You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘ACE’ category.
I’ve taken a long reprieve from blogging. Since my last post my wife and I had our second baby girl (Ruthie), I’ve started a new initiative at Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE) for blended learning and whole school improvement, and our outreach work in Haiti continues to be incredibly successful and growing (more on that soon). Things have been busy.
My last post was arguing for the merits of blended learning. But the proof is in the pudding. Last year I worked along side of an ACE graduate in Seattle, Kelly Surapaneni, to lead ACE’s first foray into blended learning. We worked with St. Paul School in Seattle, WA, and conceptualized the project as a whole-school strengthening effort, including things like leadership development, instructional coaching, PLCs, data driven instruction, and efforts to strengthen school culture. We thought that these best practices, combined with the personalized attention and differentiation allowed by blended learning, could result in significant gains in student learning and help renew a struggling school.
The early results are in… and it was an impressive success. We are now working in six Catholic schools in three cities, Seattle, the Twin Cities, and Toledo, and continuing plans to expand the model for next academic year.
See below for a summary from the ACE news release.
Seattle students achieved 147% of growth targets in math and 122% in reading during the first year of the program
Students at St. Paul School in Seattle, a school that serves lower income Asian Pacific Islander and African-American students, are achieving impressive academic gains using an innovative blended learning and school improvement model developed by the Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE) at the University of Notre Dame.
As measured by the Northwest Evaluation Association Measurement of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP), students achieved 147% of growth targets in math and 122% in reading during the first year of the program, similar to a school wide average of a year and a half of growth in math and a year and a quarter in reading. The average eighth grade student achieved 233% of growth targets in math—akin to two and one-third years of growth—over the past academic year.
“The initial results are particularly promising,” Rev. Timothy Scully, C.S.C, the founder of the Alliance for Catholic Education, said. “St. Paul students are performing remarkably well—we are thrilled by the promise this model shows, and believe it can be a powerful tool that more schools like St. Paul can deploy to continue the Catholic school legacy of providing students with an excellent education.”
TJ D’Agostino, who directs the project at Notre Dame, said the success St. Paul students are experiencing is due to teachers more effectively meeting the needs of each child with the benefit of powerful blended learning software, and school leaders continuously strengthening teachers with targeted professional growth in high yield areas like the use of data and deepening a culture of high expectations, key areas of focus for the training and support that ACE provides.
“Blended learning can be a powerful driver for schools to provide a customized education for every child,” D’Agostino said, “though it is most impactful when paired with other best-practices, like data driven instruction, professional learning communities for teachers, and ongoing instructional coaching. We work closely with the principal and a team of lead teachers to implement these comprehensive strategies. The results have been transformative.”
There seems to be a lot of hyperbole thrown around about various educational technologies lately. See if you can guess which innovation received this praise:
No, it’s not Bill Gates on the marvels of the Khan Academy. It’s Josiah F. Bumstead, praising the chalkboard in 1841.
I’m certainly not the first to point this out (see “Is this press release from 2012 or 1972?”), but it’s easy to get caught up in the fervor of new technology. This allure is especially profound during a period of such prolific technological innovation in the classroom. However, whether we’re talking about chalkboards, SMARTboards, individually prescribed instruction, calculators, or laptops, the essential aim is not to repeat the mistakes of the past, but to learn from them.
How can the benefits and shortcomings of previous educational technologies help us build and employ better strategies for our students today?
To this end, our dialectic seems to be reaching the unsurprising agreement that the details of how a teacher or a school implements blended learning is the key to success (and that giant learning labs are a particularly impoverished form of blended learning). I think TJ nailed my hopes for blended learning in his last post, and I’d only add that my suggestion is not to ponder how blended learning could help liberate students from assessments, but from busywork (“rote tasks like homework, lectures, and busywork”).
All students, especially students in poverty, deserve to have experiences with technology that go beyond direct instruction and test taking. English teacher and avid blogger, Larry Ferlazzo, draws a distinction between agitation and irritation in the classroom. Irritation is “challenging people to do something that we want them to do” (like create data sets). Agitation, however, is “challenging them to do something that they want to do.” Can educators use technology to agitate our students “to amplify their human potential”?
