Private or Public? Mind the gap!

This week I have decided to research the topic of Private vs. Public school, why do we have a difference? And is it just academic? Here I will discuss a few of the factors that we as psychology students may find interesting. It is clear that there are benefits to both; here I am researching a couple of social factors that may be contributing to the difference. There are many more!

Small class sizes

Coleman (1990) said that small and private schools produce a perception of community. So I researched the affect that this could have. McMilan &Chavis (1986) developed the theory of community; and found that a sense of belonging is a natural human reaction, and it allows us to feel in more control of our surrounding. Community in these studies is usually focused on the relational term, of quality of relationships and support, rather than location. Feeling safe and comfortable in our surroundings makes us more likely to participate and engage, and having a smaller class means you have more opportunity to do so as well. A further benefit of small class sizes is the child knowing that it is highly likely that they will need to know the answer of a question, there is less expectation that they can deflect a question to another student. As well as this, smaller class sizes mean that individuals have more opportunity to interact, Alan and Alan (1971) proposed the contact hypothesis: where the more people interact the more they will become close. Alhbrant and Cunningham (1979) found that a sense of community leads to higher satisfaction and sense of belonging; this leads to a better environment for children to learn academically and socially. A sense of community creates a better learning environment, where both teacher and child are happier; private schools provide an environment where this is more likely.

Motivation and support

Gupta and Gehlawat found significant differences between the motivation and satisfaction of public and private school teachers. A study by Liu and Meyer attributed the higher motivation and morale of teachers in the private sector to the lower number of behavioural problems that they have to deal with. They suggest that this develops from private schools screening students before they begin, and having strict disciplinary rules. Increased happiness in their jobs could be a factor leading to the better performance of private schools.

Researchers have found that parental support leads to higher academic achievement, particularly if the support begins at an early age. This leads these children to feel more responsible for their own education, and to make more of an effort to learn.  As well as support, high expectations of the child’s achievement from the parent and the child are accurate predictors of future grades. Setting these high standards for the child to aim for, allows them to challenge themselves and reach their potential (Reynolds et al, 2000). This leads me onto self fulfilling prophecies, these expectations provide a structure for the child to base their goals on; however it is not only the parents beliefs that affect the child’s performance. Rist (1970) found that teacher’s stereotypes and labels have a substantial effect too; here, labels of social class were affecting the teachers ability to label by ability. In a private school, where children of a lower class rarely manage to get scholarships this would cause significant problems, however it is more of a problem in public schools where the variance of class is higher. They found that children allowed these labels to affect them, and as Pederson, Faucher and Eaton (1978) found, we continue to be affected by our teacher’s beliefs later on in life. This research would suggest that we become (within reason) what is expected of us, therefore if the expectations are higher in private schools, then it would be argued that they would perform better.

Diversity

Research suggests that comparison tests have too long been comparing ‘oranges to apples’ and stating there is a difference. The study, “Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modelling,” stated that public schools usually have a wider range of students, who are less well off, and more culturally diverse. The study found that when they matched the populations on these attributes there were no clear differences in either direction in relation to achievement. Demonstrating that many differences lie in the difference in school population.

In support of public schools; Mcleaod, Lobel and Cox (1996) found that an ethnically diverse group produced ideas that were of higher quality, more effective, and more closely related to the given task. This shows the benefits to working in mixed race groups, as well as learning to understand a variety of different people, personalities and cultures. With the world becoming more diverse, it is beneficial to have worked alongside, and learn to respect and accept many different people.

After extensive research, I conclude that there is more variation within than between private and public schools. Parents trying to answer this question need to focus on the individual school rather than the type or price, and look at what benefits that school would give their child. The benefits that we usually associate with each group of school are not always there, I went to a public school, but it was not diverse and did not have a great variety of class. Furthermore, for the same reasons we should not presume that by knowing someone’s school these stereotypes are correct.

 

References

Coleman, James S. 1990. Equality and Achievement in Education. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

Liu and Meyer http://sitemaker.umich.edu/kort.356/motivation

Gipta and Gehlawat http://www.confabjournals.com/confabjournals/images/622013754102.pdf

 Coleman, hoffer and Kilgore http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2112288

 Mcleaod, lobel and cox (1996)

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/68515/10.1177_1046496496272003.pdf;jsessionid=F05D790DE659D33D06E8BA6107D3530C?sequence=2

 Terling-Watt http://www.npr.natcom.asanet.org/images/members/docs/pdf/featured/watt.pdf

McMillan and Chavis (1986) http://communities.autodesk.com/india/sites/default/files/secure/docs/McMillanChavis—psychological-Sense-of-community.pdf

Ahlbrant, R. S., & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). A new public policy for neighborhood preservation. New York: Praeger.

Allan, T. H., & Allan, K. H. (1971). Sensitivity for community leaders. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6, 577-578.

