Maine Schools in Focus – College of Education and Human Development

Maine Schools in Focus: What Educators Need to Know 91�� High-Conflict Family Relationships

ckelly — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:21:10 +0000

Daniel Puhlman, Assistant Professor of Family Studies

When teachers have students in their classes whose parents are going through a contentious divorce and/or separation, it can create significant tension and serious challenges for the student that threaten to disrupt their learning and development. The research on parents engaged in high conflict resoundingly suggests that their children are affected substantially, and areas such as academic performance (Sun & Li, 2009), social-emotional development (Elam, Sandler, Wolchik, Tein, 2016), and overall well-being (Bastaits & Mortelmans, 2016) are significantly impaired.

Educators are also impacted by these family issues as they work with children experiencing parental conflict and must establish working relationships with all of the child’s parents or caregivers. Although the idea of engaging with families in the midst of divorce or separation is terrifying to many teachers, the unique position of educators makes them particularly well situated to make a difference in the child’s life. This brief addresses these concepts and what teachers need to know about them to work most effectively with students and their families.

Families experiencing divorce and separation have several important challenges that must be acknowledged and addressed prior to effectively working with them in an educational context. First, any legal parameters and expectations that have been established through the courts take priority. When implemented, legal documents provide an important roadmap for decision making, responsibility, and expectations. It is important that educators consult these documents in order to be clear about the formally defined role of all parents and caregivers.

A second challenge is the importance of understanding emotional intensity in high-conflict families. Even situations that seem benign, such as school meetings or parent teacher conferences, can trigger emotions (anger, frustration or sadness) for families engaged in the process of divorce and separation (Barth, et al., 2020). Boundary issues are another significant challenge for teachers working with families where conflict is present. Parents can provide too much information, ask for favors or exceptions from teachers, and even keep essential information hidden. Attempts at testing or challenging appropriate professional boundaries are common, and should be expected when working with parents in high conflict situations.

A final challenge is what is called triangulation, which occurs when one or both parents attempt to pull a teacher or school administrator into their personal conflict. Parents may ask for guidance in dealing with the other parent, ask for the educator to give messages to the other parent, or ask that the school take sides in the parental conflict. The impact of triangulation is significant and creates difficult situations that can put teachers in awkward positions, severely impact the child’s growth and cause more problems. When educators expect these challenges they can be more prepared to address them when they arise in their classrooms.

There are several strategies that educators can use to mitigate these challenging family situations. First, it is imperative that teachers and administrators provide a clear and safe structure for all families. Establishing clear guidelines for how educators will communicate with families allows for clear and equal relationships with all caregivers. Setting parameters around meetings and conferences that allow both parents to attend so that neither parent receives different messages can be useful. Strategies for these meetings could include having one or both parents attend virtually, having additional school staff present during the meeting, and establishing clear ground rules and expectations before the meeting.

Another key strategy in working with families in conflict is to be sure that clear and specific boundaries are identified. The role of educators is specifically outlined and child-focused. Teachers are not equipped to assist parents in conflict resolution, make decisions around parental roles and responsibilities, and provide counseling or therapy to families. It is essential to establish clear boundaries around what is acceptable conversation in the school setting and what is not.

Finally, making effective use of communication with both parents will help to create a positive learning environment for the child. All information conveyed to one parent should be provided to the other parent in the same way. Providing more information to one parent over the other can often result in animosity and frustration for one parent. Written communication, such as emails or letters home, should be directed to both parents. Brief phone calls and in-person discussions can occur with one parent; however, a brief summary of that discussion should be sent to both parents.

Working with families that are engaged in high-conflict divorce or separation is very challenging for educators. Successful management of these situations can help families to restructure their lives in a way that is more supportive and helpful to the children. Role-modeling, boundary-setting, and transparent and equitable communication are all strategies that can help educators effectively navigate these challenging family situations to support positive academic outcomes for students.

Resources for Educators

91�� Parenting Relationships Research Lab. Founded by Dr. Puhlman, the PRRL generates research and outreach geared towards helping families, scholars and professionals better understand the complexities of parenting relationships and work collaboratively with coparents and other parental figures to raise healthy and happy children.
. Maine-based nonprofit providing education and support for changing families.
. A tool to help co-parents and families manage shared parenting.
. An online scheduling and communication tool that provides parents with a simple way to organize and manage shared parenting.

References

Barth, K. R., Brosi, M., Cox, R. R., Spencer, T. A., & Beasley, L. O. (2020). A Qualitative Analysis of Divorcing Parents’ Readiness to Co-parent. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 61(4), 267-286.

Bastaits, K., & Mortelmans, D. (2016). Parenting as mediator between post-divorce family structure and children’s well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2178-2188.

Cox, M. J. & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243-267.

Elam, K. K., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Tein, J. Y. (2016). Non-residential father–child involvement, interparental conflict and mental health of children following divorce: A person-focused approach. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(3), 581-593.

Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2009). Parental divorce, sibship size, family resources, and children’s academic performance. Social science research, 38(3), 622-634.

Any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the Maine Schools in Focus briefs are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect institutional positions or views of the College of Education and Human Development or the University of Maine.

Maine Schools in Focus: Evidence-Based Practices for Technology-Enhanced Learning

ckelly — Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:53:15 +0000

Sara Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Special Education
Sarah Howorth, Assistant Professor of Special Education
Deborah Rooks-Ellis, Assistant Professor of Special Education

The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted an already urgent need for educators to develop their technological and pedagogical content knowledge—what some in education refer to as —in order to be effective practitioners in technology-enhanced learning environments.

But what are the evidence-based practices for delivering instruction in asynchronous or synchronous remote or online settings? Current technology-based distance education systems have only been studied for about the last decade at the K-12 level, a very short time in which to build a body of literature (Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010). A variety of assistive and instructional technologies have been designed to provide students greater access to curriculum and to increase their potential for school success. The quality of technology—what and how it is used—is a more significant factor than the quantity of technology available for learning and teaching (Lei, 2010). The 2018 Project Tomorrow report indicates that teachers’ use of digital tools in the classroom helps students develop the types of workplace and college-ready skills they need to be successful in the future, and the effective use of those tools is enabling more equitable learning experiences at school (Evans, 2018).

The TPACK framework emphasizes the purposeful use of technology that is matched to the intersection of pedagogy, technological knowledge and content knowledge. Essentially, instead of starting instructional planning with a specific technology in mind, technology is added to instruction if it meets at the intersection of TPACK. The learning objective, rather than the technology tool is the first consideration. The idea is to understand how to use technology to teach concepts in a way that expands and enhances student engagement and learning.

For example, teachers deliver pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) using Google Classroom and recognize that the content will engage students if they create interactive learning opportunities, such as videos, breakout groups, online quizzes and discussions. These expanded learning opportunities represent teachers’ understanding of technological content knowledge (TCK).

Supporting Accessibility for All Students

Technology also provides a tool for implementing the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) in today’s diverse classrooms (Lock & Kingsley, 2007; Okolo & Diedrich, 2014; Rose & Dalton, 2009). According to UDL proponents, no single curricula, method, material or instructional strategy will work for all students. They argue the use of UDL increases access, reduces barriers and assists students with a variety of needs. In terms of remote learning, common barriers students may face include time management and finding the needed information in an online platform. To reduce such barriers, teachers may consider having a consistent layout for all online information; a checklist for objectives, so students to know exactly what they are trying to accomplish; and clearly labeled assignments (e.g., using the label “Reading Comprehension Review Assignment” to indicate that the content is an assignment for the specific topic). Information can be presented in a variety of ways, such as text, video, audio and/or images. Educators should think about selecting technology that works best for students’ different learning needs and the instructional objectives.

