First Person

Ask an Expert: Are we there yet?

Learn more about EdNews Parent expert Karen A. Sorensen.

Q. We are going on a big road trip to California this summer. I fear my two kids will drive us nuts in the car. Do you have tips on how technology could help us?

A. Summer vacation road trips are a wonderful family tradition. Families share tighter space, unique bonding experiences and more forced togetherness than they normally do. In addition to spontaneous punching matches, high-volume melt-downs and other predictable road-trip pleasures, the question, “Are we there yet?” is always one on which you can count … often a mere five minutes after leaving the house.

Children often have a hard time conceptualizing time, distance and location because they have a limited frame of reference to judge these concepts.

Let smartphones be your guide

A mobile device, such as a smartphone or tablet, can help your child learn these concepts by creating an interactive and visual reference for time, distance and location.  Mobile devices can turn “Are we there yet?” into a positive experience by allowing your kids to plan and navigate your trip using your smartphone or tablet.

The first step is likely one you’ve already taken: the “pass-back” effect. The “pass-back” is where a parent or adult passes their own device to a child.  Parents use the “pass-back” effect 85 percent of the time during car travel, according to a 2010 report from the Sesame Workshops Joan Ganz Cooney Center’s article, “Learning: Is there an app for that?”

All you’ll need is a little advance planning to take this hand-off a step further.  That is, you’ll need to make sure your child has the resources and skills he or she needs to be a navigator before you hit the road.

Check out these travel apps

Following are some apps to get you started. All of these apps are available in the iTunes (for Apple devices) and Google Play (for Android devices) stores, unless otherwise indicated:

  • Mapquest4 Mobile – GPS navigation (Free)
  • Weather Channel – local weather forecasts (Free)
  • GrubHub – pickup and delivery restaurants in 300 cities (Free)
  • Diners, Drive-ins and Dives ($2.99)
  • GasBuddy.com – GPS gas station finder (Free)
  • Where’s My Car? – Can’t remember where you parked? Use this app (iTunes only, 99 cents)
  • Find My Car – Find lost (or stolen – hopefully not!) car (Android, Free)
  • Parker – Find perfect parking space (Free)
  • Layer  – Augmented reality app with links to content organized by category with historical sites, local attractions and more (ages 12+, Free)
  • iWrecked – Full-featured auto accident assistant (Free)

Prompt your kids with questions

Your next step is to look at this as a pilot and co-pilot experience with you and your child. Pre-plan your trip with your child so he or she knows key destination details.  Spend some time before taking off to download apps with your child, ensure he or she knows how to use them, and set up a digital trip notebook. It is important that your child knows how the technology works before starting to reduce frustration on the road.

You are now prepared for the first moment you hear “Are we there yet?” to turn the tables and start asking questions. Your response to this question should be, “I don’t know, but here is the phone/tablet. Why don’t you look it up?” From here, your questions might include:

  • Can you look up our current location and see where we are?
  • How many miles per hour are we going?
  • What is the weather going to be like in the next hour, two hours, etc.?
  • Where can we get the cheapest gas and how far away is it?

As your kids start to generate responses to these questions, have them put that data in their trip notebook. As your trip continues, you can reference earlier data points and encourage them to make various comparisons between weather, gas prices and more.

Let your kids give you directions

Even better, your kids can be your go-to navigators for restaurants, parking, local attractions and more. Apps like GrubHub and Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives enable your kids to help find places to eat along your route.  In town, they can use the Parker app to help you find the ideal parking spot.  The Layer app will enable them to find historical locations, restaurants and other attractions in a vast array of cities.

Many older cities have their own augmented reality (AR) apps, such as PhillyHistoryAR (Android, free), which provides a block-by-block look at what Philly looked like 100 years ago. Many museums and historical landmarks have created AR apps as well.

Well, you might be thinking, this is all very fun but is it really a good learning experience? The answer is, “yes.” In addition to building their understanding of the relationships between distances, time, and location, your kids are exercising core skills in non-fiction reading, geography, history, math, technology and science. These activities are building 21st century communications, critical thinking, curiosity and spatial reasoning skills.

With a little help from some mobile apps, you will turn your road trip into a real-world, project-based learning experience that is fun for you and the family. Have a safe and enjoyable trip!

First Person

I’m a principal who thinks personalized learning shouldn’t be a debate.

PHOTO: Lisa Epstein
Lisa Epstein, principal of Richard H. Lee Elementary, supports personalized learning

This is the first in what we hope will be a tradition of thoughtful opinion pieces—of all viewpoints—published by Chalkbeat Chicago. Have an idea? Send it to cburke@chalkbeat.org

As personalized learning takes hold throughout the city, Chicago teachers are wondering why a term so appealing has drawn so much criticism.

Until a few years ago, the school that I lead, Richard H. Lee Elementary on the Southwest Side, was on a path toward failing far too many of our students. We crafted curriculum and identified interventions to address gaps in achievement and the shifting sands of accountability. Our teachers were hardworking and committed. But our work seemed woefully disconnected from the demands we knew our students would face once they made the leap to postsecondary education.

We worried that our students were ill-equipped for today’s world of work and tomorrow’s jobs. Yet, we taught using the same model through which we’d been taught: textbook-based direct instruction.

How could we expect our learners to apply new knowledge to evolving facts, without creating opportunities for exploration? Where would they learn to chart their own paths, if we didn’t allow for agency at school? Why should our students engage with content that was disconnected from their experiences, values, and community?

We’ve read articles about a debate over personalized learning centered on Silicon Valley’s “takeover” of our schools. We hear that Trojan Horse technologies are coming for our jobs. But in our school, personalized learning has meant developing lessons informed by the cultural heritage and interests of our students. It has meant providing opportunities to pursue independent projects, and differentiating curriculum, instruction, and assessment to enable our students to progress at their own pace. It has reflected a paradigm shift that is bottom-up and teacher led.

And in a move that might have once seemed incomprehensible, it has meant getting rid of textbooks altogether. We’re not alone.

We are among hundreds of Chicago educators who would welcome critics to visit one of the 120 city schools implementing new models for learning – with and without technology. Because, as it turns out, Chicago is fast becoming a hub for personalized learning. And, it is no coincidence that our academic growth rates are also among the highest in the nation.

Before personalized learning, we designed our classrooms around the educator. Decisions were made based on how educators preferred to teach, where they wanted students to sit, and what subjects they wanted to cover.

Personalized learning looks different in every classroom, but the common thread is that we now make decisions looking at the student. We ask them how they learn best and what subjects strike their passions. We use small group instruction and individual coaching sessions to provide each student with lesson plans tailored to their needs and strengths. We’re reimagining how we use physical space, and the layout of our classrooms. We worry less about students talking with their friends; instead, we ask whether collaboration and socialization will help them learn.

Our emphasis on growth shows in the way students approach each school day. I have, for example, developed a mentorship relationship with one of our middle school students who, despite being diligent and bright, always ended the year with average grades. Last year, when she entered our personalized learning program for eighth grade, I saw her outlook change. She was determined to finish the year with all As.

More than that, she was determined to show that she could master anything her teachers put in front of her. She started coming to me with graded assignments. We’d talk about where she could improve and what skills she should focus on. She was pragmatic about challenges and so proud of her successes. At the end of the year she finished with straight As—and she still wanted more. She wanted to get A-pluses next year. Her outlook had changed from one of complacence to one oriented towards growth.

Rather than undermining the potential of great teachers, personalized learning is creating opportunities for collaboration as teachers band together to leverage team-teaching and capitalize on their strengths and passions. For some classrooms, this means offering units and lessons based on the interests and backgrounds of the class. For a couple of classrooms, it meant literally knocking down walls to combine classes from multiple grade-levels into a single room that offers each student maximum choice over how they learn. For every classroom, it means allowing students to work at their own pace, because teaching to the middle will always fail to push some while leaving others behind.

For many teachers, this change sounded daunting at first. For years, I watched one of my teachers – a woman who thrives off of structure and runs a tight ship – become less and less engaged in her profession. By the time we made the switch to personalized learning, I thought she might be done. We were both worried about whether she would be able to adjust to the flexibility of the new model. But she devised a way to maintain order in her classroom while still providing autonomy. She’s found that trusting students with the responsibility to be engaged and efficient is both more effective and far more rewarding than trying to force them into their roles. She now says that she would never go back to the traditional classroom structure, and has rediscovered her love for teaching. The difference is night and day.

The biggest change, though, is in the relationships between students and teachers. Gone is the traditional, authority-to-subordinate dynamic; instead, students see their teachers as mentors with whom they have a unique and individual connection, separate from the rest of the class. Students are actively involved in designing their learning plans, and are constantly challenged to articulate the skills they want to build and the steps that they must take to get there. They look up to their teachers, they respect their teachers, and, perhaps most important, they know their teachers respect them.

Along the way, we’ve found that students respond favorably when adults treat them as individuals. When teachers make important decisions for them, they see learning as a passive exercise. But, when you make it clear that their needs and opinions will shape each school day, they become invested in the outcome.

As our students take ownership over their learning, they earn autonomy, which means they know their teachers trust them. They see growth as the goal, so they no longer finish assignments just to be done; they finish assignments to get better. And it shows in their attendance rates – and test scores.

Lisa Epstein is the principal of Richard H. Lee Elementary School, a public school in Chicago’s West Lawn neighborhood serving 860 students from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that Richard H. Lee Elementary School serves 860 students, not 760 students.

First Person

I’ve spent years studying the link between SHSAT scores and student success. The test doesn’t tell you as much as you might think.

PHOTO: Photo by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

Proponents of New York City’s specialized high school exam, the test the mayor wants to scrap in favor of a new admissions system, defend it as meritocratic. Opponents contend that when used without consideration of school grades or other factors, it’s an inappropriate metric.

One thing that’s been clear for decades about the exam, now used to admit students to eight top high schools, is that it matters a great deal.

Students admitted may not only receive a superior education, but also access to elite colleges and eventually to better employment. That system has also led to an under-representation of Hispanic students, black students, and girls.

As a doctoral student at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York in 2015, and in the years after I received my Ph.D., I have tried to understand how meritocratic the process really is.

First, that requires defining merit. Only New York City defines it as the score on a single test — other cities’ selective high schools use multiple measures, as do top colleges. There are certainly other potential criteria, such as artistic achievement or citizenship.

However, when merit is defined as achievement in school, the question of whether the test is meritocratic is an empirical question that can be answered with data.

To do that, I used SHSAT scores for nearly 28,000 students and school grades for all public school students in the city. (To be clear, the city changed the SHSAT itself somewhat last year; my analysis used scores on the earlier version.)

My analysis makes clear that the SHSAT does measure an ability that contributes to some extent to success in high school. Specifically, a SHSAT score predicts 20 percent of the variability in freshman grade-point average among all public school students who took the exam. Students with extremely high SHSAT scores (greater than 650) generally also had high grades when they reached a specialized school.

However, for the vast majority of students who were admitted with lower SHSAT scores, from 486 to 600, freshman grade point averages ranged widely — from around 50 to 100. That indicates that the SHSAT was a very imprecise predictor of future success for students who scored near the cutoffs.

Course grades earned in the seventh grade, in contrast, predicted 44 percent of the variability in freshman year grades, making it a far better admissions criterion than SHSAT score, at least for students near the score cutoffs.

It’s not surprising that a standardized test does not predict as well as past school performance. The SHSAT represents a two and a half hour sample of a limited range of skills and knowledge. In contrast, middle-school grades reflect a full year of student performance across the full range of academic subjects.

Furthermore, an exam which relies almost exclusively on one method of assessment, multiple choice questions, may fail to measure abilities that are revealed by the variety of assessment methods that go into course grades. Additionally, middle school grades may capture something important that the SHSAT fails to capture: long-term motivation.

Based on his current plan, Mayor de Blasio seems to be pointed in the right direction. His focus on middle school grades and the Discovery Program, which admits students with scores below the cutoff, is well supported by the data.

In the cohort I looked at, five of the eight schools admitted some students with scores below the cutoff. The sample sizes were too small at four of them to make meaningful comparisons with regularly admitted students. But at Brooklyn Technical High School, the performance of the 35 Discovery Program students was equal to that of other students. Freshman year grade point averages for the two groups were essentially identical: 86.6 versus 86.7.

My research leads me to believe that it might be reasonable to admit a certain percentage of the students with extremely high SHSAT scores — over 600, where the exam is a good predictor —and admit the remainder using a combined index of seventh grade GPA and SHSAT scores.

When I used that formula to simulate admissions, diversity increased, somewhat. An additional 40 black students, 209 Hispanic students, and 205 white students would have been admitted, as well as an additional 716 girls. It’s worth pointing out that in my simulation, Asian students would still constitute the largest segment of students (49 percent) and would be admitted in numbers far exceeding their proportion of applicants.

Because middle school grades are better than test scores at predicting high school achievement, their use in the admissions process should not in any way dilute the quality of the admitted class, and could not be seen as discriminating against Asian students.

The success of the Discovery students should allay some of the concerns about the ability of students with SHSAT scores below the cutoffs. There is no guarantee that similar results would be achieved in an expanded Discovery Program. But this finding certainly warrants larger-scale trials.

With consideration of additional criteria, it may be possible to select a group of students who will be more representative of the community the school system serves — and the pool of students who apply — without sacrificing the quality for which New York City’s specialized high schools are so justifiably famous.

Jon Taylor is a research analyst at Hunter College analyzing student success and retention.