The Need for Active Listening....wait, what???

As an element of emotional intelligence, social awareness is defined as the ability to accurately pick up on emotions in other people and understand what is really going on with them.  This often means perceiving what other people are thinking and feeling even if you do not feel the same way (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002).  Perceiving emotions in others requires much greater listening than that done with one’s ears.  Being socially aware, which is certainly a core competency of any leadership model, requires listening and observing skills.  The effective leader and the efficient learner both understand the importance of watching and listening to people in order to “get a good sense of what they are thinking and feeling” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009, p. 38)

Active listening is a core element for building strong collaborative partnerships, which is important for lifelong learning because, “the weaker the connection you have with someone, the harder it is to get your point across” (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009, p. 44).  Based on the information process model of learning (Ashcroft, 1994), active listening therefore promotes active learning.  As described by Gordan (1970), active listening requires the effective use of silence, paraphrasing, acknowledging without judgment, clarifying, and exhibiting empathy.  Covey (1989) exemplified four aspects of listening that includes:

·         Ignoring, (obvious),

·         Pretending, this usually involves hearing but not processing the information,

·         Selective listening, this involves processing only parts of the message,

·         Attentive listening involves paying attention and focusing on what you are hearing.

·          

Traits that affect listening effectiveness were described by Pearce, Johnson, and Barker (2003), in Table 1 (as in Ladyshewsky& Vilkinas, 2011):

·        

Objectivity Staying neutral and not getting involved emotionally, enhances listening.

Age Listening increases with age, until you get very old.

Open Mindedness Having an open mind improves your ability to listen.

Level of self-centeredness Over-preoccupation with self-image, knowledge or importance reduces effective listening.

Focus Don't do multiple tasks when trying to listen.

Intelligence A moderate relationship exists between intelligence and listening.

Level of anxiety and stress Stress lowers our ability to listen.

Managerial rank Managers tend to listen better than subordinates.

Presence of problems Diminishes hearing.

Gender Women are generally considered better listeners; men prefer to listen to the general, women to the details.

References:

Ashcraft, M.H. (1994). Human memory and cognition (2nd Ed.). NY: Harper Collins

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J., (2009) Emotional Intelligence 2.0.  Talentsmart Service

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New

            York: Free Press.

Dittmar, J. K. (2006, Fall). An interview with Larry Spears: President & CEO for the Greenleaf

            Center for Servant Leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of

      emotional intelligence. Boston: HBS Press.

Gordon, Thomas. (2000). 1st rev. pbk. ed edition Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0609806939

Ladyshewsky R. Vilkinas, T.  (2011). Academic leadership: Fundamental Building Blocks for Fieldwork Coordinators [Resource book]. Strawberry Hills, New South Wales: Australian Learning and Teaching Council

Pearce, C. G., Johnson, I. W., & Barker, R. T. (2003). Assessment of the Listening Styles

            Inventory: Progress in establishing reliability and validity. Journal of Business and

            Technical Communication, 17(1), 84–113.

The Need for Publicly Funded Pre-school in the United States

Who would possibly disagree with the statement that “it seems to be a form of insanity for a society to allow the 'gap' to grow between advantaged and disadvantaged students to increase during the 0–5 years and then demand that the schools are responsible for closing the gap" (GCU, 2012, para 7)?  Research by Christina and Goodman (2005) indicates that high-quality early education programs can produce substantial long-term benefits for children, families, and society.  Armed with this knowledge, many states began mounting ambitious efforts to implement high-qualitypre-kindergarten programs at universal scale.  Their Rand Research Brief described some of the progress states have made and identifies significant policy and practice issues. 

The first few years of life are critical for a child's cognitive development and learning.  Barnett's (1998) evaluations of well-run prekindergarten programs found that children exposed to high-quality early education were less likely to drop out of school, repeat grades, or need special education, compared with similar children who did not have such exposure.  Despite good research linking effective pre-K programs with later academic success, Shore (2002) still found early care and education in the United States was essentially a non-system consisting of a "patchwork of programs."  After publication of the Rand Education Report (2005) most states began to embrace the value of high-quality early education programs.  By 2007, as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Barack Obama was expressing his plans to make universal Pre-K programs a national priority.  Then came a national and international recession and this plan has not seen the limelight.