Here are three educators who offer visions of what this might look like in action:
A former high school math teacher now working on a PhD at Stanford, Dan Meyer espouses the importance of being “less helpful” and helping his students encounter perplexity. He captures videos and images with his smartphone in a quest to help his students think mathematically. By recognizing the drawbacks of textbook problems and giving his students the opportunity to ask the questions, he embodies the vision of the agitating educator. His popular TED talk, “Math Class Needs a Makeover,” gives a great example of what this looks like in action.
In addition, Meyer’s “101 Questions” project extends a challenge to both teachers and students to harness the power of smartphones to find mathematical questions in the world around them.
An ACE graduate and filmmaker, Brick Maier creates rich and structured moviemaking experiences for students. Maier’s “Tabletop Moviemaking” method teaches the writing process and digital storytelling with a production studio that fits on a desktop. The method, which was featured online in Wired Magazine last year, draws on a rich history of puppet theatre and drama and encourages students to master the elements of plot, digital literacy, the writing process, and filmmaking. The finished products can then be published on youtube and shared via social media, and students can watch their films alongside other student films (like those from workshops that Maier holds at organizations like Dave Eggers’ 826 Valencia Writing Center).
Winner of the 2013 TED prize, Dr. Sugata Mitra’s “Hole in the Wall” experiments demonstrated that students – even students in abject poverty who had never seen computers before – can learn to use the Internet on their own to teach themselves complex concepts (even in foreign languages). Dr. Mitra set up Internet kiosks, gave children an interesting challenge, and then left without telling them how to do anything. Putting the agitation vs. irritation distinction succinctly, Dr. Mitra claims that “if children have interest, then education happens.”
So what can we learn from the successes of these educators? Who else should we look to as we seek to understand the capacity for blended learning and educational technology to amplify our students’ human potential?
For that matter, what can we learn from TJ’s anecdote from our friend Joe Womac about the veteran teacher at Alliance Charter schools? Why did she feel that the new blended learning model helped her so much? How did the model allow for and support her students’ success? A look at the school’s website reveals that the Alliance College-Ready Public Schools are implementing a thoughtful, scalable model that incorporates both instruction and production. Those details are important.
While for-profit corporations might be content shilling for a vague concept of “blended learning,” reflective educators and practitioners will be compelled to talk about the nuts and bolts of what works, why it works, and how we can use it to give all students the opportunity to flourish and access their God-given potential.
Reflective practitioners will celebrate what students are doing with technology – not the technology itself. Students are asking probing mathematical questions; they’re making movies with establishing shots, setting tone with lighting, and crafting well developed plots; they’re teaching themselves advanced science in a foreign language!
There’s no hyperbole here, simply description.
I’m grateful to Andrew for clarifying some definitions, raising some questions, and stirring the pot a bit. I’d like to get to Andrew’s question around the pedagogy implicit in blended learning models, and his desire to dig into whether they liberate students through learning or shackle children to computer screens, merely drilling them with ostensibly rote learning.
But I’ll need to wait until the next post to get to this great question, because I’d first like to respond to a few particular points:
- Rocketship Schools: We should be careful about interpreting the quote from the PBS interview with too much liberty. Andrew suggests that “one high-profile charter school, Rocketship, for instance, does not receive such feedback from their much-discussed learning labs.” I hear the Rocketship principal recognizing that there are challenges with gathering and optimizing this data as fully and efficiently as they would like, not that they are failing to receive it at all. This post by Charlie Bufalino, a former Online Learning Specialist at Rocketship, addresses this point, suggesting that the problem involves integrating multiple sources of data from different online curriculum programs, and having them aligned and synchronized for efficient teacher use. In other words, there are inefficiencies, as with any new technology, and opportunities for improvement. But this does not mean that teachers are not getting the information at all, nor that a blended learning environment is not far more data rich than a traditional classroom environment.
- In defense of Batman: Despite Andrew’s deconstruction of the Batman metaphor, I will try to defend its relevance (though I need to admit I stole it from Jeff Kerscher, an ACE grad working with Seton Partners’ on their blended learning “Phaedrus Initiative” out in Seattle, and I thought it very clever!). I assume Andrew’s zeal was, in part, for the chance to evoke an image of Donald Trump driving the bat-mobile with his hair blowing in the wind. I’m OK with the hero language in reference to teachers and the travails of education, though I can appreciate Andrew’s points. Yes, it is Batman’s courage, character and karate skills that make him heroic, but the technology brings his game to the next level. The makings of a hero are already there, but the technology optimizes and leverages his skills, virtue and commitment. That’s the point. Blended learning can take a strong teacher’s game to the next level.
