Is the American Educational System Obsolete? Yes, answers Tony Wagner, the Education Fellow at Harvard University's Technology and Innovation Center. Prior to that, Wagner had spent over 10 years at Harvard's School of Education analyzing the changes that need to happen in education in order to prepare students for the 21st century global economy.
In his new book, Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World, Wagner studies American innovators and discovers some common patterns in their childhood and education--patterns that, alas, are discouraged by most traditional schools. Wagner puts forth a case for a radical transformation of the fundamental principles of education, with the emphasis on the following five principles:
1. Focus on Collaboration and Teamwork, rather than Individual Competition and Achievement
All the most important ideas and issues are just too big for only one person to handle
2. Take a Cross Disciplinary and Multiple Perspectives Approach
This is kind of the curricular corellary to the point above. Wagner points out that the Carnegie-unit-based high school structure is now 125 years old and is outdated for today's realities.
3. Take Risks
Innovation, by its nature, requires experimentation, which means that most time, you are going to fail and/or be wrong. That is anathama to way traditional school curricula approach most things.
4. Learning Should be Active, Not Passive
Wagner argues that our current educational systems make students into learning consumers, not learning creators. How are they suddenly going to turn into creating exciting new ideas and projects if they've been trained to sit back and be spoon fed everything during their education?
5. Learning Should be Based on Instrinsic Rewards and Passions
Traditional schools are built around motivating students through extrinsic rewards--grades, gold stars, praise from happy teachers and parents, etc. But innovators are driven by their internal passions, ideas, and motivations.
You can learn more by viewing this TED-style talk by Wagner:
or by reading a recent Forbes article: Creating Innovators: Why America's Education System is Obsolete;
or, of course, by ordering his book.
Showing posts with label education reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Saturday, December 10, 2011
School Board Member Takes State Standardized Test and Fails
The Answer Sheet educational column in the Washington Post had an interesting article this week. It dealt with a School Board member in Florida who took that state's standardized test for promotion to the next grade, a test called the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, or FCAT. FCAT is one of the oldest of the state assessment test, and has been held up as a model to other states that are newer to this type of high-stakes testing at the state level.
The board member, who is named Rick Roach and is on his fourth term on the Orange County, FL board, had questioned the value of the FCAT and arranged to take the 10th grade version of the test himself for a first-hand experience. He admitted that out of 60 math questions, he didn't know any of them, but was able to guess correctly about 10 of them. On the reading section, he only scored 62%, which is a D in their system.
Before you start thinking that this guy is a dumb loser, hear him describe his educational background:
Taking the test himself settled the matter for him. Here are his conclusions about the test (according to the Washington Post)
The board member, who is named Rick Roach and is on his fourth term on the Orange County, FL board, had questioned the value of the FCAT and arranged to take the 10th grade version of the test himself for a first-hand experience. He admitted that out of 60 math questions, he didn't know any of them, but was able to guess correctly about 10 of them. On the reading section, he only scored 62%, which is a D in their system.
Before you start thinking that this guy is a dumb loser, hear him describe his educational background:
I have a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate. I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities...Hmmm.....well, maybe he just forgot what he learned in 10th grade. However, he seems to be doing just fine without it. This is his point about the test:
It might be argued that I’ve been out of school too long, that if I’d actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the material would have been fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took.Apparently, this experience relates to an argument that Roach has been having with colleagues on his school board. This year, only 39% of Orange County (home to Orlando, FL and neighboring suburbs) 10th graders passed the reading portion of the FCAT. Roach simply didn't believe that there were so many students who couldn't read, and began to wonder if the issue was with the test, not with the students' abilities.
Taking the test himself settled the matter for him. Here are his conclusions about the test (according to the Washington Post)
If I’d been required to take those two tests when I was a 10th grader, my life would almost certainly have been very different. I’d have been told I wasn’t ‘college material,’ would probably have believed it, and looked for work appropriate for the level of ability that the test said I had.
It makes no sense to me that a test with the potential for shaping a student’s entire future has so little apparent relevance to adult, real-world functioning. Who decided the kind of questions and their level of difficulty? Using what criteria? To whom did they have to defend their decisions? As subject-matter specialists, how qualified were they to make general judgments about the needs of this state’s children in a future they can’t possibly predict? Who set the pass-fail “cut score”? How?
I can’t escape the conclusion that decisions about the [state test] in particular and standardized tests in general are being made by individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.I think this is a great perspective on the whole rush-to-tie-everything-to-standardized-testing drive in school reform.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Linchpin's Seth Godin: "School is a complete failure...and College is an even bigger scam"
For a much shorter critique of the current American K-12 and college educational system, you may want to watch this short video of an interview with Seth Godin. Godin is the author of Linchpin, a book that discusses those key individuals that drive organizations that make a difference, along with how you can become one of those particularly-influential people. However, in the video below, "playing by the rules" that you are taught in school appears not to be one of his techniques to the top. Like the PRO side of the "Do Too Many People Go to College?" question, or the studies that suggest attendance at highly competitive schools produces no educational gains over comparable peers at traditional schools, Godin also questions the investment of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college degree.
If you are homeschooling, he has some kind words for you. However, he also suggests how parents can make things better in their children's schools.
But you can hear the man himself explain his views on education in 4:36 in the video below:
If you are homeschooling, he has some kind words for you. However, he also suggests how parents can make things better in their children's schools.
But you can hear the man himself explain his views on education in 4:36 in the video below:
Sunday, October 9, 2011
MacArthur Genius Grant Goes to Educational Researcher Who Showed Economic Incentives Don't Work
Among this year's recipients of the so-called "genius grants" by the MacArthur Foundation, which give promising unconventional achievers in diverse fields $500,000 with no strings attached to apply to their work, is education economist Roland G. Fryer, Jr. Fryer is the founder and director of Harvard University's Education Innovation Laboratory and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His work has concentrated on trying to explain and address the educational achievement gaps among minority students.
Clearly, that is an important topic worthy of funding. And Fryer has been involved in many different studies. But what I found really interesting about this grant is that Fryer's arguably most significant studies where two that showed that financial incentives (i.e., paying people for higher test scores) DID NOT WORK. In the first study, they tried offering more money to teachers for higher test scores; in the second, they did the same thing for students. In neither case, however, did the money do anything to improve educational achievement (as measured by test scores, at least).
Here is a great quote by Fryer in talking about how these studies have radically changed his ideas of trying to improve education by linking higher compensation to higher scores:
In short, it is NOT that teachers are lazy (OK, maybe some are, but not most). It's that nobody knows how to consistently improve the many different factors that can inhibit educational achievement. Dangling financial carrots in front of them for higher test scores has been shown to be useless at best, and insulting, morale sapping, and counterproductive at worst.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out this is a failing policy.
Clearly, that is an important topic worthy of funding. And Fryer has been involved in many different studies. But what I found really interesting about this grant is that Fryer's arguably most significant studies where two that showed that financial incentives (i.e., paying people for higher test scores) DID NOT WORK. In the first study, they tried offering more money to teachers for higher test scores; in the second, they did the same thing for students. In neither case, however, did the money do anything to improve educational achievement (as measured by test scores, at least).
Here is a great quote by Fryer in talking about how these studies have radically changed his ideas of trying to improve education by linking higher compensation to higher scores:
"Economists always assume people know how to produce something. Incentives work if you are lazy, not if you don't know how to do something. So that's spawned some new theoretical ideas for me. What if people don't know how to produce something? What do optimal incentives look like in that environment?"I just think this is a great point to hear in our recent environment of blaming educational problems on bad teacher and evil teacher unions. As I've said often before, we need to stop trying to impose the business model on schools, because education is not the same as just trying to sell more widgets. Outstanding education, particularly during a time when more than one child out of every five is living in poverty, is a complex and ever-changing business. Tying teacher pay directly to test scores is only likely to exacerbate the situation, because it drives teachers who need the extra salary money to move from high poverty schools, where the test scores may depend on how many of the children taking the test even had enough food in the past day to be able to focus on the exam, to the schools they know kids are likely to perform better, just on their life circumstances alone.
In short, it is NOT that teachers are lazy (OK, maybe some are, but not most). It's that nobody knows how to consistently improve the many different factors that can inhibit educational achievement. Dangling financial carrots in front of them for higher test scores has been shown to be useless at best, and insulting, morale sapping, and counterproductive at worst.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out this is a failing policy.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Poverty: The Factor Educational Reformers Don't Want to Consider
Amidst all the debates about charter schools and Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, educators may have missed the latest report that 22% of children are now living in poverty--the highest figure since 1993. But that is a shame, because that fact is likely to have more of an impact on student test scores than all the policies enacted by all the politicians put together.
At the end of last year, there was a whole hullabaloo about the fact that US students only scored around average or below on the international PISA test scores. YIKES! AMERICAN SCHOOLS ARE FAILURES!!!!!
Except, on further analysis of the data, it doesn't really reflect poorly on American schools. Instead, our poor showing internationally doesn't really seem to be based on our school system at all. Rather, it speaks to the shocking fact that in a country of such abundance, one out of every five children lives in poverty....one of the highest levels of poverty among the OECD countries with whom we have been compared.
How can I say that? Because the National Association of Secondary School Principles analyzed the data by separating it by the level of poverty in the schools (as measured by the number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch programs). IN EVERY CASE, the US students came in FIRST when compared to countries in the same poverty range (in many cases, the other countries has MUCH lower poverty rates, but at least fell into a comparable range).
So, for American kids who went to school in relatively rich schools (defined as schools where less than 10% of students had incomes low enough to qualify for lunch programs)....well, they kicked the butts of the top-ranked Finnish students (with a mere 3.4% of poverty level) by scoring 551 to the Finnish 536:
Source for all figures: NASSP
OK, well, how about our poor schools and our REALLY poor schools? Even compared to the OECD countries that have a higher than 50% poverty rate (Austria, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico), the US students still did better. So, when you compared apples to apples, the US students always came up on top, no matter how sweet or sour the apple selection was.
So according to the data, US education is doing an exemplary job at all levels--high income through low income student populations. Why, then, is "school reform" so fixated on blaming bad teachers and their "gang," the EVIL teachers' unions, for all of our educational woes?
My answer? It's back to my educational days as an existentialist. Existentialism argues that people will do anything to avoid facing up to their own responsibility. It is so much easier to blame uncaring and inadequate teachers, and one-sided teachers unions, and regulation-bound public school administrators, than to ask ourselves: How is it, that in a country that has so much, and so many live such abundant lives, that somewhere between one-fifth and one-quarter of our children live in poverty?
Hey, rather than admit that I'm part of the systemic poverty problem, I would rather blame those uncaring teachers and inflexible administrators myself. The thing is, I don't actually know any educators like that....