Too often our elected officials make short-term decisions that don't result in long-term solutions.  As educators, we need to be advocates for the currently unheard voices of our youngest students.  Absence of action to advocate on behalf of your future students may easily result in millions of these students twenty years from now hopelessly asking, "why didn't you do something to help?"  I encourage all educators to be proactive and advocate for universal pre-K so that day may not ever be realized. 

References:

Christina, R., Goodman J.V. (2005) Going to Scale with High-Quality Early Education. The

Rand   Corporation.  http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR237.html

Grand Canyon University (producer). (2012, January). EDA810 Module 8 Lecture

Slaby, R., Loucks, S., & Stelwagon, P. (2005). Why is preschool essential in closing the

            achievement gap? Educational Leadership & Administration, 17, 47-57.

A Coherent Network of Assessments is a Key to Learning for All

With the emphasis on accountability demanded by Race to the Top (RTT) current assessment systems need to change.  This change will need to begin with annual testing.  Thereafter, classroom assessment will need to follow. 

In an Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC) report, Herman (2010) detailed how a better assessment network needs to begin with the conception of assessment not as a single test but as a coherent system of measures. Coherent systems must be composed of valid measures of learning and be horizontally, developmentally, and vertically aligned to serve classroom, school, and district improvement (p. 1)

A sole multiple choice test, administered in an hour or two, cannot cover the full range of year-long standards representing what students should know and be able to do.  In contrast, a system composed of multiple assessments can illuminate a broader, deeper perspective of student knowledge and skills. A second assessment for example, cannot only assess more content knowledge, but, if designed to measure applied knowledge, can evaluate different types of skills (p.2).

An assessment system comprised of multiple types of measures can provide a more thorough picture of student learning. Such systems also can be more responsive to the diverse decision-making needs for those who need data to support improvement—teachers, administrators parents, students. A solitary, end-of-year test simply cannot provide sufficient formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (pp. 2-3).

Coherent assessment systems are comprised of component measures that each reflect significant learning goals and provide accurate information for intended purposes.  Drawing from the KnowingWhat Students Know National Research Council conception (National Research Council [NRC], 2001), coherence starts with a clear specification of the goal(s) to be measured.  Next, assessment tasks are specially designed or selected to reflect the learning goal(s).  Finally, an appropriate interpretation framework is applied to student responses to reach valid conclusions about student learning—for example, a score of “proficient” on a state test or an inference about the source of a student’s misunderstandings in teachers’ formative practice (Herman, 2010, p. 3).

Furthermore, Herman (2010) notes this creates “a more fragile base for classroom teaching and learning, the emphasis on a system of assessments by the addition of through-course exams to complement end-of-year assessments is very promising” (p.6).  How does this promote coherence?  Herman (2010) notes that using “through-course exams—more extended, performance-oriented assessments conducted during the course of instruction—provide rich opportunities to assess students’ thinking and reasoning as well as their ability to apply and communicate their knowledge and skills in solving complex problems.  Performance assessments also provide useful models of effective teaching while supporting authentic instruction and student learning" (p. 6).  Coherence in assessment networks could create data-based accountability systems that “support educational improvement, better education for all students, so that every student is prepared for college and success in life” (p.7).  Learning for all must be the goal.  A coherent, data-based accountability system is a correlate of Effective Schools.  Therefore, it becomes inherent upon true educators to embrace this concept. 

References:

Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key to Next Generation Assessment Success (AACC Report).

            Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Appropriate Disaggregation of Student Performance Data Increases Learning for All

The use of data for school reform is well explicated in Effective Schools research.  Researching this correlate, Bambrick-Santoyo (2008) found given “the proper interplay among interim assessments, analysis, action and data-driven culture, schools can be transformed, and a new standard can be set for student learning” (p. 46).  As a result of using data-driven instruction teacher buy-in is actually created. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requirements advanced the use of disaggregated data as a powerful motivator for change and school improvement.  In a 2008 press release, then USDE Secretary Spellings noted, disaggregation data is especially important for closing the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their peers.  Spellings contended, “the more information consumers have, the better equipped they are to demand, and achieve, lasting school improvement. And the more information teachers have, the better able they are to customize and improve instruction” (April 2008).

While the NCLB included benefits to students with disabilities (SWD) it also created some barriers that might prevent students with disabilities from enjoying all of the opportunities in the law.  While NCLB requires schools, school districts, and states disaggregate test results for several subgroups of students in an effort to increase the accountability of at-risk groups of students and thereby close the achievement gap.  Students with disabilities are one of the subgroups that must be disaggregated.  NCLB allows states to set a minimum number of students that each subgroup must contain before the data for that particular subgroup can be used for purposes of determining achievement.  Cortiella (2010) notes “the minimum number of students in each subgroup is to be based on what would be sufficient to yield statistically reliable information as well as to make sure that disclosing the results for a particular small subgroup would not, in fact, result in revealing the identity of the students in that subgroup” (para 9). 

A possible unintended consequence of allowing flexibility in SWD subgroup size is that public reporting of any subgroup’s performance is intended to highlight achievement gaps and thereby motivate schools to improve when necessary.  However, schools can escape scrutiny because of subgroup size that may not focus the same level of effort on students whose results aren't reported on the school or district level due to subgroup size.  These schools and districts can avoid a "needs improvement" rating under NCLB if the SWD subgroup size doesn't meet the state minimum.  Therefore, Cortiella (2010) finds “this provision could result in schools attempting to limit the number of students with learning difficulties it qualifies for special education services” (para 10).  For this reason, as an ethical and moral imperative, the appropriate use of disaggregated data must be required and ensured to truly promote learning for all.

References:

Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2007). Data in the driver's seat. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 43-46.
Cortiella, C. (2010)  No Child Left Behind and Students With Learning Disabilities:
            Opportunities and Obstacles
Spelling. M, (2008) U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings Announces Department Will
Move to a Uniform Graduation Rate, Require Disaggregation of Data. 

Why an Opportunity Gap Results in the Observed Achievement Gap

The power of low SES to adversely impact academic outcomes can be most clearly understood through consideration of the theories of Maslow (1959) and self-determination advocates (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  Before the student will be ready to learn his or her basic needs including food, shelter, safety, love and belonging, self-esteem must be satisfied.  In an oversimplification of the need to motivate students, Sullo, (2007) notes, “Until more students decide to work harder, there will be no significant improvement in our schools no matter how much better we teach” (p. 154). 

Such ignorance of the impact of low SES is the very reason the children from low SES households are seen as the problem rather than the victim.  Despite Sullo’s thoughts on the subject, low SES and not “a lack of hard work” makes it less likely for basic needs to be met on a day-to-day basis.  The school system and yes, that includes teachers, must insure basic needs-are met before the teacher will ever “appear” to that student.  The effective leader, in his or her interconnected promotion of the seven correlates of reform, must ensure the basic needs of students are addressed by the school system and each individual teacher so learning for all becomes more likely.

In relation to socio economic status, an opportunity gap is present in public education as “approximately 65% of the observed gap in measured student achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students begins as a gap in opportunity to learn” (GCU Lecture, 2011).  Duke (2000) found the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and educational outcomes “has become so unquestioned that contemporary research is more likely to employ SES as a control variable than as the subject of inquiry” (p. 442).  This opportunity gap is not related to a lack of effort by the student but actual differences in nurturance, and educational opportunities provided by more affluent families compared to those families struggling just to satisfy basic food, shelter, and safety needs.  On average, disadvantaged students enter public schools about 2 years behind their more advantaged counterparts (Knitzer & Lefkowitz, 2006).  Whenever a school fails to adjust to this reality then the child is indeed being denied an opportunity to learn. 

The mission of the common school movement in this country was to alleviate the growing tensions between social-classes.  Reese (2005) quotes Horace Mann, considered the father of the common school movement, who believed the public education system should be “common in the highest sense, as the air and light were common; because it was not  only the cheapest but the best, not only accessible to all, but as a general rule, enjoyed by all” (p. 11). 

The lack of opportunity resulting from being from a low SES family has been a problem since the mid nineteenth century.  Schools will not close the observed achievement gap until the gap in opportunity to learn has been closed.  Only once ensuring satisfaction of the basic needs of students are met can an effective school leader then address intrinsic motivation as the school’s core beliefs, and core values by promoting capitalization of interest and relevance, providing realistic choices among tasks, teaching skills necessary for success, focusing on mastery, helping students set appropriate goals, providing appropriate feedback, limiting use of external constraints in teaching, and fostering relatedness in the classroom.

References:

Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2008). Ed Psych: Modules. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Duke, N.K. (2000) Nell K. Duke, “For the Rich It’s Richer: Print Experiences and Environments Offers to
            children in Very Low- and Very High-Socioeconomic Status First-Grade," American
            Educational Research Journal, Summer, 2000, vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 441-478.

Grand Canyon University (producer). (2011, October). EDA805 Module 7 Lecture

Reese, W. (2005). America’s public schools: From the common school to “No Child Left

            Behind.” Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
           social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Sullo, B. (2007). Activating the desire to learn. (Chapter 4) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/grandcanyon/Doc?id=10156586

Taylor, B. O. (2002). The Effective Schools Process: Alive and Well. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5),

            375.

What Makes a Public School “Public”?

        The focus of this month’s post is to identify attributes that makes a public school “public.” In this regard, funding, governance, accountability, and access will be discussed.  Certainly such a discussion needs to respect the history of public education.  However, this paper is grounded in the perspective that it is essential to recognize the historical service of public education to understand how public education has been continuously evolving and must continue to do so in the future to satisfy its primary purpose.

      The main purpose of public education in the United States has consistently been to develop an informed populace.  Jefferson (1786) wrote, "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."  Despite this desire communicated by a Founding Father, the United States Constitution does not guarantee the right to an education, rather, through the Tenth Amendment such powers were delegated to the States.  It was not until 1918 that every State had enacted compulsory education laws (Swift, 1923).  The result of compulsory education has been public funding for public education. 

Although public funds are typically understood to be taxes, different states use taxes differently to pay for its schools.  Many States use its state income tax as a primary source for funding its public schools while other States use property taxes, which have been shown to create the greatest disparity between districts and even other States (Kozol, 2005).  While taxes continue to be the most common form of revenue for funding public education, another popular revenue source has been state lotteries.  While lotteries are not taxes, their use raises the question of the ethics of a culture using gambling as a revenue stream to pay for its public education.  Furthermore, Pierce and Miller (2004) found education spending initially gets a significant bump from a state lottery but beyond the first year, the rate of increase on education spending actually tends to slow to the point that after the seventh or eighth year less money is spent on education than would have been spent if the state didn't have a lottery at all. Federal funds for public education, which come from federal income taxes or deficit spending, have also become a significant source of revenue for public schools.  Until 1979, the local contribution to public education primarily from local taxes exceeded the State’s share.  Currently State and Federal funding accounts for nearly 60% of the overall revenue provided to public schools.  In terms of local control, there is a definite cost associated to these funding streams. 

Local control has long been a desired element of public education.  During the last half of the twentieth century, local school districts increasingly yielded policy-making discretion to State legislatures and State Education Agencies.  As a result of increased State funding related to following State mandates for promoting equity while improving student proficiency and teacher performance; local control over funding and curricular content has diminished as local districts needed to promote the State’s standards.  Kirst (1988) cited evidence suggesting most significant reform occurs when individual schools are given more responsibility, rather than less.  This can certainly be evidenced through successful reform efforts linked to the movement toward school-based management.  As a result of the adoption of school based management to promote educational reform, the power related to the governance of a specific public school has shifted.  For the most part, in these instances the power of the elected or appointed school board has been reduced to hiring the district’s superintendent and developing the district’s public school budget.  Related to school administrators, state education agency officers, elected or appointed members of the local board of education, teachers and teacher unions, parents, and the students themselves, Marburger (1978) identified three primary concerns of these stakeholder or decision-making groups that involve their diverse roles, consolidation of power, and ability to enact change.  Marburger advocated for improved parental empowerment through an elected council of parents and citizens being established in each individual school or collectively within any district with more than one-thousand students.  Historically, attempts to improve public education have been difficult because of the need to build consensus.  Tamir (2011) believes efforts in this regard “are met by the unspoken though persistent resentment of those who fear the transformative power of education and would like to preserve the present social order” (p. 395).  As Tamir notes, this is true of emerging global democracies as well as the United States.  Certainly this would be more problematic for schools involving many low socio-economic families relying upon legislators from wealthier districts.  Assuring parents are empowered at the local school level can restore the element of local control and accountability that was lost when the State Education Agencies demanded adherence to their standards based curriculum and accountability system.  Although increasing parent involvement and school based management will bring accountability closer to home, these reform efforts alone will not improve student outcomes.

Starting with A Nation at Risk (1983) through the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, PL 98-10) now known as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), the effectiveness of public schools has been politicized as education reform was predicated on the call to fix a broken system.  Although most urban cities have their high school gems, such as Stuyvesant High School in New York City or Boston Latin High School in Boston Massachusetts, the academic and funding disparity between the non-elite urban public high schools and wealthy suburbs makes any discussion of closing the achievement gap laughable. 

Whereas Brown versus the Topeka Board of Education and The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) were landmark achievements in public education allowing public schools to become accessible to all students regardless of race or (dis)ability, the pervasive lack of equity in quality makes accessibility only physical in nature.  True accountability needs to ensure accessibility to equity in quality (EDA 805, Module 1 Lecture).  The common factor in both the Brown case and PL-94-142 is civil rights.

An essential mandate of PL 94-142, since reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), is the requirement for the provision of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).  Just as when trying to determine the “appropriateness” of a placement for a student with a disability so too is it essential to consider the appropriateness of placement of any student in a public school that has demonstrated failure to adequately educate its student population.  Public education does not merely mean access to a school funded by public dollars or governed by an elected or appointed school board.  Effective public education entails providing access to an educational institution that is responsible for serving the needs of the community and the students it serves.  Given the diversity of these United States of America, choices for a public education must also become diverse while being grounded in equity in quality.

As public education options continue to diversify as quickly as its student populations, schooling alternatives will emerge along with new approaches to government funding and oversight (Hill & Johnston, 2010). It is forecast that a large percentage of future students could attend schools very differently than evidenced by the current dominant model, whereby students and career teachers are in contact throughout the day and in which teachers are fully responsible for all aspects of the learning process ranging from teaching, remediating, enriching, and assessing the students’ current proficiencies and then correcting deficiencies as needed.  Up to half of the students that will receive education in alternate schools will have their education paid for with government funds (Hill & Johnston, 2010).  Alternatives to the current model of public education will be a result of four factors: expansion of technology, changes in the United States economy, innovations in the public sector-especially large urban districts, and the increased commitment to more stringent national standards.  These four factors will offset the reluctance to change that is driven by historical perspectives involving local control of funding, governance, accountability, and access.  It is predicted that three alternate forms of schooling: virtual schools, hybrid schools, and broker schools, will become sufficiently common as to be perceived by both teachers and parents as “normal” (Hill & Johnston, 2010, p. 44).  Since hybrid schools and broker schools are usually based on a charter, these models can already be seen in growing numbers under the category known as Charter Schools!    