Here’s an anecdote to make this point more concrete. An exceptionally talented teacher in L.A. working with Alliance charter schools had been recognized on multiple occasions as teacher of the year for the city and had achieved heroic academic results for low-income children. When Alliance switched to blended learning, she transitioned to the new approach to teaching. When my friend Joe Womac talked to her about the transition, her eyes welled up with tears while saying: “If only I had blended learning earlier there are so many more children I could have reached.” This woman is a hero. She was before and regardless of any technology. But why not give her a Bat-mobile and bulletproof body-armor and see what she can do with it!? According to her own testimony, blended learning was a game changer for optimizing her skills and commitment.
“Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence.” (Phaedrus, Plato)
Thanks to TJ for inviting me to join The Soul of a Nation and for surfacing our conversation about blended learning here. I’m especially excited to be a part of “The Great Blended Learning Debate Dialectic,” largely because I have so many questions about blended learning and the use of technology in education. It’s a fascinating, perplexing, and burgeoning area of educational innovation, and I hope you’ll join us in discussing and considering its implications and iterations here.
To start with, what are we talking about when we talk about blended learning?
The Innosight Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank, defines blended learning as “a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online delivery of content and instruction with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace and at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home.” In other words, “blended” learning entails employing some combination of computer-based instruction and teacher-based instruction in a curriculum.
Now this is an exceptionally broad and flexible definition. In fact, the institute charts out eight distinct models of blended learning, which provide a sense of just how many diverse approaches fall under the umbrella of blended learning. A high school science teacher with a “flipped classroom” and a charter school that sends students to a “learning lab” for several hours a day are both using blended learning, but these are very different educational realities.
This wide definition might be a good place to begin. It provides the context for a conversation about how technology can improve instruction and increase student learning but also raises a series of questions. For instance, what kind of blended learning model best fits a Catholic school? What are our goals for implementing blended learning? Which models are the most effective in accomplishing those goals? What is it that makes blended learning so exciting in the first place?
As TJ points out in Part One of our conversation, a part of the appeal of blended learning is its efficiency and its potential to liberate teachers from the menial burdens of instruction. In a blended learning model, the computer can take care of the lectures, worksheets, homework, and grading. Depending on the details of the model, blended learning might even be able to provide individual data and feedback on student progress to help ensure mastery, allow for differentiation, and assist in remediation (though, just as an example, one high-profile charter school, Rocketship, does not receive such feedback from their much-discussed learning labs – see this video from a PBS segment on the school).
There is no doubt in my mind that blended learning can do many of the things folks claim it can. However, that does not guarantee that it will do those things in every setting if it is not used effectively (and in fact, to Catholic educators in particular, it also doesn’t mean that we should do all of these things). Blended learning – like any other educational intervention – is not a silver bullet. It does not provide a panacea for problems of learning differences, differentiation, or student motivation. But it can certainly help. So what should we do to deploy blended learning in a way that increases student learning in Catholic schools?
In pursuit of that model, I offer two early questions:
How can schools use blended learning and technology to improve curricula and enhance pedagogy in meaningful ways? In other words, how can we use technology not to “fill the pail” but to “light the fire?” One of the primary concerns with some examples of blended learning is the learning theory that undergirds some models. Instead of transferring the inadequacies of outdated pedagogies and textbooks to computer based delivery-mechanisms, why not use blended learning to get rid of rote tasks like homework, lectures, and busy-work?
TJ rightly points out that education is fundamentally about liberation, but some folks may struggle to square the idea of “liberation” with certain models of blended learning (i.e. rows of students in computer stalls with headphones on). Certainly some technologies liberate the teacher from homework, grading, lectures, and worksheets: Should they be liberating the students from these burdens as well?
How can Catholic schools take advantage of the economic benefits and efficiencies provided by blended learning models without losing sight of the concern for the dignity of the whole person – cura personalis? A common refrain among Catholic school leaders is that mission drives budget, not the other way around. As blended learning models are introduced that can lower costs for schools, school leaders will have to consider whether these models are consonant with the mission of their school and of Catholic education before cashing in on any pecuniary advantages.
For example, consider whether blended learning looks the same for students in low SES schools and in upper SES schools. If there are discrepancies here, how do we account for them? The challenge is to look for economic solutions for our students and children that are also just and effective solutions. There are certainly equitable, effective, and promising uses of technology out there – but in a sea of offerings, how do we identify them?
Finally, a quick note on teachers and superheroes:
As much as I want to like the idea of “Bringing on Batman” as an alternative to “Waiting for Superman,” the metaphor still isn’t quite right for me . First of all, I’m wary of the current tendency to equate teachers with superheroes. It sanctions low salaries (it’s okay because they’re heroes!), obfuscates strategies for effective teaching, and places unreasonable expectations on teachers.
Secondly, the tools do not make Batman a hero. Virtue and courage (and extensive martial arts training) make him a hero. Donald Trump could probably afford a Batmobile, but would he use it to fight crime? Maybe not. If the Donald just sits in traffic, then he is not Batman: He’s a man with funny hair and an unbelievably expensive car.
In the same way, technology can and should help educators improve student learning, but teachers will ultimately accomplish this by using better strategies and harnessing creativity, patience, devotion, commitment, virtue, and skill – even when there’s expensive technology around.
I have been reading some great books in the past few months that are shaping the way I think about education reform and renewal. I’d like to share the hit list and offer some brief comments for each. Some of you may have already read many, but if you haven’t read all, I’d jump on it. They are worth your time.
Topping the list is the much acclaimed Paul Tough book, How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. A wonderful read in the tradition of the Malcolm Gladwell books – integrating research in a lively nonfiction narrative – Tough weaves together stories and examples that depict the importance of non-cognitive skills on student outcomes. Drawing heavily upon work in psychology, neuroscience and innovative school leadership, Tough makes a compelling case for the importance of cultivating character strengths to allow students to flourish. I found the idea of the KIPP Character Report Card to be particularly fascinating. The concept involves providing students and parents with regular feedback on students’ character strengths and areas requiring improvement, focusing on observable indicators, to facilitate student improvement.
The next at the top of my list is Leverage Leadership by Paul Bambrick-Santoyo, a leader of Uncommon Schools, a charter school network on the East Coast. This book is a treasure trove and detailed guidebook for what high-performing schools do and what school leaders must do to achieve superior results. The videos, sample documents, and planning tools make the book an outstanding resource for creating professional development and enacting school change. The chapter on data-driven instruction was awesome, peaking my interest in Bambrick’s other book, Driven by Data, which goes further into this area.
Third on the list is Sal Khan’s book, The One World Schoolhouse. Sal Khan is the founder of the now ubiquitous Khan Academy, an online library of 10 minute instructional YouTube videos and practice programs, especially strong in Math and Science. A thoughtful and quick read, One World Schoolhouse is a clear and thoughtful articulation of a lot of new thinking at the front lines of re-envisioning k-12 education. Though neither the first nor only person to express these ideas, Schoolhouse is a good and fun read that captures a lot of the thinking within this explosive area in k-12 and higher education. With a particular focus on the role of technology in allowing mastery learning, anytime learning, self-paced learning, and adaptive instruction, Schoolhouse also explores basic assumptions around the role of homework, summer vacation, and the role of internships. I am convinced that certain approaches to technology, particularly blended learning, will become predominant within the next 5 to 10 years. This book is a pleasant way to enter into that dialogue, and begin thinking about how education will be transformed with the emergence of new technologies. Read this book and visit The Khan Academy website, it will be worth your while.
Next on the list is a wonderful book about change management called Switch: How to Change When Change is Hard, by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. Also in the Malcolm Gladwell style, Switch offers a simple, clear and compelling formula – with numerous examples and interweaving research – on how to effect change. The book uses memorable metaphors and stories to explain certain principles and rules of effective change management, such as “scripting the critical moves,” a less is more mentality to change that recognizes that simple and clear direction is of paramount importance, complexity is the enemy of effective change, and confusion and being overwhelmed or exhausted by change is often the source of people’s resistance. For any leader attempting to facilitate the change process or implement a new vision, this is a must read. Catholic schools in the U.S. are woefully in need of change. Therefore, this should be on all of our reading lists. I’ll be bringing it as a gift to some leaders in the Haitian Ministry of Education on my next trip down there. They’ve got a massive change agenda and could use some tricks from this play-book.
Teach Like a Champion by Doug Lemov, is next on my list.
If anyone else has recommendations, please share!