Reynolds et al (2000) http://uex.sagepub.com/content/35/1/31.short

Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modelling http://ntis.library.gatech.edu/handle/123456789/8287

Speech upload 1- gender friendly school

In addition to the blogs, we have been presenting out research in class, this speech corresponds to my second blog of the term on how gender affects education, and if any changes should be made.

Thanks for watching!

Home schooled children: in a class of their own.

Before completing research, I was inclined (as many others do) to say that home schooled children are at a disadvantage socially. However I found there is a huge quantity of research showing positive results for homeschoolers; socialising is less of a problem than many think. I googled, and found the majority of anti home-school evidence to be based on testimonials.  Here I would like to argue that, for many, homeschooling does not put you at a social disadvantage later in life.

Medlin (2000) defined socialisation as a process of learning rules and practising behaviours related to systems of belief and attitudes that allow you to become part of society. These skills are the ones you need to be successful as an independent adult, and it has been argued that children learn partly these through key interactions at school.

As demonstrated by Asch (1951) we conform under social pressure in groups. Therefore, being surrounded by others, especially our peer group, will often increase conformity. Guncer and oral (1993) found that the more you conform to rules and authority, the less creative you become. In Sarah’s blog a few weeks ago, she highlighted why we want education to produce creative thinkers; the world is changing, and we do not know what our children are going to need to be able to do yet! Darling (1999) pointed out that we have to balance our children’s individuality with the need to conform.  For many this is easier to do at home than within the school environment, as there are fewer influences. Agency theory describes this as homeschooled children being allowed more room to be autonomous, and able to direct their own behaviour. As opposed to the more agentic state of school children. As a result of being homeschooled, children can become more content with themselves. Moore (1986) said that overall, they are happier, more thoughtful, competent and well adjusted children.

Mayberry (1995) found that many academics in the public school system thought home schooled children lacked socialisation skills, stating that their parents want to keep them ignorant, and think that communities are evil. Many others have suggested a want for more religious education, less conformity, and more control. However, Green & Hoover-Dempsey (2007) found that contrary to this belief, parents motivations were largely related to strong feelings of wanting an active role in their child’s education, rather than the nature of the school system.

One reason why home school children may have equal or improved skills is that according to Rudner, home schooled children come from families that are above average in multiple ways:  88% of parents were found to have stayed in education further than high school, they had significantly higher incomes and most often they were from married families. These variables will also be interacting with, and improving socialising skills, as families with these traditionally ‘good social values’ and role models are seen to be good environments for children.

A common view is that home schooling over protects children from society. It is argued back that caring for your child’s values during this vital developmental age is good. Dr Neufeld suggested that especially in countries where school starts early, children become peer-orientated too early, and this makes them harder to teach and parent, home schooling keeps parents involved and children family orientated. Webb followed some home schooled children into later life and found they had been successful in application for higher education. Delahooke (1986) found that the home educated were well adjusted, socially and emotionally, similar to that of public and privately schooled children. It was also found that the home schooled children were less dependent on their peers (MACHE, 1998). So they seem to be socially competent, and academically equal.

Henderson (1989) found that schooled children measured on self esteem lost their sense of self worth as they progressed through the school years, from 80% to as low as 5% by the time they finish school. In comparison, homeschooled children scored above 90% consistently. There are limitations to these studies, and my conclusion is not certain. The studies in this area have very small sample sizes and I am certain that homeschooling should not be recommended for all families! Further research is no doubt necessary, moving away from self and parent reports.

Homeschooled children do not have as bad a label as they once did, but the public are still being very judgmental. Individual cases will always give evidence for both sides of an argument, but we need to take a level of interest in this research as the number of children being homeschooled is rising. Socialisation problems are one of the key arguments against, and there appears to be little evidence that it is actually a problem! Now to tackle all of the academic regulation issues…

References

Richard G. Medlin, “Home Schooling: What’s Hard? What Helps?” Home School Researcher 11, no. 4 (1995): 1.

Henderson, B. (1989). Home School: Taking The First Step. Kooskia, Id: Mountain Meadow.

Moore, R., (1986). Research on Sociability. The Parent Educator and Family Report, 4, 1.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Influences on Human Development. Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.

Whitehead, J. W., (1985). Parents’ Rights. Weschester, Illinois. Crossway Books.

Maryland Association of Christian Home Educators. (1998). Research facts from the national home education research institute. Retrieved March 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.machemd.org/page5.html

Medlin, R., (2000). Home schooling and the question of socialization. Peabody Journal ofEducation, 75, 107-123.

Mayberry, M., Knowles, J. G., Ray, B.,&Marlow, S. (1995). Home schooling: Parents as educators.

Neufeld, Gordon, Homeschooling. Home Page. http://www.gordonneufeld.com/homeschool.html

Rudner, L. M. (1999). Scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(8). [Online]. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

Webb, Julie (1989). The Outcomes of Home-Based Education: Employment and Other Issues. Educational Review, 41(2), 121-33. [EJ 393 193]

Green and Hoover-Dempsey (2007) http://eus.sagepub.com/content/39/2/264.short

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Darling N (1999) Parenting style and its correlates. ERIC Digest EDO-PS-99-3, Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. University of Illinois, Illinois

Dyslexia: taking action

A teacher sent the following note home with a six-year-old boy:

“He is too stupid to learn.”

Not all labels are obvious. Some learning disabilities are not visible to an outsider, but have an astounding effect on an individual’s education. One in ten of you (at least) will be reading this, knowing that Dyslexia is a label that you carry. With such a high prevalence, more training and awareness is needed so children do not struggle for any longer than necessary. For those who can take meaning from the marks on pages easily, it seems hard to imagine the difficulties that some go through. According to McCandliss and Noble (2003) dyslexia affects up to around 17% of the population, it is a neurologically based learning disability that affects the processing and organisation of the brain with regards to reading. For most, this shows as problems with: phonemic awareness, spelling, de-coding, hearing words and memory (Lyon et al, 2003). Speaking to friends, this often causes a feeling of ‘not being able to get the words out’ or ‘not being able to explain myself’. With a world that places such a high value on the ability to read and write, it is a vast problem as you do not outgrow dyslexia (Snowling, 2008).

Dyslexia does not affect an individual’s intelligence, and is found across the full range of abilities. The brain circuitry of an Individual with dyslexia often finds ways of getting around some the difficulties. However support socially, emotionally, and academically is necessary for many. When speaking of the causes it is important to not make the label the explanation as this reduces the accountability of the pupil and teacher to learn. You should not say that they cannot spell because they have dyslexia, and then that dyslexia means that they cannot spell…this will not help anyone!

Snowling (2008) highlighted the area of phonetic awareness (recognising, identifying and manipulating words). To learn to read we have to abstract the sounds of letters (Phonemes) and attach these to the letters or combinations of letters on the page (Graphemes). For example the ability to know that ‘Rice’ without the ‘R’, is ‘Ice’. Carvalos and Hulme (2005) found that phonemic awareness is a key factor in learning to read, and this is true across languages. When a person has trouble with phonemic awareness they usually have poor short term memory for spoken words. We know for the average person, that short term memory can only hold between 5 and 9 items (Miller, 1956). Any further limitations can cause great problems with recalling instructions and making multi-step plans; this has an impact on many aspects of home and educational life.

Neuroscience has gone a long way in giving support that dyslexia is a real disability (as many disagree) by providing details from fMRI  studies of the areas of the brain affected. Shaywitz (2002) found reduced functioning in parietal and occipital regions, and McCandliss and Noble (2003) described dysfunction in the left perisylvian area and superior temporal gyrus which are responsible for phonological processing. This in turn, leads to a lack of development in parts dealing with automatic word processing. Disruption in the word form system causes limitations in fluent reading; this is one of the supporting pieces of research for giving dyslexic readers extra time in exams.

Shaywitz (2004/2005) found that interventions can make neural changes, highlighting that evidence based interventions can make a difference. When trying to help people with dyslexia at a young age, there are some difficulties. Firstly, the tests designed to screen children result in many false positives and negatives. Simpson and Everatt (2005) suggested that having a good knowledge of phonological awareness and letters is a better ways for teachers to keep ahead with their pupils than using screening tests prematurely. Recommendations have been made by the US national reading panel that 7-8 years is the earliest that dyslexia can be reliably picked up on.

While working at Dyslexia action for a few days last year, the most important observation I made, was that children were not making the ‘jump’ from learning letters to fluent reading. The experienced teachers at Dyslexia Action were explicitly teaching these blending and segmenting skills. Teachers in mainstream schools should be made aware of these techniques, so they can try these basic skills before referring children on. In an independent review it is suggested that regular daily progress be made, using little and often methods. Dyslexia Actions partnership with literacy programmes found improving teacher and assistants skills was very effective at improving support.

Brain studies are leading the way in furthering our understanding of Dyslexia, but we can help more by accepting dyslexia as a good label; designed to support rather than stigmatise. Dyslexia is life-long, but with the correct support and knowledge we can work to create routes around the difficulties. Every child has the right to an effective education.

That boy was Thomas Edison.

References

– McCandliss & Noble (2003) the development of reading impairment: A cognitive neuroscience model. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews, 9(3). 196-205

-Carvalos and Hulme (2005) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096505000688

– Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

-Jim Rose report http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14790/1/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf

-Simpson and Everatt (2005) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000709904X24780/abstract;jsessionid=99C5F947DE5C57FE83F0548B334024F2.d02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

– Shaywitz B, Shaywitz S, Blachman B, Pugh K, Fulbright R, Skudlarski P, et al(2004): Development of left occipito-temporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based intervention.Biol Psychiatry 55:926 –933.

-Shaywitz (2005) http://www.advancedpsychotherapyandhealing.com/userfiles/579848/file/Dyslexia.pdf

-Shaywitz (2002) http://www.dyslexia.yale.edu/Child_Dys_Biol_Psych_2002.pdf