It’s becoming common knowledge that children in Canada and around the world aren’t getting enough physical activity. You may have even heard the most recent statistic from the ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth revealing that only 9% of kids aged 5-17 years old are meeting the recommended 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity per day.[1] We have a problem to address, but there are many reasons this issue needs attention.
In particular, when we talk about physical activity we immediately think of increased fitness and forget about the other benefits it brings. This makes sense because when we think of the physical activity superstars our children idolize, it’s easy to default to Jose Bautista and overlook Einstein.
But, as mentioned by Drs. Gunnell, Poitras, and Tremblay earlier in this series, physical activity is linked to improvements in almost every measure of intelligence, and psychosocial health.[2] Active children have higher self-esteem, improved social skills, fewer depressive symptoms, higher confidence and feelings of competence. They demonstrate better self-control, cooperation, sportsmanship and teamwork. Also, as Dr. Gunnell points out in her post, “evidence shows that adding activity into the classroom can have immediate and long-term benefits and there is little-to-no evidence of any negative impact on learning.”
A review on physical activity and academic achievement by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the U.S. showed that there are only a minuscule number of studies (in the realm of 1.5% of the papers they included) that report a negative association with academic achievement. While the rest of studies report either null findings or a positive association.[3] This includes studies looking at school-based education on physical activity, recess, classroom physical activity, and extra-curricular programs. So it’s pretty safe to say that the likelihood of improving academic achievement by sneaking in some more activity far exceeds the risk of it doing any harm.
Convinced yet? Good. There are so many ways you can take action by sneaking in a few extra minutes of heart pumping activity into a child’s school day. Try some of the ideas below:
The activities above are all unique and will leave you and Canada’s kids huffing and puffing through the school day. And your physical health AND mental health will be better off for it!
References
1. ParticipACTION. The Biggest Risk Is Keeping Our Kids Indoors. The 2015 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto, Ontario; 2015.
2. Voss MW, Carr LJ, Clark R, Weng T. Revenge of the “sit” II: Does lifestyle impact neuronal and cognitive health through distinct mechanisms associated with sedentary behavior and physical activity? Ment Health Phys Act. 2014;7(1):9-24. doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2014.01.001.
3. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. The Association between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance. U.S.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
Written by Katie Gunnell, Veronica Poitras, and Mark Tremblay
Decades of research have shown that children who are physically active have a lower risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, depression, and obesity. Researchers have also recently uncovered the beneficial effects of physical activity for healthy brain development, which can lead to improved learning and academic outcomes. Children who are active (e.g., as little as a 20 minute walk) have more active brains,[1] better standardized test scores,[2] and improved attention in the classroom.[1] Moreover, researchers are beginning to recognize that excessive sedentary behaviours (waking activities that are characterized by low energy expenditure – e.g., sitting, watching TV, or “screen time”) negatively influence brain health and may even counteract the benefits of activity.[3] Therefore, obtaining sufficient physical activity and limiting sedentary time are both important for healthy brain development.
How does it work?
In a recent review, Voss and colleagues[3] outline the benefits of increased physical activity and reduced sedentary time on brain health and how they work through at least three levels.
First, at the cellular level, physical activity is associated with the development of new blood vessels (which supply important nutrients and oxygen) and neurons (which transmit nerve impulses) in the brain. Physical activity is also associated with an increase in growth factors in the brain, which help with the development, maintenance, and plasticity (ability to change and adapt) of the nervous system.[3]
Second, at the system level, activity helps regulate stress responses (that are mediated in part by the brain). Physical activity also increases the size (volume) of parts of the brain that are important for learning and memory, and activates parts of the brain that are activated during cognitive activities such as math and reading.[3] Therefore, being active is like “training your brain” – not to say students can go for a walk instead of doing math homework, but being active might make that homework easier!
Finally, these cellular and system-level effects are expressed at the behavioural level. Physical activity is associated with improvements in IQ, academic achievement, executive function (including mentally holding and manipulating information, focusing, and multitasking), and attention, as well as reductions in depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. Being active can also reduce the risk of dementia later in life. [3]
Overall, being physically active and reducing sedentary time conveys a host of benefits, effectively improving healthy brain development to produce optimal learning conditions.
What types of activity are important for healthy development?
Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is the benchmark for conveying health benefits. MVPA is any physical activity that increases heart rate, breathing and perspiration. According to current guidelines developed through the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology, children aged 5-17 years should get at least 60 minutes of MVPA every day to achieve health benefits – and more is better. Children should get at least 3 days per week of vigorous activity (e.g. causes sweating and heavy breathing) and muscle and bone strengthening exercises (e.g. lifting heavy objects, jumping). Sedentary behaviour guidelines stipulate that children should limit sedentary time and specifically limit recreational screen use to no more than 2 hours per day. These guidelines were developed using the best available research evidence concerning the impact of physical activity and sedentary behaviour on important health outcomes, including cognition and academic achievement.[4],[5]
Other types of physical activities that children can engage in include active play (e.g., climbing trees, swinging from monkey bars) and active transportation (e.g., biking to school). In a recent position statement released by ParticipACTION, researchers from the Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group (HALO) advocate for a return to self-directed outdoor play. Children who engage in play move more, sit less, play longer, have better peer relationships, are more resilient, and can better regulate their behaviours[6].[7] – all factors that translate into creating optimal learning environments. Together, active play and active transportation can help children increase overall activity levels.
Even as little as 45 minutes of MVPA per week appears to benefit cognition, academic achievement, behaviour, and psychosocial functioning.[8] It doesn’t take much activity to achieve some benefits, but more activity is better!
Sounds good, but what’s the problem?
ParticipACTION’s[9] Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth shows that only 9% of Canadian children meet current physical activity guidelines and only 24% of children meet sedentary behaviour guidelines, earning a dismal “D-“ grade in both of these categories. This means that most Canadian children are missing out on the benefits of a healthy, active lifestyle.
How can activity be increased throughout the day and in the classroom?
With the current structure of a typical classroom and demands to meet curriculum requirements, it’s hard to imagine how educators can increase activity. However, adding activity into the classroom can have immediate and long-term benefits and there is little-to-no evidence of any negative impact on learning. Achieving 60 minutes of MVPA can be facilitated through daily physical education classes. Other types of movement can be incorporated into the classroom to break up long periods of sitting. Educators can take students on educational nature walks or encourage walking meetings for group work. Students can be encouraged to stand along the edges of the classroom when a lesson is being delivered, or take turns standing at an elevated desk. If feasible, a quiet stationary bicycle can be placed in the back of the classroom and children can take turns quietly cycling during lessons. Finally, educators can get the students involved and ask them how they’d like to incorporate activity into the class.
During recess, children should be allowed to engage in self-directed play. Restrictions on the types of play should be limited and reasonable, and children should be encouraged to be creative, run, explore, and play games with balls – even if it comes with the small risk of scraped knees.
Bottom Line
Any activity is better than no activity when it comes to healthy development and enhancing learning outcomes. Educators can incorporate activity and reduce sitting time in their classrooms and doing so may help students’ brain development and enhance learning. In effect, adding activity can help students “train their brains”! In our modern world where sedentary behaviour is omnipresent, the historical mantra of “sit still” needs to be replaced with deliberate attempts to re-engineer our lifestyles to incorporate more movement – the health of our bodies and brains depends on it!
References
Our school’s interest in utilizing physical activity to improve academic performance began in 2010. Ron Andrews, Head of the Physical Education Department, and Peter Kalbfleisch, Head of the Co Curricular Program, introduced our staff to the book SPARK: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, by Dr. John Ratey M.D. (Ratey, 2008). Our staff became convinced that the positive associations between physical activity and academic performance that had happened in other schools could happen in ours. We felt compelled to act.
In the past two decades we have seen growing excitement about neuroscience in education circles. As our understanding of the workings and development of the human brain increases, educators have been eager to apply this knowledge in the classroom. But amid all the excitement, it is prudent to step back and ask ourselves: How much do we really know about neuroscience and how deep is our understanding about how to apply it to education? Past experience tells us that when scientific knowledge explodes into the public domain, it is often misunderstood, misapplied, and even exploited.
Educators, and the general public, receive constant pitches about educational games, products, and websites that claim to build intelligence or enhance learning using principles of neuroscience – but do they really? Already, it’s clear that many of these claims are dubious at best. Our consulting editor for this issue, Steve Masson, and his colleague Jérémie Blanchette Sarrasin, reveal the more prevalent “neuromyths” that do not hold up to critical scrutiny.
How can we judge if educational initiatives are consistent with current neuroscientific knowledge? In fact, “current knowledge” proves to be a moving target as new findings are published, old findings are clarified and controversies are debated in the scientific community.
Yet there is solid research that can be applied now in our classrooms. Our contributors to this issue, some of whom will present at the CEA symposium in Quebec City in November, share research on how neuro-education connects learning to math (Daniel Ansari), physical activity (Chris Gilbert), gaming (Paul Howard Jones and Katie Blakemore) and ADHD (Katherine Dueck and colleagues, online exclusive).
Separating fringe science from credible findings is hard work. It means learning the difference between strong and weak study design, identifying trustworthy sources, and reading widely. But the marriage of neuroscience and education also has huge potential – for enhanced student focus, engagement and learning.
P.S. If this issue’s theme intrigues you, be sure to check out the information here about the CEA Symposium “Dropping Out: What Neuroscience Can Teach Us,” and consider joining us November 4-5.
Despite the fact that provincial education systems have made great strides in dropout prevention, too many young people continue to leave school early and abandon their education. When CEA asked educators from across the country to identify the most significant barriers to change in education, 17%[1] of them thought it was the deeply entrenched mindsets and assumptions about education and schooling. This compelled me to explore how CEA could host an event that would encourage educators to begin to question their own belief sets about teaching and learning and the systems that they work in. I feel that the largely untapped potential of emerging neuroscience research to demonstrate how a student’s brain learns best will help define a new set of teaching practices that could positively effect student engagement, achievement – and ultimately – staying in school.
A longstanding crucial support role for CEA has been to ensure that educators receive as much useful evidence-based information as possible that they can link to practice, and with our upcoming symposium in Quebec City – Dropping Out – What Neuroscience Can Teach Us – we will examine our understanding of the workings and development of the human brain and how we can apply new scientific knowledge to the classroom. New brain imaging techniques are disproving many of the traditional beliefs about how we think that children learn. These discoveries, combined with applying neuroscience research to tackling low levels of literacy and numeracy and poor physical condition – key predictors for dropping out – could change the way we support students with learning difficulties and heighten teaching effectiveness.
Steve Masson will present a controversial set of ‘neuromyths’, which poke holes in many commonly held misconceptions about how the brain works and how children learn. If you believe that there are visual, auditory and hands-on learners, left-right brain learners, or if you receive constant pitches about educational games, products, and websites that claim to build intelligence or enhance learning using principles of neuroscience, you might be surprised to learn what the latest research has uncovered. These neuromyths can actually bias the way students perceive themselves as learners.
We tend to overlook the fact that students with low literacy levels typically don’t do well in math either. Ensuring that our students develop lifelong math capacity is a major challenge for our education systems. Dr. Daniel Ansari will mute the noise caused by biased opinions and beliefs about what works to refocus the polarizing new math vs. old math debate on a solid psychology and neuroscience evidence base to confirm which forms of teaching enable increased student achievement in math for all learners.
We all know that students need plenty of exercise and sleep, and proper nutrition to help them pay attention and to learn (and I would suggest that the same principles apply to educators). There is a direct correlation between good physical condition and mental health – two factors that lead to students dropping out. Drs. Lindsay Thornton, Alex Thornton, and Chris Gilbert will share just how much exercise – and other outside factors such as sleep – influence the brain, and its effects on students’ capacity to be focused and engaged in the classroom.
These three evidence-based angles on how we can address the stubbornly high number of early school leavers provides an excellent learning opportunity for district leaders, principals and teachers alike because everyone will be challenged to rethink their notions of how students’ brains work. Symposium participants will come away with new methods of supporting students, particularly those at risk of dropping out of school. I hope that you can join us.
[1] Hurley, Stephen. The Challenge to Change – From Vision to Action in Canadian Education. Canadian Education Association. 2014. http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/cea_action_to_vision_report_final_en.pdf
This past Sunday started out to be a fairly unremarkable one for our household. I got up early to do some writing, my wife had her coffee on our upstairs patio, my daughter lolled in her room reading a book. As is our usual Sunday tradition, breakfast was a fairly haphazard and lazy affair, and all too soon the pressure of Monday morning began to assert itself as we all made ready to tackle that ever-present list of weekend chores that had been put off until the last possible moment.
