Category Archives: About K-12 International Education News

The Same New Things From The New York Public Library (Part 2 of 2)

This post is the second part of a piece on the nonformal education work at The New York Public Library. In the first post, we reported on NYPL president Tony Marx’s work in implementing new educational programs.

Some Things Don’t Change

Since Tony Marx’s arrival in 2011, NYPL has undergone dramatic changes, particularly in its educational programming. Despite these changes, the Library’s work continues a long tradition embedded in its founding. “We’ve always been there, helping kids read, before they start school, once they’re in school,” Marx says. The Library has always been a place to explore learning as a lifelong pursuit. From its founding, Marx suggests that since its inception, learning has always been foundational to NYPL’s identity. Combining these goals and the Library’s already-present infrastructure, NYPL has been able to dramatically increase its presence in the nonformal education sector in the city. In this way, the library is the same place it has always been. It sits outside of schools, but it is a recognizable place of learning. If anything, these programs act to solidify NYPL’s mission.

In fact, the library has committed almost a billion dollars to improving its branches. Specifically, they are focusing on improving branches in outer boroughs, helping to work toward all New Yorkers having a civic space that could act as a learning center for the community.

A Unique Place In the Landscape

Though the Library aims to continue this mission, it is undeniably changing in more radical ways than it had in its first 100 years. As the library shifted from a passive to a more proactive role in nonformal education in OST spaces, the question was not only what to do or how to do it. Marx joined the NYPL at a moment when people questioned the very role of a Library in a city. At this time, Marx saw an almost-unique opportunity built into what many viewed as an existential threat to the Library. Large scale institutions with an established legacy almost never innovate at scale. Yet, when Marx took over as president of the NYPL, he recognized an opening.

NYPL is equipped with the resources of buildings and is known as a learning institution. It also sits outside the standard educational bureaucracy. Marx suggests that in the library there are “no judgements, no exams, no expectations other than we want to help.” Without the common constraints and regulations of other educational institutions, NYPL found the freedom to pursue the programs they have developed in the last decade. Of course, this freedom also comes with risks. The Library may not be beholden to much other than its patrons’ interests and needs, but many of these programs rely on funding sources such as grants or gifts rather than the more permanent, sustainable structure of public funding.  The Library may be less vulnerable to political shifts, but it is still exploring how to continue innovating without losing its position.

Marx offers a detailed story that illustrates this point:

 Two to three million New Yorkers live in the digital dark. They don’t have broadband at home. I discovered this for myself by meeting this kid. I’m leaving a branch in the Bronx, it’s after hours, a beautiful evening. There’s a kid sitting on the stoop and he has an ancient laptop and I say “what are you doing?” And he says “my math homework. It’s online, it’s assigned.” I say, “that’s great. Why are you sitting here?” He tells me it’s because he can’t afford broadband at home. “So,” the kid says, “I sit here after the library kicks me out and get bleed through the door.” I thought “oh my god, he’s trying to do his math homework. We want him to do his math homework. That’s crazy”. So, I come back [to the office]. I discover that there are millions of people in his situation, which is shocking to me. Maybe it’s shocking that I was shocked. And then I think, ok, let’s do something. We’re going to lend people broadband at home. We can play, at scale. So we raised millions of dollars from Google. We started lending to 10,000 families at a time Wi-Fi hotspots that they could take home for a year. Then, we said, ok, so this depends on soft money. At the time, with the Obama administration, we had the FCC interested in what we were doing. It was a national problem. But of course, things changed…

Additionally, the library may largely operate free of restraints, but it is not an island. The NYPL seeks connections with other institutional bodies in the city. Notably, Marx comments on how strange it seemed that when he arrived the largest library system and the largest school system did not often talk. He began meeting regularly with Chancellors of schools to explore how to increase learning. More, connections and this work in general helps reach more New Yorkers and directly responds to some of the systemic inequities youth encounter in the education system and beyond. For instance, as Marx sought funds to continue the broadband program, he found that in 2017, there was still a federal program offering broadband to kids who qualify for a free or reduced lunch. The Chancellor at the time told him that they could not do the program. The problem here was that the government would pay for the subscription, but they would not pay for the “little $50 box that makes it work,” as Marx puts it. Once more, the relative autonomy of the Library allowed them to pay for the devices and allowed the DOE to take advantage of the free subscriptions. The connection allowed the library to uncover a more sustainable model and provided a way for both the DOE and the NYPL to better serve New York City children.