A note of apology for the radio silence from the Soul of a Nation blog. I’ve been immersed in education reform and helping to renew the Catholic education system of Haiti for the past three years. This blog has not had an international focus, traditionally, and the work was been rather consuming. Its time to get caught up. First I’d like to share some highlights from what we’ve been up to in supporting Haitian Catholic schools.
Three years ago, one of the most devastating natural disasters in modern history, the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, brought an already beleaguered nation to its knees, killing over 200,000 and tearing Port-au-Prince and the surrounding cities asunder. The destruction was of epic proportions in a country with no enforced building codes and poorly made concrete block structures.
In the years since, progress has been halting, too slow for many, but visible in a few bright spots. While real improvements have been made in some areas, the story in the news is almost always one of wasted efforts and missed opportunities, and a poor nation still crippled by internal dysfunction and external meddling.
It is within this context that I’m blessed to report some hopeful signs and real progress from the efforts of the University of Notre Dame and the Alliance for Catholic Education. We have focused on three things:
1. The first was to rebuild Basil Moreau School, a large school of the Congregation of Holy Cross in a particularly poor neighborhood of Port-au-Prince. Basil Moreau is nearly completed and will be a beautiful, state-of-the-art facility located in the heart of the earthquake zone. A monument of hope and dreams for the children and the community, Basil Moreau is a haven, a harbor, and a holy place of grace and liberation through education. Almost entirely subsidized from international supporters, Basil Moreau is a high performing school serving some of the poorest of the poor. The day its building is completed – in about 2 months – will be one of rejoicing.
2. The second was to create a new institute for teacher training. Under the leadership of the Congregation of Holy Cross and with intimate collaboration from the University of Notre Dame’s ACE Program, the Institute Superior Marcel Bedard launched its inaugural class this past August. Serving 35 teachers in this first cohort, the Institute brings international best-practices in teacher education to Haiti, drawing upon lessons and innovative approaches of ACE’s own Master of Education program. The Institute is off to a strong beginning. Though a start-up, with all that this entails, the Institute is blessed with strong leaders and a group of top Haitian faculty of education. It is a firm foundation upon which to build. Click here for a photo essay on the work of the institute. Password “haiti”
3. Finally, Notre Dame joined with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the Haitian Catholic Church to conduct a national study and strategic planning effort for Haiti’s 2,315 Catholic schools spread throughout 10 (arch)dioceses. Completed in just under a year, these partners have disseminated the data and are arming Catholic educational leaders with the skills to leverage the results for leadership and effective management. The partners (ND, CRS and the Haitian Church) are now in the process of implementing the top priority projects that emerged from the plan, beginning with teacher training and the creation of local school boards and parent associations in 500 schools in the Dioceses of Hinche and Les Cayes. See here for an inspired short film (7 min) on the work of Catholic schools in Haiti.
In short, we have had real successes where progress is scarce. As I engage in meetings with leaders from government and the international donor community, I am constantly reminded of the importance and potential of the Catholic Church to serve as a catalyst and a leader for development. As it is in so many countries throughout the world, so too in Haiti, Catholic education serves as the soul of a nation and a vital source of hope and promise.
(Guest post by Anna Jacob)
Does expanded parental school choice improve outcomes for students, parents, schools, and communities? That question is central to current debates about education reform.
On Feb 27, 2012, the School Choice Demonstration Project, an independent education research center based within the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, released its fifth and final set of reports in a comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). Established in 1990, the MPCP, or “Choice Program” as many refer to it, is the oldest and largest urban school choice program in the United States, providing government scholarships to Milwaukee families wishing to enroll their children in private schools. In its first year of operation, the MPCP enrolled 341 students in seven secular private participating schools. The program has grown substantially since then. In the current school year 23,198 students are using a voucher worth up to $6,442 to enroll in one of the 106 private participating secular and religious schools.
In 2006 Wisconsin policymakers identified the School Choice Demonstration Project (SCDP), led by Dr. Patrick J. Wolf, as the independent research organization to help evaluate the impacts of school choice in Milwaukee. The SCDP has now released thirty-one topical reports and five summary reports examining a comprehensive range of program impacts.
The major findings of the most recent set of reports are:
- The MPCP continues to expand while excluding underperforming schools.
- Enrolling in a private high school through the MPCP increases the likelihood of a student graduating from high school, enrolling in a four-year college and persisting in college.
- A consistent sample of MPCP students, tracked for five years, scored higher in reading but similar in math to a comparable group of Milwaukee Public School (MPS) students. A high-stakes testing policy added to the MPCP in the final year of the evaluation may have been largely responsible for the boost in reading achievement.
- A descriptive snapshot study comparing 2010-11 test score data for all MPCP and similar, low-income MPS students reveals that MPCP students, on average, have higher test scores in reading and science in grades 8 and 10 but lower test scores in math and in 4th grade.
- Between 7.5 and 14.6 percent of MPCP students have a disability, compared to 19 percent in Milwaukee Public Schools. These MPCP figures are much higher and likely more reliable than the 1.6 percent previously reported by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction for MPCP students.
- Site visits in the spring and fall of 2011 to 13 MPCP schools revealed that many Choice students come to the private schools 1-2 years behind academically.
- The achievement growth of charter school students is similar to MPS students in both reading and math, although the particular subgroup of conversion charters (schools that used to be private schools) demonstrates higher achievement growth than MPS
The school choice movement gathered phenomenal momentum in 2011, a year that saw school choice legislation introduced, passed or signed into law in 41 states. In all, seven new school choice programs were enacted and 11 programs were expanded. The MPCP is the forefather of these programs and the non-partisan evaluation of its impacts offers important insight for policymakers in all states.
Note: Figure comes from ‘School Choice Now: The Year of School Choice. School Choice Yearbook 2011-12’
Readers seeking extensive details regarding study design, sampling procedures and statistical methods used in the SCDP evaluation of the MPCP can download the full set of reports at http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Milwaukee_Research.html.
Anna M. Jacob, M.Ed., is a Ph.D. student in Education Policy and Doctoral Academy Fellow in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. She works as a Graduate Assistant with the School Choice Demonstration Project. She received her B.Ed. from St Patrick’s College Dublin,where she graduated with first- class honours, and her M.Ed. through the University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education program.
This post by Fr. Tim Scully, CSC, and a reprinted excerpt from an original post at Spes Unica, a vocations and discernment blog of the Congregation of Holy Cross.
|Fr. Nate Wills, C.S.C., teaching high school|
In Holy Cross, we recognize the value of this providential legacy. But we also recognize that our goal isn’t just to keep the legacy alive – we’re not interested in life support or, worse, hospice! Instead, we need to bring this vision of hope boldly into the 21st century. And we need courageous witnesses to continue to take up the challenge – men like the Holy Cross pastors, priests, seminarians, and lay collaborators that you will hear from on this blog throughout Catholic Schools Week.
The central educational problem our Catholic Schools face today is captured by a dynamic that can best be summarized in three statements of fact. First: poor kids are in deep trouble. Second: there is an intervention that works. And finally: this intervention is not reaching the kids that need it.
|An ACE-trained teacher in the classroom|
Poor Kids are in Trouble
First: Poor kids are in deep trouble. The most disturbing problem we face today is the gap in achievement between poor and minority children and everyone else. The stats on achievement reveal a grave injustice, which we see clearly in the circumstances of our nation’s most recently arrived—and largest—immigrant group, Latino families. While many call it an achievement gap, it’s really an opportunity gap. Many of these kids are assigned to schools that doom them to lives of poverty.
The data are well known to us:
• Black and Latino 12th graders read at the same level as White 8th graders.
• Only 52 percent of Latino children and 51 percent of Black children graduate high school in four years, compared to 72 percent of White children.
• Only 16 percent of Hispanic children and 20 percent of Black children are considered college-ready –meaning they have a high school degree, have taken the bare minimum courses required for college, and meet basic literacy standards on national tests.
But we believe there’s an intervention that works to close the achievement gap.
Catholic Schools Work
Decades of research tell us that no system of schools – charter, private, or public – has demonstrated such proven effectiveness for the children most vulnerable to unsatisfactory schooling as Catholic schools. There is no other educational intervention with a track record like ours. We know that children who attend our schools are 42% more likely to graduate from high school, and 250% more likely to graduate from college.
We know that the achievement gap among Black and Hispanic 12th graders is typically reduced or even closed when these students attend Catholic schools. We know that Catholic school graduates are likely to earn higher wages than their public school peers, more likely to vote, more civically engaged, and more committed to service when they are adults. But …
|Fr. John DeRiso, C.S.C.,
at St. Joseph Grade School
This Intervention Is Not Reaching Most Kids Who Need It
Why, for example, do only 3% of United States school-age Hispanic children attend Catholic schools, when the research has demonstrated convincingly that Catholic schools are especially effective at closing the achievement gap of minority students? From the disappearance of Catholic schools in urban areas, to financial barriers, both real and perceived, to the need for pastors who will make the courageous decisions needed to run and support an excellent school, the obstacles for poor families to send their children to affordable Catholic schools are real. But, as our ancestors in the faith and predecessors in Holy Cross have demonstrated, these obstacles are surmountable with the gifts of hope, hard work, creativity, prayer, and dedication.
|An ACE-trained teacher
in the classroom
The challenges stared down by past generations must serve as inspiration and a prophetic call that Catholic schools can continue to thrive in their mission to bring an excellent, faith-filled education to all who seek it, including the poorest among us. True to the charism of Holy Cross, signs of hope are present in abundance, though none are available without great effort and single-minded dedication, inspired and sealed by the grace of the Spirit. You will see many of signs and pathways to hope in this blog this week. The Congregation of Holy Cross, especially in our K-12 schools and in our universities’ commitment to providing continued talent and leadership for Catholic schools, remain “men with hope to bring” as we confront the challenges of the 21st century.
(The Following is a guest post from Bill Schmitt, Communications and Media Specialist for the Alliance for Catholic Education at the University of Notre Dame)
Why do you support Catholic schools? The Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE), a nationally recognized initiative at the University of Notre Dame, has been asking people that question—and providing answers—as part of a celebration of Catholic Schools Week, Jan. 30-Feb. 5.
Several commentators are posting their answers at the “ACE Advocates” website that is officially debuting during the week. The comments will also be appearing at the Advocates’ Facebook and Twitter sites. The website contains a related feature called “Why Catholic Schools?” and also summarizes decades of rigorous educational research on school effectiveness, all of which points toward what scholars call “the Catholic school advantage.”
The “why” and the “how” of supporting Catholic schools was also addressed by ACE on more than 100 Catholic radio stations on Monday, Jan. 31. ACE’s John Schoenig spoke about Catholic schools and school choice on the Son-Rise Morning Show, broadcast nationally. Schoenig is director of the Program for K-12 Educational Access within ACE Consulting.
ACE has participated in a number of media discussions about Catholic schools, from Our Sunday Visitor to US Catholic. Go to ace.nd.edu and click on the links in the “News” section of the homepage to see the articles. Follow the new ACE Advocates website to find the latest news plus opportunities to put one’s support for Catholic schools into action.
ACE Advocates is a national movement under the ACE umbrella, uniting Catholic school supporters to foster greater commitment to, support of, and innovation for Catholic schools. Other ACE initiatives at Notre Dame include a long-standing formation program for new Catholic school teachers that sends its participants to work in under-resourced schools around the country. A related initiative, the Mary Ann Remick Leadership Program, prepares its participants to become Catholic school principals and leaders in diocesan school systems.
ACE co-founder Rev. Timothy Scully, CSC, reflected on challenges and hope in Catholic schooling in a piece published Jan. 30. His comments are posted at Spes Unica, a blog of the Congregation of Holy Cross vocations office. Father Scully is director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Educational Initiatives, an academic unit that includes ACE’s master’s degree programs and interdisciplinary research endeavors such as the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity, directed by distinguished sociologist Mark Berends.
Please feel free to spread the word about ACE’s activities. We welcome mutual linking. Comments or questions for any ACE people? Bill Schmitt can be your first step at email@example.com and 574-631-3893.
The past few years have seen the birth of a number of new organizations and initiatives in support of k-12 Catholic schools, largely in response to the onslaught of closings and the deep awareness of the vital contribution that Catholic schools make to our communities, our nation and our Church. When so much of the news is dire for Catholic education, it’s worth stepping back a bit to see the rebirth that is taking place around us. If necessity is the mother of invention, then a sustained 50 year crisis must be worth something! And there has been a notable amount of invention recently that offers hope for the future of Catholic education in the U.S.
Here is a list of major new initiatives emerging over the past couple of years that could make a meaningful contribution to Catholic schools nationally or regionally. This list is not exhaustive nor does it pretend to be, and hits heavily on activities at the University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education, with which I am most familiar. But its a good start and I’m happy to add activities that I’ve missed if folks will share the good news!
In the days ahead I’ll offer a little profile of each of these exciting new initiatives in support of Catholic education.