On the first day of my masters (about 7 years ago now?! Seriously, Time, slow down) I surveyed the adults around me – some of them principals, some vice principals, and all of them serious looking – and panicked and it dawned on me: “I don’t belong here.”
At the first break, I gathered some courage and approached one of the instructors to tell her about the problem. You know, about how I didn’t belong there.
She threw me a razor sharp look and said, “Brooke – if you had the balls to stop giving marks, you have the balls to be here.”
Um. Okay. With one statement and a laser-certain stare, Linda cured my “belonging uncertainty”. So I stayed.
Flash forward to Delta MakerLab’s summer camp for 9 – 13 year olds last month: out of fourteen makers, two were girls. I popped in during the week to learn about 3D modeling and how to code; I kept looking at the girls and wondering about their experience in this predominantly male environment. Finally, I asked them what it was like to be the only girls.
“We’re all kind of similar; we all like to create stuff,” one said while tinkering with the robot bug she had made.
Oh, I thought. When I looked at these kids I kept seeing division because of a gender imbalance. But deeply engaged in their learning, these girls saw themselves belonging in a community of similarly engaged and motivated peers.
All this makes me wonder about how much energy I put into making categories where some people belong and others do not. The categories, however, are not the stereotypical ones that come to mind.
I don’t, for instance, see myself as a mathematician. In a room of math-lovers, I have belonging uncertainty. However, I do see myself as a problem solver. I see myself as creative, curious, and inquisitive. I see myself as persistent and thoughtful. Perhaps I am more like those math-lovers than I think. Perhaps I do belong in the room.
And if I belong in the room, perhaps I might even like math. At the very least, liking math becomes a possibility.
I’m talking about shifting our mindsets towards a stance of belonging rather than suspicion about not belonging. If we do not shift our mindsets in this way we limit ourselves and others.
Many elementary school teachers who teach math, for example, don’t actually like math or see themselves as mathematicians. Rather than inviting this math-baggage into our interactions with highly impressionable children who notice our nuanced attitudes, let’s place ourselves “in the room” with math lovers and look for the ways we belong. Because if we model belonging, everyone is in the room.
Being at school asks us to take risks and be vulnerable – show what we don’t know and risk failure in the finding out.
It’s hard to believe that people send their children to school – their wee little beautiful children – to experience the pain of “not”, of not knowing and not achieving and not enough. Many adults aren’t courageous enough to put ourselves in such a vulnerable position. Of course, those experiences help us develop the much talked about “grit” and resilience. But not for all; for some those experiences debilitate and alienate.
I am deeply grateful that this was not my experience of school. I failed at things, for sure. My work didn’t always meet the standard in the classroom and I wasn’t always comfortable on the playground. However, I was born into a family that (and had some teachers who) raised me to be, what Brene Brown would call, shame-resilient. I could face failure and exclusion because I didn’t often feel like my self worth was on the line. This shame-resilience enabled me to be vulnerable to the process of learning.
As a child, I managed to navigate a system which sought to rank and define me: the grading system that we all know so well.
I could survive putting out my best efforts and the potential of “not meeting” the standard because I had people who believed I was enough regardless of my achievement. I took on that belief as my own – even when my school work, my creativity, my ideas, my problem solving, my effort and my determination were not enough.
For children who are not shame-resilient, school structures like marking (read: ranking) place children’s self-worth on the line every, single day. When our self worth is on the line we cannot afford to be vulnerable. If we cannot afford to be vulnerable, we won’t engage in the effort and persistence learning requires.
“Shame-resilient cultures nurture folks who are much more open to soliciting, accepting, and incorporating feedback” says Brown in her bestseller Daring Greatly.
Soliciting, accepting and incorporating feedback? Sounds like a formula for learning.
If we want our schools to be shame-resilient cultures we teachers and school leaders must model ourselves as learners first and foremost – being as vulnerable as we ask our students to be. We must look at our systems critically and build in the supports necessary to nurture “engaged, tenacious people who expect to have to try and try again to get it right” (Brown, pg 64).
What supports have you built into your school or classroom to create a shame-resilient culture? What practices should we renounce? What supports should we create?
Back at the turn of the century (I can say that now), I had the opportunity to teach in a preservice teacher education program here in Ontario. One of the first official tasks that I assigned as part of a School and Society course was a three to four page reflection on the question, “So, what brings you here?” It was a chance for candidates to think back on the many threads of influence that were woven into their decisions to consider a career in education. For three years, I read students’ recollections of their early childhood experiences: playing school in the basement or the backyard, their first experiences of classroom life, the successes and struggles that they experienced in their own schooling, and the teachers that had a positive and negative influence on their approach to learning. I met students who knew from a very early age that they wanted to be a teacher, students who were inspired by one of their own teachers, and those candidates who came to teaching after experiencing the joy of learning through the eyes of their own young children.
The “So, What Brings You Here” assignment was a conversation starter, a touch point for our work throughout the year and a reminder of just how important the school experience is in the lives of even our youngest children.
Some years later, I encountered, “Where I’m From“, a poem by writer and teacher, George Ella Lyon. The original poem challenges our traditional responses to questions about origin, home and our sense of place in the world. It invites a richer reflection on the experiences, memories and personalities that continue to render the question, “Where are you from?” dynamic and ever-changing.
Since Lyon’s poem was first written in 1993, many others have used “Where I’m From” templates as writing prompts, starting points for narrative reflection and group storytelling. I’ve used it with students, parents and even grandparents as a way of making important connections with the things that have made us who we are. Last year, students at our local elementary school used a “Where I’m From” approach to reflect on global issues that were important to them. This week as I re-discovered some of the “So What Brings You Here” files on my home computer, I got to imagining how powerful it would have been to use this poetic format as part of those early preservice conversations.
But I also got to thinking about the opening staff meetings that are about to take place as we move into a new school year. How could a “Where I’m From” approach help us to introduce ourselves to each other, help us reconnect with the things that have brought us to this point in our careers and help us remember just how important school is to the sense of place, if not home, for our students.
So, what would a “Where I’m From” template for educators look like? What would it include? How would it balance the importance of past memories and experiences with present values and aspirations? At the risk of being overly analytical or pedantic, I’ve tried my hand at creating a guide for thinking about “Where I’m From” from an educators perspective.