Barriers to Technology Access at Home

Another consideration for educators and policymakers in selecting technology to support instructional goals is the continued barrier of the “digital divide” that creates inequities in access to internet service and hardware in different communities. A recent national report from the U.S. Department of Education (Gray, Lewis & Chapman, 2020) provides information about technology used for homework assignments in grades 3-12. The report, which covered the 2018-19 school year, indicates that while computers and internet service might exist in students’ homes, the availability of computers for homework and the reliability of internet access varies considerably. Only about a third (35 percent) of teachers estimated that their students’ home computers were “very available” for school assignments. Furthermore, just 29 percent of teachers thought it “very likely” that their students’ home computers had reliable internet access. Finally, only 19 percent of teachers reported that they “often” assign technology-based homework and an additional 28 percent reported doing so “sometimes.” If two-thirds of families do not have a computer available for schoolwork, how can schools ensure equitable access to public education?

Maine may be ahead of the curve regarding this concern and poised as a leader for our nation’s schools due to the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI), which made laptops and other devices widely available in middle school and other grades beginning in 2002. The Maine Department of Education (MDOE) provided professional development sessions on using technology as a tool to deliver remote instruction during the 2019-20 school year’s spring semester. However, for many students with the most severe learning challenges, many of the interventions they need such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, intensive behavior therapy and vocational training cannot be adequately delivered in a remote format. In addition, in many parts of Maine—particularly rural areas—reliable broadband internet service is not available for all homes (ConnectMaine Authority, 2020).

As Maine schools prepare for the coming school year, and the uncertainty about how instruction will be delivered to students, many resources are available both in the state and nationally to support conversations, professional development efforts and decision-making about how and when to use technology in thoughtful ways that effectively support students’ diverse learning needs, as well as teachers’ instructional goals. We provide links to some of these resources below.

Resources

We are in uncharted territory when it comes to ensuring equity and digital access to a free and appropriate education during these challenging times, and guidance provided by the and the federal should be consulted. MDOE also offers resources for teachers and families to support student engagement and learning . Other reputable resources for remote learning and technology instructional tools include:

(CEC): CEC is the leading organization for supporting individuals with disabilities. CEC compiled a list of resources for different grade levels, content areas, and other topics (e.g., social-emotional learning, working with paraprofessionals remotely). While this a special education website, the information included is applicable for any student with or without a disability.
: The Division for Early Childhood, a division of CEC, promotes policies and advances evidence-based practices that support families and enhance optimal development for young children (0-8).
This comprehensive website has a list of resources that have been evaluated by educational experts and is endorsed by a number of education organizations, including CEC, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and the International Society for Technology in Education.
: This link includes a variety of videos on technology in education, including creating accessible materials and assistive technology, from Innovations in Special Education Technology (ISET). ISET is a division of the CEC focused on innovative technology-based solutions for today’s needs.
: This article provides useful, practical tips and suggestions for online, remote learning for students with disabilities by applying UDL and explicit instruction.
: CAST, an organization dedicated to UDL, developed a list of resources related to remote learning. Resources include articles on supporting executive function, creating accessible documents, and developing instruction.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE):

References

Bebell, D. and O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(1). Retrieved from

ConnectMaine Authority. (2020). State of Maine Broadband Action Plan. Maine Department of Economic and Community Development. Retrieved from:

Evans, J.A. (2018). The educational equity imperative: Leveraging technology to empower learning for all. Project Tomorrow. Retrieved from:

Gray, L., and Lewis, L. (2020). Teachers’ use of technology for school and homework assignments: 2018-19. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:

Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 455-472

Lock, R.H. & Kingsley, K.V. (2007). Empower diverse learners with educational technology and digital media. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 52-56

Okolo, C. M., & Diedrich, J. (2014). Twenty-five years later: How is technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 1-20

Rose, D. & Dalton, B. (2009). Learning to read in the digital age. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(2), 74-83

Maine Schools in Focus: Assessing Progress Toward Universal Preschool Education

ckelly — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:47:51 +0000

Janet Fairman, Associate Professor
Patricia Lech, Senior Research Associate

Maine Governor Janet Mills has made universal public preschool education a priority. The Maine Education Policy Research Institute (), through the University of Maine, has conducted several studies in the past five years examining school districts’ readiness to start or expand public preschool, parents’ preferences for preschool, and the ways districts are structuring and delivering these programs in Maine. In this brief, we outline the progress made to date in moving toward universal public preschool and the challenges and gaps the state and school districts still need to address.

There is considerable research evidence that quality preschool education improves readiness for kindergarten and school performance beyond (Barnett, 2011, 2013; Gormley, Phillips & Anderson 2017; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013). Increasingly, the research emphasizes the importance of play, particularly peer play in both preschool and kindergarten, as an important foundation for social/emotional development and school readiness (Eggum-Wilkens et al., 2013; Torres, Domitrovich & Bierman 2015). Social interactions also help children develop executive functions (necessary for prioritizing, decision making and problem solving), as well as self-regulation of emotions and behavior, which remain critical skills students need throughout their educational journey and in adult life (Duncan & Magnuson 2013, MDOE, 2015). Quality public preschool programs incorporate both academic learning (math, science, reading, social studies) and non-academic learning (e.g., music, art, physical movement, eating, naptime and play) that support physical health, mental/cognitive growth and social/emotional development (Atteberry, Bassok & Wong 2019).

Maine’s Early Learning and Development Standards (MELDS), adopted in 2015, describe expectations for student learning by the start of kindergarten and guidance for early educators on instructional approaches that support that learning (MDOE, 2015). The standards underline the importance of relationships and peer play for social/emotional development, effective approaches to meet diverse student needs and inclusive classrooms and trained educators. In 2017, the MDOE established rules for approval of public preschool programs and components of those programs in Chapter 124 (MDOE, 2017).

Maine is also making progress in public preschool participation. Based on estimates from the most recent MEPRI study (Lech and Fairman, 2020), the number of children enrolled in public preschool in Maine increased by about 30% over the past five years—from roughly 5,000 children in 2014-2015 to about 6,500 children in the 2019-20 school year, serving roughly 48% of four-year-olds. Similarly, there is progress in the delivery of public preschool programs, which expanded from about 203 schools in 2015-16 in 122 school administrative units (SAUs) to 252 schools in 158 SAUs in 2020 that offer programs of various types. 91�� 39 SAUs do not offer preschool programs. Many districts (40%) in Maine have preschool programs that operate only two to four days per week. 91�� half of the current preschool students attend half-day programs, while only 18% attend full-time (full day, 5 days). This contrasts sharply with kindergarten participation which currently includes about 94% of eligible students in full-day programs and only 6% of students in half-day programs. By law, all kindergarten programs are five days per week.

Most districts that offer public preschool programs are making use of evidence-based curricula and MDOE-recommended assessments. Based on a fall 2019 MEPRI survey of 142 superintendents in districts with kindergarten programs which had a 62% response rate, preschool programs use either a commercial preschool curriculum or the PreK for ME curriculum provided by the MDOE in roughly equal proportions (Lech & Fairman, 2020). The most commonly used commercial curriculum is the Opening the World of Learning (OWL) curriculum. Only four districts indicated their programs use curricula created entirely by the preschool teachers.

Yet, districts indicated on the recent MEPRI survey significant challenges in starting or expanding public preschool programs in their schools. The three biggest challenges reported were: financial cost for start-up and expansion, appropriate facilities and space that meet the state’s requirements, and recruitment and retention of trained preschool teachers and staff.

