When children don’t build broad knowledge, their reading comprehension and critical thinking ability suffer.

In elementary school, limited knowledge and a small vocabulary impedes reading development. Children learn to sound out words, but then they often don’t know what those words mean. Researchers call these children “” because they are not actually reading with understanding. Due to their limited knowledge, they will read a sentence that relies on everyday knowledge, such as “The kittens are drinking the milk,” but they will only be able to sound out — not understand — a more knowledge-rich sentence, such as, “Felines are mammals; their newborns suckle, but only domesticated breeds get to enjoy milk throughout their lives.”

Among older middle and high school students, knowledge levels vary enormously by domain and thus so do comprehension and critical thinking abilities. Many students have enough broad, surface-level knowledge to comprehend a passage on a basic level, but not deep enough knowledge to think critically about it. This was the case in an illuminating of seventh graders.

To explore students’ ability to analyze new information (particularly online), researchers had them evaluate the credibility of a website about the . Yes, an octopus that apparently lives in a tree — a pine tree. The site had all the usual information about eating, mating, etc. The students read it with understanding, dutifully applied the critical thinking strategies they had been taught, and decided the site was trustworthy. No one was suspicious, even though the sasquatch was mentioned as a predator.

The researchers concluded that the students need more instruction in media literacy — i.e., more strategies. In fact, : students need more knowledge. Basic information about marine life dismisses any possibility of an octopus living in a tree, no matter how plausibly the information is presented or how expertly the images are Photoshopped.

8. Do young children really need to study science, history, geography, and the arts?

Yes. Knowledge and vocabulary grow exponentially inside and outside of school. The longer schools wait to immerse children in knowledge-building subject matter, the more difficult it is to close the gaps.

While no elementary schools truly eschew building children’s knowledge, academics often do to developing basic reading skills. The popular concept of “learning to read and then reading to learn” subtly reinforces the notion that science and social studies can wait. No program aims to increase achievement gaps, but that may be the result.

Take vocabulary growth, for example. Researchers that college-ready teens know about 60,000 to 100,000 words. That’s far too many to have learned through traditional vocabulary instruction. Most words are learned indirectly, bit by bit, through. The larger the child’s vocabulary, the more contexts she understands, and the more her vocabulary grows. When children are young, much of that learning is through listening and asking questions. Later on, most of it is through reading, especially since written texts use far more  than spoken language. Either way, the growth is exponential.

But exponential growth does not mean that all children are learning at the same rate. Children with well-educated parents tend to have far more opportunities to learn, and far steeper  for knowledge and vocabulary. Reading researcher Keith Stanovich dubbed this the , referring to the Biblical passage about the rich growing richer.

Nell Duke, another prominent reading researcher, describes a “”: “Over the past 20 years, cognitive psychologists have reached broad consensus on the nature of comprehension…. We bring knowledge to the comprehension process, and that knowledge shapes our comprehension. When we comprehend, we gain new information that changes our knowledge, which is then available for later comprehension. So, in that positive, virtuous cycle, knowledge begets comprehension, which begets knowledge, and so on. In a very real sense, we literally read and learn our way into greater knowledge about the world and greater comprehension capacity.”

The more knowledge children have, the faster — the more virtuous — that cycle is. And the less knowledge children bring with them to school, the more their teachers should focus on building it as early and as quickly as possible.

9. How much time are elementary teachers spending on science and social studies?

Not much. According to a nationally representative, just 16 to 24 minutes each day are devoted to social studies and science:

While no one can say definitively why schools are spending so little time building knowledge, teachers’ instructional choices may be driven by annual high-stakes reading tests. According to of the University of Michigan: “Perhaps the greatest obstacle to improving primary-grade reading is a short-term orientation toward instruction and instructional reform. When the aim is to show reading improvements in a short period of time, spending large amounts of time on word-reading skill and its foundations, and relatively little on comprehension, vocabulary, and conceptual and content knowledge, makes sense. Measurable gains in phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word reading can be achieved quickly, and, for most students, relatively easily. In contrast, gains in comprehension, vocabulary, and conceptual knowledge are harder to measure, at least in young children, and harder to achieve. Yet the long-term consequences of failing to attend to these areas cannot be overstated.”

This is not to say that reading tests are not valuable. But the use of test-based accountability, most prominently via No Child Left Behind, has been much less successful in reading than in math. Research has generally found that holding schools accountable for test scores leads to improvements in student learning in math — but not always in English. This suggests that focusing on reading test scores for accountability purposes may not be successful if teachers respond by reducing the very content students need to succeed on reading exams.

With ESSA, states now have the flexibility to . To improve reading comprehension and critical thinking, they should incentivize districts and schools to patiently invest in building students’ knowledge.

For the last several decades, as far back as the , researchers have been teachers’ impact on their students’ standardized test scores, and have found substantial variation among teachers. The students of some teachers consistently made more growth on tests than the students of other teachers did. They also generally found that teachers’ ability to raise test scores was only modestly correlated with concrete characteristics, such as experience and . This helped galvanize a focus among school reformers on improving teacher quality — often to as the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement — as well as the belief that long-standing certification and personnel practices were falling short. In 2009, the reform-minded nonprofit TNTP (then known as the New Teacher Project) released an influential called the “Widget Effect,” which studied a dozen school districts in four states. It found that “on paper, almost every teacher is a great teacher.” In other words, districts’ evaluation systems did not differentiate between good and bad teaching, resulting in limited help for struggling teachers or recognition for high-performers. The report recommended that districts “adopt a comprehensive performance evaluation system” that would rate teachers “based on their effectiveness in promoting student achievement.“ The report, along with other evidence, made an impression on the Obama administration, which used its newly created Race to the Top initiative to reward money to states that created teacher and principal evaluation systems that included “student growth,” i.e. test scores. The administration has also used waivers from the tough requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind law to spur similar policies — one state, Washington, its waiver because it refused to use test scores in teacher evaluation.

2. Has the move to evaluate teachers based on test scores created a backlash?

Yes, indeed. The move to judge teachers by student growth has helped lead to a proliferation of new tests partially because of the desire to evaluate teachers in grades and subjects that have traditionally lacked standardized tests, such as social studies and grades K–2. Frustration about overtesting spurred an opt-out movement across the country, most prominently in New York, where roughly one in five students to sit for the most recent state test. Teachers unions have also pushed back forcefully against testing. The Obama administration has to reduce testing, but says that student growth should remain a part of teacher evaluation systems. It is unclear, however, whether such plans will actually lead to fewer tests.

3. Are all teachers now evaluated on test scores?

Not all, but most. A 2013 by the National Council for Teacher Quality found that 41 states now require student test scores to be a part of teachers’ evaluations — up from just 15 states in 2009.

4. What are value-added measures or VAM?

Value-added measures (VAM) are among the most common ways to evaluate teachers using test scores. They are that attempt to isolate a given teacher’s impact on (or ‘added value’ to) student learning. The models work by comparing a student’s estimated score on a standardized test to the student’s actual score — the difference between the two is the teacher’s VAM. The estimated score is  past student test scores and sometimes other factors such as poverty and disability status. A teacher’s overall VAM score is computed by averaging together the value-added to each of his or her individual students. Not all teachers receive VAM scores, since it is only computed for those who teach a grade and subject that ends in a standardized test. In New York, for instance, about one in five teachers  a growth rating from the state.   

5. Are teachers who don’t receive VAM scores still evaluated based on tests?

In many cases, yes. There are for such teachers:

• Group measures of performance, in which teachers are evaluated based on test scores of students or subjects they don’t teach. A common example is teachers being judged on the entire school’s math or English score even if they teach, say, art. This occurred in , , , and and generated significant controversy.
• Student learning objectives (SLOs), in which teachers set goals for student performance on a test, either one they create themselves or a standardized one. The goals are approved by their supervisor, who then assesses the teacher based on how well the students meet those goals. One of schools in Austin, Texas found no correlation between a teacher’s SLO score and his or her VAM score; while another in Denver, Colorado found a moderate correlation. These results may be because SLOs and VAMs are assessing different aspects of teacher quality, but they might also call into question whether SLOs are valid measures of teacher performance.

6. Are there different types of growth models?

There are.

VAMs are among the most common. Another common model is known as , which, like VAM, measures student test score growth, but with a different mathematical technique. These models rank students with similar prior achievement based on how much growth they make. Such models, unlike VAM, often do not include controls for student characteristics like poverty, and so may unfairly disadvantage teachers of at-risk students.

Different VAMs also and demographic factors to create students’ estimated scores. In general, models that account for more student characteristics do a of ensuring a level playing field for teachers of academically challenged students.

Some models compare teachers only to other teachers in the same school, though most compare teachers across a given state. Generally, different models produce at least results.

7. What are some potential uses of VAM?

The most controversial question is whether to use VAM for individual teacher evaluation. It can be — and often is — used for other purposes as well. For example, it has long been used for research in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a given program or look for teacher characteristics that are associated with student achievement. Some advocate that VAM also be used for evaluation of principals, schools, and .

8. What are some of the arguments for and against using VAM in teacher evaluation?

Significant debate exists as to whether (and to what extent) VAM should be used in individual teachers’ evaluations. that it directly measures teachers’ effects on student achievement, is free of some of the bias that is part of other measures of teacher performance — like principal observations — is connected to long-run student outcomes, and is particularly effective in identifying high- and low-performing teachers. that scores fluctuate significantly from year to year, that test scores provide a narrow sense of teacher quality, and that attaching stakes to tests will lead to teaching to the test and even cheating.

9. Is VAM a valid measure of teacher performance?

This is a controversial and complex question, and the research to date has not reached a clear conclusion. The answer also depends on subjective views on which student outcomes are important and how they should be measured. Even among those who support VAM in teacher evaluation, there is a disagreement on how heavily it should be weighted. There is that teachers who have high VAM scores produce lasting gains for their students in terms of college enrollment and adult earnings (though these results have been ). On the other hand, it is clear that teachers’ influence extends well beyond test scores. have shown that teachers can affect students’ non-cognitive skills and behaviors (such as attendance, discipline, etc.) and that teachers who do well in this aspect are not necessarily the same ones who raise test scores the most. VAM also tends to be but not highly with other measures of teacher quality, though some have found no correlation. Together, this research suggests that although VAM does not capture all aspects of quality teaching, it is capturing at least some meaningful information. There are also concerns about whether VAM can accurately measure teachers who work with students who are particularly high- or low-performing, though some suggests this is rarely a major problem. whether or not how students are assigned into classrooms can bias VAM scores. It is also probably fair to assume that validity varies from test to test — a low-quality exam is unlikely to be a particularly strong measure of teacher performance or student knowledge.

*Note that ‘validity’ here is used in the statistical sense, meaning a measure’s success in measuring what it purports to measure, meaning in this case teacher effectiveness.

10. Is VAM reliable?

VAM scores can and do fluctuate from year to year and much of this fluctuation is the result of imprecise measurement (also known as “error”). For example, one found that 57 percent of teachers who were in the bottom fifth of performance in one year, had moved to another level in the subsequent year — and 8 percent of the bottom-level teachers were in the top performance category in the following year. In general the from year-to- year ranges between .2 (weakly) and .7 (fairly high).¹

The reliability for math teachers than for English teachers. Some (but not all) of this instability by averaging multiple years of data.  The year-to-career correlation of a given teacher’s VAM is — ranging from .55 (medium) to .78 (high) in one study — than the year-to-year correlation. Finally, it’s crucial to note that all performance measures have some degree of instability. There is less evidence about the reliability of these alternative measures, but what exists generally suggests principal observations are somewhat more than VAM — though stability/reliability does not imply validity. In other words, a measure could be consistent over time — like a teacher’s height — but not a very valid one to judge how well that teacher teaches.

*Note that ‘reliability’ here is used in the statistical sense, meaning a measure’s consistency.

* In statistical terms a correlation coefficient ranges between -1 and 1. A correlation of 0 means there is no association whatsoever; 1 means a perfect correlation; and -1 means a perfectly negative correlation.

11. Does using tests for high-stakes decisions in teacher evaluation lead to negative unintended consequences? Will it lead to positive consequences?

We don’t know for sure yet, though there’s certainly a possibility that it will, and there is some evidence suggesting both positive and negative outcomes.

There is research showing that holding schools accountable for student test scores has led to and . At the same time, there is evidence that test-based accountability for schools has in many circumstances increased student achievement both on high-stakes tests — like the yearly standardized tests — and on low-stakes exams, like the National Assessment of Educational Progress test given every two years.

However, the gains on the low-stakes tests are not as dramatic as those on the high-stakes exams, which gets back to whether teachers are teaching to the high-stakes tests or cheating on them. Schools can adopt policies that cheating and there may be ways of designing tests to make teaching to them .

12. Didn’t the American Statistical Association (ASA) say that VAM should not be used?

Not quite, even though some news outlets have reported it that way. The ASA, the country’s largest organization of statisticians, does urge significant caution in how VAM is used. The ASA put out a summarizing research on VAM, but does not say at any point that VAM should not be used. In fact the statement says, “When used appropriately, VAMs may provide quantitative information that is relevant for improving education processes.” The statement warns, “Estimates from VAMs should always be accompanied by measures of precision and a discussion of the assumptions and possible limitations of the model. These limitations are particularly relevant if VAMs are used for high-stakes purposes.” The statement adds, “Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.” Some researchers in the field have parts of ASA’s statement, suggesting the group left out recent research that addressed many of its own concerns about VAM.

13. Has the use of VAM led to improved results for students?

It’s too early to tell.

There have been relatively few studies on how the use of VAM in districts and schools affects students. The few pieces of research that do exist offer both reasons for caution and optimism.

• A found that providing districts with value-added data did not lead to improved student outcomes (relative to similar districts that did not have access to such data).
• A that offered teachers with high VAM scores a $20,000 bonus for transferring to a high-poverty school produced significant student achievement gains in elementary grades but no effect in middle school.
• A of New York City’s tenure system — which was made more rigorous, partly by using VAM scores — found that the reforms likely led to improvements in teacher quality.
• A in which a group of New York City principals were given VAM scores produced small improvements in student achievement (relative to students of principals who were not given such data).