The Library clearly fills a gap between school and OST education. Conversely, as many of these programs suggest, the Library is also pushing at the bounds of what nonformal learning can be at a large, institutional scale. As Marx and others in the Library continue searching, they aim to find new programs, new ways of connecting, and reach more families throughout New York City.

The Same New Things From The New York Public Library (Part 1 of 2)

In this post, part of our series looking at educational change in nonformal settings, we speak with Anthony W. Marx, President and CEO of The New York Public Library. In previous posts, we’ve written about the Beam Center and CS for All.

 When Tony Marx traveled to The New York Public Library (NYPL) as a child, he found everything he could possibly imagine. The Library housed books, news, and all the information a future academic could desire. These days, Marx,  NYPL’s President and CEO, notes that almost every person walking around the city carries a library in their pocket. It would seem that in a world of smart phones, some might contend that brick and mortar libraries serve little purpose. Yet, Marx sees the rise of the internet and increased access to information as a unique opportunity for the NYPL. More than ever, he suggests, libraries can be active sites of learning.

Of course, NYPL has long been an institution devoted to education. From the time Andrew Carnegie’s donations helped build branches in communities throughout the city and across the U.S.,  NYPL has always been rooted in education. The Library welcomed kids learning to read and encouraging lifelong learning of New York City’s residents. Since Marx’s arrival in 2011, however, the library has undergone drastic changes in the shape and scope of their educational programming. In the last decade, the NYPL and its 88 branches scattered across the city have more actively focused their offerings to meet community needs and respond to the changing role of libraries. During this time, the NYPL as an organization has leveraged its status as a stalwart institution and its relative autonomy to greatly expand its role in the city’s educational landscape. Throughout these many changes, the Library has maintained its long history of providing space and learning opportunities for New York City residents.

“It’s Right There In The Name” 

Entwined with the notion that the Library has always been a place of and for education, it is also a place for the public. In Marx’s words, “We’ll take anyone who walks through our doors, without exams, without judgments.” As long as the Library is open, anyone that wants to can pass through its doors. For decades, this publicness allowed library branches to act as kind of educational safe haven. They could offer homework help after school or an air-conditioned space during summer breaks. At the same time though, the library largely played a passive role in education. While local branches did offer small classes or adult education programs, these were scarce and informally organized. Now there are 2 million visits to formal programs.

In a similar vein, the Library’s ongoing commitment to the public means that it is open, democratically available, but optional. “If we don’t offer what people want, they won’t come,” Marx suggests, “but they are coming in record numbers.” At the start of the 21st century, with the Library’s offerings increasingly accessible simply by logging onto a computer, what people used to have to do by traveling to the Library, they could suddenly accomplish in the comfort of their own home. One might think that in modern times, the library as a public site had become obsolete. NYPL certainly had to wrestle with the question of how to best serve New Yorkers and entice them to come to the Library. But, Marx and his colleagues never saw these issues as problems.

Among many other initiatives, upon Marx’s arrival, the library began new, targeted educational programming. Where in previous decades the library had been more of an implicit educational site with a hodgepodge of offerings, they took on a more active role in New York City’s educational landscape. This expansion began in earnest in 2013, when Maggie Jacobs joined the library as the Director of Educational Programs. Surveying different neighborhoods to understand needs and opportunities in local branches, the library began developing new “Outside of School Time” models for New York City’s youth. Though still evolving, the library now operates several main educational endeavors.

One such program provides homework help in several local branches for 1st through 8th grade students. Library visitors still identified help with schoolwork as a service they most wanted from the library. With a staff of tutors, this program supports diverse groups of students in structured learning time. A related program creates a direct link between the NYPL and local high schools. The program offers an apprenticeship, guiding 10th to 12th graders toward becoming reading tutors. During the fall semester, they attend classes and train to become tutors. Classes in this semester also carry credits that the DOE recognizes. In the spring semester, participants work as paid interns, teaching reading to 1st and 2nd grade students. Another program offers a place-based digital curriculum for middle school students. Here, students research different aspects of their community and undertake projects such as

digital photography, podcasting, and neighborhood mapping. Finally, the Library has developed a program from a 15 million dollar “magic grant” from the Helen Gurley Brown Trust to academically support high school students. Students who participate in this program receive academic resources to apply for and succeed in college. Students also design and pursue a passion project and are able to receive grants for participating in other enrichment programs.