Most districts appear to be meeting the demand for preschool, but 25% of responding superintendents indicated on the recent MEPRI survey that their preschool programs have waiting lists for students they cannot currently accommodate. A majority of responding district superintendents (74%) indicated that “many”, “most” or “all” of their sending families would use a full-time preschool program if it was available. The MEPRI study found that 58% of schools that currently operate a preschool program have three or more unused preschool spaces that are not currently being used. It is not clear why these preschool programs are under-enrolled as their kindergarten classes are filled. MEPRI estimates that roughly482 additional preschool classes (of 16 students) would need to be added to provide full-day, full week preschool for all eligible children in Maine (Lech & Fairman, 2020). Together, the study’s findings indicate a pressing need for increased program funding, development of additional preschool educators in the state, and expansion and alteration of school or other facilities to house full-time, five day a week preschool programs.

Expanding public preschool programs could be supported through district partnerships with federally-funded agencies (Head Start) or private programs, but only about 25%-30% of responding districts indicated on the MEPRI survey that they currently utilize such partnerships. Some districts lack agencies or potential partners in their immediate area, and other districts cited transportation issues or parents’ preference for programs within the elementary school as barriers to partnerships. Districts that have formed partnerships cited the advantages of cost-sharing, use of additional facilities and trained staff and the need to serve more students as reasons for partnering on preschool programs.

The recent MEPRI survey also indicated a gap in access to appropriate professional development for public preschool teachers and staff. Although most of the districts responding to the survey (80%) indicated they include preschool teachers in their regular inservice training once a semester or as often as weekly, the training is typically not focused on early childhood topics specifically. Further, 30 districts (44%) indicated that preschool teachers have access to coaching supports, and 26 districts (38%) indicated that preschool and/or kindergarten teachers are included in weekly or monthly professional learning communities (PLCs) (Lech & Fairman, 2020).

On a recent national ranking of states for components of preschool program quality, Maine and five other states met nine of ten benchmarks (NIEER, 2019). Maine met the benchmark for employing preschool teachers with bachelor’s degrees specializing in early childhood education, but did not meet the benchmarks for providing a minimum of 15 hours per year of appropriate professional development, individual professional development plans, and coaching support. Teacher quality is one of the primary factors determining student learning outcomes. Small districts may only employ one or two preschool teachers, who work in isolation. Regional networks or collaboratives can be a useful strategy to help educators connect with their colleagues and increase access to a broader range of professional learning resources (Hargreaves, Parsley & Cox, 2015). More work is needed to improve the quality and quantity of on-going professional development and supports for preschool educators.

As school districts prepare for expansion of public preschool programs, the following questions may facilitate productive discussions and planning.

What changes could be made to increase utilization of your district’s public preschool programs? Would increasing program hours increase participation? Do families recognize that preschool focuses on play-based social learning with peers?
What other preschool programs in your immediate area might provide potential partnerships to support the cost, staffing and facilities needs for preschool programs? What are some challenges or barriers to partnership? What actions or changes are needed to overcome those barriers?
How could your district increase community support and funding of public preschool? Are the cost and social benefits of public preschool being communicated to taxpayers?
To what extend does your district provide preschool teachers and staff access to inservice, PLCs, coaching, professional development plans, and other on-going professional development? Are these supports focused on early childhood education? Does your district provide a minimum of 15 hours per year in professional development? If not, how can your district partner with other districts in the region, join or form a professional collaborative, or access resources from the state or national organizations to support teachers’ development and high quality preschool programs?
What planning for renovations or future school facilities need to happen to ensure your district can accommodate the space needs for preschool program expansion? What changes need to be anticipated to meet space requirements in Maine’s Early Learning and Development Standards?

References and Resources:

Atteberry, A., Bassok, D., & Wong, V. C. (2019). The effects of full-day prekindergarten: Experimental evidence of impacts on Children’s school readiness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi:10.3102/0162373719872197

Barnett, W.S. (2013). Expanding access to quality pre-K is sound public policy. A report of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Retrieved from:

Barnett, W.S. (2011). Preschool education as an educational reform: Issues of effectiveness and access. A report of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2013). Investing in preschool programs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 109-131. doi:10.1257/jep.27.2.109

Eggum-Wilkens, N. D., Fabes, R. A., Castle, S., Zhang, L., Hanish, L. D., & Martin, C. L. (2014). Playing with others: Head start children’s peer play and relations with kindergarten school competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 345-356. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.008

Fairman, J. & Johnson, A. (2019). Report on PreK special education inclusion practices in Maine: An exploratory study of three districts. A report of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). Orono, ME: University of Maine.

Fairman, J.C., Logue, M.E., & LaBrie S. (February 2016) Factors influencing parents’ decision to use public pre-K programs in Maine: Results of a parent survey. A report of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). Orono, ME: University of Maine

Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D., & Anderson, S. (2018). The effects of Tulsa’s Pre‐K program on middle school student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(1), 63-87. doi:10.1002/pam.22023

Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Solidarity with solidity: The case for collaborative professionalism: Effective collaboration requires teachers to get their heads out of the sand and see what others are doing while relying on expertise to keep the sand out of their heads. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1), 20.

Lech, P. & Fairman, J. (Feb. 2020). Public preschool programs in Maine: Program design, capacity and expansion challenges. A research report of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). Orono, ME: University of Maine.

Logue, M.E., Tu, S., Fisher, S., & Mason, C.A. (June 2015) Public preschool programs in Maine: Four case studies of quality programs. A report of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). Orono, ME: University of Maine

Maine Department of Education (MDOE). (2017). Chapter 124: Basic approval standards: Public preschool programs. Augusta, Maine: Author. Retrieved from:

Maine Department of Education (MDOE). (2015). Early learning and development standards. Augusta, Maine: Author. Retrieved from:

Maine State Legislature. (2019). Proposed bill, LD 1043 An act to establish universal public preschool programs.

Mason, C. A., and Porter, M. (March 2015). Public preschools in Maine: Current status and characteristics. A report of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). Orono, ME: University of Maine

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Various resources for educators, programs and teacher training programs are found at:

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). (2019). State of Preschool 2018 Annual Report (2019). New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University. Retrieved from:

Torres, M. M., Domitrovich, C. E., & Bierman, K. L. (2015). Preschool interpersonal relationships predict kindergarten achievement: Mediated by gains in emotion knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 39, 44-52. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2015.04.008

Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84(6), 2112-2130. doi:10.1111/cdev.12099

Recent MEPRI research reports can be found at:

Maine Schools in Focus: Undergraduate Student Reflects on Summer Internship with Rural Vitality Lab

ckelly — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 19:40:52 +0000

Jada Lamb, University of Maine
Elementary Education student

As the most rural state in the country, Maine’s students face unique educational challenges. Understanding the barriers to learning is important in creating healthy classroom and community ecologies, and in helping students cultivate resilience and socio-emotional skills. I believe that it is important for all educators to understand these challenges and adversities in order to better support their students. In pursuit of this, I spent the summer of 2019 researching what I can do to help create and sustain healthy developmental ecologies for the youth in the communities I work with.

Over that summer, I had the great pleasure of working as an undergraduate research assistant for the , a collaborative research partnership between the University of Maine College of Education and Human Development and Colby College. The Rural Vitality Lab works to promote rural vitality in Maine and beyond by better understanding the factors that contribute to creating and sustaining healthy developmental ecologies for youth. Each member of the lab has their own unique research interests that come together to support schools in embracing culture, equity, student-voice, and trauma sensitivity to support the success and resilience of all students. My area of expertise in this collaborative research partnership is Native American studies. I myself am Native American, hailing from the Passamaquoddy Pleasant Point reservation located in Washington County, Maine.