14. What do teachers unions say about using test scores in teacher evaluations?

Teachers unions have generally been skeptical about the use of test scores in teacher evaluation, and such skepticism has increased in recent years. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), originally expressed openness to the use of test scores in teacher evaluation, in 2010 that student progress should be used alongside other measures; Weingarten also a Colorado law that required half of teachers’ evaluations to be based on student assessments. However, in 2014 Weingarten strongly against VAM, saying its use had led to an overemphasis on testing as well as high-profile . The National Education Association (NEA) has followed a similar path. In 2011, the union passed a signaling openness to using test scores in teacher evaluation in theory. But union leaders at the time that no tests were high-quality enough to be used for that purpose in practice. The NEA backed further away from the practice in 2014, that “standardized tests, even if deemed valid and reliable, may not be used to support any employment action against a teacher.” NEA president Lily Eskelsen Garcia has been a sharp critic of standardized testing, to VAM as “voodoo.”

15. Where can I find additional information about VAM?

• Carnegie Knowledge Network on Value-Added Measures in Education: 
• Economic Policy Institute, “Problems with use of student test scores to evaluate teachers”: 
• Brookings, “Evaluating Teachers: The Important Role of Value-Added”: 
• Brookings, “New Evidence Requires New Thinking”: 
• American Statistical Association (ASA) Statement on VAM: 
• Response to ASA Statement: 
• Shanker Institute, “Value-Added Versus Observations”:  and 
• Shanker Institute, “About Value-Added and ‘Junk Science’”: 
• American Enterprise Institute, “Teacher Quality 2.0”:
• Doug Harris, Value-Added Measures in Education: 

An abbreviation for “last-in, first-out,” LIFO refers in education jargon to a policy of layoffs in which teachers are dismissed based primarily, though usually not exclusively¹, on years of experience. This means that teachers with the least seniority in the district are dismissed, in a slash-from-the-bottom technique, often until a budget target is met. Payroll is a district’s biggest expense. Such layoffs are distinct from individual teacher dismissals because they are not driven by poor teacher performance but by spending cuts. The practice is also referred to as “seniority-based layoffs,” “last-hired, first-fired,” “first in, last out” and “quality-blind layoffs.” Still more jargon: layoffs themselves are also sometimes called “reductions in force” or RIFs.

*For example, some states protect teachers in certain shortage subject areas – such as math, science, and special education – regardless of experience level.

2. How many states and districts use LIFO to make layoff decisions?

Ten states, including California and New York, that layoffs be determined based partially or primarily on seniority.

Most allow districts to create their own layoff criteria though several states go so far as to prohibit seniority from being the main factor in layoff decisions. There is no precise count on what proportion of districts nationally use LIFO, though it is clear that many do. For example, the National Council for Teacher Quality in 2011 that 75 out of the 100 large school districts studied used seniority as the primary determinant for layoffs. In Minnesota, where districts can negotiate with local teachers unions to include performance in layoff decisions, an found that few if any districts have done so.

3. What are the main arguments for and against LIFO?

• often refer to LIFO as “quality-blind layoffs” to make the point that such a policy is indifferent to teacher effectiveness, leading to a loss of good teachers, which could harm students. Many argue that such policies disproportionately harm high-poverty schools, which are often staffed by the youngest teachers. Some also point out that LIFO will increase the number of layoffs necessary during any reduction in force, because to hit the budget target, more lower-salaried staffers must be fired. Finally, opponents claim that LIFO will deter potential teachers from entering the profession because they risk being dismissed regardless of their job performance.
• of LIFO often acknowledge that it is not a perfect system but claim it is better than alternatives. Many that teacher experience is a significant predictor of effectiveness so using it when decided layoffs makes sense. Others argue that teacher evaluation systems that use student test scores for high-stakes decisions. Still others suggest that LIFO will encourage stability and collaboration within schools, while guarding against favoritism. Supporters often claim that experienced teachers need to be protected since they have the highest salaries, and might be fired solely to cut costs. Finally, some simply argue against layoffs altogether, saying funding should ensure that layoffs rarely if ever occur, making the LIFO controversy moot.

4. Research: How does LIFO affect student outcomes?

Research is somewhat limited on this front, but what exists suggests that LIFO is worse for student achievement than performance-based layoffs.

A study published in 2015 was one of the first of its kind to look at actual — not just simulated — layoffs. It focused on Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools in North Carolina, which conducted layoffs based on a variety of factors including both seniority and how teachers scored on evaluations by their principals. In subsequent years, the study found, student achievement in math was lower in cases when layoffs were made using factors other than teacher performance, such as seniority.

Then the researcher ran simulations, and concluded that combining two performance factors — principal evaluation and teachers’ value-added scores¹ (an estimate of a teacher’s impact on growth in student test scores)² — would be preferable to using either measure by itself or simply using seniority. Several simulations have also been done contrasting LIFO to other layoff approaches  in other school districts. A of layoffs in New York City found that dismissing teachers based on value-added scores, as opposed to seniority, was better for student achievement the following year. Another simulation-based of Washington state found similar results.  Critics that is pretty much what would be expected from a simulated round of layoffs that relied on test scores in the first place.³

*1. In the actual layoff decisions, value-added was not considered.

2. It is important to note that value-added student achievement results are only available for about 20–25% of teachers, and this simulation does not address layoffs for the majority of educators.

3. Specifically, the argument is that of course laying off teachers using test scores will by definition result in higher test scores in subsequent years according to simple simulations. After all, if a district is dismissing teachers based on student test scores one would expect test scores to subsequently improve as a result based on crude data simulations.

5. Is LIFO particularly harmful to certain groups of students?

It depends. Research from Washington state that black students were significantly more likely to attend a school at which a teacher had been laid off based on LIFO. Data from California that schools with many students of color faced more layoffs under its seniority-based layoff system. And national data that less-experienced teachers are more likely to work in high-poverty schools, suggesting that LIFO may disproportionately affect students in poverty. However, this may not be the case in all districts, and the policy’s effects will vary based on how it is implemented. of layoffs in New York City found no evidence of disproportionate effects of the policy on different student populations, meaning middle-class students were just as likely to lose their teachers as students from poorer backgrounds.

6. Does LIFO increase the number of teacher layoffs?

Almost inevitably, yes, because the least experienced teachers are almost always paid the least. This means that districts attempting to reduce expenses through seniority-based layoffs will have to dismiss more teachers in order to hit budgetary reduction targets. Multiple confirm this. For example, one simulates layoffs in New York City. Reducing salary expenses by 5 percent would have required laying off 7 percent of teachers if seniority was used as the criterion, but just 5 percent of teachers if test-based measures of effectiveness were used instead.¹

1. Note that these simulations looked specifically at fourth- and fifth-grade teachers in New York City

7. What’s up with the lawsuits against LIFO?

There are currently lawsuits under way in both California and New York that challenge the constitutionality of each state’s LIFO statute.

(Disclosure: Campbell Brown, The Seventy Four’s co-founder and editor-in-chief, founded the group the Partnership for Educational Justice, that is backing the LIFO lawsuit in New York. She was not involved in the editing of these cards.)

The suit in California, known as and supported by the nonprofit Students Matter, has been by a lower court judge but is currently on . The judge that LIFO — as well as the state’s teacher tenure and due process laws — violated students’ constitutional right to “equal opportunity to achieve a quality education.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit — nine public school students and their families — argue that the state’s LIFO law districts “to fire some of their best, most beloved, most effective teachers, based almost exclusively on those teachers’ lack of seniority.” The state teachers unions helped lead the charge against the lawsuit, that the LIFO policy ensures “objective, fair, and transparent procedures in the event of economic layoffs.”

The lawsuit in New York, known as , similarly that LIFO (as well as New York’s tenure and due process laws) violates the state constitution’s guarantee of a “sound, basic education” by “ensuring that effective teachers are taken out of the classroom while less effective ones remain.” New York and teachers unions have argued against the lawsuit. A lower court judge an initial motion to dismiss the lawsuit and as of September 2015, the case is facing a new motion to dismiss based on to the state’s tenure and due process laws, which the defendants argue make the lawsuit obsolete.

8. Do teachers unions support LIFO?

Teachers unions generally back LIFO. In New York City, the United Federation of Teachers (and ) opposed attempts to change state law to replace LIFO. In Minnesota, the state teachers union has efforts to revise the state’s dismissal law to require that effectiveness be considered in layoffs. In California, the state teachers union a lawsuit that challenged the state’s seniority-based layoff policy as well as a state law that would alter the practice.

9. Does the public support LIFO?

There have been few if any national polls of the public’s support for LIFO.¹ Polls from individual states generally indicate that most citizens believe that layoffs, when necessary, should be made based on measured performance as opposed to seniority.

A of California voters found the vast majority of them backed alternatives to LIFO. Fifty-three percent said that layoffs should first be made based on classroom observations; 26 percent said based on students’ progress on standardized tests. Just 8 percent backed using experience as the primary determinant for teacher layoffs.² A Minnesota found that about two-thirds of those surveyed said that layoffs should be determined based on performance (as measured by the state’s evaluation system), while 18 percent supported using seniority.  A 2012 of New York City residents found that 84 percent favored layoffs based on performance rather than seniority. Ten percent preferred seniority.

*1. A 2011 national from Phi Delta Kappa and Gallup reports that “Americans believe that school districts should use multiple factors to determine which teachers should be laid off first, but, of the options presented, Americans believe the principal’s evaluation of a teacher’s performance should be given the most weight.” However, there is not evidently raw polling data publicly available to further examine or confirm these results.

2. The poll, conducted by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Times, was sharply by the state teachers union.

10. What does research say about teacher experience?

One of the primary arguments for the use of LIFO is the notion that more experienced teachers are more effective than novice teachers. This is certainly true on average: evidence that teachers with more experience produce higher test score gains than teachers with less.

For a long while, the prevailing view among researchers has been that teachers stop improving somewhere between three and five years on the job. A handful of have challenged that conventional wisdom, however, finding that although teachers make their largest improvements in their first couple years, they continue to get better throughout their career.

Another found that how much teachers improve over time may depend on the quality of the professional environment at their schools.

There is significant variation between studies and with some finding limited returns to experience and others finding large returns. All that said, most research finds that teachers improve the most at the beginning of their career — the key point of controversy is whether and when teachers stop improving with more experience.

Most of this research is based on how teachers affect student test scores. A few studies have looked at teachers’ effects on non-test based outcomes. For example, one examined teachers’ influence on student attendance and found fairly large benefits to more experience. However, another examined teachers’ impact on an array of non-cognitive outcomes — such as absences, suspensions, grades and high-school graduation — and found no improvements with experience.

Teacher effects may also differ from high-stakes assessments (tests whose outcome carries serious consequences) versus low-stakes ones. One piece of found that teacher experience had a bigger impact on how well students scored on low-stakes tests, suggesting that high-stakes exams may not fully capture the benefits of experience. Finally, it is important to note that although it is clear that experience matters, all studies find that there is much greater variation within experience levels than between experience levels. In other words, many novice teachers are likely above average and many veterans are mediocre.

11. What questions remain unanswered about LIFO?

The longer-term effects of LIFO are generally unknown and haven’t been empirically tested. Supporters of the practice argue that it increases stability in school by preserving the jobs of teachers who will remain in the classroom (since younger teachers are more likely to leave the profession). They might also suggest that using performance measures to make firing decisions would pit teachers against each other and reduce collaboration.

Opponents argue that LIFO deters prospective educators from entering the profession, as they would do so at high risk of being dismissed, regardless of their performance. Moreover, according to skeptics, LIFO contributes to school cultures that do not value, reward, or incentivize performance. Again, none of these hypotheses has been confirmed.

The Common Core is a set of K–12 academic in math and English language arts that set out what students should know and be able to do. The English standards include reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language. The standards can be understood as academic goals for students to aspire to at each grade level. Here are a handful of example standards:

• : “Capitalize dates and names of people.”
• : “Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text, identifying which reasons and evidence support which point(s).”
• : “Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience. “
• : “Solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within 10, e.g., by using objects or drawings to represent the problem.”
• : “Generate measurement data by measuring lengths using rulers marked with halves and fourths of an inch. Show the data by making a line plot, where the horizontal scale is marked off in appropriate units— whole numbers, halves, or quarters.”
• : “Evaluate and compare strategies on the basis of expected values. For example, compare a high-deductible versus a low-deductible automobile insurance policy using various, but reasonable, chances of having a minor or a major accident.”

2. Why was the Common Core created?

Supporters that the purpose is to replace the states’ patchwork of 50 different standards with one common, high-quality set of standards. The Common Core standards, in supporters’ view, are better than previous state standards and will lead to improved learning across the board, particularly by replacing the weak standards of some states. According to proponents, common standards also ensure no states “” their expectations for students, a phenomenon in the wake of No Child Left Behind, which sanctioned schools that didn’t meet certain academic benchmarks. Finally, many advocates benefits of common standards for students who move frequently, such as those from military families.

3. What was the genesis of the Common Core?

The standards and accountability movement, which the Common Core is a part of, . In 1983, President Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of accountability with the publication of his administration’s scathing critique of the state of public education, “A Nation at Risk.” In 1994, student achievement standards were front and center when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. At the first National Education Summit, in 1996, the nation’s business leaders and governors pledged to work together to raise standards and achievement in public schools. They founded a nonprofit called Achieve and gave it a mission to work with states to raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability. By the 2001 Summit they were focused on helping states expand testing to provide better data and stronger incentives for higher student achievement. In 2002, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as No Child Left Behind  mandated that states, school districts, and schools ensure all students be proficient in grade-level math and reading by 2014. The American Diploma Project, a working group composed of Achieve, the Fordham Institute, the National Alliance of Business and the Education Trust, “” in 2004. They said their benchmarks in English and mathematics “should serve as the anchor for every state’s system of high school assessments and graduation requirements.” In December 2008, a by the National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers and Achieve recommended that states adopt a common set of standards in math and English for grades K–12. In 2009, the federal Race to the Top competitive , funded as part of a recession-recovery initiative, rewarded states that, among other things, adopted common standards.

4. How was the Common Core created?

The standards were through a partnership between three organizations: The National Governors’ Association, the Council of Chief State Schools Officers and the nonprofit Achieve, which collectively produced a in 2008 with the top recommendation being the establishment of “a common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K–12.” From there, the Common Core Standards Initiative was with the support of governors from 48 states (all but Texas and Alaska). It brought together teams of who drafted the initial standards beginning with the creation of “college and career ready” standards, which spell out what high school graduates should know and be able to do. These were for in late 2009 at around the same time were formed to ensure the quality of the standards. The individual grade level K–12 standards for in March 2010. The two major teachers’ unions were also and provided teachers for the development and review process. The final standards — officially called The Common Core State Academic Standards — were in June 2010. The federal government played no role in creating the standards.

5. Who actually wrote the Common Core?

of the members of the K–12 standards development teams. They included a combination of university professors, staff from state departments of education, staff from education nonprofits, and K–12 educators, including a couple in the leadership of state and local teachers’ unions.

6. What is the difference between the Common Core and states’ previous standards?

It’s difficult to generalize because prior to the Common Core all 50 states had different standards, but according to supporters of the Common Core there are several key shifts in both math and English that apply to most states.

• An emphasis on complex texts and academic vocabulary as opposed to “focusing solely on the skills of reading and writing”
• A focus on textual evidence when discussing and writing about texts as opposed to having students rely on “prior knowledge and experience”
• Attention to building students’ background knowledge through content-rich texts including an increased focus on nonfiction reading.

• A “greater focus on fewer topics”
• An explicit linking of mathematical topics across grades
• A shared emphasis on conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and real-world application

7. Are the Common Core standards better than states’ previous standards?

Supporters of the Common Core claim that the standards are academically stronger than past standards. The quality of standards is difficult to measure because the definition of quality is not widely agreed on — but many have still tried. A from The Fordham Institute, a right-of-center education think tank, evaluated the Common Core and all 50 states’ standards based on their content, rigor, clarity, and specificity. The Common Core got high marks, and were judged as better than or about as good as all 50 states’ math standards and 47 states’ English standards. However, Indiana, California, and Washington, D.C.’s English standards were labeled as clearly superior to the Common Core.  (The Fordham report has been because it was funded in part by the Gates Foundation, which also the Common Core’s development.) There is some that states that had math standards similar to the Common Core had higher test scores, and there is also that the Common Core requires higher levels of critical thinking and problem solving than previous standards.

8. Some say that the Common Core are a set of standards not a curriculum. What’s the difference?

Standards and curriculum are often confused, leading many people to believe that the Common Core is curriculum, when it’s actually a set of standards. Standards for what students should know and be able to do; curriculum encompassess the materials and methods that teachers, schools, and districts use to reach those expectations. For example, the Common Core that kindergarten students should be able to solve addition and subtraction word problems with 10. The curriculum for how to teach students this — including choice of textbooks, worksheets, teaching practices and principles, etc — is not mandated by the Common Core and remains a local decision. No doubt, however, standards influence curriculum.

9. Why is the Common Core so controversial?

A lot of reasons. Here’s a non-exhaustive list in no particular order. First, there’s the weirdness of some of the new Common Core–aligned material. The seemingly odd approach to basic math has garnered a lot of attention. For example, one viral Common Core problem featured a frustrated parent the value of a complicated approach to a simple subtraction problem. (Though there is in fact a for the new Common Core methods.)

  Second, there is the conservative and libertarian backlash to the federal government’s involvement in incentivizing states to use the Common Core, with the argument being that such an approach is a violation of local control and a threat to school choice. Third, there are concerns — often from the left and from teachers — about how the Common Core is related to testing and accountability. Indeed, part of the purpose of the Common Core was to better align assessments and accountability systems across states. Common Core skeptics  see this as part and parcel of the negative consequences that come, in their view,  from standardized testing. Fourth, and somewhat relatedly, are those who question the process by which the standards were developed. For example, blogger and former teacher Anthony Cody has that the Common Core was developed “undemocratically,” partially because the development process was by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Similarly, education historian Diane Ravitch — a longtime supporter of voluntary national standards — she would not support the Common Core because the standards were  “fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.” Fifth, there are that a focus on standards is misplaced and that there is no evidence that improving standards will lead to improved student achievement, and that the focus on the Common Core is likely a waste of time and resources. (See a response to these concerns .) Sixth, there are the conspiracies and misinformation about the Common Core (sometimes known as ‘Corespiracies’). The Common Core has to promote Communism, homosexuality, Islamism, and an “extreme leftist ideology.” Republican Senator Rand Paul has that the standards promote “anti-American propaganda, revisionist history that ignores the faith of our Founders, and data-tracking of students from kindergarten on.” A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee by misinformation, including claims that the standards have a focus on sex education and evolution. There is no evidence that any of this is true, as the Common Core doesn’t even include history or science standards.

10. How many states have adopted the Common Core?

As of August 2015, 42 states and the District of Columbia have the Common Core. (Minnesota has adopted the English portion of the Common Core but not the math standards.) , , and originally adopted the standards but later withdrew amid political controversy — though and revised standards are quite similar to the Common Core. The standards to face threats in other states.

11. Why did states adopt the Common Core?

This is a matter of controversy. States were incentivized to adopt the standards through the Obama administration’s Race to the Top initiative, a 2009 that allowed states to compete for federal funds by adopting certain policies favored by the administration. One of those was the development and adoption of “common standards” — which essentially meant the Common Core. It’s unclear how many states would have adopted the Common Core without the federal incentives, though the fact that 48 states were the Common Core Standards Initiatives suggests that many would have. The federal government has also waivers from No Child Left Behind  NCLB) to states that adopt college and career ready standards. The Common Core satisfies this waiver requirement, but other standards do as well. Several states that have not adopted the Common Core an NCLB waiver.

12. Can the federal government force states to adopt the Common Core?

No — as evidenced by the fact that several states that have not adopted, or have pulled out of, the Common Core. The federal government has provided states incentives to adopt the Common Core.

13. Does the public support the Common Core?

Parents are generally divided on the Common Core, with a September 2014 finding that about one third viewed the standards negatively, one third viewed them positively, and one third were undecided. The same poll found that about two thirds of parents supported the idea of “one set of educational standards across the country.” Surveys of the public at large have found mixed results. A 2014 found that 53 percent of the public supported the Common Core, with 26 percent opposed, and 21 percent undecided; the percent supportive had dropped from 65 percent in 2013. Democrats were much more supportive of the standards than Republicans. Still a narrow plurality of Republicans were in favor of the standards. But a February 2015 found that the standards were quite unpopular with just 17 percent of Americans supporting the Common Core. Notably, the public has many misperceptions about the Common Core. The same that found limited support for the standards, reported that many people incorrectly believed that the Common Core covered sex education, global warming, and evolution.

14. Do teachers unions support the Common Core?

Officially, yes. The two largest teachers unions, the (NEA) and the (AFT) both support the Common Core. However, both unions have also been of how the standards were implemented, particularly over how some states used scores from new Common Core–aligned tests for teacher and school accountability. Local teachers unions have not always supported the standards. For example, the New York State United Teachers support for the Common Core “as implemented” and the Chicago Teachers Union has taken an even more against the standards. At the 2014 AFT convention, a broke out about the standards with some members arguing that the union should disavow support altogether. Ultimately, the AFT reiterated its backing of the Common Core, emphasizing the need for more teacher input in the standards’ implementation.

15. Do politicians support the Common Core?

Officially, yes. The two largest teachers unions, the (NEA) and the (AFT) both support the Common Core. However, both unions have also been of how the standards were implemented, particularly over how some states used scores from new Common Core–aligned tests for teacher and school accountability. Local teachers unions have not always supported the standards. For example, the New York State United Teachers support for the Common Core “as implemented” and the Chicago Teachers Union has taken an even more against the standards.

16. What are the Common Core tests?

There is actually no such thing as the Common Core tests, as in one set of tests. There are many different assessments that purport to measure the skills in the Common Core. When people say “the Common Core tests” they’re usually referring to a math or English test that is aligned to the Common Core standards. There are two sets of Common Core–aligned tests used by multiple states, the (PARCC) and the (SBAC), which were in part by the federal government. The purpose of having multiple states use the same assessment was to ensure test quality, decrease the per-pupil cost of the exams, and allow comparability across states. , 10 states used PARCC and 18 used SBAC — though Ohio has since PARCC and Maine and Missouri have SBAC. There is no requirement that states use tests from either. States that don’t but have adopted the Common Core — such as New York — have created their own Common Core–aligned tests. These assessments are controversial in many states, not just because of their relation to the standards. Some of the negative reaction has centered around Pearson, a for-profit company that creates and grades standardized tests in many states. Opponents of Pearson the quality and transparency of their assessments.

17. Has the Common Core led to more testing?

Probably not. The Common Core is a set of academic standards — that’s it. The standards are related to the move to hold teachers and schools accountable for student performance, and the standards undoubtedly led to changes in states tests. But there’s no evidence that the Common Core lead to more testing. The biggest driver of increased standardized testing may have been the federal government’s push for states to evaluate all teachers based on student test scores. This means that much of the growth in testing were in subjects other than math and English.

18. How much will the Common Core cost?

Estimates vary, and the cost will also vary from state to state. A by the Fordham Institute, which supports the Common Core, estimated that the transition to the new standards would entail one-time transitional costs of between $3 and $12 billion nationally (or between 1.5 and 3 percent of total local, state, and federal education spending). The amount would include the costs of textbooks, assessments, and professional development, and would depend on whether districts used “traditional” approaches or bare-bones models such as free, online curriculum and virtual professional development programs. In contrast, an from the Pioneer Institute — a conservative, Boston-based think tank, which opposes the Common Core — put the price tag at more than $16 billion over seven years.

19. How’s the implementation of the Common Core going?

Most people, including supporters of the standards, seem to agree that implementation of the Common Core has been rocky both from a political and educational perspective. Some majors challenges:

• There has been unexpected grassroots pushback by parents, particularly in red states, leading many Republicans to disavow support.
• A handful of states have dropped the standards altogether, and even more have left the Common Core testing consortia.
• Teachers’ unions have wavered in their support of the standards.
• Support for the Common Core from rank-and-file teachers has plummeted.
• A cottage industry of conspiracies and misinformation regarding the standards has flourished.
• Parents across the country have of Common Core–aligned tests, due in some cases to opposition to the standards.
• Classroom materials to teach the Common Core, including textbooks, has been of at best.

Still supporters have some reason for optimism:

• Most states in the country are still using Common Core.
• Some polls find that much of the public continues to support the Common Core — or at the very least is not opposed to the standards.
• suggests a small positive correlation between student achievement gains and whether states have aggressively implemented the Common Core. Another found that Kentucky’s early  implementation of the standards may have produced student achievement gains.

The biggest questions can’t be answered yet: Will the political controversy die down or continue to grow? Will there be further evidence that the Common Core improved (or harmed) student outcomes? On these, we’ll have to wait and see.

Bullying is as aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. It’s always unwanted, sometimes public, usually repeated. And both the kids who are bullied and those who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.

In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:

• An imbalance of power: Bullying happens between peers. But social scientists observe that kids who bully use some kind of power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, popularity or willingness to be mean—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
• Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose. It’s old data, but then it’s an age-old problem: In 2007 aged 12-18 reported being bullied at school. Bullying is bullying, no matter where it occurs. It’s most common in places where there is little or no adult supervision. In fact, middle-school students, particularly sixth-graders,

2. What is cyberbullying?

Bullying online offers opportunities for the bullies — it can be anonymous and it’s very public — and hassles for the victims and those who would protect them, such as educators who struggle with authority outside of school. Even worse, new research suggests that technology increases the emotional harms associated with bullying. A study by the University of New Hampshire found its subjects who were felt much more embarrassed and unsafe.

3. What are examples of bullying?

Stopbullying.gov lists : Verbal bullying is saying or writing mean things. Verbal bullying includes:

• Teasing
• Name-calling
• Inappropriate sexual comments
• Taunting
• Threatening to cause harm

Social bullying — sometimes referred to as relational bullying — involves hurting someone’s reputation or relationships. Social bullying includes:

• Leaving someone out on purpose
• Telling other children not to be friends with someone
• Spreading rumors about someone
• Embarrassing someone in public

Physical bullying involves hurting a person’s body or possessions. Physical bullying includes:

• Hitting/kicking/pinching
• Spitting
• Tripping/pushing
• Taking or breaking someone’s things
• Making mean or rude hand gestures

4. Is bullying only a children’s issue?

It may not be called bullying, but harassment, hazing, intimidation or other manifestations of interpersonal harm occurs in campuses too. In high school, it’s more likely to be done in packs, and more likely to last longer than the one-on-one prevalent in elementary school. And, while there’s more bullying overall in the middle grades,

5. What are the warning signs of bullying?

These signs, says , could signal that your child is being bullied or is bullying another child:

• Unexplainable injuries
• Lost or destroyed clothing, books, electronics, or jewelry
• Frequent headaches or stomach aches, feeling sick or faking illness
• Changes in eating habits, like suddenly skipping meals or binge eating. Kids may come home from school hungry because they did not eat lunch.
• Difficulty sleeping or frequent nightmares
• Declining grades, loss of interest in schoolwork, or not wanting to go to school
• Sudden loss of friends or avoidance of social situations
• Feelings of helplessness or decreased self esteem
• Self-destructive behaviors such as running away from home, harming themselves, or talking about suicide

Signs a Child is Bullying Others:

• Gets into physical or verbal fights
• Has friends who bully others
• Is increasingly aggressive
• Gets sent to the principal’s office or to detention frequently
• Has unexplained extra money or new belongings
• Blames others for their problems
• Doesn’t accept responsibility for their actions
• Is competitive and worries about their reputation or popularity

6. What’s the connection between bullying and suicide?

Panic is not too strong a word to describe public concern about bullying and suicide, say the . Suicide is the third-leading cause of death among America’s adolescents. And there is a link. But it’s not that simple. Both kids who report frequently bullying others and youth who report being frequently bullied are at increased risk for suicide-related behavior. The risk is even higher for kids who bully others and are bullied themselves. Being involved in bullying in any way is one of several risk factors for suicide-related behavior But what we don’t know, says the CDC, is if bullying directly causes suicide.

There’s a difference between circumstances being related to an event and being direct causes or effects. What is known is that both are complex public health problems, and that most students have a combination of risk and protective factors for either. Those factors include presence or absence of family conflict, connectedness at school, use of alcohol or drugs, exposure to violence, relationship problems, disabilities, learning problems, and access to resources and support. What’s important is to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors, which are proven to fight both bullying and suicide-related behaviors. The CDC faults the media for playing the blame game. Framing the issue as “bullying is a direct cause of suicide” creates the false impression that suicide is a natural response; encourages copycat behavior; focuses the response on punishment rather than prevention and treatment; and takes attention from the other important risk factors.

7. How can students prevent bullying?

Nearly 60% of , giving students an important role in bullying prevention. However, many students are unsure how to take the first step. If you’re a parent or supportive adult, have that conversation with your kid. Maybe you’ve noticed something, or you could ask what they’ve noticed. Ask how they would want someone to support them, and offer these options for them to support someone else: talking to the student being bullied, telling the victim and/or the bully that it’s not OK, inviting the victim to join in an activity. They can do what’s right and do what’s right for them, remembering that the most effective step to encourage your child to take is to show support for the student being bullied.

“The simplest action parents can tell students to take is not to join in. This sends the message that they don’t agree with what’s happening and takes attention away from the person bullying. Students can also help by telling an adult about the bullying, since the student who is being bullied might not be able to do it themselves. With this action, it is important to discuss the difference between telling and tattling. Telling is done to protect yourself or another student from getting hurt, whereas tattling is done to purposely get someone in trouble.” — 

8. How can adults teach children about bullying?

These suggestions work for parents, teachers and officials. and how to stand up to it safely. Tell kids bullying is unacceptable. Make sure kids know how to get help. Check in with kids often. Listen to them. Know their friends, ask about school, and understand their concerns. Special activities, interests, and hobbies can boost confidence, help kids make friends, and protect them from bullying behavior. Model how to treat others with kindness and respect.

9. What should I do if my child is being bullied?

If your child is being bullied, a neutral environment is the place for any discussion, or confrontation, with people at school or the parents of the bully. It is important to find out pertinent and detailed information about the bullying, including the perpetrators, when and where it happened and the extent, particularly any threats made against your child. Once you have a clear and reasonably objective understanding of what has been occurring, make an immediate appointment with the school’s principal.

If you have a copy of the school’s anti-bullying policy and you feel the bully has violated it, make sure you indicate that to the principal. When meeting with the principal, remain calm, If the harassment continues, document it and file a Notice of Harassment. You may need to move up the chain of command, contacting the superintendent of schools, board of education, or possibly even state and federal authorities. If the bullying does not stop you should file charges with the school board and law enforcement if appropriate. This is also a that could follow them into more serious offenses later on. If a clear, direct and violent threat that pertains to outside of school has been made, contact the authorities immediately.

10. What should I do if my child becomes a bully?

Sit down and . Tell them that the school or other parents have reported their aggressiveness, that you love them no matter what, that their behavior has to change and that you won’t tolerate it and will support the school’s punishment. Include a short moral lesson. Explain that bullying, whether it’s physical or verbal, causes pain to others. Let them know that name-calling, teasing, hitting, pushing, starting or spreading rumors are wrong and not acceptable behavior. Depending on the age of the child, they may not know any better.

Young children, especially, need to be told that hurting another child is not acceptable. Offer reassurance and support. Let your child know that you will help them to change the behavior and correct the situation. Ask them how they think the bullying could be stopped. What do they think has to change in order for them to change? After you have thoroughly discussed this with your child, meet with their teacher to get the teacher’s perspective. It’s hard but important to keep calm and listen without being judgmental. Let the teacher know that you are willing to work with the school to help stop your child from bullying. It’s important to tell the teacher if there are any family problems that you might be experiencing. Difficult truth: Additional counseling could be needed for your child. It could help them learn to behave differently, accept responsibility for their actions and teach them how to develop guilt, as well as learn how to form cohesive relationships.

11. How should I report bullying incidents?

Most, if not all, schools and and policies on how to report bullying. Parents and children, teachers and guidance counselors should familiarize themselves with their school and school district’s anti-bullying handbooks. If you have repeatedly reported bullying to your school’s administrators to no effect, The behavior may or may not be illegal. Anti-bullying laws vary on a state-by-state basis. Bullying, cyberbullying, and related behaviors may be covered in a single law or may be addressed in multiple laws. In some cases, bullying appears in the criminal code of a state that may apply to juveniles. Click here for information on individual states.

12. Do schools educate students on bullying?

An increasing number do — and educators have a lot of programs or curricula to choose from. Elementary schools tend to be the most active. Many evaluated programs that address bullying are designed for them and for middle schools. Fewer programs exist for high schools and non-school settings. There are many including the school’s demographics, capacity, and resources. There are or staff training though senators rewriting the No Child Left Behind law are debating appropriate federal anti-bullying policies. They are working to balance Republicans’ reluctance to impose federal regulations on states and schools with the need to protect, in particular, LGBT students.

13. How are bullies dealt with in school?

While there are is no federally mandated curricula regarding bullying, the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has issued guidance to schools that bullying is wrong and must not be tolerated. bullying allegations are determined locally or by the state. School policy on how to punish or not punish bullies is generally done on a district-by-district basis. Many schools and school districts have ‘zero tolerance’ or ‘three strikes and you’re out’ bullying policies. These others. However, according to stopbullying.gov:

• Recent surveys of elementary and middle school students show that about one in five students admit to occasionally bullying their peers. Even if policies address only physical bullying, the number of children affected by zero tolerance policies is significant.
• The threat of suspension or expulsion may discourage children and adults from reporting bullying.
• Bullying can be an early indicator of other problem behaviors. Children who regularly bully their peers are at risk of unexcused absences, fighting, theft, and vandalism. These children need positive role models, including the adults and students in their school.

Suspension and expulsion are drastic measures.

14. As an educator, what’s the most effective way I can stop bullying?

Be inclusive. Get a committee or task force together. They can help plan, implement, and evaluate your school’s bullying prevention program, including the following components:

Assess bullying in your school: Conduct assessments in your school to determine how often bullying occurs, where it happens, how students and adults intervene, and whether your prevention efforts are working.

Engage parents and kids: Launch an awareness campaign to make the objectives known to the school, parents, and community members. It is important for everyone in the community to work together to send a unified message against bullying. “Bullying doesn’t happen only at school. Community members can use their unique strengths and skills to prevent bullying wherever it occurs. For example, youth sports groups may train coaches to prevent bullying. Local businesses may make t-shirts with bullying prevention slogans for an event. After-care staff may read books about bullying to kids and discuss them. Hearing anti-bullying messages from the different adults in their lives can reinforce the message for kids that bullying is unacceptable.” â€”

Create policies and rules: Here’s where a mission statement can actually be useful. Add a code of conduct, school-wide rules, and a bullying reporting system. These establish a climate in which bullying is not acceptable. Disseminate and communicate widely.

Build a safe environment: Establish a school culture of acceptance, tolerance and respect. Use staff meetings, assemblies, class and parent meetings, newsletters to families, the school website, and the student handbook to establish a positive climate at school. Reinforce positive social interactions and inclusiveness.

Educate students and school staff: Build bullying prevention material into the curriculum and school activities. Train teachers and staff on the school’s rules and policies. Give them the skills to intervene consistently and appropriately.

Charter schools are publicly funded, but independently operated, schools. they’re open to all children and tuition-free.

Many charter advocates say they want to create choices for parents, particularly those parents who are dissatisfied with the traditional public schools in their neighborhood, by building new schools that are more innovative and flexible than their traditional counterparts. They also want to build classrooms that increase opportunity for poor kids and children of color. The key differences between charter and traditional public schools are how they’re governed and managed. Charters are afforded a greater degree of freedom by districts and states when it comes to issues of staffing, curriculum, instructional approach and finances, and to such basics as the length of the school day or year. They function under a contract, or “charter,” that governs all the details of the school’s operation — including name, organization, management, curriculum and student performance metrics. About one in five charter schools is by a non-profit charter management organizations. About one in 10 schools is run for profit.

2. Are charter schools more successful than public schools?

As measured by English and math standardized tests, most research finds that charter schools and traditional public schools perform similarly, with perhaps a slight advantage for charter schools. The most commonly cited looked at 27 states, covering over 95 percent of the students in charter schools. The report found small benefits to attending a charter school in terms of reading achievement, and no noticeable difference in math achievement — overall, the research suggests that the two sectors have average achievement gains. A 2014 examining 52 separate studies of charter school performance found that charter schools had positive impacts on both reading and math scores — though the reading difference was not statistically significant. Again the effects were relatively small.¹ There is a small amount of research on charters’ effects on non-test-based outcomes — most of it is positive. A 2014 found that charter schools in Chicago and Florida increased college attendance and adult income. A of several Boston charter schools found that they helped more of their students attend four-year colleges than traditional public schools. schools on average benefit low-income students and students in urban areas. However, they also tend to find that charters have negative effects on achievement for students who are not poor.

* For a student who started at the 50th percentile of performance, attending an average charter school for one year would raise the student’s performance to 50.6% in reading and 51.4% in math.

3. How do charter schools get their charter?

The from state to state. It usually takes into account the number of charter schools allowed — approximately half of states have — and evaluates the quality of each new school proposal. State laws dictate who has authorizing power, such as a state board, a university, or a district, and the in holding charter schools accountable for enrollment, achievement and finances. Some states have notably rigorous processes designed to winnow out weak school proposals. While the authorizers directly hold charters accountable for results, also pass laws about charter school operations and therefore — as is the case with traditional public schools — are held responsible, in theory, for their quality. When charter laws were first enacted, the main authorizers were school districts. Since then, states have moved to allow to allow for growth, foster competition and promote quality. While charter schools must have their charter reviewed by their authorizing agency after a set number of years, the length of the contract varies greatly from state to state. The five-year contracts, but in Louisiana it’s only three years. Some authorizers in Colorado have given out 30-year contracts.

4. How many students attend charter schools?

There are now about , and more than 600 new charter schools opened their doors for the 2013-14 school year. Roughly 2.5 million students were enrolled in charters for the 2013-14 school year. That’s a 288,000-student from the year prior, representing of all public school students.

5. How do charter schools get their money?

Money for charter schools largely comes from public funds. from parent groups, education foundations, and other philanthropies. States have different approaches to paying for charter schools, often as complicated by political posturing as traditional education funding. Charter schools in some states less public money than traditional schools. For example, charter schools in receive less than 100 percent of the funds traditional public schools get for school operations. That said, apples-to-apples funding comparisons between district schools and charter schools to make. In some states, charters don’t get money to support. In others, charters pay to rent buildings from the organization or company hired to operate the school. Charter schools can receive for which their students are eligible, such as Title I and special education money. Federal legislation provides grants to help charters manage start-up costs.

6. Are charter schools required to accept all kids?

Like traditional public schools, charter schools may not base admissions on academic ability and can’t discriminate against students because of their race, gender, or disability. However, in some cases, demand outstrips supply. When applications outnumber spaces available, lotteries are used to choose which students will get in. One estimate found that there are currently names on charter-school waiting lists across the country. However, some students may well be on . Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools don’t have to admit students after the school year has started. Plus they don’t have to admit students at any grade level. Charter schools often choose to admit students only in certain “entry grades” and in other grades. Some charter school advocates that all schools, including charters, should be required to backfill.
Although exist that some charter schools selectively encourage some students to leave, a practice called “counseling out,” exists to support this contention.

7. Do charters serve the same types of students as traditional public schools?

Although from state to state, in general charters more black students, the same number of students in poverty, and fewer English-language learners and special education students than nearby traditional public schools. In New York City, and are less likely to apply for admission to charter schools. The same trend appears to for lower-income and lower-achieving students in Boston – even though such students stand to benefit from attending charters. These gaps in part by some charter schools’ admission demands. Advocates note that students with disabilities are underrepresented in charters. The National Center for Learning Disabilities claims that to children with physical handicaps and that some schools discourage special education students from enrolling.

8. Charters, magnets, vouchers: What’s the difference between choice programs?

publicly funded, privately managed, non-religious, free schools that are independent of any school district. are part of a local public school system, but students enroll or are selected based on an admissions process, not on geographic location. Magnet schools exist outside of zoned boundaries and typically have a special curricular focus, such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), the arts, or vocational and career paths. Teaching and learning often are innovative, and in some districts diversity is emphasized. Magnet schools sometimes receive additional funding to enable them to spend more money on their students, supplies, teachers and educational programs. are publicly funded scholarships to private, parochial or, in some cases, a public school in another district. Also, some states offer to parents who send their children to private schools, another way to promote choice. Rules differ from state to state on whether religious and other private schools subsidized with for student achievement.

9. What is the ‘best’ charter school system?

There’s a growing body of evidence about which schools and which systems work better. A 2015 study of urban charter schools revealed that than their traditional-public-school peers in both reading and math — so much so that those students’ academic achievement would over time “catch up” to the statewide average in Massachusetts. In a comprehensive nationwide 2014 the National Association of Charter School Authorizers argued that to be successful, a charter school system needs clear expectations, strong oversight and public transparency. South Carolina, Indiana and Washington at the top of the rankings. Kansas, Michigan and Connecticut ranked last.

10. Can charter schools be closed?

Yes. In some states, charter schools are responsible and accountable for academic results and for upholding the promises made in their charters. in the areas of academic achievement, financial management, and organizational stability. If a charter school does not meet performance goals, it may be closed. As of 2011, charter schools historically had experienced .

11. Do charter schools increase racial or socioeconomic segregation?

Potentially – but this is a point of significant controversy. A from UCLA found that charter schools have higher rates of racial segregation than traditional public schools in the same state. Research in and showed similar results. Yet these findings have been challenged. A of the UCLA report argued that it had failed to make apples-to-apples comparison and thus significantly overstated the extent of charter segregation relative to nearby traditional public schools. Similarly, a Brookings Institution found virtually no correlation between increases in charter school enrollment and increases in segregation. Recently, some for using charter schools to enhance socioeconomic integration, and have launched initiatives to better integrate schools.

12. How do charters affect neighboring traditional public schools?

In terms of achievement, most research suggests that charter schools either have no effect or a small positive effect on nearby traditional public schools with variation by location. A of of charter schools spurs improvement in surrounding public schools. found no effect or mixed results, and at least have found negative effects on achievement. In terms of achievement, most research suggests that charter schools either have no effect or a small positive effect on nearby traditional public schools with variation by location. A of of charter schools spurs improvement in surrounding public schools. found no effect or mixed results, and at least have found negative effects on achievement.

13. Are there charter schools in other countries outside the U.S.?

Many school choice systems similar to charter schools, with varying levels of success. Great Britain, for example, has recently created which are substantially similar to charter schools. A from a conservative British think tank argued that the free schools help improve performance in neighboring traditional schools.