These programs both filled an educational gap in the nonformal space. Along with more traditional programs such as ESL classes or computer skills classes, the library increased its annual visits almost tenfold (to around two million people a year). Much of this work focuses on working with youth in underserved communities. To help make these programs a reality, the Library both increased direct partnerships with the DOE and others

Next week, we will share the 2nd part of this post.

 

LEAD THE CHANGE SERIES Q & A with Moosung Lee

Moosung Lee holds one of the University of Canberra’s prestigious Centenary Professor appointments, ten of which have been made across the University’s five strategic areas of research. Having been appointed tenured full professor within 4 ½ years of completing his PhD, Moosung is by far the youngest Centenary Professor. He currently leads a research group focusing on Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Canberra. He also holds a joint appointment as a professor of comparative education at Yonsei University in South Korea. Prior to joining the University of Canberra, he held appointments as Associate Professor and founding Deputy Director of the Education Policy Unit at the University of Hong Kong. His research areas are educational leadership administration, social contexts of education, and comparative education. He has published extensively in these areas. His scholarly productivity and quality output contribute to the research fields. This has been evidenced through a number of international scholarly communities’ recognition of his work; as examples, he received the Richard Wolf Memorial Award by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in the Netherlands, and he was the first scholar in a non U.S. university to receive the American Educational Research Association’s Emerging Scholar Award (Division A – Administration, Organization, and Leadership). He was also chosen as a recipient for the University of Canberra Research Excellence Award in Social Sciences in 2018. He has been a Fulbright Scholar, UNESCO Fellow, Korean Foundation Fellow, Asia Pacific Center for Leadership and Change Senior Research Fellow, Erasmus Mundus Visiting Scholar (at UCL Aarhus University), YFL Outstanding Visiting Scholar (at Yonsei University), and Visiting Fellow (at Seoul National University Asia Center). His work has been funded by UNESCO, the European Commission, the Australian Research Council, the University Grants Council in Hong Kong, the Korea Foundation, the Academy of Korean Studies, American Educational Research Organization, Economic and Social Research Council (U.K.), National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services (U.K.), and the International Baccalaureate Organization. He has served on the editorial board of a number of international journals. Also, he is Co-Editor of Multicultural Education Review and Senior Associate Editor of Journal of Educational Administration. Having gained extensive academic networks and experiences as a researcher and teacher in South Korea, Hong Kong, the U.K., and the U.S., he has opened a new chapter of his career in Australia since 2014.

In this interview, part of the Lead the Change series of the American Educational Research Association Educational Change Special Interest Group, Dr. Lee discusses his work on educational leadership and increasing equity and rigor for students. As he puts it:

I have conducted my research mostly in Asia. I wish to share three lessons, given the limited space, from my work in the Asian context. First, continuity is important. Continuing organizational traditions, routines, rituals, and missions are necessary for sustaining organizational survival and stability. But the continuity of change is more important. For the long-lasting continuity and stability of organizations, paradoxically, organizational change is inevitable. Second, organizational change should start at the end users in an organization, if you like. Let me share a short story about Charlie Munger, the well-known American investor. He was at a local shop to buy a fishing lure and found a sparkling plastic fishing tackle. He asked the shop owner “My God, they’re pink and green. Do fish really take these lures?” The shop owner replied “Mister, I don’t sell to fish” (Griffin, 2015, p. 17). This story offers an analogy to the problems embedded in educational change in the era of accountability. A sparkling object (e.g., turnaround reform, NCLB) is viewed as a quick-fix measure for changing schools and is attractive to various institutional and organizational stakeholders such as policy makers (i.e., customers for the fishing lures). However, such educational changes (i.e., the shiny lure) are, in essence, not appealing to teachers and students (i.e., fish). In other words, it often seems that stakeholders involved in educational change and reform may have been more attentive to a seemingly sparkling tool than what will get teachers and students hooked, and how/whether they will bite. The most important stakeholder has been seriously overlooked (see Lee, 2018 for details). Third, tensions around school improvement and change have emerged between global grammar (a set of institutionalized rules that give legitimacy to certain discursive practices) and local semantics (active interpretations and sense-making processes by local agents or communities in particular societal contexts) in Asia (Cha, Gundara, Ham & Lee, 2017, p. 217). For example, we know that instructional leadership has been integral to school improvement (cf. Hallinger, 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). As a highly rationalized global education discourse (given its strong association with student learning outcomes), instructional leadership is widely accepted as a sort of universal policy instrument for school effectiveness and improvement (cf. McEwan, 2008). In this regard, instructional leadership can be called global grammar in “making sense of what and how leadership practices ought to be embodied in school improvement” (Lee, 2018, p. 468). At the same time, however, as local semantics, the enactments and effects of instructional leadership on student learning outcomes can vary across schools and schooling systems in Asia, since local agents articulate, interpret, and make sense of the concept of instructional leadership differently in the local setting in which they work (cf. Lee, Walker, & Chui, 2012). This is where tensions and dynamics between global grammar and local semantics emanate when it comes to educational change. Research is much needed to understand them better.

This Lead the Change interview appears as part of a series that features experts from around the globe, highlights promising research and practice, and offers expert insight on small- and large-scale educational change. Recently, Lead the Change has also interviewed Kristin Kew and Christina Dobbs.

New year, new predictions?

In this week’s post, Thomas Hatch scans of some of education predictions in the news over the past few weeks and reflects on the possibilities schools and education in the coming years.

Last week and the week before, my roundup of key issues of the past year and decade highlighted for me the difficulty of making predictions about the future.  The safest thing to do is probably to stick to ambiguous statements like “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” My recent work looking at why so many efforts to change schools fall short of their goals suggests that statement may be particularly accurate in education. That does not mean that things have not and will not change at all and scanning the predictions for the coming the year and decade (listed at the end of this post) provides a glimpse of what some commentators think might transpire. By the end of the 2020’s there will undoubtedly be many new schools, new learning experiences available outside of schools, and new technologies. Looking back at the concerns about stress, safety, data privacy, the spread of false information and other problems that emerged in the last ten years, the new developments of the 2020’s may well have some undesirable effects. But it’s possible to imagine some more positive effects as well:

  • Beyond school choice? Rather than arguing over whether students should be able to choose schools, students might have more opportunities to fashion learning pathways that match their specific needs and interests. Those pathways might include learning experiences in schools, but students might be able to draw on a much wider array of learning opportunities outside of schools in their own communities but also around the world, online.
  • Beyond the “usual subjects”? Rather than intensifying the focus on testing and basic skills, new developments might make it possible for more students to learn the basics more efficiently and in less time, creating opportunities for them to develop their abilities in many different ways. Those will likely include more formal and informal opportunities to participate in e-sports, to produce their own music and other art works, craft their own products and services, and participate in virtual communities where they can share those experiences and products far beyond their local schools.
  • Beyond personalization? Rather than having to rely on educators to figure out how to personalize learning or differentiate instruction for every child, students and parents may be able to play a more active role in choosing the goals of their learning experiences and the nature of those experiences as well.
  • More time for teaching and learning? Rather than making teachers obsolete, new technologies may tackle many of the “back-end”, administrative, and managerial aspects of schooling; in the process, those developments might create more room for teachers to work with students and other educators on teaching and learning.

Nonetheless, as it has been in education for the past 100 years, many of the most unconventional developments are likely to be confined to the margins, to alternative schools and special populations, and to the white and/or wealthy elites who are most likely to be able to take advantage of them.  At this point, I’m not sure there is any reason to revise substantially what I said when looking ahead last year:  That changes in schooling happen slowly, and incrementally and that the most significant changes will come as society as a whole changes, as the environment evolves, as new economies and technologies develop. Those changes may have the most significant impact on schools when the nature of work and family life shifts and parents no longer have to rely on schools to look after their children from 8 to 3 PM five days a week. At that point, as the nature of childhood changes, schools may change and some may be left behind entirely, allowing children to explore far beyond their own neighborhoods, develop their abilities, and express themselves in ways that might change their world.

PREDICTIONS

Grim and hopeful global trends to watch in 2020 (and fold into a zine) (NPR)

A teacher makes 10 predictions for education in 2020 — some of them rather hopeful (Answer Sheet, Washington Post)

Six education stories to watch in 2020 (Forbes)

Ten Education Stories We’ll Be Reading in 2020 (Straight Up, Education Week)

Will higher education roar in the ’20s? (Inside Higher Ed)

10 Higher Education Predictions for a New Decade (Inside Higher Ed)

5 K-12 trends to watch in 2020 (Education Drive)

2020 priorities inside America’s 15 biggest school districts: Student protests over equity, school boundary changes, abuse charges, & more (The 74 Million)

Albany primer: Here are the big NYC education issues to watch in the new legislative session (Chalkbeat, New York)

California education issues to watch in 2020 — and predictions of what will happen (EdSource, California)

New Year’s Resolutions for Leaders of Social Change (SSIR)

Philanthropy in the 2020s: 16 Predictions (Inside Philanthropy)

14 predictions for the future of classroom technology (Forbes)

From artificial intelligence to augmented reality to peer-to-peer learning, 7 ed tech trends to watch in 2020 (The 74 Million)

Four Things You Need To Know About STEM And Education For 2020 (Forbes)

Report: Climate change literacy, early childhood focus shaping STEM in 2020 (Education Drive) 

  • Thomas Hatch

Rounding up the issues of 2019 and the 2010’s (Part 2)

In this follow-up to last week’s post on some of the common issues and key concerns mentioned in end-of-the-year and end-of-the-decade education reflections, Thomas Hatch highlights questions about the role of research and technology in improvement efforts.

Last week’s post showed that many reviews of the key education stories of last year and the preceding decade noted some progress as well as some stagnation and continuing inequities in student outcomes.  At the same time, those reviews also often came back to concerns that neither research nor technology were having the hoped-for effects in improving education.

What research adds value?
The discussions of progress and stagnation over the past decade reflected continuing concerns about educational research, its quality and value. The championing of “value-added” research in the 2000’s was succeeded by an embrace of large-scale data sets and data mining which contributed to rising concerns about data-privacy and cyber-security (as Audrey Water highlighted with a link to the K-12 Cyber Incident Map).

In what Alexander Russo identified as one of the 10 pieces of education journalism that defined the decade, Emily Hanford may have both re-ignited the reading wars and made concerns about the lack of impact of research on practice a hot-button issue again.  (We shared our own take on the problems of getting research into practice in blog posts and a podcast about our study of the 112 external support providers working to improve K-3 reading outcomes in New York City).

At the same time, Matt Barnum’s review of 8 lessons learned in 2019 pointed to some key of issues of equity, race, and poverty that research is shedding light on.  The awarding of the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer also capped a decade in which the use of randomized controlled trials expanded even more, particularly in the developing world. As Crawfurd and Hares report, a systematic review of RCTs in education research found just over a thousand unique studies between 1980 and 2016, with more than half of these produced between 2010 and 2016.

What’s changed? Technology? Schools?
Even another ten years of promises of an ed-tech revolution couldn’t seem to speed up the slow pace of change in teaching and learning in primary and secondary education (as Larry Cuban continues to chronicle). Some things have changed. Students can now use their phones to access google classroom (and get texts from their parents in the middle of the day) and teachers can download lessons from a host of sites offering open and free access to tons of instructional materials (though many of those don’t appear to be aligned with academic standards). Yet, in 2019, both students and teachers still worked in the same schools and classrooms, for roughly the same amount of time, with the same instructional approaches, focusing on many of the same skills and outcomes as they did in 2009.

At the same time, questions about the quality and the value of higher education have erupted along with  the development of online courses, micro degrees, and other new higher-ed entities that few had imagined when the decade began (and the “Varsity Blues” elite college admissions scandal and the student loan crisis hasn’t help much either).

For those that aren’t already depressed, Audrey Waters provides a detailed accounting of the 100 worst ed-tech debacles of the decade.

Looking ahead?
Although many education conversations in the 2000’s in the US were consumed by debates of the No Child Left Behind Act, only a few of the reviews of the last decade mentioned the Every Child Succeeds Act of 2015 or other policy developments. Instead, partisanship seems to have overwhelmed many discussions of policy and the fractures seem to be growing. It gets harder to tell the “reformers” from the “non-reformers,” and even those who thought they held similar views – Democrats, charter advocates, free marketeers among others – find themselves trying to make sense of who stands for what in the age of Trump.

But students are standing up and speaking out.  One more scan for “student activism” in the news in 2019 reveals some of the people and the stories we could be following in the coming years:

2019 was the year of the protest, thanks to a new generation of activists, I-D

A ‘new wave’ of activism on campus: Students are aggressively seeking their demands, The Philadelphia Inquirer

Where Did All These Teen Activists Come From?, KQED

Young people across Asia pushed for change in 2019. Meet five of them, CNN

Greta Thunberg isn’t alone. Meet some other young activists who are leading the environmentalist fight, CNN

8 young activists you need to hear from today, XQ

19 youth climate activists you should be following on social media, earthday.org

Youth Activist Movements of the 2010s: A Timeline and Brief History of a Decade of Change, Teen Vogue

 

 

 

Rounding up the issues of 2019 and the 2010’s (Part 1)

This week and next week, Thomas Hatch notes some of the common issues and key concerns mentioned in end-of-the-year and end-of-the-decade education reflections. As in the round-ups of 2018, 2017, and 2016, many of the reflections come from US sources, but there are some global links as well. This week, Part 1 concentrates on the waves of violence and activism and the discussions of outcomes mentioned across a number of sources. Links to many of the sources that inform both posts are also provided. Next week, Part 2’s roundup focuses on common questions about the role of research and technology in improvement efforts.

Although there are many educational experiences, schools, resources, technologies, companies and other ventures in 2019 that were not around in 2010, many of the key issues and stories of 2019 overlapped with those mentioned in the reviews of the decade of the 2010’s as a whole.

Safety, gun violence, trauma…and student activism
In the US, the killings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as well as the shootings at Sandy Hook (to name only a few) made safety, gun violence and trauma key topics inside and outside schools throughout the decade. In 2019, 25 shootings in schools and at school-related events were in the headlines, along with questions about active shooter drillsand other means of securing student safety.

At the same time, traumatic events also fueled the emergence of Black Lives Matter and the Me Too movement in the US and contributed to a wave of student activism globally.  In 2015, Li Zhou and Adrienne Green chronicled in words and pictures the student activists who were demonstrating against soaring tuition, protesting police brutality, and demanding education reform. That wave continued into 2019 as students called for action on sexual assault, racism, and climate change, with Greta Thunberg’s scolding of delegates at the UN and the students’ climate strike echoing around the world.

 

Progress? stagnation?
Debates about whether schools are getting better or worse also continued throughout the decade. Internationally, PISA test results in 2012, 2015, and 2018 continued to highlight the high performance of East Asian countries like Singapore; showed a decline in Finland; and revealed high scores in some jurisdictions in China while raising questions about how representative and appropriate those scores were.

Globally, Lee Crawfurd and Susannah Hares of the Center for Global Development, summed things up by pointing out that progress on achieving primary schooling has stagnated but attention to learning has grown: they found that only about 50 articles mentioned the  phrase “learning crisis” in 2010 but almost 300 mentioned it in 2019.  For added emphasis, in 2019, the World Bank sought to focus on “learning poverty” by creating a new global target: cutting in half the number of children who are unable to read and understand a simple text by age 10 (currently at 53% in lower- and middle-income countries).

In the US, Chad Alderman pointed out that the 2010’s “may be the best decade ever in terms of college attainment,” but Dana Goldstein noted that the decade concluded with reports of largely stagnant performance and continuing inequities in outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the National Center on Education and the Economy highlighted a widening achievement gap on PISA in reading as well.

Inside Philanthropy’s David Callahan described the 2010’s as “a decade in which a billionaire-backed K-12 reform push largely flopped.”  Those elite-backed reforms in the US included the launch of the Common Core Learning Standards and numerous state-backed initiatives to increase accountability by tying teacher evaluations to student outcomes.  Yet the decade ended with reports of little evidence of positive impact of the Common Core and continuing debates about its value.  In 2019, studies also found little if any positive effect of the new teacher evaluation policies on student test scores.  Those top-down initiatives also contributed to a backlash against testing, and, as Madeline Will of Education Week put it, spurred teachers to take leadership into their own hands, “leading strikes and protests across the country, and even running for office.”

The charter debate did get a little bit more complex over the decade. Charter schools in some regulatory environments like Massachusetts showed some positive results, but critics continued to question the impact of charters on students and neighboring schools. Charter schools even became an issue of debate among Democrats in 2019, with opinions breaking down along racial lines, as the74 illustrated in 14 charts that changed the way we looked at schools.  (To be continued…)

Links to roundups and reflections for 2019 and the 2010’s
2010 to Now: A turbulent decade for schools, Education Week.

Teaching in 2020 vs. 2010: A look back at the decade, Education Week

14 charts that changed the way we looked at America’s schools in 2019, The 74 Million

Eight lessons we learned from research in 2019, Chalkbeat

Education may be pivotal in the 2020 election. Here’s what you need to know. Highlights from the Brown Center Chalkboard in 2019, Brown Center Chalkboard

Cheating scandals, charters and falling test scores: 5 takeaways from the year in education, The New York Times

Laugh, cry and gasp along with the best viral classroom moments of 2019, NPR

2019 education year in review with Erica Green, Alyson Klein and Josh Mitchell, The Report Card with Nat Malkus

The 7 most memorable pieces of education journalism for 2019, Phi Delta Kappan

10 pieces of education journalism that defined the past decade, Phi Delta Kappan

Online degrees slowdown: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2019, Class Central

A decade in review: Reflections on 10 years in education technology, Ed Surge

What problems has edtech solved, and what new ones did It create?, Ed Surge

The 100 worst ed-tech debacles of the decade, Hacked Education

  • Thomas Hatch

LEAD THE CHANGE SERIES Q & A with Yi-Hwa Liou

Yi-Hwa Liou, Ph.D. is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Management at the National Taipei University of Education. Her research primarily focuses on leadership and development, organizational dynamics and learning, professional and networked learning communities, with a particular methodological emphasis on social network analysis. She has led and participated in multiple (inter)national research projects and works with research teams/scholars from across different countries/areas around the evolution of organizational networks and systemic change across all levels of education. She currently serves on the editorial boards for Journal of School Leadership and School Leadership & Management, and as a guest editor for International Journal of Educational Research. While her scholarly works primarily focus on educational leadership in PK-12 settings, she also expands her work to include the examination of social and emotional aspects of professional learning for pre-service and in-service teachers. She is committed to using network analysis to support organizations’ strategic planning and development. She is currently conducting several longitudinal projects using a design-based approach to organizational innovation by looking into the effect of network interventions on the development of individual and organizational capacity for improvement. She can be reached via e-mail at yihwa.liou@gmail.com and you can learn more about her work at: https://ntue.academia.edu/YiHwaLiou

 

In this interview, part of the Lead the Change series of the American Educational Research Association Educational Change Special Interest Group, Dr. Liou discusses her work on how understanding social ties and cultural norms impact educational change. As she puts it:

This social perspective may help us think about leadership roles in creating conditions for learning. For example, formal leaders include those who have a formally designated role such as principals, department heads and coordinators, etc. The informal leaders are those who do not necessarily have a formal leadership title but are influential individuals among school staff. These leadership roles are somewhat distinct by definition, but sometimes overlap within individuals and/or coexist within an organization. Each of these roles has to do with how conditions are created for desired change. The formal leaders can be helpful in communicating the vision, goals, policy and school development plan with their staff at some of the structured meetings to develop a shared value and language, which remains to be one of the top challenges most schools face. In practice, school leaders, on average, spend less than 20% of their time on discussing, revisiting, or co- developing their core values and plans together, even less time invested in making sense of the reform policy (Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010; Sebastian et al., 2017). A useful approach to address this issue might be to change the structure of staff meetings to a “mini workshop” format. In this approach, teachers are able to share their thoughts within and across their grade level or subject team, present it to the whole staff, and continue this discussion and practice until they come to have a shared understanding. This ongoing course of practice is ideally coupled with the use of social influence through informal leaders such as those staff members to whom others would turn to for advice, information, or addressing immediate problems at work. Many times, these informal leaders are also formal leaders, but the key point here is the notion of peer influence through which individual beliefs are likely shaped. These informal leaders are often active teachers who initiate opportunities for collaboration and exchange of resources among teachers and act as spokespersons or representatives of their teacher teams. These leaders can convey the needs and messages or support information flow between different segments of school structure. They can be helpful in diffusing ideas and information, getting more teachers’ buy-in, and identifying needs for professional development. In the meantime, formal leaders have to make sure resources (e.g., time, budget, space) exist supported by infrastructure to assist the execution of initiatives or reform related plans that were collectively prioritized among school staff. In all, both formal and informal leadership roles go hand in hand in creating the conditions for learning and development (e.g., Liou & Canrinus, 2019; Liou & Daly, 2018; Sun et al., 2013).

This Lead the Change interview appears as part of a series that features experts from around the globe, highlights promising research and practice, and offers expert insight on small- and large-scale educational change. Recently, Lead the Change has also interviewed Kristin Kew and Christina Dobbs.