Our primary partnership at the Rural Vitality Lab is with a program called TREE () based out of the in Washington County, Maine. TREE works to promote trauma-informed school systems to address child adversity, and to promote safe, empowering, and effective educational environments by addressing the predictable and recurring barriers to healthy youth development and engaged learning that exist in high poverty rural schools. The TREE program is currently active within two Washington County schools. The TREE research-practice partnership team is made up of researchers from the Rural Vitality Lab and practitioners including mental health providers and TREE “coaches” who provide structural supports within the schools TREE works with. The partnership between researchers and practitioners is designed to increase the capacity and resources for both parties.

When I first started in my role as a research assistant I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, but being a research assistant was one of the most influential aspects of my college career. This position gave me the opportunity to travel, to meet new people, to build stronger relationships with both sides of the research and practice partnership, to dive deeper into my own area of research interests, and to learn more about the world, myself, and others.

Some of my responsibilities as a research assistant included: conducting interviews, collecting and coding interview data both for TREE and for my own research in collaboration with TREE, presenting on emerging data, traveling, taking part in RPP (Research Practice Partnership) team meetings, and taking notes on the RPPT meetings noting how we are working as a research team and as a school program.

One of my favorite aspects about working for the Rural Vitality Lab is its structure: We are a virtual lab, meaning we are all based in different locations and use technology to communicate and collaborate on our work. This structure has allowed me to create my own work schedule and to work independently, yet easily collaborate with others.

Another aspect of this job that I’m especially grateful for is how supportive the team has been in allowing me to explore my own research interests on how Native American students can benefit from culturally relevant, trauma-informed, and equity-driven education. Since TREE’s response and model design is rooted in an understanding and respect for the community, I have been doing some listening work in my own tribal community in an attempt to target the specific adversities that might be preventing youth from achieving educational success. This data will be used to help inform a culturally-responsive service-delivery model for the Sipayik Community School that meets the unique educational needs of the students and community. My hope for this research is that it will help provide other Native American students with the power to ignite the same educational and social change within their tribal communities, transforming historical trauma into resilience through education that is designed to meet the diverse needs of its students. Doing this work is incredibly rewarding and fulfilling, and I have learned so much from these research endeavors.

Being a part of the TREE team has given me the chance to meet new people from all across the nation, including well-known researchers, lawyers, and activists from as far away as Washington, D.C. and California. As a research assistant I’ve also had the opportunity to travel across the state, presenting data, visiting schools, and learning more about diverse communities that were once unfamiliar to me, but I have now grown to support and love. And, although I was pushed out of my comfort zone with presentations and traveling to unexplored places, taking part in these activities has given me the confidence to believe that I have the ability to help create positive, permanent change through working in education. I’m excited to use what I have learned through this work in my future endeavors as an educator. I feel that I have not only gained valuable work experience through this work, but also valuable insight as to who I am, and what I want to do with my career.

Questions I challenge educators to think about:

What do you do to make education more equitable in your school/community?
Do you know the specific adversities likely facing the students in your classrooms?
How could you use listening work research strategies with your own students to inform your teaching practice?

Jada Lamb is a student at the University of Maine studying elementary education with a focus in child development and family relations. She is interested in the collective development of humans physically, intellectually and emotionally through the lifespan. Her studies focus on the educational development and early experiences of children from birth to grade 3. She is an advocate for student-centered learning, empowering student voice, and embracing culture and diversity in the classroom. As an indigenous woman to Maine, Jada is particularly interested in how integrating individuals diverse cultural backgrounds into learning can engage and motivate diverse audiences of students who are traditionally underrepresented. She hopes her trauma-informed approach to education obtained by working with TREE will bring unique and compassionate components to potential future students and school communities.

Maine Schools in Focus: Partnering with School Systems to Support Teacher Expertise in Literacy Instruction and Intervention

ckelly — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 20:46:37 +0000

Lori L. Taylor, Ph.D., University of Maine
Reading Recovery Trainer of Teacher Leaders

“The good news is that a teacher can prevent or reverse students’ reading failure. Research shows that the teacher—not methods or programs—is the most important factor in a student’s reading success” (Dorn & Jones, 2012, p. 5). These words encapsulate the overarching goals of the University Training Center (UTC) for Reading Recovery® and Comprehensive Literacy, a professional development unit embedded within the literacy program in the School of Learning and Teaching in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine. The UTC supports schools in systemic implementation of effective literacy instruction and intervention for children in Maine schools through high quality professional development for teachers.

The University Training Center for Reading Recovery was established in 1993-1994 and has expanded to include a Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) for grades K-12 as well as Maine Partnerships in Comprehensive Literacy (MPCL), a model for school improvement targeting classroom instruction. Each initiative follows a train-the-trainer paradigm following Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery model (Gaffney & Askew, 1999), in which university trainers provide initial training and ongoing professional development for teacher leaders and literacy coaches. Teacher leaders and coaches then provide initial and ongoing training for teachers in schools. Districts and schools partner with university trainers, literacy coaches and teacher leaders in ongoing efforts to develop systems of comprehensive literacy for children, by supporting teacher expertise.

Experts on the topic (Darling-Hammond, Hyler & Gardner, 2017) describe high quality professional development as content-focused, collaborative, job-embedded reflective practice that includes ongoing expert support. Improved practice in teaching is an ongoing process, “renewed through continued work with students and ongoing professional development” (Lyons, Pinnell & DeFord, 1993, p. 180). The University Training Center currently partners with 128 schools in 62 school systems across the state of Maine investing in teacher professional development for systemic improvement in student outcomes. The ongoing goal of the UTC is to offer trainings for teachers that incorporate the elements of effective professional development.

A recent study exploring the relationship of offerings by the University Training Center for Reading Recovery and Comprehensive Literacy with teacher professional development in Maine, reported that teachers value high quality professional development, especially when offered on-site in schools and embedded in their daily work. Also of importance to the practitioners partnering with the UTC is the opportunity for networking, collaborating, and learning from and with colleagues (Taylor, 2018). Studying theory and research, and working together to apply new learning to practice (Elmore, 2004; Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2010) within and across schools and districts is critical to ongoing support for teaching, and for meeting the needs of every student.

Systemic school improvement efforts, such as the Comprehensive Literacy Model of the UTC, require cohesive goals and curriculum, coordinated, sustained efforts among administration and teaching staff, and congruency between general classroom instruction and intervention supports. School/university partnerships, including in-house literacy coaches and site-based teacher leaders, can help to build collaborative learning communities that develop expertise among all teachers and improve student literacy. In fact, student achievement in reading and writing has been shown to increase as early as the first year of implementation of a comprehensive literacy model (Biancarosa, Bryk, & Dexter, 2010; Dorn, Forbes, Poparad, & Schubert, 2015, Chapter 15).

Maine school systems are encouraged to think critically about a comprehensive design for sustainable processes that support ongoing professional development for all teachers. A cohesive and comprehensive model includes powerful classroom instruction along with a broad range of literacy interventions, providing multiple layers of differentiated instruction for all learners. In considering a comprehensive literacy model, here are some questions to consider:

Does your school or district engage in a comprehensive literacy system that embeds levels and layers of intervention within high quality classroom instruction?
Are all teachers provided intensive professional development and ongoing in-school support from knowledgeable persons in literacy theory and practice?
Do all teachers have scheduled opportunity to collaborate with colleagues to build expertise?

Information about the University Training Center for Reading Recovery and Comprehensive Literacy can be found at our website: umaine.edu/maineliteracy.

References

Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A., & Dexter, E. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of Literacy Collaborative professional development on student learning. Elementary School Journal, 111((1), 7-34.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Dorn, L. J., Forbes, S., Poparad, M. A., & Schubert, B. (Eds.). (2015). Changing minds, changing schools, changing systems: A comprehensive literacy design for school improvement. Los Angeles, CA: Hameray Publishing Group.

Dorn, L. J., & Jones, T. (2012). Apprenticeship in literacy: Transitions in reading and writing (2nd ed.). Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Gaffney, J. S., & Askew, B. J. (Eds.). (1999). Stirring the waters: The influence of Marie Clay. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of community of inquiry Framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education (13), 5-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & DeFord, D. E. (1993). Partners in learning: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers College Press.

Taylor, L. L. (2018). Exploring the relationship between University Training Center for Reading Recovery and Comprehensive Literacy offerings and teacher professional development. (Research Study Report). Orono: University of Maine.

Maine Schools in Focus: I feel like I’ve had a bag over my head — New teachers explore issues of diversity, power and justice

ckelly — Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:46:09 +0000

Rebecca Buchanan, Assistant Professor of Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction

Over 80 percent of teachers in the U.S. are white, despite an increasingly diverse PK-12 student population (Barnum, 2018). This demographic imperative has prompted teacher education to respond in two diverging ways. The first is to diversify the teaching workforce by increasing the number of teachers of color (Neal, Sleeter, & Kumashiro, 2015). The second is to better prepare a mostly white teaching workforce to work with a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse student population (Zeichner, 2009).

This is an important part of teacher preparation even in a state like Maine, which is often referred to as the whitest state in the nation. Firstly, the population here is also diversifying; immigrant and refugee communities are growing (Taylor, 2019). Secondly, teachers must prepare their students to live and exist in an increasingly diverse society; one that is currently contending with the ways that power has been unequally distributed based on issues of race, class, and gender. Attending to these disparities requires both a broad historical examination of the relationship between power and diversity as well as a personal and internal exploration of how that social reality has shaped each of us individually.

This requires teachers to critically examine their own identities and how they relate to their future students. For the past three years, faculty members in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine have been investigating how our pre-service teachers develop understandings of whiteness, diversity, cultural identity, and power as they engage with a multicultural novel. We have focused on how they develop a sociocultural consciousness (Villegas & Lucas, 2002), or a deep understanding of their own sociopolitical location in society. This demands that pre-service teachers explore questions regarding how their own racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds have both positioned them in relation to others and shaped their personal experiences. Over the course of one semester in a multicultural education course that all pre-service teachers at 91�� take, we present them with readings and experiences that repeatedly ask them to step out of their cultural comfort zones. We also ask them to examine their own cultural heritage, communities, and practices in an attempt to unearth the pervasive myth that only non-white people have culture. Questioning this trope requires students to assess the ways that their own experiences intersect with what is considered “normal” in mainstream American society, which serves to privilege some identities and marginalize others.

As they explore these issues of justice, equity, and diversity in relation to their own lives, pre-service teachers also read a novel about a teacher going through a similar process (Sleeter, 2015). In this novel, Jessica, a young, white teacher, working with a significant number of immigrant, Latinx students begins exploring her own ancestry while also inquiring how to better connect with and support her students. Jessica provides a useful example of what this process can look like and offers someone for our pre-service teachers to both identify with and analyze. We have collected data on their written reflections of the novel, where they respond to prompts about how they are similar to Jessica and what they learn about multicultural education practices. Two rounds of analysis of student reflections demonstrated that they did connect personally with the text, but the tended to highlight their connections to Jessica’s personal life — identifying or contrasting themselves with her marriage, level of confidence, or crush at work, rather than examining their own racial and cultural identities in relation to hers. They frequently avoided what we termed, the “discomfort zone” rarely exploring whiteness or white privilege. However, they did frequently turn to Jessica for pedagogical advice, citing inclusive techniques that she used in her teaching that they might apply in their own classrooms.

These findings prompted us to redesign the discussion guides that students use when interacting with the text, in order to facilitate deeper levels of engagement. In order to explore this interaction, last semester we also collected video data of pre-service teachers’ conversations about the text. Analysis of these videos has demonstrated how students build off of each other’s thinking, draw from their personal experiences, and develop localized small group interactional patterns that shape the ways they make sense of Jessica and her experiences. The content of these interactions rarely made it into their written reflections, whose more formal tone may encourage a kind of assignment performance that discourages risk taking and discomfort. However, in their group discussions pre-service teachers explored Jessica’s complex identity negotiation, connected the text to broader social issues, and made sense of their own personal schooling experiences in relation to hers. These conversations demonstrated the ways they were developing a sociocultural consciousness in relation to the class and to each other. As one student put it:

Until this class, I feel like there was a bag over my head. Because I grew up in a world where this wasn’t a thing. If someone told me back in high school that racism and all this stuff is still so prevalent, I would have been like ‘What are you talking about?’ I wasn’t exposed to any of this.

Our research demonstrates how collaboratively analyzing fiction writing can be useful in supporting new teachers in the development of a sociocultural consciousness as they inquire into the ways their own identities intersect with issues of diversity and equity. This process, which is rarely straight forward or linear, is key to creating multicultural educators who can teach in ways that create a more just society for historically marginalized students and communities.

References

Barnum, M. (2018). Is the number of teachers of color skyrocketing or stagnating? Here’s what the numbers really say. Chalkbeat. Retreieved from

Neal, L. I., Sleeter, C. E., & Kumashiro, K. K. (2015). Diversifying the teacher workforce: Preparing and retaining highly effective teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sleeter, C. (2019). White bread: Weaving cultural past into the present. Boston, MA: Sense.

Taylor, K. (2019). Maine needed new, young residents. African migrants began arriving by the dozens. New York Times. Retrieved from

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers: Rethinking the Curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.

Zeichner, K. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Maine Schools in Focus: Becoming Trauma-Informed — Risks and Responsibilities

ckelly — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:01:51 +0000

Maria Frankland, Ph.D. candidate in educational leadership, University of Maine | School Counselor, Narraguagus Jr/Sr High School
Sharon Pelletier-Ayer, Ed.S. candidate in prevention and intervention, University of Maine | School Counselor, Bangor High School

Childhood traumatic experiences affect our schoolchildren at an alarming rate. The lives of 46 million children — almost 50 percent of youth under age 18 — are impacted by trauma every year (Listenbee et al., 2012; Sacks & Murphey, 2018). Commonly referred to as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), potentially traumatic events include violence, mental illness, and/or substance abuse in the home; psychological, physical, or sexual abuse; and neglect. The effects of ACEs compound to create complex trauma when multiple ACEs co-occur and/or exposure to a single adverse experience is prolonged or chronic.

The number of ACEs (often reported as an ACE score on a scale of 0-10) correlates positively with undesirable effects including physical illness, increased risk of mental health problems, and diminished ability to form and maintain social relationships. In the school setting, negative outcomes associated with ACEs include lower academic performance; increased rates of referral for special education services; more instances of exclusionary discipline such as office referral, suspension, or expulsion; increased absenteeism; and higher drop-out rates (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2014). Given the spate of negative outcomes across the lifespan that may result from the toxic stress associated with complex trauma and high ACE scores, early intervention is key (Center for Youth and Wellness, 2019).

Recently, the benefits of childhood trauma screening have captured nationwide attention. California primary care providers are being trained — and paid — to implement universal childhood trauma screening procedures. Other screening methods, such as those advocated in a recent Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) publication (Souers & Hall, 2016), suggest that teachers should try to determine students’ ACE scores based on their preexisting and/or anecdotal knowledge of the student and his/her family circumstances. We applaud these efforts to ensure that students who have experienced traumatic events have the opportunity for early interventions that may mitigate undesirable outcomes. However, because a trauma history does not dictate a student’s future, we are concerned that universal screenings may lead to unintended consequences.

The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) cautions that “asking others to identify needs based on their perspective as a first step of data collection provides limited data and is problematic” (ASCA, 2019, p. 38). Students who experience trauma are at risk of being labeled and re-traumatized. These are often the students who are perceived to be difficult. Their attendance may be poor and, when they are in school, they may be disruptive. They may be impulsive, angry, frustrated, and disengaged. Add additional stressors such as tests and peer relationships, and these students may spiral out of control. Exclusionary discipline practices such as office referrals and suspensions not only impact academics by diminishing time spent in the classroom but also reinforce students’ poor self-image and weak self-efficacy beliefs. Ultimately, this cycle contributes to a higher risk of dropping out. Trauma screenings intended to lead to early intervention may instead reinforce the “difficult” label, leading to more exclusionary discipline from teachers and bullying from peers. Absent a trauma-informed school climate, the student may experience re-traumatization.

While understanding that trauma has significant consequences, it is equally important to remember that recovery is possible and that students can achieve successful and productive lives. School climate plays a significant role in helping all students to develop adaptively, including those who have faced trauma. Research has identified several key foundational tenets that are needed for creating trauma-sensitive schools:

Effective professional development. Teachers and staff need training on understanding the profound impact of trauma and the variability of the symptoms. Educators must be armed with effective evidence-based strategies to respond to the social and emotional needs of all students. Professional development should also include education about secondary stress and the impact on the caretaker. Schools should emphasize self-care for all staff.
Avoid re-traumatizing students. Ensure that disciplinary action takes into account the possible re-traumatization of individual students. Restorative practice is a non-punitive approach to addressing conflict that has shown to reduce disciplinary issues, improve relationships and build a positive school climate (International Institute for Restorative Practices).
Teach social-emotional skills through evidence-based programs. Giving students the tools to interact adaptively has been shown to reduce bullying, externalizing and internalizing problems, and discipline incidents in schools (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).
Provide mental health supports. School counselors, social workers, and school nurses are trained professionals who can provide students with additional social and emotional supports. In addition, schools can also coordinate with community agencies to provide additional services.
Nurture relationships. Connections can actually help reverse the impacts of trauma. Louis Cozolino is an American psychologist who has researched child abuse and brain development. In 2006, he wrote that “the greatest contributor to neural plasticity is love. Good relationships re-work the circuitry of the prefrontal cortex.” Genuine, positive relationships with students can increase resilience and lead to good outcomes.

The process of creating trauma-sensitive schools will look different across Maine schools due to the wide variety of settings and resources available. It is important to remember that it is not just a matter of providing a program. Schools should use the current research on trauma-informed practice to develop a system of interventions and supports to respond to the specific needs of students in the district.

Resources for Schools

Information about ACEs:

Developmental Assets Framework:

Evidence-based Social and Emotional Learning:

Resources for Educators: The National Child Traumatic Stress Network

Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative:

References

American School Counselor Association. (2019). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author

Center for Youth and Wellness. (2019). ACES and toxic stress. Retrieved from https://centerforyouthwellness.org/

Cozolino, L. (2006). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain. New York, NY: W.W. Norton

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D. & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82: 405–432

Listenbee, R. L., Torre, J., Boyle, G., Cooper, S. W., Deer, S., Durfee, D. T., . . . Taguba, A. (2012). Report of the attorney general’s national task force on children exposed to violence. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf

National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2014). Complex trauma: Facts for educators. National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from https://www.nctsn.org/resources/complex-trauma-facts-educators

Sacks, V., & Murphey, D. (2018). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences, nationally, by state, and by race or ethnicity. Retrieved from

Souers, K., & Hall, P. (2016). Fostering resilient learners: Strategies for creating a trauma-sensitive classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Maine Schools in Focus: MEPRI — Enduring Partnerships to Support Data-Informed Education Policy

ckelly — Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:28:06 +0000

“maine state capital”/

Janet Fairman, University of Maine/Co-director, Maine Education Policy Research Institute
Amy Johnson, University of Southern Maine/Co-director, Maine Education Policy Research Institute

In today’s increasingly complex world, the challenges faced by students and educators are difficult to solve through policy. Interventions or programs are often costly, difficult to implement, and hard to sustain without continued funding and training supports. Citizens and policymakers disagree over which problems in education should be a priority, which solutions are best, and how to fund them. School and state education leaders struggle to identify and select the most effective interventions in the best of cases, and even more so if they lack trustworthy and timely research evidence to inform their decisions. Another significant challenge centers around the increasingly specific and wide-ranging state and federal accountability requirements that, in turn, prompt state education agencies to require increased data and reporting from school districts.

Maine has not been spared from any of these challenges. However, for decades Maine has also been on the forefront of innovation in public education. One example of a creative approach was the creation of an education policy research entity outside of state government, funded through the state and two state university campuses (University of Maine and the University of Southern Maine), to create a resource for objective and non-partisan research, evaluation, and policy analysis. The Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI) was created through statute in 1995 (Maine Revised Statutes, Title 20-A, section 10) and has provided on-going and broad-ranging service to the state for 25 years. In this brief, we describe the role and mission of MEPRI and our “recipe” for providing sound and locally-relevant research evidence that policymakers can to apply to their questions.

MEPRI works through a variety of partnerships. First, MEPRI is a collaboration of state government (the legislature and the Maine Department of Education) and the University of Maine System (UMS). Both partners fund the work of MEPRI’s legislative workplan each year. The UMS provides the research space, technology, and administrative support, and houses the faculty and professional research staff with the expertise to carry out the work. Graduate students assist with data collection and analysis, gaining first-hand professional training opportunities in the process.

Second, MEPRI’s work is guided by a steering committee that represents key education stakeholder groups and professional organizations in the state. Member organizations are outlined in the statute that created MEPRI. These groups allow MEPRI researchers to tap into the knowledge of policymakers, administrators, educators and advocacy groups to help refine the questions and methods used to investigate education topics. These groups also facilitate the dissemination of statewide surveys to their members.

Third, while MEPRI was initially established to be a research resource to state legislators, the work has expanded to also include the executive branch of government. MEPRI researchers design studies so as to make efficient use of data already available through the state education agency while gathering new information to address the needs of both the Maine Department of Education (MDOE) and the state legislature. In this way, MEPRI serves as a nexus of policy questions and data, facilitating collaboration and communication across state government.

Finally, MEPRI has fostered strong collaboration between the 91�� and USM campuses. The co-directors and their research teams collaborate on specific MEPRI projects and studies, and on overall oversight of the work. The co-directors reach out to different faculty each year to lend expertise that is relevant to the specific topics of MEPRI studies. This allows MEPRI to operate with lean staffing, to share the diverse expertise on each campus, and to conduct larger, multi-year evaluation projects.
Over the past 25 years, MEPRI has covered a wide-ranging scope of topics. Recent highlights include:

Monitoring the progress of school districts in implementing state learning standards and assessment systems. Over the years, this work has provided important information to state policymakers to assess where additional supports may be needed. In the case of the Maine’s Proficiency-based High School Diploma Systems, MEPRI’s multi-year investigations revealed strong opposition to some elements of the policy and struggles with uneven implementation, which ultimately convinced state legislators to revise the mandate to allow for greater flexibility at the local level.
Analyzing and reporting on progress and gaps with students’ academic achievement, and the impact of specific intervention efforts. For example, MEPRI conducted a multi-year evaluation of a federally-funded early reading intervention for high needs schools in Maine (Maine Reading First) which tracked impacts for different student subgroups and grade levels and informed both state and federal policy responses and adjustments. MEPRI is currently evaluating Maine’s Math4ME program which provides professional development and coaching feedback to special education teachers to improve math instruction and student outcomes in grades 3-8, as well as MoMEntum, an early literacy intervention for students and teachers in grades PreK through 3.
Early childhood education and PreK programming has also been a subject of MEPRI work. With increased demand for high quality and full-day public preschool options, the state and local districts are working through various strategies to expand access and improve quality. MEPRI’s data collection on that topic will continue to inform both state and local policy to facilitate the expansion and improvement of public PreK programs.
MEPRI has investigated innovative educational practices at the statewide and local levels. When Maine rolled out its novel one-to-one computing technology initiative for middle grades in 2002, MEPRI combined the resources of both campus teams to conduct a multi-year evaluation of early implementation and impacts.
More recently, responding to concerns about meeting the need for effective school leadership in the coming decades, MEPRI has studied a local university and school district partnership that supports leadership development for principals and teachers, similar partnerships that support a “grow your own” approach to helping school staff become certified teachers, and new experiments in teacher-led schools.
With state and national concern about increased teacher retirements and attrition, and growing needs of students for social and emotional supports, MEPRI has studied the state and national trends in these areas and examined the different needs and challenges across rural and more urban parts of the state. Multi-year investigations of Maine’s Performance Evaluation and Professional Growth (PE/PG) Systems allowed MEPRI to inform both the MDOE and the state legislature about implementation progress and challenges, including on-going local needs for staffing and professional development to successfully meet policy goals.
Without an adequate and predictable system to fund PreK-12 education, none of the state’s initiatives would be feasible. MEPRI researchers, most notably founding Director David Silvernail, were heavily involved in analyzing data to support a state-level task force that developed the state’s Essential Programs and Services adequacy-based education funding formula. This first-of-its kind attempt to develop funding levels that are grounded in student needs rather than community wealth has been externally reviewed by national experts and found to be a more equitable model for school funding (Picus et al, 2013). MEPRI continues to support the funding model with an ongoing contract to conduct data analysis about how well the EPS formula continues to fit district spending patterns and needs.

While the immediate impact of MEPRI’s work on state education policymaking can be assessed in part by citing specific MEPRI reports and briefings that influenced policy development, revision, or elimination, MEPRI’s enduring impact over time and its value to the state can also be measured through the perceptions of state policymakers and others. Senator Rebecca Millet, a current and former co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs in the state legislature, described the importance of having a resource like MEPRI in Maine: “We are so fortunate in the Maine legislature to be able to not only use the strong research of MEPRI to inform our discussions and decisions, but to request specific analysis that strengthens and guides policy making” Representative Tori Kornfield, also a current and former co-chair of the same committee, shared a similar observation: “The elected officials in the State Legislature come into office wanting to do their best for the people of Maine. It is essential to good governance that we have the facts to make smart policy decisions. On the Education Committee, we depend on MEPRI to give us the data to help us make solid educational policy for our students.”

Information about MEPRI’s governance structure and a list of recent reports can be found on our .

References

Picus, L., Odden, A., Goetz, M., Griffith, M., Glenn, W., Hirshberg, D., & Aportela, A. (2013). An Independent review of Maine’s Essential Program’s and Services Funding Act: Part 1. North Hollywood, CA: L. Picus &Associates.
Picus, L., Odden, A., Goetz, M., Aportela, A., & Griffith, M. (2013). An Independent review of Maine’s Essential Program’s and Services Funding Act: Part 2. North Hollywood, CA: L. Picus &Associates.

Maine Schools in Focus: The Challenge of Reaching All Learners in the Digital Age

ckelly — Thu, 09 May 2019 13:22:10 +0000

Sarah K. Howorth, Assistant Professor of Special Education
Mia Morrison, Lecturer of Instructional Technology

Vignette
Ms. Jones is a 4th-grade teacher who has been teaching for 25 years. However, lately, she has been struggling to adapt her instruction as her district has embraced a 1:1 device program with e-textbooks, a vision for increased inquiry-based learning, and focus on 21st-century skill building for all students. She is being asked to use Google Classroom as a learning management system instead of her trusty teacher planner and digital student tracking and feedback. How can she explore and learn how to use these new digital instruction tools while working 60+ hours a week?

Present and Future of Technology in Schools
Technology is here to stay, with new tools and innovations in communication, commerce, and production shared daily. Within the field of education, our charge has moved away from disseminating information to embracing a new paradigm in teaching and learning to prepare students for a dynamic and ever-changing future environment. In 2018, the identified educational technologies likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry. Included in this list were redesigning learning spaces, advancing cultures of innovation, approaches to deeper learning, and mixed content learning (STEM → STEAM).

These developments pose unique challenges to our education system both nationally and here in Maine. Teachers like Ms. Jones are diligently working to shift their focus from information dissemination to the creation of authentic learning experiences to empower and advance both student and teacher digital literacy. While increased access to device programs is often the first step, educator training at all levels and support are the true key to success. Programs such as Apple Teacher and Google Certified Educator have helped immensely to push educators forward and create community, locally and across state boundaries. However, there are more difficult and even “wicked” challenges ahead.

Difficult challenges involve a) rethinking the role of the educator, b) addressing the increasing achievement gap and c) sustaining innovation through leadership. Rather than develop curricula and assessment for each subject area in isolation, it is now critical that educators collaborate across content boundaries to bring authentic and relevant application of knowledge and skills into the classroom. The achievement gap refers to the disparity in academic performance among groups such as students with disabilities, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse students. We must deeply consider the palliative vs. productive effects of equity and equality to meet the needs of all learners. Thus, the challenge is to nurture teachers who are trained to lead these types of professional development to guide and inspire their colleagues toward innovative instruction. Technology tools may be one way to support solutions for all of these challenges.

Outline of Maine’s 1:1 program,
Public schools in Maine were the very first in the nation to implement 1:1 laptop access to all middle school and high school students (Task Force on the Maine Learning Technology Endowment for the Maine Department of Education, 2001). The education system in Maine must keep pace with career preparation needs of the 21st century in the face of rural settings and lack of network infrastructure. With the advent of the Digital Age, there has been a shift in learning management systems, classroom dynamics, and modes of learning and communication. Teachers must learn to navigate classroom management and universal design for instruction that allow all students to a free and appropriate education while protecting student data.

Throughout the implementation of Maine’s 1:1 program, there has been more focus on device rather than teacher training. In this way, the movement forward has not achieved the traction nor true educational value intended to bring our rural students into the 21st century. The next logical step is to focus on creating authentic learning experiences, making connections, and advancing digital literacy for both students and teachers. While thousands of Maine students have a variety of devices in hand, teachers must learn to apply and embed meaningful technology use into curricula. For true advancement of student success and improved digital literacy, studies have shown that not only must we consider the application of technology, but the orchestration of teacher, student, and technology use (Pedro, Barbosa & Santos, 2018 and Elphick, 2018). Training and practice in implementing universal design for learning while increasing teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPaCK) in teacher training, pre-service teacher curricula, and professional development are critical to the future advancement of teaching and learning in Maine.

Vignette
Ms. Jones is asked to collaborate with Daniel, an EdTech that accompanies Johnny, who has a reading disability, to class. Johnny is a literal thinker and struggles with reading comprehension. Daniel has heard that software such as Newsela and text to speech interventions can help with reading. Ms. Jones allows Johnny to read articles from the class using Newsela, selecting the lexile level without compromising content as well as listening to the text using an iPad. Sam, another student who also struggles with reading, sees Johnny working and asks if he can try Newsela and listening to the text. As Sam manages his own modifications coupled with text to speech tools, his attitude and reading skills improve. Ms. Jones realizes that these technology tools and strategy are not just for those with special needs. They can be leveraged to support learning across all ages and abilities because students are able to self assess, respond, and access tools and strategy specific to their own needs. She does not have to be an expert herself. Ms. Jones learns to share the same article with all her students on Google Classroom. They can then select tools and strategies individually to advance their reading skills based on personalized strengths and needs. She and her students are advancing their digital literacy.

How UDL and technology help all learn and prepare for careers of the future
Universal design (UD) in education stems from the architectural field. Architects use UD to ensure appropriate accessibility for all who use a particular building. This same premise is the foundation of UD in education, creating the foundation for Universal Design for Learning or as it is commonly referred, UDL. UDL is a curriculum-design process that begins with planning for every student, making instruction more effective, and providing opportunity for teachers to maintain their individuality and creativity (Novak & Rose, 2016). UDL is important in special education because it allows learners of all abilities to access the same curriculum as their typical peers, and essential component of a free and appropriate education. Planning instruction in all classrooms should include the principles of UDL in order to best meet the diverse needs of all students. UDL provides the framework for meeting the individual needs of students while planning for everyone, essentially providing the opportunity for teachers to be more efficient and effective in their instruction while setting the stage for more effective collaboration (Courey, Tappe, Siker, & LePage, 2012). For students with disabilities, technology tools can make a dramatic difference and ultimately “level the playing field”.

However, UDL is not only for the special education classroom or special needs student. This curricular design strategy incorporates differentiation, customization, choice, and opportunity for both student and educator to focus on strengths and interest. Students are asked to take part in their learning through choices in the modality for exploration and expression to increase engagement and persistence. Self-assessment and reflection support student ownership. Each student is unique, with individual strengths and interests which ultimately serve to drive their learning and growth. We must meet these diverse learners with customizable, flexible curricula to support personalized growth and development.

References

Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2012). Teacher Education and Special. Teacher Education and Special Education,��36(1), 7-27
Elphick, M. (2018). The Impact of Embedded iPad Use on Student Perceptions of Their Digital Capabilities. Education Sciences. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8(3), 102.
Novak, K., & Rose, D. (2016). UDL Now!: A Teacher’s Guide to Applying Universal Design for Learning in Today’s Classrooms. CAST Professional Publishing
Pedro, L., Barbosa, C., & Santos, C. (2018). A critical review of mobile learning integration in formal educational contexts. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(10), 1-15.
Task Force on the Maine Learning Technology Endowment for the Maine Department of Education. (2001) Teaching and Learning for Tomorrow: A Learning Technology Plan for Maine’s Future (Final Report). Retrieved from
Taylor, M. S. (2018). Computer Programming With Pre-K Through First-Grade Students With Intellectual Disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52(2), 78–88.

Maine Schools in Focus: Growing Partnerships to Develop Educational Leadership Pipelines

ckelly — Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:25:03 +0000

Ian Mette, Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership

For the last several years Maine has been facing a shortage of the number of qualified school administrators who are certified to move into assistant principal or principal positions, and the projected numbers into the future are not any better (Task Force on School Leadership, 2016). To solve principal shortages nation-wide, the Wallace Foundation has worked to develop the Principal Pipeline Initiative with large school districts (Syed, 2015), which include places like Denver, New York City, and Charlotte, SC, none of which have less than 92,000 PK-12 students in each school district. By comparison, in the 2018-2019 school year the entire State of Maine educated just under 183,000 PK-12 students (Maine Department of Education, 2019), or a little less than half of the smallest school district working to develop new administrators in the Wallace Foundation Principal Pipeline Initiative. With the Wallace approach to principal pipeline development, Maine simply does not have the ability to develop future leaders through wide-scale, large-district development. So, how can Maine and other states with smaller school districts overcome this capacity obstacle to develop educational leaders in the 21st century?

The answer, interestingly enough, is somewhat simple and in line with common sense values about leadership held by many Mainers. In short, school districts and educational leadership programs can, and should, a) collaborate more closely on leadership development and b) develop trusting relationships between practitioners and researchers to bridge the theory-practice gap that often plagues many professions (Mette & Webb, 2018). Starting in 2016, the Bangor School Department and the University of Maine Educational Leadership program began the Bangor Educational Leadership Academy (BELA), which is in its third year and focuses on creating learning laboratories for aspiring educational leaders to “try on” leadership, working closely with mentoring administrators, help lead professional development, and examine and update policies and practices through action research projects. Using close relationships between practitioners and researchers allows space for innovation and re-imagining what educational leadership preparation programs could be to better meet the needs of school districts today. Over the past several years, the BELA program has brought in dozens of guest lecturers from the Bangor School Department to connect theory to practice, created multiple action research projects that have contributed to the instructional needs of the school district, and by the end of the cohort, will have helped to develop 11 educational leaders who will be certified as either a principal or a central office coordinator. With these newly minted educational leaders, the BELA program will have created a pipeline of administrators for the Bangor School Department who have been trained with a collaborative effort to merge the best of theory and practice.

To expand this program and to regionalize this effort, the University of Maine College of Education and Human Development will offer an expanded educational leadership program, the Maine Educational Leadership Academy (MELA) in Fall 2019 that will partner with 22 cooperating districts in Central and Eastern Maine. Currently, 15-20 new aspiring educational leaders are expected to join MELA. Once again, the same collaborative structures are being used to meet with superintendents each semester, review upcoming professional development and school improvement efforts, and find intersections with coursework. Guest lecturers from across the collaborating districts will be used to enrich instruction, and yearly evaluations of the MELA program will inform any future regionalization efforts to better support professional development throughout Maine school districts. The goal of MELA, as with BELA, is to provide aspiring educational leaders with laboratories of practice where they can try on leadership and explore their own beliefs, values, and interpretations of leadership. At the heart of this work, we ask educational leadership members to consider the following:

Interpersonally, how can school leaders create effective working relationships and mobilize others through collaboration?
Cognitively, how can school leaders implement effective learning and teaching practices that will facilitate school improvement processes at the local level?
Intrapersonally, how can school leaders develop their own leadership philosophy and use this within their school district to accurately reflect on their own strengths and opportunities for improvement as a leader?

There are those who might counter that BELA and MELA are not true pipeline programs—that they simply are not big enough to make a difference in school districts. To that, we would kindly counter that many programs “from away” have come and gone, all intending to impact Maine schools, but few have been successful because they do not take the time to consider or understand the unique culture of Maine and the smaller size of Maine schools and districts. What we offer is a true homegrown effort, where researchers and practitioners come together, communicate with each other, and through collaborative conversations create practical leadership development programs that contribute directly to local school improvement efforts needed here in Maine.

References

Maine Department of Education (2019). Student Enrollment Data. Augusta, ME.
Mette, I. M., & Webb, B. (2018). Developing leadership pipelines in Maine school districts: Lessons learned from a school-university partnership. Maine Policy Review, 27(1), 44-45.
Syed, S. (Nov. 2015). Building principal pipelines: A strategy to strengthen education leadership. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Task Force on School Leadership. (Feb. 2016). Report of the Task Force. Augusta, ME: Maine State Legislature.

Maine Schools in Focus – College of Education and Human Development

Maine Schools in Focus: What Educators Need to Know 91���� High-Conflict Family Relationships

Maine Schools in Focus: Evidence-Based Practices for Technology-Enhanced Learning

Maine Schools in Focus: Assessing Progress Toward Universal Preschool Education

Maine Schools in Focus: Undergraduate Student Reflects on Summer Internship with Rural Vitality Lab

Maine Schools in Focus: Partnering with School Systems to Support Teacher Expertise in Literacy Instruction and Intervention

Maine Schools in Focus: I feel like I’ve had a bag over my head — New teachers explore issues of diversity, power and justice

Maine Schools in Focus: Becoming Trauma-Informed — Risks and Responsibilities

Maine Schools in Focus: MEPRI — Enduring Partnerships to Support Data-Informed Education Policy

Maine Schools in Focus: The Challenge of Reaching All Learners in the Digital Age

Maine Schools in Focus: Growing Partnerships to Develop Educational Leadership Pipelines

Maine Schools in Focus: What Educators Need to Know 91�� High-Conflict Family Relationships