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Casteen, J.T. (1995) UVA: The president’s report.

            http://www.virginia.edu/president/presidentsreports/95/cover3.shtml

Davis Jr., O. L. (2004). Now Is The Time For Americans To Listen and To Talk Straight About

            Schooling. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision. pp. 1-4.

Hill, P. & Johnston, M. (2010) In the Future, Diverse Approaches to Schooling. Phi Delta

            Kappan, 92(3), 43-47.

Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of the Nation. Random House

Pierce, P.A and Miller, D.E. (2004) Gambling Politics: State Government and the Business of

            Betting Lynne Rienner Publishing.

Tamir, Y. (2011). Staying In Control; Or, What Do We Really Want Public Education To

            Achieve?. Educational Theory, 61(4), 395-411. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2011.00411.x

How Is A Principle-Based Character Developed?

As a follow up to the previous post related to teachers' comfort with teaching ethics, this month will focus upon issues related to character development.  In The 7 Habits ofHighly Effective People, Covey (1989) contends when a person is principle-centered then his or her core values serve as an anchor, keeping him or her from being thrown about by the storms of life.  Therefore, character means that he or she will live based on a set of deeply held, carefully defined, values that the person isn’t willing to break.  Since knowledge of right compared to wrong is more than a simple process of being aware of specific social rules, and doing the right thing is not a simple matter of putting those rules into practice, Nucci (1997) contends moral education must attend to issues of social cognition and moral reasoning.  However,” if individual moral actions are guided by choices and not simply the result of unreflective habit, then the issue for character education rests not with inculcation and habit formation, but in understanding how it is that people judge the worth of their own actions in relation to their world view and sense of themselves as moral beings” (p.130).  

Sarbin (1986) contends the notion of character as a set of externally provided traits and habits needs to be reconsidered.  Instead, a view in which the moral self is constructed rather than absorbed and is being continuously updated and reconstructed should be emphasized.  Nucci (2000) cited Noam's (1993) and Blasi’s work concerning the moral self, whereby morality may or may not be a central element of the general narrative constructed by a person.  Therefore, Blasi’s perspective infers that a central feature of moral character is actually the degree to which being a moral person attains salience as a part of that person’s self-definition.  

 A person may basically be an animal endowed by nature with some very primitive instincts, yet, Simon (2009) believes each person has the capacity to learn and grow in awareness.  This process makes it possible for him or her to become more than mere animal through the processes of socialization and character development.  Simon astutely notes this process is difficult, painful, complex, and generally life-long; resulting in a great deal of diversity related to true character.

      Since followers evaluate the actual or aspiring leader’s character, competence, and commitment, Seijts and Kilgour (2007) believe any perceived gaps between what the leader communicates and actually does impacts the leader’s credibility.  It is therefore reasonable to understand why followers become disillusioned whenever a leader reflects mere images of the values he or she purports to uphold, resulting in followers’ believing the leader does not show principled leadership.  As a result, the perception of ethical leadership depreciates, thereby adversely impacting the leader’s ability to effectively lead.  To lead effectively, it is essential for a leader to walk ethically rather than merely talk about ethics.  In the laboratory known as the classroom, where young minds and hearts first learn paradigms of social leadership, the classroom leader, also known as the teacher, needs to be especially cognizant of this need for principled leadership. 

 

References

Covey, S.R. (1989) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the character ethic.       

           New York, NY. Simon and Schuster

Noam, G., & Wren, T. E. (Eds.). (1993). The moral self. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

Nucci, L (1997) in Walberg, H. J. & Haertel, G. D. Psychology and educational

            practice. Berkeley: MacCarchan. p. 127-157.

Sarbin, T. (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. New York:

            Praeger

Seijts, G. H., & Kilgour, D. (2007). Principled Leadership: Taking The Hard

            Right. Ivey Business Journal, 71(5), 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost