I remember how it was -- JR
The International Baccalaureate: ‘education’s best kept secret’
London’s Fulham School offers outstanding teaching by combining traditional methods with innovative techniques for pupils of diverse abilities. To unlock the potential of every individual, the curriculum focuses on three pillars – academic excellence, sport and the performing arts.
Founded in 1996, the independent, co-educational school in west London is part of Inspired, a leading global group of premium centres for education. Already offering pre-prep, prep and senior school learning, this year saw the launch of their sixth form, situated in a purpose-built department on Chesilton Road.
All sixth form students take the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma. The qualification is recognised by all universities across the world for its broad and rigorous education, and many academics now regard it as superior to A-levels.
According to data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, students who take the IB have a greater likelihood of attending a top 20 university, of graduating with honours and subsequently engaging in postgraduate study.
Yet, according to a YouGov survey commissioned by the school, nearly half of the parents questioned – 46 per cent – had not heard of the IB programme and of those who had heard of it, a quarter – 26 per cent – had not considered enrolling their children in it.
The IB programme offers a holistic and balanced education which other qualifications struggle to provide because they focus too narrowly on subjects. Some believe it produces more versatile thinkers and learners better prepared to succeed in a complex world where asking the right questions is vital.
This resonates with overwhelmingly positive responses to the YouGov survey which reported widespread agreement among the parents questioned that they believed their child’s education should focus on qualities such as confidence, critical thinking and taking responsibility. The IB has been specifically designed with the development of such traits in mind.
“The International Baccalaureate is education’s best kept secret,” says Chris Cockerill, head of Fulham Senior School. “These findings clearly show that parents are looking for an education programme that is going to help their children leave traditional education at the age of 18 as enquiring, principled and global thinkers.
“Parents know what they want for their children – they just don’t realise yet that this is exactly what the IB delivers. It’s a global education for a global world.”
The diploma is studied over two years. Pupils choose courses from the following subject groups: studies in language and literature; language acquisition; individuals and societies; sciences; mathematics; and the arts. Three are studied at higher level, and three at standard level, with students assessed on each individual course through a combination of internal assessment and exams at the end of their two years.
Underpinning such learning are three mandatory elements within the diploma: the theory of knowledge; creativity, action, service; and an extended essay. Each is designed to develop social and interpersonal skills, and help produce well-rounded citizens of the world.
The theory of knowledge focuses on critical thinking across the chosen subjects with the aim of giving students a deeper understanding of their learning, and encouraging them to consider its importance.
Creativity, action, service is designed to enhance students’ personal and interpersonal development, combining a range of activities alongside academic study to engage in the arts and creative thinking, physical activity and service in the community.
“Parents know what they want for their children, which is what the IB delivers – a global education for a global world”
The extended essay is a 4,000-word paper on a topic relating to one of the student’s diploma subjects based on in-depth study, and written over six to eight months.
Pupils leaving Fulham’s sixth form will not just emerge with a prestigious qualification. They will also have enjoyed a rich and highly rewarding experience preparing them both for higher education and for a future as a responsible, rounded and confident adult.
*******************************************
Hidden college admission factors that hurt students’ chances of acceptance
Across the country, millions of high school seniors are already preparing college applications for next fall. Those who apply to highly selective universities will be engaged in a struggle for very few spots. Last year, my university, Johns Hopkins, admitted 2,477 students from a pool of 38,513 applications.
An offer of admission can be transformational, especially for students from low- and middle-income families. Universities continue to be among the most powerful engines in our society for moving people up the socioeconomic ladder: An American with a college degree is poised to earn more than twice as much as an American without one.
But are universities giving students a fair shot? Evidence suggests not. Harvard economist Raj Chetty and colleagues found last year that “high-income students are 34 percent more likely to attend selective colleges than low-income students with the same test scores.” With so many talented students vying for so few seats, schools have adopted an array of policies and practices to help determine whom to admit. Regrettably, these policies often disadvantage high-achieving low-income students.
Take “demonstrated interest,” or an applicant’s perceived enthusiasm for a school, typically measured by campus visits, alumni interviews or whether an applicant visits a school’s Web site.
Although seemingly innocuous, “demonstrated interest” tilts in favor of students with the ability and knowledge to travel to campuses, to schedule and navigate interviews, and to send potentially esoteric signals of interest. Did a student write a “thank you” note to a campus tour guide? Spend more time reading an e-mail from the university than the average applicant? Make a phone call to the admissions office? Those who are unable or don’t know to do these things end up losing out to those who do, creating a structural impediment for low-income and first-generation students, who are also overwhelmingly students of color.
Why does such a practice develop? One word: yield. This refers to the fraction of students who accept an offer of admission each year. The higher the yield, the more selective the school becomes. More selectivity increases institutional prestige and was, for many years, a critical factor in determining where a school landed on US News and World Report’s annual college rankings. Policies designed to maximize yield like “demonstrated interest” — which Johns Hopkins does not consider — are an unfortunate consequence of this competition among and between universities.
The quest for ever higher yields is benefitting wealthier students. It doesn’t have to, but the incentives need to change. Universities should instead be competing for more high-achieving, low- and middle-income students.
Colleges and universities have engaged in virtuous competition before to make higher education more accessible and affordable. In 1966, as calls for greater equity in higher education reached a fever pitch, Yale University — under the leadership of a progressive president and dean of admissions — announced that its admissions would henceforth be “need-blind” (meaning that the school would guarantee financial aid to any admitted student regardless of need). This kicked off a scramble among selective universities to follow suit.
Then, in the 2000s, in the midst of mounting criticism of the price of higher education, universities engaged in what journalists described as a financial aid “arms race” to attract and make college more affordable for low- and middle-income students. In each case, a potent combination of cultural pressure and institutional courage created the conditions for lasting, systemic change.
American higher education can do this again. But it will require action on several fronts. Universities themselves need to adapt their admissions practices to level the playing field and recruit more low- and middle-income students. They can eliminate entirely or radically reimagine polices like “demonstrated interest” to be fairer and more transparent and increase outreach to urban and rural public schools. Additionally, college and university rankings need to take account of social mobility to incentivize change, which US News and World Report has already begun to do.
The 19th century preacher Lyman Beecher once called American colleges and universities the “practical equalizers of society.” We haven’t fully realized that vision yet, but we can if we’re willing to fight for it.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/16/hidden-college-admission-factors-that-hurt-chance-at-acceptance/
*************************************************It’s Time to Face the Facts on School Closings
Looking back over all the damage done to children over the last year via pandemic response is important for evaluating how to move forward. Noah Benjamin-Pollak and Joshua Coval, both of Harvard Business School, explain what happened.
If you were a school superintendent considering whether to keep your district open in-person or move to online, how would you decide? Most people would suggest you look at COVID-19 case numbers in your community. Perhaps you would consider the vaccination rate, and if you had students with auto-immune disorders or other risk factors, maybe you would consider that. Most Americans would find these sorts of considerations reasonable.
As it turned out, this was far from what happened in American schools last year. An analysis of school-closing data on the nation’s 150 largest school districts reveals something entirely different. Rather than the progress of the disease in a local community, the most important predictor of remote schooling was a school district’s historical propensity to prioritize the interests of its teachers over the competing interests of its students.
Benjamin-Pollak and Coval reviewed loads of data regarding school closures over the last 18 months, and that factor was prevalent. Districts that scored high on factors like “prioritizing teacher seniority over new teachers and teacher performance, granting teachers more days off, and limiting the number of hours students spend in school each day” were “significantly more likely to opt for the remote-learning format last year.”
In aggregate, these measures of district-level teacher favoritism do far more to explain remote vs. in-person school decisions than every other variable we tested, including the COVID-19 infection rates in the community.
On the other hand, districts that historically favor students remained in-person. If only that were fair.
Although there are legitimate reasons to worry about the health risks of in-person school for unvaccinated children, a mounting body of literature has demonstrated that remote instruction is detrimental to students’ learning. While the full effects of pandemic-driven remote school on America’s schoolchildren will not be known for years, it is already clear that remote school has hurt the average student and that the damage has fallen disproportionately on low-income students, urban students, and students of color. Students in these groups are more likely to be in a remote school and are less able to learn in a remote classroom due to resource disparities at both the school and the household level.
The pair concludes:
Rather than using the euphemisms “teacher-favoring districts” and “student-favoring districts,” let us be more direct. If you want to know why your children are in Zoom school, look to your local teachers’ union. The more power it enjoys, the more likely it is that your kids will be in Zoom school, regardless of vaccination rates, infection rates, or emergency-room capacity. Media coverage to the contrary, this should not be surprising. After all, teachers’ unions are supposed to protect the interests of teachers, not students. Most of the time, those interests are somewhat aligned, but when — as with the COVID-19 pandemic — teachers’ interests come into conflict with the needs of students, teachers’ unions become a serious obstacle.
***********************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment