Summing up results from the Silicon Valley teachers across nine schools in five districts who responded to my questions, nearly two-thirds of the teachers I interviewed and observed said that digital tools had changed how they teach with frequent mention of saving time in doing familiar tasks and being able to individualize their work with students.
The rest of the teachers had either said no because they had been using high-tech devices for years before I observed them or on substantive grounds as some stressed the deeper, persistent features of teaching that they must perform regardless of what technologies are used in lessons. Even those who said “no” also acknowledged the efficiencies that these high-tech devices brought to their lessons. These teachers saw both change in their use of digital tools daily and stability in the essential features of planning and executing a lesson. Rather than only black-and-white, they saw gray.
Does this mean that most of these elementary and secondary school teachers identified as “best cases” of integrating technology in Silicon Valley have actually altered how they teach because of using new technologies? Almost two-thirds certainly believed so. Yet a full answer to the question requires looking at their perspectives and the views of others.
Insider vs. Outsider: Whose definition of change matters?
As a researcher I observed and interviewed each teacher. I was an outsider identified as a retired Stanford professor. The teachers were insiders telling me, an outsider, their stories.
Because I had not done prior observations of these teachers before they began using these electronic devices I could not confirm whether these teachers had actually changed or not changed from how they had taught previously. From all indications these teachers believed strongly that they had modified their daily practices due to the regular use of digital tools. I believe them.
However, as a researcher who has studied archived written and printed evidence of teaching practices between the 1890s and the present and an outsider to these schools and classrooms, I bring a different perspective to these observations and interviews. I have accumulated well-documented descriptions of the dominant trends that have typified teaching over the past century. I can, for example, compare what I see in these lessons in 2016 in Silicon Valley to the historical continuum of varied teaching practices from teacher- to student-centered stretching back a century. In addition, I have conceptually defined different kinds of school and classroom change ( e.g., incremental and fundamental) distinctions that most reformers, policymakers, and others, including teachers seldom make. Such knowledge I have acquired over decades, however, produces an internal conflict in me. [i]
What does a researcher make of the teacher, for example, who says with passionate confidence that he has shifted his teaching English to eighth graders from teacher-directed activities to student-centered ones; he cites as evidence of the change the different materials and frequent use of digital tools that he uses in daily lessons, ones that the researcher has observed. Yet during the lesson, the researcher sees those very same materials and practices being used in ways that strengthen the teacher-centered activities and under-cut the student-centeredness that the teacher seeks. Neither the teacher or researcher is lying. Each has constructed an authentic, plausible and credible story. I do not imply that such constructions are untrue; only that “plausible” and “credible” are not the same as true stories.. So who do you believe? [ii]
I am not the first (nor last) researcher to have met teachers who described substantial changes in their lessons in response to district or state policies. Consider “A Revolution in One Classroom; The Case of Mrs. Oublier.”[iii]
In the mid-1980s, California policymakers adopted a new elementary math curriculum intended to have students acquire a deep understanding of math concepts rather than memorizing rules and seeking the “right” answer. The state provided staff development to help elementary teachers implement the new curriculum. Then, researchers started observing teachers using the new math curriculum.
One researcher observed third grade teacher Mrs. Oublier (a pseudonym and hereafter Mrs. O) to see to what degree Mrs. O had embraced the innovative math teaching the state sought. Widely respected in her school as a first-rate math teacher, Mrs. O told the researcher that she had “revolutionized” her teaching. She was delighted with the new math text, used manipulatives to teach concepts, organized students desks into clusters of four and five, and had student participate in discussions. Yet the researcher saw her use paper straws, beans, and paper clips for traditional classroom tasks. She used small groups, not for students to collaborate in solving math problems, but to call on individuals to give answers to text questions. She used hand clapping and choral chants—as the text and others suggested—in traditional ways to get correct answers. To the researcher, she had grafted innovative practices onto traditional ways of math teaching and, in doing so, had missed the heart and soul of the state curriculum.
How can Mrs. O and teachers I have interviewed tell researchers that they had changed their teaching yet classroom observations of these very same teachers revealed familiar patterns of teaching? The answer depends on what kind of “change” the teacher seeks and who judges—the insider or outsider-- the substance of the change and its direction.
Change clearly meant one thing to Mrs. O and another to the researcher. Many teachers, like Mrs. O, had made a cascade of incremental changes in their daily lessons as a result of integrating computer devices into their lessons. Researchers, however, keeping in mind what policymakers and reform designers intended, nay sought, looked for fundamental changes in the how those math lessons were taught.
So whose judgment about change matters most? “ Should researchers “consider changes in teachers’ work from the perspective of new policies…. [or intentions of policymakers]? Or should they be considered from the teacher’s vantage point?”[iv]
Researchers, however, publish their studies and teachers like Mrs. O and the gracious teachers who let me observe their lessons and answer my questions seldom get to tell their side of the story to an audience outside their family and school.
Teachers’ perceptions of change have to be respected and voiced because they are genuine insider accounts that explain how and why they have altered their practices. As two veteran researchers of teaching and teachers said:
We need to listen closely to teachers … and to the stories of their lives in and out of classrooms. We also need to tell our own stories as we live our own collaborative researcher/teacher lives. Our own work then becomes one of learning to tell and live a new mutually constructed account of inquiry in teaching and learning. What emerges from this mutual relationship are new stories of teachers and learners as curriculum makers, stories that hold new possibilities for both researchers and teachers and for those who read their stories.[v]
Yet researchers are more than scribes. They cannot take what teachers say as unvarnished truth and dismiss what is known of the history of teaching as less compelling or immaterial. The answers teachers give to researcher questions are constructed from their insider view. With a historical perspective on past ways that teachers have taught, I have constructed an outsider’s view of what teachers do daily in their lessons with computer devices. Both points of view have to come into play to make sense—to get at the truth as best as I can--of both the teachers’ answers to my questions and what I observed in classrooms.[vi]
As a former high school history teacher between the 1950s and 1970s and a university researcher since 1981, I have tried to manage this dilemma of giving value to teacher stories about classroom change while honoring what I, as a researcher, have learned about teaching, past and present.
This is the dilemma that I negotiate in answering the central question in the book I am writing: Have teachers altered their practice as a result of using new technologies regularly?
______________________________
[i] Cuban, How Teachers Taught (New York: Teachers College Press, 1993); Cuban. Hugging the Middle (New York: Teachers College Press, 2009).
[ii] Interview with John DiCosmo and answers to my questions on whether use of technology has changed his teaching.
As a digital native, I have always used computers in my lessons but each year my teaching changes a little more to put students in the center of the lessons. I have used technology to engage my middle schoolers from the first day I stepped into the classroom, but I am increasingly ‘flipping’ lessons to support student access to materials to differentiate my instruction….
Email from John DiCosmo, October 16, 2016. In author’s possession.
For differences in stories told to researchers, see: D.C. Philips, “Telling the truth about Stories,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 1997, 13(1), pp. 101-109.
[iii] David Cohen, “A Revolution in One Classroom: The Case of Mrs. Oublier,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1990, 12(3), pp. 311-329.
[iv] Ibid., p. 312
[v]Michael Connelly and Jean Clandinin, “Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry,” Educational Researcher, 1990, 19(5), pp.2-14. Quote is on p. 12.
[vi]D.C. Philips, “Telling the Truth about Stories,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 1997, 13(1), pp. 101-109.
|
3 de maio de 2017
Can Technology Change How Teachers Teach?(Part 2) by larrycuban
2 de maio de 2017
Juan Carlos Tedesco
[Versión del mensaje en formato texto]
..............................
PREMIO LATINOAMERICANO Y CARIBEÑO DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES
CLACSO 50 AÑOS
Otorgado a Juan Carlos Tedesco
Por su contribución a la construcción de un pensamiento pedagógico innovador y crítico, por su permanente defensa de la educación pública y por su lucha incansable para la construcción de una América Latina más justa, democrática e igualitaria.
Secretaría Ejecutiva, 2 de mayo de 2017.
..............................
CLACSO
Secretaría Ejecutiva
Estados Unidos 1168
C1101AAX | Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tel. [54 11] 4304 9145 | Fax [54 11] 4305 0875
clacsoinst@clacso.edu.ar | www.clacso.org
..............................
PREMIO LATINOAMERICANO Y CARIBEÑO DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES
CLACSO 50 AÑOS
Otorgado a Juan Carlos Tedesco
Por su contribución a la construcción de un pensamiento pedagógico innovador y crítico, por su permanente defensa de la educación pública y por su lucha incansable para la construcción de una América Latina más justa, democrática e igualitaria.
Secretaría Ejecutiva, 2 de mayo de 2017.
..............................
CLACSO
Secretaría Ejecutiva
Estados Unidos 1168
C1101AAX | Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tel. [54 11] 4304 9145 | Fax [54 11] 4305 0875
clacsoinst@clacso.edu.ar | www.clacso.org
Ensino Médio: o que querem os jovens?
02 de maio de 2017
Pesquisa realizada pelo movimento Todos Pela Educação mostra que estudantes da etapa desejam o básico: mais segurança, boa infraestrutura e professores assíduos
Fonte: Todos Pela Educação
João Bittar/MEC
Os jovens estudantes do Ensino Médio estão atentos aos valores transmitidos pelas escolas brasileiras e à atuação docente. Para eles, a escola ideal se preocupa com a inclusão e assegura o mínimo de infraestrutura para garantir uma Educação de qualidade. É o que revela a pesquisa Repensar o Ensino Médio, iniciativa do Todos Pela Educação, que contou com apoio do Itaú BBA e do Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento (BID), com realização da Multifocus. O estudo – que ouviu a opinião de 1551 jovens entre 15 e 19 anos sobre os professores, a participação social e a Educação Técnica – dá pistas sobre o que deve estar no radar de gestores, educadores e especialistas em relação às políticas públicas educacionais voltadas para a juventude.
Na percepção dos jovens entrevistados entre setembro e outubro de 2016, segurança, atenção às pessoas com deficiência, professores assíduos e boa infraestrutura são, ao mesmo tempo, os itens de maior importância e menor satisfação em relação a suas escolas.
Mas os motivos de incômodo não se restringem aos atributos externos. Os estudantes também apontam o próprio comprometimento e comportamento nas aulas como algo de alta relevância e baixa satisfação em relação à escola, indicando que entendem a Educação como um compromisso de todos da comunidade escolar.
Os conteúdos curriculares e a maneira como eles são ensinados também surgiram como temáticas relevantes para os jovens. Eles estão pouco satisfeitos, por exemplo, com as aulas de Língua Inglesa e o uso da tecnologia em sala de aula, o que pode indicar fragilidades no currículo e na formação dos professores de língua estrangeira, bem como a falta de uma preparação docente para a sala de aula que contemple a inserção de dispositivos eletrônicos como ferramentas de aprendizagem.
ENSINO MÉDIO PARA QUÊ?
Com baixas taxas de conclusão e aprendizagem, o Ensino Médio é um desafio para os gestores públicos e o modelo tem, ao longo dos anos, dado sinais de esgotamento e incompatibilidade com o que os jovens estudantes querem ou esperam.
Nesse sentido, compreender os objetivos da etapa sob a perspectiva dos alunos é essencial. Os entrevistados declararam ansiar pela continuidade dos estudos no nível superior e esperam que a última etapa da Educação Básica os prepare para essa finalidade. De acordo com a maioria dos jovens entrevistados que está cursando o Ensino Médio (71,4%) a principal motivação para cursar a etapa é estar preparado para o vestibular.
Para os jovens, portanto, o significado da etapa está mais atrelado à passagem para a Educação Superior do que à formação para a vida (10,2%) ou ao preparo básico para o mundo do trabalho (16,6%).
Esse fato pode ter consequências negativas quando, apesar da intenção, muitos não conseguem seguir o caminho desejado, pois 86% alegam ter alguma dificuldade para continuar estudando, sendo que 42% afirmam ter obstáculos financeiros e 19% problemas em conciliar trabalho e estudos.
O QUE SIGNIFICA EDUCAÇÃO TÉCNICA PARA O JOVEM?
Ainda que a maioria dos jovens entenda o Ensino Médio como uma ponte para a Educação Superior, grande parte deles vê com importância uma formação básica que prepare para a vida profissional – 77,6% dos estudantes atribuem grau de importância 9 ou 10 para matérias dirigidas à formação profissional, técnica e aconselhamento.
Além disso, 76,5% dos estudantes aprovariam a substituição de um terço das matérias do Ensino Médio por disciplinas técnicas a escolha do estudante, caso a carga horária diária da etapa fosse de 5 horas. A aceitação é maior na região Nordeste (85,5%), e menor na região Sul (44,6%).
Contudo, apesar do expressivo assentimento, metade dos alunos do Ensino Médio Regular ou da Educação de Jovens e Adultos (EJA) diz não conhecer nenhuma modalidade de Educação Técnica. O recorte por classe revela ainda que a Classe DE é a que mais desconhece a modalidade.
Isto é, embora haja interesse pela expansão do ensino técnico profissionalizante, falta de um lado um trabalho de comunicação eficaz que possibilite que as informações sobre a Educação profissional como trajetória formativa cheguem aos jovens – 95% dos estudantes gostariam de saber mais sobre essa modalidade de ensino – e do outro, a ampliação da oferta de forma que seja mais acessível. Dentre os estudantes Ensino Médio Regular ou do EJA, há alta concordância de que o desestímulo para cursar o ensino técnico se deve ao processo seletivo ser muito concorrido (42,2%) e à falta de acessibilidade geográfica (39,6%).
O QUE OS JOVENS ESPERAM DOS PROFESSORES?
Tal qual na questão da formação profissional e técnica, os apontamentos da juventude são centrais para repensar outros aspectos estruturais do Ensino Médio, como a formação inicial e continuada dos professores. A relação entre docentes e alunos e a visão que os jovens nutrem sobre o magistério são determinantes para a qualidade da Educação do País no presente e no futuro.
De acordo com a pesquisa, os estudantes do Ensino Médio consideram como atributos importantes que os professores demonstrem paixão pela profissão, que não desistam diante das dificuldades dos alunos e que cobrem comprometimento dos alunos. Relevantes também foram apontados o foco na preparação para vestibulares, o estímulo à curiosidade dos alunos e os exemplos práticos aplicados ao dia a dia, como se pode observar no gráfico abaixo.
A pesquisa também investigou o interesse dos jovens na carreira docente. Embora 38% dos jovens já tenham pensado em ser professor, 23% disseram ter desistido da ideia. O grupo que pretende seguir a carreira é relativamente maior na classe DE (16,6%), justamente o grupo que requer mais apoio à permanência na universidade.
Diante desse importante potencial de futuros professores, que poderiam amenizar a falta crônica de docentes no Brasil em algumas disciplinas, compreender a desistência é fundamental. Os principais motivos associados à rejeição da profissão refletem aspectos relacionados à baixa valorização que a sociedade brasileira atribui aos professores. De acordo com os entrevistados, o pouco respeito dos alunos (20,9%), o baixo salário inicial (17,7%) e o pouco reconhecimento da sociedade (14,2%) fazem com que a carreira não seja uma opção.
PARTICIPAÇÃO SOCIAL
Além de escutar os jovens sobre as condições de ensino, a pesquisa também procurou compreender a maneira como a juventude tem se engajado: 43% dos jovens entrevistados afirmaram ter participado de algum movimento social no último ano, sendo que 8% deles participaram de três ou mais tipos de movimentos, entre as opções estimuladas estavam: manifestação pública, abaixo-assinado, greve, debates, atividades em grupos religiosos e voluntariado.
Esse potencial de engajamento dos alunos é relevante para o fortalecimento das instituições democráticas da escola e para que novos mecanismos de participação sejam criados, tema, por exemplo, das estratégias 19.4 e 19.6 do Plano Nacional de Educação (PNE).
MAIS DIÁLOGO
Os resultados da pesquisa indicam que repensar o Ensino Médio não pode ser uma ação dissociada do diálogo com a juventude, que é usuária e potencializadora dos investimentos da etapa.
Não há, entretanto, uma total divergência entre os anseios dos jovens e as propostas de políticas públicas em andamento. A Base Comum Curricular do Ensino Médio e a flexibilização da etapa proposta pela Lei nº 13.415/2017 (Medida Provisória 746) são, respectivamente, oportunidades de revisão do currículo e de abertura de novas perspectivas para estudantes concluintes do Ensino Médio. Contudo, os alunos indicam que uma completa reformulação da etapa requer mudanças em aspectos básicos da Educação (e que não foram contemplados pela Lei), como mudanças na formação e atuação docente, expansão e adaptação da infraestrutura das escolas e mais segurança.
Esse panorama sugere, portanto, uma necessária combinação de diferentes políticas capazes de solucionar os diversos problemas relacionados ao Ensino Médio. Uma articulação de iniciativas que leve em consideração semelhanças e disparidades culturais de todo País e entre os diferentes perfis de estudantes, pois uma única solução pode não responder à diversidade.
A categoria segurança, por exemplo, é apontada como o item mais relevante da escola por alunos da rede pública de todas as regiões. No entanto, nas regiões Sudeste, Norte e Sul, a atenção às pessoas com deficiência ganha destaque; no Nordeste, professores assíduos são o que mais preocupam os estudantes e no Centro-oeste, a cordialidade dos funcionários.
METODOLOGIA: COMO FOI FEITA A PESQUISA REPENSAR O ENSINO MÉDIO?
A pesquisa foi realizada em duas etapas: uma qualitativa e uma quantitativa. A pesquisa quantitativa teve caráter amostral e contou com 1551 entrevistados que representam os 17 milhões de jovens do Brasil na faixa etária de 15 a 19 anos, de acordo com a distribuição dessa população nas regiões, entre os sexos, classes sociais, capital/não capital, escola pública/privada.
Já a fase qualitativa contou com a participação presencial de 377 jovens em grupos focais realizados nas cidades de São Paulo (SP), Jacareí (SP), Florianópolis (SC), Itajaí (SC), Fortaleza (CE), Itapipoca (CE), Belém (PA) e Bragança (PA). A interação desses jovens em mesas redondas, exercícios criativos em grupo e perguntas individuais foram as técnicas utilizadas para formular o questionário-base, para a etapa quantitativa.
A margem de erro da pesquisa é de 2,5 pontos percentuais nos cruzamentos que reúnem toda a amostra.
Análise dos dados das questões de avaliação de atributos: em algumas questões, os entrevistados tiveram de associar uma nota de 0 a 10 para a importância e a satisfação que eles atribuem a cada um dos elementos apresentados. Com isso, foi possível compor os índices de relevância e satisfação a partir do percentual de alunos que atribuíram notas 9 e 10 (critério top 2 box) a determinado item. Já para compor os índices de menor satisfação em relação determinados itens, foram observados o percentual de notas dadas de 0 a 5 (critério top 6 box) pelos respondentes.
Maria Alice Setubal: Custo do fracasso escolar para os alunos e o País
Se a reprovação tende a ter mais efeitos negativos que positivos, por que se reprova tanto?
Ao mesmo tempo que amarga as últimas colocações no ranking de aprendizagem da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE), quando o assunto é reprovação o Brasil está nas primeiras posições. Enquanto a média mundial de retenções na educação básica, segundo a organização, é de 2,9%/ano, nosso índice chega a 8,2% no ensino fundamental e alcança alarmantes 11,5% no ensino médio, de acordo com o Censo Escolar de 2015.
Embora esses índices estejam em tendência de queda nos últimos anos, reprovar estudantes com aprendizagem abaixo do esperado ainda é uma resposta comum, e preocupante, do nosso sistema educacional. Mesmo em comparação com nossos vizinhos da América Latina e do Caribe, com quem compartilhamos uma história de desigualdades sociais e no acesso ao direito à educação, somos os recordistas em retenções. Em 2010, entre os 41 países que compõem a região, o Brasil tinha a maior taxa de repetência na educação básica, de acordo com o relatório do Compromisso Educação Para Todos, da Unesco. A julgar pelos resultados de avaliações externas, porém, a estratégia de levar os alunos a refazer os anos letivos tem sido insuficiente para garantir a evolução da aprendizagem.
O problema, de fato, não é de fácil solução. É preciso considerar que, se por um lado a aprovação dos alunos com rendimento abaixo do esperado – sem políticas específicas de intervenção e aceleração – não garante que o direito à aprendizagem se efetue, por outro a reprovação tende a conturbar ainda mais sua trajetória escolar. Nos casos mais graves, levados a refazer o ano escolar nas mesmas condições que levaram a reprová-los, os alunos acabam por abandonar a escola, o que também é uma problema grave no País. Só na faixa etária ideal do ensino médio, de 15 a 17 anos, temos 1,3 milhão de jovens que deixaram a escola sem concluir os estudos; destes, 52% não concluíram sequer o ensino fundamental. Os dados são de um estudo do Instituto Unibanco lançado em 2016.
Outro impacto negativo da reprovação e da evasão, já muito estudado, são seus custos econômicos. Dados preliminares de uma pesquisa realizada por Fundação Brava, Insper, Instituto Ayrton Senna e Instituto Unibanco apontam que os custos anuais de termos jovens de 15 a 17 anos fora da escola são quase equivalentes ao valor investido atualmente pelo País em ensino médio. Somadas as perdas pessoais dessa população, que tem rendimento salarial menor, às perdas sociais, que abarcam queda de arrecadação e aumento de gastos com saúde e segurança pública, os prejuízos chegariam a R$ 49 bilhões/ano. Atualmente, o valor investido pelo País em ensino médio é de R$ 50 bilhões, segundo o Ministério da Educação.
Mas se há anos as pesquisas mostram que a reprovação tende a ter mais efeitos negativos que positivos, por que ainda reprovamos tanto no Brasil? Parte do problema está claramente relacionada à falta de investimentos para garantir condições adequadas de aprendizagem. Por outro lado, pesquisa recente do Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas em Educação, Cultura e Ação Comunitária (Cenpec), realizada com uma amostra de 5.500 professores da educação básica, joga luz em outro aspecto da questão, este de cunho cultural, ou seja, relacionado ao conjunto de crenças sobre reprovação, justiça e avaliação que circulam em nossa sociedade e também influenciam nossos professores.
Um dos principais achados é que, embora 77,8% dos participantes não tenham posição clara sobre o tema, a adesão à crença na reprovação tende a ser acompanhada por forte adesão a uma concepção meritocrática de justiça educativa. Nesse conjunto de crenças, os fatores sociais que influenciam o aprendizado – amplamente demonstrados pela pesquisa científica – não são considerados como geradores de diferenças de desempenho escolar. Assim, o acesso ao conhecimento é visto unicamente como fruto do talento e, especialmente, apenas do esforço individual. Por isso, para os professores que aderem à visão meritocrática, a avaliação tende a ser uma forma de exercer poder disciplinar; consequentemente, a reprovação acaba por assumir uma natureza moral – é uma espécie de “castigo” – e, assim, quanto mais cedo ela ocorra, mais precocemente levaria o aluno a entender que se deve esforçar mais para aprender.
Por outro lado, os professores que consideram os impactos da origem social, do capital cultural e de desigualdades de gênero e raça no processo de aprendizagem tendem a assumir uma visão corretiva de justiça e a ver a avaliação como um processo formativo. Os docentes mais próximos a essas crenças tendem a ser menos favoráveis à retenção, especialmente se estiverem bem informados sobre pesquisas científicas a respeito dos efeitos da reprovação.
Em suma, essa associação inadequada entre reprovação e melhoria do aprendizado se deve a uma cultura incorporada no cotidiano escolar e no imaginário social. Uma mudança efetiva dessa cultura dependerá de mais investimentos em formação inicial e continuada de professores e gestores e em condições pedagógicas, como a redução do número de alunos por turma, para que a comunidade escolar não só tenha acesso a evidências científicas sobre os malefícios da reprovação, como também tenha condições de dar apoio aos alunos com diferentes ritmos de aprendizagem.
O acesso a pesquisas e a informações qualificadas também é fundamental para que a sociedade como um todo possa olhar mais criticamente para os resultados de avaliações externas como o Pisa e a Prova Brasil, cobrar a ampliação e a melhoria na gestão dos investimentos na educação e entender que, numa sociedade como a nossa, a justiça não reside na igualdade de tratamento entre desiguais, mas na correção das disparidades. Somente assim será possível avançar na construção de uma escola mais inclusiva, em que nenhuma criança ou nenhum jovem fique para trás.
* MARIA ALICE SETUBAL É SOCIÓLOGA, EDUCADORA E DOUTORA EM PSICOLOGIA DA EDUCAÇÃO, PRESIDE OS CONSELHOS DO CENPEC E DA FUNDAÇÃO TIDE SETUBAL
MARIA ALICE SETUBAL*
02 Maio 2017 |, Estado de S.Paulo
Suicide and Title IX
May 2, 2017
In recent years, critics of the Obama administration's approach to sexual assault reporting have charged that colleges are denying the rights of the accused.
Conservative websites, primarily, in the last few weeks have focused two pending lawsuits against universities. The suits say that after allegedly bungled investigations into sexual assault accusations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a University of Texas at Arlington student killed himself and a Cornell University student attempted to do so.
These two cases, among others, have been held up as examples of a flawed system that some say should require colleges to rely on a higher standard of evidence in investigating and punishing students for rape.
Advocates for sexual assault prevention in interviews expressed satisfaction with the current federal Title IX guidelines, and instead called for institutions that fumble with their procedures to be better versed and trained in the expectations, but said the federal guidance shouldn’t be scrapped.
Rejected Advances
Wayne M. Klocke filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Texas on behalf of his late son, Thomas Klocke, against the University of Texas at Arlington and a student, Nicholas Watson, who the lawsuit alleges sexually harassed the younger Klocke, who rejected Watson’s advances.
Watson later went to a university administrator, Heather Snow, an associate vice president of student affairs and dean of students, to file a complaint against Klocke, claiming Klocke had insulted his sexuality, the suit states.
The lawsuit asserts that Snow assisted Watson in drafting a complaint against Klocke, circumventing the university's procedures, and that she consistently refused to hear Klocke’s story.
Without any formal Title IX hearing, based solely on Watson's telling of events, Klocke was found guilty of violating the university's code of conduct regarding harassment, the lawsuit states. Even before university officials formally found him guilty, Klocke was barred from attending the class he shared with Watson, according to the lawsuit.
“Thomas was devastated by and distraught because of the actions and omissions that are complained of herein and their impact on his life and future. His scholastic performance, and participation and necessary interaction with fellow students in the course were severely impaired and his academic future and reputation were destroyed,” the suit reads.
Klocke killed himself June 2016, because, the suit says, the allegations were apparently so embarrassing.
Teresa Woodard Schnyder, a University of Texas at Arlington spokeswoman, provided a statement on the lawsuit: “This is a tragic situation and we express our deepest condolences to the family for their loss. The welfare of our students is our highest priority. Any loss is a heartbreaking one for our entire community. The university followed its policies and procedures. This is now the subject of a lawsuit in federal court; therefore, we are unable to respond further at this time.”
The university had not yet filed a response in federal court as of Tuesday.
In the Cornell case, a student sued in federal court in New York State, saying that he tried to commit suicide in April 2016. That student, who was identified as James Doe, a pseudonym, in the lawsuit, claims the university improperly suspended him, and indeed a university review panel reversed his initial, temporary suspension for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman.
The lawsuit states the woman, after hanging out with Doe all night, lay on his bed and “invited him” to join her. She was sexually aggressive, and when Doe rejected her and moved her off him, she punched him in the testicles.
The woman went to university officials instead claiming Doe had sexually assaulted her, the suit states, however, Cornell never seriously considered Doe’s countercomplaint against the woman.
John J. Carberry, a Cornell spokesman, declined comment, citing the fact that litigation is ongoing. Federal court filings do not include a response from Cornell.
Suicides make for compelling examples to many -- not just critics of Title IX enforcement.
One of the most notable sexual assault cases involving suicide is that of Saint Mary's College student Lizzy Seeberg, who took her life in 2010 after, she said, a University of Notre Dame football player raped her. The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights launched an investigation into Notre Dame's handling of the case, and in 2011, the university came to a resolution with the Education Department, agreeing to change its procedures surrounding sexual assault.
Critics of Title IX under the Obama administration blame what they view as colleges' overzealousness on a Dear Colleague letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2011.
Many fought back against one particular element of the directive -- that institutions should rely on a lower standard of proof, preponderance of evidence -- in judging sexual assault cases. Though some had been using the higher clear and convincing standard prior to the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, most colleges and universities used the preponderance of evidence standard, meaning enough proof has been presented to show an incident likely occurred, said S. Daniel Carter, secretary of advocacy group SurvJustice. Carter estimated no more than 20 percent of institutions nationwide used clear and convincing, which some have pushed for in recent years. (Where the clear and convincing standard of proof requires a roughly 75 percent chance that the accused is responsible, preponderance of evidence, which is the standard used in civil cases, requires a 50.1 percent chance.)
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, or SAVE, a nonprofit that represents students who say they have been falsely accused of a sex crime, and means to revise the Title IX law, released a recent report slamming the current processes on college campuses. SAVE has dubbed those investigations “kangaroo courts,” a common smear among those critical of them.
“The common denominator of all these cases is the inherent conflict of interest of college administrators, whose first loyalty is to maintain and promote a positive reputation of the institution,” the report reads, referencing cases that SAVE said were handled poorly. “In addition, college investigators lack adequate training in the collection, analysis and preservation of forensic evidence. Nor do campus adjudicators possess expertise in how to resolve complex ‘he-said, she-said’ cases. Finally, the strongest punishment that schools can deliver is expulsion.”
In the report, SAVE calls for a repeal of the 2011 guidance.
The language in that guidance isn’t flawed, but rather the problem is in the way that college administrators are trained in holding Title IX hearings and investigations, said Alison Kiss, executive director of the Clery Center.
Though some colleges had already evaluated and implemented proper procedures even prior to 2011, or instituted changes right away, some institutions -- those that were not informed of their obligations or had fewer resources -- weren’t quick to act, Kiss said.
“I can’t stress enough the importance that there’s training around these serious areas,” Kiss said. The law means to ensure fairness and impartiality, she said, and the 2011 guidance tried to “level the playing field.”
Historically, prior to 2011, colleges’ processes were slanted against the victim of rape, Carter said. SurvJustice provided input to the Obama guidance and continues to support it, Carter said. His organization seeks a balance for rights of both the accused and the victim.
The guidance has altered the “culture” of college campuses, sharpening administrators’ awareness of these types of issues, Carter said, and it shouldn’t be thrown out.
“It’s about fixing the guidance, it’s about educating the universities,” Carter said. “It’s unfortunate that some cases had some potentially tragic outcomes, but those schools are learning the hard way, you cannot cut corners when it comes to an issue this serious.”
1 de maio de 2017
Gender Gaps Shrinking and Lingering
New research suggests limited role for gender in predicting whether new Ph.D.s will get
issues, favoring men.
tenure-track jobs, but notable differences on pay and other
May 1, 2017
0 COMMENTS
ISTOCK
To what degree does gender impact one's career trajectory in the 10 years after earning a Ph.D.? While the majority of recent studies on the issue have found that women have a harder time earning tenure-track professorships and tenure than do their male counterparts, some studies also suggest that women are now playing on a level field with men -- or even possess some advantage.
A paper presented Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association examining the career paths of recent Ph.D.s finds there’s no strong, comprehensive evidence of gendered paths to tenure during the first decade after degree completion. Scholarly publications and activities, such as research, and a postdoctoral appointment in the years following degree completion were the most important factors in getting an tenure-track job for both men and women.
At the same time, the paper suggests that women do earn lower salaries than men and take longer to complete their doctoral degrees. It also says that important gender-based differences in men’s and women’s career trajectories may still exist in the second decade after degree completion, and that this period merits further study.
“Although the movement out of academia by gender was not statistically significant, our data showed that more women move out of the education sector than male peers,” the paper says. “Additional follow-up with these respondents in their second decade after degree completion may provide additional insight. Perhaps it takes longer to see the effects for women who experience challenge in dual roles or perceive a lack of collegial support. Whether the leaky pipeline is a function of lack of confidence, self-preservation, or women acknowledging their self-worth by pursuing alternate careers that better recognize and value their talents may well be a combination or interaction of these and other factors.”
The paper, which used data from 2003 to 2013 from the federal Survey of Doctorate Recipients concerning 2,350 Ph.D.s, was written by Karen L. Webber, associate professor of higher education at the University of Georgia, and Manuel González Canché, assistant professor of higher education at Georgia. Among other questions, the researchers considered how changes in a Ph.D. holder’s academic (number of publications, teaching experience, postdoctoral appointments) and individual demographic characteristics (race, marital status, children) over time affected movements between different kinds of academic and nonacademic jobs. They also looked for evidence that gender might play a role in predicting whether Ph.D.s got tenure-track appointments.
Source: Webber and González Canché
For their analysis, Webber and González Canché identified all respondents to the 2003 Survey of Doctorate Recipients who completed their doctorates from 1999 to 2003 and who potentially entered an academic position within five years of graduation. (Although some take longer than five years to enter a faculty position, this time frame captures the majority of academic entrants, the study says.) Recognizing that it’s “very possible” faculty members will move across institutions or job types during their careers, the researchers developed four categories of initial employment: non-postsecondary appointment, academic off tenure track, academic tenure track, or tenured academic.
“There is little empirical research to date that captures the ‘dynamic nature’ of the academic trajectories of doctorate holders and how changes in their professional characteristics can be updated across time to explain movements between categories, including the decision to leave the academic profession,” the paper says. “The ultimate goal of this research is to provide evidence of differences in the influence of predictors for tenure-related appointments in the academic trajectories of female and male faculty members.”
Approximately 70 percent of the survey respondents were born in the U.S. Thirty-seven percent were ethnic minorities. About 72 percent earned their doctorates from a major research institution (R1 in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education). More than half were working in education by 2003, and 14 percent completed a postdoc appointment in the decade following graduation.
Sixty-nine percent of recipients were married at degree completion, jumping to 81 percent by 2013. In 2003, nearly 28 percent were employed at an R1, but that share decreased to 20 percent by 2013.
Findings
Women were a year older at degree completion than men, or 37 compared to 36. Women also took longer to complete their degrees (9.2 years compared to 8.5 years) and earned significantly lower salaries than men ($72,043 vs. $84,464 in 2003 and $100,396 vs. $121,275 in 2013).
Across the sample, some 360 participants left the academy within a decade: 160 women and 200 men. Gender had no significant influence on mobility in or out of academe, but a slightly larger share of women moved out of academe than men (about 7 percent vs. 6 percent).
Number of scholarly publications, having a postdoc and salary were significant factors in women’s likelihood of taking an academic position versus working outside academe soon after degree completion. Higher involvement in research, teaching, administration and assistance with computers and technology increased one’s likelihood of remaining in an academic position over time.
In terms of discipline, women in the physical sciences, biology and agricultural sciences and engineering were significantly less likely to take jobs or remain employed in academe compared to peers in the social sciences. (Some of this may be attributable to the prevalence of postdocs in the natural sciences.)
Women who had published articles were not significantly more likely to have a tenured or tenure-track appointment than a non-tenure-track appointment early in their careers, but the difference became significant over time (the authors divide the decade after Ph.D. completion into five different time periods, denoted by "T" in the chart below).
Articles and book publications were positively associated with the likelihood of holding a tenure-related appointment within the first six years after academic appointments for both men and women. In the eighth and 10th years, book publications had a negative correlation for women, and in the 10th year, book publications also became negative for men. The effect of article publications was always positive regardless of gender.
Results also showed that those who took longer to earn a doctorate were less likely to receive a tenure-related position, and U.S.-born recipients had a higher likelihood of receiving a tenure-related position compared to foreign-born peers.
Married women were less likely than single or divorced women to have a tenure-related position late in the decade studied.
Similar to findings for women, male recipients in psychology, biology and agriculture, and the physical sciences were less likely to receive and remain in a tenure-related appointment compared to peers in the social sciences.
“We acknowledge the positive nature of our findings, hoping that gender differences may be waning in academia,” the paper says. “This may be particularly true for doctoral recipients who are assumed to seek employment that synergizes in a long-term career.”
The authors warn, however, that some gender differences do exist, and further study is warranted. Since marriage does not become a significant contributor for women until about eight years after degree completion, it says, “following these recipients into their second decade after degree completion may yield more insight into possible gender effects.” They cite a study suggesting that even if gender differences no longer exist in entry-level academe, they exist later on, for example.
Over all, though, for both men and women, having journal publications was by far the most important contributor to career movement over the decade following degree completion. “Our collective findings herein are somewhat consistent with those who found no gender difference or women with higher citation scores and that differences in younger generations of researchers overall have disappeared in this first decade after degree completion," the new paper says. "Perhaps recent female doctoral recipients have accumulated strong and satisfactory experiences as undergraduate and graduate students, and collectively these experiences and changing social and organizational systems are providing women with self-efficacy that contributes to success in academia.”
In most models, ethnicity was not a significant contributor to early career success within academe. Activities related to teaching and research were also important in terms of securing an academic position, but the magnitude was different for men versus women. Three years after degree completion, teaching and research activities were significant predictors for women, but only teaching activities were found to be significant for male peers. Six years after degree completion, teaching remained important for both men and women, but research became a stronger -- and significant -- predictor for men, the paper says.
In 2006, women who held a management/administrative position were more likely to remain in academia than depart to business and industry or government work. Why? “The more collaborative environment of administration and lower emphasis on publication may be perceived as a more positive work environment," according to the paper.
Across the decade, degree recipients from engineering were more likely to take a position outside the education sector than those in the social sciences, the paper says. This finding also held true, to a somewhat lesser degree with physical sciences, biology and agricultural sciences.
Implications
Despite some of her findings, Webber said via email that it’s important not to abandon gender-equity efforts at departmental, institutional or national levels because there's too much evidence of unconscious biases that enable subtle discrimination to do so. “I am happy that in this set of data we did not find huge gender differences in some areas of academic work, and hopeful that we will find evidence of even fewer differences as we go forward," she said. "However, we did find some areas of gender difference, so we are not completely out of the woods yet.”
If new female Ph.D.s come out of their doctoral programs “on par with male peers, great!” Webber added. But “then I wonder what will happen when they begin to think about pregnancy and raising children. … So we must continue to monitor for equity -- not only in salary but also in all aspects of academic work (amount of time devoted to teaching, research, administrative service, etc.).”
Susan Chen, an associate professor of economics at Illinois State University, co-authored a recent paper suggesting that female economists are less likely to be tenured, compared to male peers, and less likely to remain in academe eight years after earning their Ph.D.s. She said that she wished could share in Webber’s and González Canché’s "positivity" about gender’s effect, or lack thereof, on early academic careers, but that she had some serious methodological concerns about their paper. For example, she said, journal publications matter in personnel decisions not only in quantity but in quality, and across disciplines. Some fields value external grants and others don’t. And perhaps marital status is not a significant factor until late within the decade studied, she added, because sample women got married later.
“I think the bottom line is that the general gender bias still exists based on their study -- for example, salary and year to degree,” Chen said.
Wendy Williams, professor of human development at Cornell University, and Stephen Ceci, the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology at Cornell, together have questioned the persistence of gender bias in the sciences, including in a widely cited paper suggesting that women candidates are actually favored two to one over men for tenure-track positions in STEM. Their work is also cited throughout the new paper, which Ceci called “the latest evidence showing that transitions from hiring through tenure in the academy are basically gender neutral,” albeit with some field-specific effects.
“Sure, there are areas in which women’s outcomes are not quite as salutary as men’s, but there are areas where the reverse is true, too,” he said. Taking their full modeling into account, “one is struck by how gender-fair the picture is in the 2003-2013 waves of the [survey] data. Number of publications was strongly predictive for women as well as men.”
Mounting evidence shows that historical gender discriminatory hiring and tenure “is not currently true and it appears not to have been true for a couple decades,” Ceci added. Going forward, it'll be “interesting to unpack some of these findings to examine fine-grained differences," such as field-specific outcomes for various type of journals and citations, reasons for leaving given fields, salary differences in new jobs, or whether the seemingly positive ethnic hiring data can be confirmed with more data.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)