So, I started to write my own “Where I’m From” poem, from my perspective as a teacher. It was a great opportunity for me to “re-member” and connect with some pretty powerful memories. Here’s where I am so far:
I am from hours with my grandmother’s Bromwell flour sifter, from Tinker Toys and Tape Recorders,
From Crayola Crayons, SRA Reading Kits and Radio Shack calculators.
I am from speckled terrazzo hallways, the “beep” that warned us to advance to the next frame, and the smell of freshly waxed classroom floors.
I am from the Riverdale Zoo in the springtime and the day that she said “Maybe” to my Friday night invitation.
I am from laying out my clothes the night before and waking up every hour to check the clock.
I am from hot porridge with dark brown sugar and cream of asparagus soup in an overly sensitive Thermos.
From Mrs. McDermitt’s, “You can do up your own coat” to Sister Leona’s, “Some day I’m going to see you on my TV”.
I am from “Get your homework done before you go out to play” and “You can always fall back on a teaching degree”.
I am from procrastination and under the wire submissions.
From daydreaming in class, and the top grade on my creative writing assignment.
I am from “I hate math” and pushed back chairs.
From determined tongues and dancing eyes.
I am from wanting to be like Mr. Way and keeping their curiosity alive and active.
From needing to better understand Moira’s world and helping Sanjeet discover his voice.
I am from anticipation, hesitation and imagination.
I am from Mr. Hurley, if it weren’t for you…
I’ve included a downloadable copy of the guide here. Please, please, please, feel free to adapt, change, add, delete. Use it as a guide to your imagining, but don’t feel that you have to follow it exactly. It’s meant to be a guide, not a recipe!
It would fun to see what you do with it and where it goes from here. It would also be interesting to hear from anyone that has used the idea to get some conversation going among your staff or team. What memories did the process invoke? What did you learn about your colleagues? What did you learn about yourself? What connections did you make?
Reading through the blog contributions that accompany the CEA’s latest theme issue, Towards Fewer Dropouts, is a little like holding a diamond up to the light. The diverse perspectives presented here over the past few weeks have helped us to see that the challenges and opportunities that exist, as we pay closer attention to the students who choose to leave our public schools prior to graduation, are quite complex.
The Ontario Ministry of Education’s recently renewed goals for education – achieving excellence, ensuring quality, promoting well-being, and enhancing public confidence – are praiseworthy and, in my view, attainable[i]. An important step in achieving these goals is to provide the necessary supports to students who are considered at-risk and, in particular, those students who are at-risk of dropping out.
Help for these students typically come in the form of a new or revised policy, program or other initiative. One such example is Ontario’s lauded Dual Credit program, which aims to helps students who are at-risk of not graduating to graduate from secondary school and increase their likelihood pursuing further education[ii]. Investments in innovative programs like these are translating into measurable results. In 2004, the five-year graduation rate was 68 per cent; in 2014, the rate is 84 per cent, a climb of 16 percentage points[iii]. This increase is a major success for the ministry and should be recognized. Despite this success, 16% of students are not graduating in five years and, presumably, this is because some of these students are failing their enrolled secondary courses.
Failing secondary courses is problematic for all sorts of reasons, the four most important being[iv]:
I’m not going to propose a new program or policy to tackle the challenge of course failure. Rather, I propose tackling the issue from another angle: thinking of alternative ways the ministry, school boards, and schools can use the resources available to them (e.g., funding and human resources) to minimize course failure and, ultimately, student dropouts. One area in particular is to rethink the resources that are tied to course failure in public secondary schools. The graduation rates discussed earlier are an indication that thousands of secondary courses are failed each year, and these outcomes represent a significant fiscal cost to the public. Surely we can do something better with these resources. I am not the first researcher to propose this idea. What I offer here are some possible recommendations based on research I conducted in 2012.
My study began by asking a straightforward and yet unanswered question about failure in education: how much money does secondary course failure cost the Ontario public education system in one school year? I conducted a study that estimated the volume of course failures in Ontario’s public secondary schools and estimated the annual cost of secondary course failures, taking into account some factors known to be systematically related (i.e., grade level, subject area, special education status). You may have read similar studies that used secondary dropouts as the measure and estimated the private and public costs over the lifetime of the student. This study focused on the direct budget impact on districts and the school system.
Below I present some of the key results of the study[v] and some recommendations, intended mostly for education leaders, on how the resources tied to secondary course failure could be used differently to reduce course failure and better meet student needs.
Results – In 2008-09, there were 5,082,543 secondary course attempts across 70 publicly funded school boards in Ontario with secondary schools; 4,682,535 completed successfully (or passed) and 400,008 unsuccessfully (or failed). This means 92.1% of all enrolled secondary courses were completed successfully and 7.9% unsuccessfully. The total gross cost of these course failures is estimated to be $472,729,698, or 7.7% of total instructional and operational spending.
Recommendation
Reducing all secondary course failures in the province could result in efficiencies up to $472 million. How so? If more students are passing their enrolled courses and graduating on time, then districts will receive less overall per pupil funding from the ministry; the cost savings would be realized by the ministry. How does any of this help prevent dropout? One idea would be for the ministry and districts to enter into an agreement allowing school boards to keep any funding as a result of improving efficiency in their schools, i.e., reduced course failure. This arrangement would create a significant positive incentive for school boards to experiment with new ideas to prevent course failure and dropout, and use any resulting efficiencies to hire teachers, in-class/school tutors, etc.
Results – The number of course failures for Math and English were estimated to be 79,096 and 58,580 respectively across all 70 school boards, with an estimated annual cost of $162 million for these two subject areas alone.
Recommendation
Given the critical importance of these two core subject areas, school leaders could also use the data to justify re-orienting existing professional development and learning supports to target these two subject areas, across all secondary grade levels and student types (academically inclined and not, students receiving special services, etc.), to improve fail rates.
Results – Students who receive special education and English-second language services fail at higher rates in all subject areas and across grade levels, compared to students who do not receive these services.
Recommendation
Education leaders may want to consider evaluating the effectiveness of these services. The data suggest that the millions (and billions) of dollars spent each year providing services to these student groups are not levelling the fail rates. In no way am I suggesting that these services be cut. Rather, I propose more research into the effectiveness of resources/services provided to these students.
Another recommendation is to use of some of the statistics reported in the study as district and system level performance indicators. For example, the province could share school board and provincially aggregated course pass/fail rates with district leaders to allow comparative analysis, reflection, and encourage dialogue among education leaders. Another interesting statistic to share would be the average number of course failures per student enrolled in each school board. These statistics could help ministry and district leaders identify those boards that seem to be more successful than others at helping students complete their enrolled courses.
To be sure, the recommendations presented here cannot on their own resolve the issue of course failure. What I offer here are recommendations that can help to tackle the issue from another angle – making even better use of existing resources to minimize course failure and prevent dropout.
Easy solutions are in short supply when it comes to addressing complex social problems, like student dropouts. Instead, solutions to these challenges often require confronting the issue from multiple angles to achieve success. If implemented, my recommendations would converge with other policy and program efforts aimed at supporting student success. Given what is at stake, I believe that it’s worth considering a wide range of available options.
n.b.: The data used in the study were provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education. The views expressed in this piece are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ministry.
[i] Ontario Ministry of Education (2014a). Achieving excellence – A renewed vision for education in Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/renewedVision.pdf
[ii] Whitaker, C. (2011). The Impact of dual credit on college access and participation: An Ontario Case Study. Retrieved from University of Toronto library tspace https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/29641/6/Whitaker_Christopher_201106_PhD_thesis.pdf
[iii] Ontario Newsroom (2015, April 1). More Ontario students graduating high school than ever before – Ontario publishing board-by-board rates to help more students succeed. Retrieved from http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2015/04/more-ontario-students-graduating-high-school-than-ever-before.html?utm_source=shortlinks&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=b9ap
[iv] Faubert, B. (2013). The cost of failure in Ontario’s public secondary schools. Retrieved from University of Toronto library tspace https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/35818/1/Faubert_Brent_C_201306_PhD_thesis.pdf
[v] ibid.
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
Prior to entering a post-secondary institution, students are constantly bombarded with information about the importance of pursuing post-secondary education, because these ‘institutes of higher learning’ open doors to greater opportunities for those who choose that path rather than entering the workforce immediately after receiving their secondary school diploma or equivalent certification.
Students enter colleges and universities with a wealth of knowledge from all over the world and these institutions are tasked with combining all of these unique experiences to develop a learning structure for the leaders of tomorrow. This is a complex task that requires an understanding of the populations that fill these institutions. The demographics of student populations across Canada represent individuals whose identities vary in age, race, sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic status, among other characteristics. These identities inform the perspectives of students that pursue post-secondary education and across this wide range of identity lines, the question still remains: why are students unable to complete their post-secondary studies?
One of the greatest influencing factors in a student’s choice to stay in school is program affordability. As a student in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa, the cost of tuition, and incidental fees, for my first year of study was a little under $3,100 (excluding housing, textbooks, and additional living costs). Four years later, the entering cost exceeds $3,400 and continues to rise annually. When supporting student populations, it is essential that the students have the ability to voice their concerns and opinions about the services offered to them and how these services are, or are not, meeting their needs. Similar to many other post-secondary institutions, the University of Ottawa offers a work-study program, to allow students to maintain a part-time job during the academic year. As a first-generation university student who is studying away from home, I valued the opportunity to support myself financially throughout my undergrad. I participated in the work-study program during my third year. In years prior I, along with other students, faced incredible difficulties accessing the program because of the eligibility restrictions related to the difference between your expenses and your gross income. I was denied twice from the program because I accrued too much debt, although demonstrating financial need is an eligibility requirement. After going to the Financial Aid office to inquire further, I was ultimately told that if students needed that much money to cover the costs of their expenses, they should consider looking elsewhere for jobs.
I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to work full-time as an executive member of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) – the students’ union representing over 30,000 undergraduate students. Academic supports provided by universities do not assess students’ cases holistically and these services often struggle to adequately address the root cause of the student dropout rate. At the SFUO, there are staff and volunteers who work throughout the year to administer services that benefit the student population. The Student Federation owns and operates the campus Food Bank, which hosts regular breakfasts and lunchtime cooking classes, as well as keeping the shelves stocked to ensure that students do not feel pressured to choose between receiving a healthy meal and purchasing their course material.
There are a multitude of services that the SFUO provides to ensure student success by hosting events that aim to educate, provide safe drop-in spaces, and advocate for the rights of students who are often found at the margins of discussions surrounding post-secondary education because of their race, ability, gender, socio-economic status, etc. This concept is not unique to the SFUO; students’ unions across the country do the same work for their students by starting and restarting conversations with students, faculty members, administration, and community members to ensure students’ needs are being prioritized in spaces that focus on our learning and development.
One of the roadblocks I encountered in my work at the Student Federation was figuring out how to reach out to communities that have limited to no connection with the students’ union. Tackling this challenge required conversations with students whose experiences differed from my own. As a Social Sciences student, it was challenging to understand how to provide supports for students in programs that had more structured course sequences or heavier workloads, such as business, nursing or engineering. There are programs of study, such as law, education, and medicine that require different types of supports to ensure student success. The work of students’ unions shows how far students are able to push their own limits to support each other. There are other characteristics that complicate the work of students’ unions to provide support mechanisms for students.
The needs of part-time students vary from those of full-time students, as part-time students are often working one or two part-time jobs to cover their living costs and tuition. Mature students often return to continue their post-secondary pursuits either because they have dependants, because they chose to enter the workforce and gain new skills afterwards, or any number of circumstances. The Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students (APUS) at the University of Toronto aims to represent the interests of part-time students on all three of the University of Toronto campuses, providing them with access to a health and dental plan and a variety of other resources. MatSA, the University of Toronto Mature Students Association, is a student group that aims to provide resources to student-parents and other mature students, in order for them to have access to the tools and spaces other students typically use on their campuses.
Student-led associations provide a variety of support resources that might not otherwise be provided for students on Canadian campuses. The work that student unions do to defend students’ rights in within the academic environment, offer them spaces for learning outside of class, and advocate for accessible education is what keeps students in classrooms and helps them build safe, non-judgmental communities outside of post-secondary institutions irrespective of whether they choose to continue their studies.
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
Research demonstrates particular risk factors that impact a student’s decision to stay in school. These include, but are not limited to: academic failure, low socio-economic status and behavioural problems[i]. Other risk factors can include: family organizational problems, little emotional support from parents[ii], and the increasing disengagement among students at school. The harsh reality is that, for many students, staying in school and success in school means having to suppress personal identities to act within the traditional school paradigms of what a ‘good’ student looks like[iii].
The most significant education paradigms are those that include building strong relationships – beginning in early elementary school – to prevent future dropouts. The earlier that new education paradigms can emerge to support ‘at-risk’ students, the better the prognosis for their graduation. Strong relationship are those that foster student voice, involve students in real decisions, and create equitable power distributions. Strong schools also provide inclusive cultures, authentic assessments, curricula related to students’ lives, and are respectful of learning as a social process with the relationships being the major priorities[iv]. But first, we must recognize our traditional views about what school is, before we can map out new education paradigms to support at-risk students.
We know that the foundations of 19th-century schooling are based on standardized tests, textbooks, classroom management and organization strategies, and mandatory curriculum outcomes. Canada’s modern school systems are still based on the same hierarchical philosophies espoused by Egerton Ryerson[v] where schools are organized with the principal at the top, teachers in the middle, and students at the bottom. We’re also still using common school texts as advocated for by Ryerson himself. We reward behavioural outcomes with grades and other forms of reinforcing compliance from our students – embedded beliefs that we need to maintain group compliance for efficient organization, drill, memorization and standardized tests. However, in following this paradigm, we do a great disservice to those students who are at-risk. We inadvertently send strong messages that if you do not comply: “you will be a failure”, or that “you are a failure”. Attention is given to prescribed units of study learned in isolation of subject areas that are discrete and separate from each other, and in groups of same-aged peers. Families and communities are rarely included, and fixed mindsets are the norm where it is difficult if not impossible to move from your ‘rank’ in school i.e., who is at the top, who is in the middle and who is at the bottom. As a result, students who are at risk are left with little leeway for success in terms of the traditional school paradigm.
By contrast, if we focus on new paradigms of education that incorporate key strategies including relationship building, then I believe that students have a greater chance of graduating. Key strategies can include a deeper focus on student voice, inclusion, authentic learning and assessment, and involvement of knowledge from families and communities. We need to enable ourselves to step away from the limits of traditional schooling to focus on educating under the assumption that each child is individual, valued, and whole, with special needs to be met. Within this new paradigm, there would be great flexibility in terms of time, space and what is learned. Students would work on their own collaborative inquiries; those that need open-ended tasks would have access while others would receive more closed tasks. Education wouldn’t be limited to the school day, and it could also capitalize on after-hours aspects with parents and families. It is of course a complex problem with complex solutions. However, I think that this warrants increased attention to target specific variables beginning in early elementary school.
Another factor that needs to be addressed is that at-risk students do not see themselves reflected in their teachers. It may behoove us to consider alternate methods of choosing the teachers in our system, to include counsellors, family and community members, and to ensure a wider demographic of teachers who have lived experiences of at-risk students and can be positive models of instruction.
Schools are gradually aligning with the principles of the Education Paradigm that embody Community, Culture, Caring, and Character Education. Yet, they systematically remain unchanged, with continued vested interests in standardized testing results, separate subject areas and isolated units of study, funding for specific diagnoses and labels instead of the whole child, fixed schedules, grades and disciplinary tactics that propel the traditional School Paradigm forward. However, to promote a school system with fewer dropouts, education paradigms need to evolve to emphasize relationships and recognize traditional and contemporary contributions of individuals, families and communities from all walks of life.
[i] Suhyun, S. J. (2007). Risk Factors and Levels of Risk for High School Dropouts. Professional School Counseling , 10 (3), 297-306.
[ii] Fortin, L. M. (2006). Typology of students at risk of dropping out of school: Description by personal, family and school factors. European Journal of Psychology of Education , XXI (4), 363-383.
[iii] Smyth, J. (2006). ‘When students have power’: student engagement, student voice, and the possibilities for school reform around ‘dropping out’ of school. International Journal of Leadership in Education , 9 (4), 285-298.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Egerton Ryerson. (2015). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egerton_Ryerson
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
Over the course of the past twenty years that I have worked with at-risk students, I have heard countless times from colleagues and professionals in the field that “it’s all about relationships”. This advice is usually passed on as requisite insight that everyone who works with at-risk youth either understands or will come to understand as a truism. I agree that it’s all about relationships, yet what does this actually tell you? How does it help? Does your relationship or empathy lead to students’ resilience?
(more…)
Even though graduation rates have stabilized in the province of Quebec, failure to graduate remains an acknowledged problem for provincial educators. Here at Concordia’s Department of Art Education in Montreal, we focus on questions of how the visual arts and digital media can engage youth who are at-risk of dropping out. We have studied existing programs, such as Maison Kekpart and have developed and researched a mobile media curriculum. Though these projects are presently focused on the impact that visual arts and digital media can have on a student, we have identified a number of outcomes that suggest student engagement need not be limited to the arts.
Agency to Move
We are currently working on a long-term research study investigating the use of visual arts and civic engagement curriculum delivered through mobile media (smartphones and tablets). We are using this curriculum and digital technology with youth who are at risk of dropping out of high school or who have just returned to school to complete their diploma. Our intention was to engage students with learning outside of school through mobile media and art making. Participants shared images, made comments, and responded to the curricular missions posted by the researchers and educators involved. while the study was ongoing, Each week or so we would host after-school meetings to discuss the project. As the project evolved, participants wanted to increase the number of afterschool meetings. Students also used the mobile social network to coordinate the times and places they would meet in order to go on field trips together. When we asked participants why they wanted to come to the afterschool meetings and to go on field trips together, they enthusiastically contrasted these student-initiated activities with their former more teacher-directed experiences of schooling. Most of these students had spent their time in schools under constant surveillance and with restricted mobility. While we had hypothesized that the mobile media devices would enable participants to learn on their own, what we did not foresee was that their use prompted a sense of agency mobility, self-organization, and informal learning among our participants. What we found was that students who feel in control of their learning also feel more connected to it. This effect promises to make school as a whole, less alienating for at-risk youth.
Real World Relevancy: Learning Professional Skills
From our studies, we found that curricula incorporating professional skills and tools engage students in learning. In the above-mentioned mobile media curriculum, we started by asking students to engage critically with their civic environments by asking them what would they like to change to make their community better. For the most part participants were more interested in learning how to make beautiful images and felt they had no power to change things in their neighbourhoods. We noted that before students responded to the challenge of engaging critically with the world around them, they need and want to develop their visual voice and to master the grammar of their visual culture. In other words, they wanted to make images like professionals. Only then did they feel empowered to think about change in their neighborhoods. At Maison Kekpart outside of Montreal in Longueuil, media professionals taught students professional skills in media production. Many of the students when interviewed described how learning professional tools and techniques gave them a sense of accomplishment and the authority to voice their ideas. Students are savvy enough to identify learning that will empower them in the future. Given that students are immersed in visual culture every day, they implicitly know what an authoritative image looks like. They want to know how to make such effective images. Curricula that connect to their everyday experiences and instruction on how to participate as equals with media professionals (adult teachers and instructors) contributed to the highly engaging learning environment at Maison Kekpart.
Incorporating Youth Cultural Practices into Curricula
At Maison Kekpart, we observed how instructors incorporated into their curricula what students did with social media in their personal lives. For example, one media arts instructor noticed that one of his students was an avid YouTube user who posted new videos on an almost daily basis. Recognizing the social currency that is developed through an online presence as a professional himself, he began to model his social media practices by inviting students to follow and friend him online. This practice stands in stark contrast to how many schools approach social media. Instead, Maison Kekpart and their instructors use social media to connect with youth and to model professional practices. What instructors are doing is helping to transform the online cultural practices of youth into professional practices by engaging with them as professionals in the media arts.
While there is no easy fix for engaging youth with their education, we have found that the approaches presented here nurture the sense of agency in the learner. A large part of student engagement in education is based on the student feeling empowered to make choices about how and when that student will engage in learning. The knowledge that students acquire under these conditions makes them feel confident and competent. The knowledge that what they are learning is valued outside of the classroom but is of wide enough application to be used in the conventional classroom.
n.b. David Pariser and Martin Lalonde are affiliated researchers on this project.
Related Reading
Youth Practices in Digital Arts and New Media: Learning in Formal and Informal Settings
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
Dropping out is typically triggered by innumerable events, choices and experiences over years, so there is no magic remedy. Nonetheless, supportive adult relationships and a compelling answer to the question “Why stay in?” are key.
I have dedicated my professional life to developing programs to help educators help students plan their learning and career journeys. I believe the ultimate goal of education is to prepare students for successful lives beyond school. While adult life is much more than work, most of us spend more time on the job than anything other than sleeping for most of our lives. As adults, we know our career choices profoundly impact every aspect of our lives. Yet, we graduate students unprepared to make employment choices.
Roughly 1 in 2 young people, from dropouts to those with degrees, fail to “launch” smoothly from school to work. Many begin their careers in low wage jobs unrelated to their studies and interests, unsure how, or if, they will ever land a “good” job. “Many young people find out who they are and where they belong by bouncing off things (experiences) for several years until they eventually commit or settle.” [1] Their prospects for early student loan repayment (average $30,000), buying a car, home, and building a life and family may seem bleak to them, and to their parents.
Given the exodus of high-end “boomer” talent already underway, ensuring young people launch successfully from school to good jobs is critical. Today’s school leavers will carry the primary burden of taxation for the next 40 years. We all need them to be successful. Young people in good jobs are happier, healthier, and more productive, they pay higher taxes, and they contribute more to their families and communities. Those that lose their early adult years drifting between underemployment and unemployment may never recover lost ground. Rather than contributing to prosperity for all, they diminish it for all. From every perspective, dropouts and failed launches are simply too costly in human and economic terms to tolerate.
Young people are in school from Kindergarten until they enter the workforce. Preparing them to make good choices as they enter and navigate the complex, constantly changing maze that is today’s labour market isn’t in the curriculum. Most educators feel unprepared and unequipped to help students prepare for the working world. So, whose job is it?
To answer this question, I helped organize Thoughtexchanges[2] at the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Pathways to Prosperity Conference in March, 2013, the National Career Development Conference in July, 2013 and The Association of Career and Technical Educators’ CareerTech Vision 2013. Over 500 eminent education, government, business, community and career leaders reflected for two weeks – one month prior to each conference – then submitted their ideas. They then had two weeks to read others’ responses and vote for the ideas they considered best of all. The results were shared at the conferences.
Of the hundreds of ideas generated, the following rose to the top:
Like most jobs, this one requires training and tools. I believe the following, all of which are available, are essential:
To illustrate, here’s a true story from North Carolina, where the “tools” above are in place. Interestingly, they are from Canada.
A Grade 9 student hated school. He seldom completed assignments and was disruptive in class. The only thing he looked forward to each day was getting to his uncle’s garage to work on motors. He was a magician at this! He planned to drop out of school on his 16th birthday (in 3 months) and work on his passion full-time.
Then he received a message in his ePortfolio from John Deere saying “You might be the kind of person we are looking for. Would you like to come and see our facilities and meet some of our people?” When he got there his eyes lit up. Surrounded by tractors, lawn mowers, and off-road vehicles, this looked like heaven to him.
John Deere told him if he dropped out of school they wouldn’t consider hiring him. They said he needed to do well in his academics, particularly Math and Science, and work on his people skills and character. They didn’t promise him a job, but they offered him a mentor and the possibility of experiential learning (job-shadowing, internships, part-time job).
He was different person in school the next day. He now saw high school as a bridge he wanted to cross. His teachers and parents couldn’t believe his transformation. When he graduated with above average marks, John Deere paid his tuition for a 2-year community college small engine repair course. When he finished the course they hired him at $50,000, loan-free.
John Deere found this student because he had expressed his passion for and experience with motor repair in his ePortfolio. They found him, and he found a compelling reason to stay in school, and new supporting relationships with adults beyond school or home. It takes a community.
This can happen with any student, whether at-risk of dropping out or on the honour roll, when new connections between school and the “real world” occur and students with dreams meet employers seeking talented young candidates.
[1] Career Crafting the Decade after High School, Cathy Campbell and Peggy Dutton, CERIC 2015.
[2] Thoughtexchange (https://thoughtexchange.com/) is a British Columbia-based company that has developed a unique group inquiry software platform used by many school districts across Canada and the United States.
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
Having spent five years as a development worker in Vietnam, by the time I returned home to Canada in 2005, I was well aware of Article 28 of the UN Conventional on Rights of the Child, which states that children have a right to a Primary Education, compulsory and free. I was also very conscious of the UN Millennium Goal 2, Universal Primary Education. Thus, it was a big shock and disappointment to me to find that in my own country, one of the richest and most respected for educational achievement, there were children and adolescents being denied the opportunity to achieve even a basic, elementary education. Adolescent immigrants from refugee camps around the world were arriving in Canada, entering the high school system and dropping out within a few weeks. Children in lower grades were attending, often sporadically, and were showing little or no academic achievement. Obviously, schools were not meeting students’ needs.
Why do government-assisted refugee students drop out of school? Two factors are principle: first and foremost, the lack of educational programming that meets their academic readiness and, secondly, the financial pressure that forces older teens to quit school and help support their families – accepting dead-end jobs.
Crawford (2008)[i] published an adolescent psychology textbook that very rightly focused on the fundamental principle of differentiated instruction. She writes:
Since adolescents bring a diverse range of knowledge and interests that are shaped by varying biological, cultural, and experiential factors, the challenge for teachers is to find a point of connection with what students know, believe, and feel (Crawford, 2007). When teachers pay attention to the knowledge and beliefs that learners bring to the learning task and use this knowledge as a starting point for new instruction, learning is enhanced (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
When Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) students enter our school system, they very often are met by a system that has little or no idea of their prior experiences, background knowledge, cultural practices nor academic readiness. The type of differentiating they need often cannot be met in the mainstream. Differentiation may mean differentiating environment and programming.
In 2001-2002, due to a change in federal immigration policy, schools in Canada began to see an increase in the arrival of GARs. Unfortunately, there was little or no preparation for the arrival of these children and teens, whose experiences, cultures, social, emotional and academic needs were very different from school populations we were equipped to service. In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, nobody in the provincial education system – ministry, school boards, school administration, nor teachers – was given background information, or in-service on how to assess and support GARs. These children and teens, from war torn countries, were plucked from refugee camps and dumped into mainstream classrooms, placement and programming based on one criterion only – year of birth. In many cases, illiterate adolescents, with neither the language, the knowledge, cultural know-how, political clout, nor the self-esteem to protest, were dumped into mainstream middle and high school academic courses. When I, as a program specialist of the Ministry of Education in Newfoundland and Labrador, assessed GAR students in 2006-2008, the majority were placed in academic courses with outcomes anywhere from two to ten years above their numeracy and literacy levels. Needless to say, the majority of the GAR students in the ESL cluster high school in St. John’s dropped out with no higher academic skills than they day they had arrived. Fortunately, the situation turned around with the implementation of an academic bridging program (Noseworthy, 2014)[ii].
Differentiated instruction starts with an assessment of the needs of students. Obviously, there are far more factors to consider than year of birth in determining services and academic programming for students. By placing students in academic courses well above their achievement level, not only are we denying them the opportunity to learn, but we are very likely further marginalizing and traumatizing them.
No teacher, no matter how devoted, can differentiate instruction to fully meet the needs of students who are 2-10 years behind in their readiness level. If refugee students are to stay in school, schools need to assess and respond fully to their academic needs. It entails more than website with tips or a “toolbox”. It requires fully developed curriculum for bridging programs, curriculum based on a needs assessment of this specific group of students. Successful educational experiences are not only crucial stepping stones to integration, economic and personal self-fulfillment, but are also key to helping these students build much needed confidence, pride, and a commitment to Canadian citizenship.
I am not, by any means, in favour of segregating ESL students who have the readiness to succeed in the mainstream academic course. ESL classes that create ghettos are not acceptable. However, the needs of most GAR students go well beyond ESL and beyond the scope of the mainstream age-appropriate classroom.
Furthermore, if refugee students are to stay in schools, educational communities have to be proactive in pressuring government to properly support refugee families financially and provide incentives for adolescents to continue with their education. Nobody in our society benefits from sustaining a population of uneducated, marginalized immigrants. Apart from our ethical duty to support these youth and families in reaching their potential, in is in our own best interest to design and promote education for all.
[i] Crawford, G. B. (2008). Differentiation for the Adolescent Learner: Accommodating Brain Development, Language, Literacy, and Special Needs.
[ii] Noseworthy E. J. (2014). A Chance to LEARN: A bridging program for refugee students, Education Canada.
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
The new issue of Education Canada (“Towards Fewer Dropouts”) has prompted a moderate despair for me. I had hoped that parents, teachers, researchers, students and administrators had come down a long painful path together; a path towards knowing why students do not “drop out” but rather how they enter into a complex spiral of leaving school before they graduate. As it turns out, a lot of youth do leave school early; especially those who have been made socially and/or economically marginal by society and/or Aboriginal youth for whom schools did not work – or much worse. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has just aptly shown, Aboriginal youth were in fact harmed within school walls and in the name of a perverse form of education. Did the young Aboriginal students who ran for their lives and dignity “drop out” of residential schools? Absolutely not. This is the wrong term, and it leads to the wrong spirit of understanding education and youth. The term is therefore a purposeful call by CEA to provocation. It must be.
The term “drop out” has long been contested, found wanting, and thrown onto an ever growing, steaming pile of useless educational concepts and jargon that turn young people into the demons of day. On the contrary, most young people are actively working diligently and negotiating the intellectual engagements required by good teachers and schools. Some are not, and the reasons vary from having no time or opportunity to do so to finding themselves in a school or class that is a poor fit for bringing out the best in them. Some have also gone too far down the tech-industry’s rabbit hole to pay attention, but that is another long story.
The story here is that the system of public education often pushes students away from schools, but not from the true education they value, seek and demand. The act of leaving school is part of a longer-term process of disengagement and only one step in reclaiming education at a later date. But researchers and teachers don’t often get to follow these kids over time in the way that their parents do, it only appears like they have “dropped out” but they have important critiques and messages to share about public education. In fact, a growing number of young people and parents are turning these messages and demands for education into a political action. Politicians now contend with the fact that failing school systems will lead to fewer votes. Some students who leave school before receiving their diploma do so for very good reasons and show signs of courage in leaving. This is why “drop out” was a term I had hoped not to encounter again. But, see it we must. The good news is that my despair has been moderated in knowing that the CEA knows this history and has called us to action. And, in reading the articles by George J. Sefa Dei and Konrad Glogowski and the youth stories embedded in this new issue, there is much cause for hope over despair. In my next blog entry, I will tell you why.
This blog post is connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Towards Fewer Dropouts theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, How Can We Prevent High School Dropouts? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
The vast majority of school dropouts are male. It is my profound belief that the core of the problem has to do with student engagement and effort in learning. Any teacher knows that these are important, but the brain science demonstrated to me that they are more than that – they are indispensible for learning – and staying in school.