At the end of last year, there was a whole hullabaloo about the fact that US students only scored around average or below on the international PISA test scores. YIKES! AMERICAN SCHOOLS ARE FAILURES!!!!!
Except, on further analysis of the data, it doesn't really reflect poorly on American schools. Instead, our poor showing internationally doesn't really seem to be based on our school system at all. Rather, it speaks to the shocking fact that in a country of such abundance, one out of every five children lives in poverty....one of the highest levels of poverty among the OECD countries with whom we have been compared.
How can I say that? Because the National Association of Secondary School Principles analyzed the data by separating it by the level of poverty in the schools (as measured by the number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch programs). IN EVERY CASE, the US students came in FIRST when compared to countries in the same poverty range (in many cases, the other countries has MUCH lower poverty rates, but at least fell into a comparable range).
So, for American kids who went to school in relatively rich schools (defined as schools where less than 10% of students had incomes low enough to qualify for lunch programs)....well, they kicked the butts of the top-ranked Finnish students (with a mere 3.4% of poverty level) by scoring 551 to the Finnish 536:
Country | Poverty Rate | PISA Score |
United States | <10% | 551 |
Finland | 3.4% | 536 |
Netherlands | 9.0% | 508 |
Belgium | 6.7% | 506 |
Norway | 3.6% | 503 |
Switzerland | 6.8% | 501 |
France | 7.3% | 496 |
Denmark | 2.4% | 495 |
Czech Republic | 7.2% | 478 |
OK, so that include all those Ivy League feeder prep schools and such... but what about just those middle/upper middle class schools, where, say, 10-24.9% of students qualify for lunch program?
|
Source for all figures: NASSP
OK, well, how about our poor schools and our REALLY poor schools? Even compared to the OECD countries that have a higher than 50% poverty rate (Austria, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico), the US students still did better. So, when you compared apples to apples, the US students always came up on top, no matter how sweet or sour the apple selection was.
So according to the data, US education is doing an exemplary job at all levels--high income through low income student populations. Why, then, is "school reform" so fixated on blaming bad teachers and their "gang," the EVIL teachers' unions, for all of our educational woes?
My answer? It's back to my educational days as an existentialist. Existentialism argues that people will do anything to avoid facing up to their own responsibility. It is so much easier to blame uncaring and inadequate teachers, and one-sided teachers unions, and regulation-bound public school administrators, than to ask ourselves: How is it, that in a country that has so much, and so many live such abundant lives, that somewhere between one-fifth and one-quarter of our children live in poverty?
Hey, rather than admit that I'm part of the systemic poverty problem, I would rather blame those uncaring teachers and inflexible administrators myself. The thing is, I don't actually know any educators like that....
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Matt Damon's Pep Talk for Teachers (and Parents)
Everyone may have already seen Matt Damon's keynote speech at this weekend's Save Our Schools rally. If you haven't heard about Save Our Schools, it was a rally held last weekend in Washington DC to show support for public schools and to protest the extensive use of high-stakes standardized testing to evaluate both students and teacher on its performance. Although it drew some of the biggest names in the alternative education reform camp (that is, the Diane Ravitches and Alfie Kohns, not the Bill Gates and Michelle Rhees), unfortunately, it tended to be overshadowed by all the drama on Capitol Hill about the debt ceiling increase.
Matt Damon flew overnight from Vancouver, where he is filming his latest movie (hence the bald head) to give his support to the cause and to speak out against the overuse of standardized testing. But even more, he spoke of his appreciation for teachers, and let them know how grateful people are for the tough but invaluable work they do. He was introduced by his mother, who was, and maybe still is, a school teacher. And he did was is really the ultimate reward that those of us who teach, or those of us who parent, fantasize about. He acknowledged that an important part of who he has become and the success that he has achieved has come from the support and education he received from his teachers and his parenting (he does mention the last one specifically as well). He said he knew it wasn't always easy, and he was thankful.
So I think this is a great video to have on hand for those days when teaching, or being a mom or dad, just seems really frustrating and thankless work. Our students or children may not be able to communicate this feeling, but I'm sure they would if they could. And it also reminds us that maybe we ought to take time to thank our own parents and teachers for the difference they have made in our lives.
You can watch Matt's mother's introduction, and then Matt's talk here:
Matt Damon flew overnight from Vancouver, where he is filming his latest movie (hence the bald head) to give his support to the cause and to speak out against the overuse of standardized testing. But even more, he spoke of his appreciation for teachers, and let them know how grateful people are for the tough but invaluable work they do. He was introduced by his mother, who was, and maybe still is, a school teacher. And he did was is really the ultimate reward that those of us who teach, or those of us who parent, fantasize about. He acknowledged that an important part of who he has become and the success that he has achieved has come from the support and education he received from his teachers and his parenting (he does mention the last one specifically as well). He said he knew it wasn't always easy, and he was thankful.
So I think this is a great video to have on hand for those days when teaching, or being a mom or dad, just seems really frustrating and thankless work. Our students or children may not be able to communicate this feeling, but I'm sure they would if they could. And it also reminds us that maybe we ought to take time to thank our own parents and teachers for the difference they have made in our lives.
You can watch Matt's mother's introduction, and then Matt's talk here:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Arguments Against the Case for Standardized Testing in Education
Is the use of standardized tests improving education in America? That is the latest question posed by ProCon.org, a website that takes controversial issues, lists claims and studies by proponents on each side, and describes the background and development of the topic in order to promote critical thinking and a more informed public on major social issues.
So on the standardized testing page of ProCon, they list 22 arguments in favor of testing, and 23 arguments against. Of course, in the nature of most educational issues, that means that there are a lot of cases of "this study demonstrates X, this study demonstrates the opposite." It brings to mind Andrew Lang's quip about using "...statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than for illumination."
And I know I'm biased, because I am a strong opponent of the current trend in education towards high-stakes testing in education (as regular readers to this blog already know). But a lot of arguments on the PRO side of the standardized testing debate just make me crazy.
A prime example is the first sentence in the first pro-testing claim:
Then there is another whole clump of arguments based on statistics that show that people support testing. Thus, pro arguments #9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 16 cite studies that show parents, teachers, college professors, and (here is my favorite) students support testing. Students? Really? I've known a lot of preschoolers getting ready for kindergarten, and I've known them to be excited about the big yellow school bus, about having a lunchbox and a pencil case, about making new friends, about having a wonderful teacher, even about the things they will get to learn, like learning to read and write and add numbers and such. But I've never known one who was looking forward to getting tested in school.
This supposed support by students is the best demonstration of what I think is the real reason behind all this alleged support, which in many cases is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the internal discomfort we feel when we are faced with two conflicting beliefs or experiences. Psychological theory says that when we encounter cognitive dissonance, that either we change our actions, behaviors, or beliefs to eliminate the conflict, or find some way to rationalize it or explain it away. A classic example is the Aesop Fable about the fox who, unable to reach some delicious-looking grapes hanging from a high tree branch, decides that they must be sour, so he doesn't really want them anyway.
In this case, particularly with students, I think it operates the opposite way. For the most part, children don't get to choose whether or not they come to school and get tested. They may not like it, but they trust us and believe we are doing what is in their best interest. So they might say they support testing, because they are forced to do it anyway, and they want to believe it is for a good purpose. And the ones that really can't deal with testing are gone; either, if they are lucky, they are being homeschooled or are in some other kind of alternative educational setting, or if they aren't, they have dropped out or flunked out.
The same thing is true of parents; since their children are forced to take the tests, parents want to believe it is for a good purpose. And I think cognitive dissonance may be worst for the teachers, many of whom feel deeply from their professional training and experience that such high-stakes testing is not the best educational approach for their students. It think it is a major contributor to the high levels of teacher stress and burnout that we are seeing today (although I don't have any statistics to back me up...but I do get that feedback from a lot of my friends who are teaching in the public schools).
Then there are a bunch of random pro arguments that just make me grind my teeth, like everyone's favorite "educational reformer," Michelle Rhee, who says it would impinge on the "civil rights" of non-English speaking students to allow them to take tests in their native language, or the one that says we give doctors and airline pilots high-stake tests before allowing them to operate or fly a plane, so it must be OK to do that to (in the case of North Carolina) third graders. Yeah, right....
But here is my BIGGEST issue with all the high-stake testing advocates. Our differences are summed up in their pro argument #17:
Now, to a large extent, I think American school still teach these things. But statements like the one above proclaim that active participation, hard work, demonstrated educational progress, and good behavior are "irrelevant." And that makes me REALLY crazy.
So on the standardized testing page of ProCon, they list 22 arguments in favor of testing, and 23 arguments against. Of course, in the nature of most educational issues, that means that there are a lot of cases of "this study demonstrates X, this study demonstrates the opposite." It brings to mind Andrew Lang's quip about using "...statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than for illumination."
And I know I'm biased, because I am a strong opponent of the current trend in education towards high-stakes testing in education (as regular readers to this blog already know). But a lot of arguments on the PRO side of the standardized testing debate just make me crazy.
A prime example is the first sentence in the first pro-testing claim:
1. 93% of studies have found student testing, including the use of large-scale, standardized tests, to have a "positive effect" on student achievement.What is left unsaid at the end of that sentence is "...student achievement, as measured by standardized tests." So, basically, it is telling us that using a lot of standardized tests improves students ability to do standardized tests. As the young people today would say, DUH! Similarly, a large-scale, standardized student basket-weaving test would result in greater student achievement in basket weaving. That statement alone says nothing about the quality or value of students doing better on tests; it merely says that as students are forced to take more tests, they get better at taking tests. That is also the gist of pro arguments #3, 5, 7, 15, 19, and 20.
Then there is another whole clump of arguments based on statistics that show that people support testing. Thus, pro arguments #9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 16 cite studies that show parents, teachers, college professors, and (here is my favorite) students support testing. Students? Really? I've known a lot of preschoolers getting ready for kindergarten, and I've known them to be excited about the big yellow school bus, about having a lunchbox and a pencil case, about making new friends, about having a wonderful teacher, even about the things they will get to learn, like learning to read and write and add numbers and such. But I've never known one who was looking forward to getting tested in school.
This supposed support by students is the best demonstration of what I think is the real reason behind all this alleged support, which in many cases is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the internal discomfort we feel when we are faced with two conflicting beliefs or experiences. Psychological theory says that when we encounter cognitive dissonance, that either we change our actions, behaviors, or beliefs to eliminate the conflict, or find some way to rationalize it or explain it away. A classic example is the Aesop Fable about the fox who, unable to reach some delicious-looking grapes hanging from a high tree branch, decides that they must be sour, so he doesn't really want them anyway.
In this case, particularly with students, I think it operates the opposite way. For the most part, children don't get to choose whether or not they come to school and get tested. They may not like it, but they trust us and believe we are doing what is in their best interest. So they might say they support testing, because they are forced to do it anyway, and they want to believe it is for a good purpose. And the ones that really can't deal with testing are gone; either, if they are lucky, they are being homeschooled or are in some other kind of alternative educational setting, or if they aren't, they have dropped out or flunked out.
The same thing is true of parents; since their children are forced to take the tests, parents want to believe it is for a good purpose. And I think cognitive dissonance may be worst for the teachers, many of whom feel deeply from their professional training and experience that such high-stakes testing is not the best educational approach for their students. It think it is a major contributor to the high levels of teacher stress and burnout that we are seeing today (although I don't have any statistics to back me up...but I do get that feedback from a lot of my friends who are teaching in the public schools).
Then there are a bunch of random pro arguments that just make me grind my teeth, like everyone's favorite "educational reformer," Michelle Rhee, who says it would impinge on the "civil rights" of non-English speaking students to allow them to take tests in their native language, or the one that says we give doctors and airline pilots high-stake tests before allowing them to operate or fly a plane, so it must be OK to do that to (in the case of North Carolina) third graders. Yeah, right....
But here is my BIGGEST issue with all the high-stake testing advocates. Our differences are summed up in their pro argument #17:
Teacher-graded assessments are inadequate alternatives to standardized tests because they are subjectively scored and unreliable. Most teachers are not trained in testing and measurement, and research has shown many teachers "consider noncognitive outcomes, including student class participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment," which are irrelevant to subject-matter mastery.Since when did we reduce our children's education to nothing but subject-matter mastery? That was not the goal of school in "the olden days," when all these reformers claim that education did such a better job. During the great growth years of 1850-1950, the primary purpose of the schools was to teach children, many of whom were immigrants from all over the world, what it was to be a good American. That meant teaching them reading and writing and math, of course, but it also meant teaching them the skills required to get a job and the skills required to participate in the American system. That meant teaching them skills like responsibility and cooperation and tolerance and sometimes sacrifice. It encouraged students to learn to work hard and to play fair, to appreciate what American democracy had to offer and to do their part to keep the American system strong.
Now, to a large extent, I think American school still teach these things. But statements like the one above proclaim that active participation, hard work, demonstrated educational progress, and good behavior are "irrelevant." And that makes me REALLY crazy.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Is American Education Too Competitive?
Is the American educational system too focused on competition? I would say "yes," not that anybody really cares what I think. But this month, I am in good company, as that is the position that Deborah Stipek, Dean of the Stanford School of Education, takes in an editorial in this month's Science magazine.
Stipek argues that the burden to be on top among higher-achieving American high school students leaves them anxious and physically exhausted, makes them prone to cheat, and robs them of the intrinsic beauty and interest of the subject and the joy of learning. The more they fill their transcripts with high test scores, exemplary GPAs, academic honors, and mountains of extracurricular activities, the emptier their actual experience of education is. As Stipek said in a telephone call to reporters, "For the most part, high school has become for many of our students not preparation for life or college but preparation for the college application."
Stipek also believes that the impetus for change must come from the schools--high schools and colleges--rather than from the students. She urges high schools to reduce this pressure by such steps as:
Stipek argues that the burden to be on top among higher-achieving American high school students leaves them anxious and physically exhausted, makes them prone to cheat, and robs them of the intrinsic beauty and interest of the subject and the joy of learning. The more they fill their transcripts with high test scores, exemplary GPAs, academic honors, and mountains of extracurricular activities, the emptier their actual experience of education is. As Stipek said in a telephone call to reporters, "For the most part, high school has become for many of our students not preparation for life or college but preparation for the college application."
Stipek also believes that the impetus for change must come from the schools--high schools and colleges--rather than from the students. She urges high schools to reduce this pressure by such steps as:
- linking subject matter to students' lives and interests
- focusing more on active student involvement in innovative solutions, problem solving, and hands-on experiments and activities and less on getting the right answer on a standardized exam;
- giving students multiple opportunities to achieve higher grades (by allowing papers to be rewritten or tests to be retaken, for example)
- publicizing and pushing a wider number and variety of high-quality educational options rather than merely worshiping at the alter of the top 10 or 20 elite institutions
- priding itself on how well it matches all its students to the postsecondary education best to each individual, rather than on the number that were accepted by "name" universities
- focusing and celebrating learning at whatever level, rather than test scores
She also states that colleges must do their part as well, and to encourage a student body that is passionately interested in the educational offerings at that school over having a high average SAT or GPA score.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
American Education Reform: Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic?
"Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic" is an expression I learned in a leadership program I was involved in during the 1990's. It refers to people spending all their time on trivial matters...rearranging the chairs on the deck of a ship...while ignoring the vital...like the fact that the Titanic was sailing straight into an iceberg.
I was reminded of this phrase lately when I read a blog post by Barnett Barry on the Teacher Leaders Network website. Entitled 5 Teachers Myths That Distract Policymakers (an article reposted from one of my favorite educational resources, The Answer Sheet on The Washington Post), his article restates many of the arguments I have covered over many months in this blog, particularly the data that shows that teacher merit pay does not improve student test scores (basically, most teachers are doing the best that they can, so the best teachers produce good scores without financial inducements, and the weaker teachers can't produce better scores, even with more money dangled in their faces).
However, he cites one figure that I hadn't heard before. So much of the current "education reform" movement involves evaluating teachers and eliminating tenure so that they can fired, thus removing incompetent instructors who are producing low student achievement. However, according to Barry, current teacher assessments suggest that only 15% of teachers fall below expected teaching proficiency. He doesn't say this, but it seems to me like it is easy to chase after the boogyman of terrible teachers, rather than face the complicated factors of poverty, low expectations, lack of family education and/or support, learning disabilities, language difficulties, and other issues that I think are primarily responsible for many of our educational problems.
I recognize that those who have claimed the mantle of education reformers would reject my claim by arguing that current assessment don't evaluate the true failings of poor teachers....although I've not seen any good data they could point to in order to prove that point. But regardless of where you stand on the teacher evaluation issue, it still seems like small potatoes (rearranging the deck chairs) compared to what is really needed in education to prepare our students for their current realities.
Barry and 12 master teachers address those larger issues in their recent book, Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students and Our Public Schools--Now and in the Future. Instead of merit pay and teacher pay and the other same few topics that dominate public debate about education, Barry suggests the following are what we should be discussing:
And here is one making the same point in a shorter, more visceral way:
I was reminded of this phrase lately when I read a blog post by Barnett Barry on the Teacher Leaders Network website. Entitled 5 Teachers Myths That Distract Policymakers (an article reposted from one of my favorite educational resources, The Answer Sheet on The Washington Post), his article restates many of the arguments I have covered over many months in this blog, particularly the data that shows that teacher merit pay does not improve student test scores (basically, most teachers are doing the best that they can, so the best teachers produce good scores without financial inducements, and the weaker teachers can't produce better scores, even with more money dangled in their faces).
However, he cites one figure that I hadn't heard before. So much of the current "education reform" movement involves evaluating teachers and eliminating tenure so that they can fired, thus removing incompetent instructors who are producing low student achievement. However, according to Barry, current teacher assessments suggest that only 15% of teachers fall below expected teaching proficiency. He doesn't say this, but it seems to me like it is easy to chase after the boogyman of terrible teachers, rather than face the complicated factors of poverty, low expectations, lack of family education and/or support, learning disabilities, language difficulties, and other issues that I think are primarily responsible for many of our educational problems.
I recognize that those who have claimed the mantle of education reformers would reject my claim by arguing that current assessment don't evaluate the true failings of poor teachers....although I've not seen any good data they could point to in order to prove that point. But regardless of where you stand on the teacher evaluation issue, it still seems like small potatoes (rearranging the deck chairs) compared to what is really needed in education to prepare our students for their current realities.
Barry and 12 master teachers address those larger issues in their recent book, Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students and Our Public Schools--Now and in the Future. Instead of merit pay and teacher pay and the other same few topics that dominate public debate about education, Barry suggests the following are what we should be discussing:
- How do we teach the students who have grown up with Google, smart phones, iPods/iPads, and instant information (good or bad) at their command?
- How do we teach when predictions say that 40% of students in 2030 will have English as a second language?
- What do we teach in an era of global competition? (Barry augments the 3Rs with 4Cs--communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative problem solving)
- How can we enable students to monitor their own learning?
- How do we connect teaching to the wider needs of the community (given that academic achievement is so affected by family income, educational attainment, economic stability, and many other social factors)?
Once again, this is a book that I haven't read myself yet, so I can't recommend it personally. But nonetheless, I think these are some of the "Titanic"- level questions that I think we should all be discussing more. Really, who cares how well teachers are teaching the curriculum if the curriculum is sailing us into an iceberg? Our current system teaches on a schedule from the Agricultural Age with structures and techniques from the Industrial Age. How is that going to prepare our children to thrive in the "Flat Earth" Technological/Informational Age?
This is one of the major reasons I homeschool. I think most teachers, particularly in a system like Wake County (despite the recent governance issues), do a great job, particularly with the increased demands put upon public education to address greater societal issues. But we are fighting so much over the minor issues that we have no time to look at the bigger issues. Like I said....fighting over the arrangement of the deck chairs, while ignoring the fact we are sailing into an iceberg.
Here is a video introducing the major points of the book:
And here is one making the same point in a shorter, more visceral way:
Friday, December 17, 2010
Public Education in California: The Good, the Bad, and the Intriguing
As we debate what to do about the public school, either here in North Carolina or where ever it may be that you live, it can be instructive to keep an eye on what is going on in California. Not only is that the most populated US state, but it has a history of innovation and experimentation that has swung between the left/liberal and right/conservative perspectives from not quite year to year, but certainly decade to decade.
Let's start with the Bad (I always like to get that out of the way): California, strapped for revenue due to the bust in the real estate market and the infamous Proposition 13 that limits their ability to tax, needs to cut $25 BILLION from its state budget. So Governor-elect Jerry Brown warned the schools that they should expect a reduction of 20-25% in next year's funds. This year, California spent $49.6 billion on K-12 schools and community colleges, so that could mean a cut of over $12 billion--and that is on top of the $7 billion less they spent this year compared to three years ago.
Problems of that scale help us keep our $3 billion deficit in North Carolina, and warnings of a 5-10% cut in education funds, in perspective. California's reductions in education spending could amount to more money then North Carolina spent in FY 2009-2010 on NC public K-12 schools, community colleges, and the state university system combined.
So that is a major amount of money to have to cut from the education budget.
But now for the Good: the incoming Governor, Jerry Brown (yes, the same one who served as Governor in 1975-1983, when he dated Linda Ronstadt and opposed the passage of Proposition 13), seems to have a good head on his shoulders when it comes to education (translation: it looks like he agrees with me!). In general, he seems to impose the national trend towards standardization, an emphasis on test scores, and the liberal bias I discussed in yesterday's post towards systematic solutions that derive from data instead of human flexibility, creativity, and differentiation. Let me quote just a bit from comments he sent to US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan:
I read his comments, and just thought, "You go, Jerry!" To see his complete statement, read this blog post from Teacher Magazine.
And finally, the Intriguing: one of the things that outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar touts as a major achievement in improving public education is the passage of the so-called "parent trigger" law, which allows a majority of parents in the district of a "failing school" (once again, as determined by test scores) to demand changes in that school. The parental options include firing the principal and top administrators, converting to a charter school, or even shutting the school down.
On December 7, 2010, the first group of parents activated this new law. Petitions signed by 62% of parents requested that McKinley Elementary School be converted to a charter school that will be run by Celerity Educational Group, a private company that is running three other schools in California. As can be expected, there is a lot of controversy about this event. The state is investigating charges of harassment and misrepresentation on the part of the petition organizers, the state educators are protesting uninformed intrusion into their long-range plans, and liberals see this as another conservative ploy to turn public schools over to private management. But Schwarzeneggar and other proponents argue that legislation like this is the only way to address the problems of "drop out factories" and a lack of educational alternatives for the urban poor as demonstrated in documentaries such as "Waiting for Superman" (see my blog post for a review of that movie, or read this blog post from The Huffington Post for more info on the parent trigger law).
I have mixed feeling about this law. I think I need to see how it plays out before I can decide if I think it is a good idea or not. But I do believe it is something worth keeping our eyes on as our national debates about what to do with public education continue to dominate much of our civic discussions.
Let's start with the Bad (I always like to get that out of the way): California, strapped for revenue due to the bust in the real estate market and the infamous Proposition 13 that limits their ability to tax, needs to cut $25 BILLION from its state budget. So Governor-elect Jerry Brown warned the schools that they should expect a reduction of 20-25% in next year's funds. This year, California spent $49.6 billion on K-12 schools and community colleges, so that could mean a cut of over $12 billion--and that is on top of the $7 billion less they spent this year compared to three years ago.
Problems of that scale help us keep our $3 billion deficit in North Carolina, and warnings of a 5-10% cut in education funds, in perspective. California's reductions in education spending could amount to more money then North Carolina spent in FY 2009-2010 on NC public K-12 schools, community colleges, and the state university system combined.
So that is a major amount of money to have to cut from the education budget.
But now for the Good: the incoming Governor, Jerry Brown (yes, the same one who served as Governor in 1975-1983, when he dated Linda Ronstadt and opposed the passage of Proposition 13), seems to have a good head on his shoulders when it comes to education (translation: it looks like he agrees with me!). In general, he seems to impose the national trend towards standardization, an emphasis on test scores, and the liberal bias I discussed in yesterday's post towards systematic solutions that derive from data instead of human flexibility, creativity, and differentiation. Let me quote just a bit from comments he sent to US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan:
What we have at stake are the impressionable minds of the children of America. You are not collecting data or devising standards for operating machines or establishing a credit score. You are funding teaching interventions or changes to the learning environment that promise to make public education better, i.e. greater mastery of what it takes to become an effective citizen and a productive member of society. In the draft you have circulated, I sense a pervasive technocratic bias and an uncritical faith in the power of social science.
I read his comments, and just thought, "You go, Jerry!" To see his complete statement, read this blog post from Teacher Magazine.
And finally, the Intriguing: one of the things that outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar touts as a major achievement in improving public education is the passage of the so-called "parent trigger" law, which allows a majority of parents in the district of a "failing school" (once again, as determined by test scores) to demand changes in that school. The parental options include firing the principal and top administrators, converting to a charter school, or even shutting the school down.
On December 7, 2010, the first group of parents activated this new law. Petitions signed by 62% of parents requested that McKinley Elementary School be converted to a charter school that will be run by Celerity Educational Group, a private company that is running three other schools in California. As can be expected, there is a lot of controversy about this event. The state is investigating charges of harassment and misrepresentation on the part of the petition organizers, the state educators are protesting uninformed intrusion into their long-range plans, and liberals see this as another conservative ploy to turn public schools over to private management. But Schwarzeneggar and other proponents argue that legislation like this is the only way to address the problems of "drop out factories" and a lack of educational alternatives for the urban poor as demonstrated in documentaries such as "Waiting for Superman" (see my blog post for a review of that movie, or read this blog post from The Huffington Post for more info on the parent trigger law).
I have mixed feeling about this law. I think I need to see how it plays out before I can decide if I think it is a good idea or not. But I do believe it is something worth keeping our eyes on as our national debates about what to do with public education continue to dominate much of our civic discussions.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Gates Teacher Effectiveness Study Links Good Teaching with Gains in Test Scores
Some preliminary results were published today from the $45 million Measures of Effective Teaching study being conducted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal of this research, which is examining 3,000 teachers from seven urban school districts, including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system here in North Carolina, is to develop a fair and comprehensive way to assess a teacher's overall role on student achievement beyond simply how their students do in high-stakes testing (which is called "value-added"measurement).
The headline among most of the educational journals about these results is that individual teachers' "value-added" histories (how much their students have raised their test scores in the past) strongly predict how they will do in the future, even if they have changed schools or classes. So, those teachers whose students have increased their scores significantly in previous years usually continue to teach classes with strong test score increases at the end of the year. These factors were linked regardless of subject matter or grade level.
Less highlighted in the study reviews, however, is the fact that the teachers who did a good job in raising student scores also were consistently rated high by their students on good teaching practices, such as giving clear explanations, explaining the same thing in several different ways, and showing care and concern for their students. The teachers with the biggest gains were also highly and consistently rated by students from all their different classes for their classroom management skills as well as for their tendency to present challenging academic content. So, basically, what this study says to me is that good teaching lead to good test scores.
This is, perhaps, not a revolutionary concept. But what I think it does indicate is that the teachers who are most effective in raising student scores due so NOT by focusing on the ends--the tests--but by the means--the process of instruction. The researchers emphasize that these are preliminary results of a multi-year project, so we aren't supposed to be drawing hard and fast conclusions yet. However, I think it supports the notion that "teaching to the test" doesn't work to raise test scores; good teaching does. And I think any research that helps lead us away from focusing on the test so much and concentrating on identifying, sharing, and rewarding good teaching IN AND OF ITSELF is a good thing.
The headline among most of the educational journals about these results is that individual teachers' "value-added" histories (how much their students have raised their test scores in the past) strongly predict how they will do in the future, even if they have changed schools or classes. So, those teachers whose students have increased their scores significantly in previous years usually continue to teach classes with strong test score increases at the end of the year. These factors were linked regardless of subject matter or grade level.
Less highlighted in the study reviews, however, is the fact that the teachers who did a good job in raising student scores also were consistently rated high by their students on good teaching practices, such as giving clear explanations, explaining the same thing in several different ways, and showing care and concern for their students. The teachers with the biggest gains were also highly and consistently rated by students from all their different classes for their classroom management skills as well as for their tendency to present challenging academic content. So, basically, what this study says to me is that good teaching lead to good test scores.
This is, perhaps, not a revolutionary concept. But what I think it does indicate is that the teachers who are most effective in raising student scores due so NOT by focusing on the ends--the tests--but by the means--the process of instruction. The researchers emphasize that these are preliminary results of a multi-year project, so we aren't supposed to be drawing hard and fast conclusions yet. However, I think it supports the notion that "teaching to the test" doesn't work to raise test scores; good teaching does. And I think any research that helps lead us away from focusing on the test so much and concentrating on identifying, sharing, and rewarding good teaching IN AND OF ITSELF is a good thing.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Update: Should We Stop Giving Students F's
Apparently, the official answer is now NO.
About a week ago, I wrote a post about a high school in the DC that had completely replaced the grade F with an Incomplete, which would remain as long as necessary for the student to complete the necessary work at a high enough level to pass the class. The principal argued that the point of education is for students to acquire mastery, and that goal was more important that the arbitrary length of a school semester.
However, when this policy was reported in The Washington Post, the community went ballistic. After a maelstrom of protests from parents, teachers, the educational community, and, I'm sure, various and sundry commentators, last Friday the principal sent out an email rescinding the policy. He says that while he remains committed to his original intention of mastery-based learning, he admits that they hadn't developed sufficient consensus around the issue to move ahead with such a drastic change in grading. So he will be forming committees and such to see what can be done to develop a mastery-based program that will be accepted by the community.
But students who are currently failing, but who thought they would have additional time to do their work, will receive F's on their next report card if they do not bring up their work and test scores.
I suppose the principal had no choice but to take back his innovations when the parents were so upset. But I regret that they didn't have more time to see how a "No Failure" program worked out. I hope they can create some kind of acceptable mastery-based system through their new committees and actually give a new approach a try.
About a week ago, I wrote a post about a high school in the DC that had completely replaced the grade F with an Incomplete, which would remain as long as necessary for the student to complete the necessary work at a high enough level to pass the class. The principal argued that the point of education is for students to acquire mastery, and that goal was more important that the arbitrary length of a school semester.
However, when this policy was reported in The Washington Post, the community went ballistic. After a maelstrom of protests from parents, teachers, the educational community, and, I'm sure, various and sundry commentators, last Friday the principal sent out an email rescinding the policy. He says that while he remains committed to his original intention of mastery-based learning, he admits that they hadn't developed sufficient consensus around the issue to move ahead with such a drastic change in grading. So he will be forming committees and such to see what can be done to develop a mastery-based program that will be accepted by the community.
But students who are currently failing, but who thought they would have additional time to do their work, will receive F's on their next report card if they do not bring up their work and test scores.
I suppose the principal had no choice but to take back his innovations when the parents were so upset. But I regret that they didn't have more time to see how a "No Failure" program worked out. I hope they can create some kind of acceptable mastery-based system through their new committees and actually give a new approach a try.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Can a Stanford Educator Explain the Wake County School Board?
I ran into a book today that gave me a whole new theory in terms of explaining the recent tumult in the Wake County School Board. As inhabitants of the Raleigh, NC-area Wake County know, last year four new school board members were voted in and claimed they had a mandate to dismantle the old system, in which students were bussed throughout the country to provide economic diversity among all the schools rather than creating a system of poor schools and rich schools, in favor of a neighborhood-based system. They aligned with one previous school board member with similar inclinations, and gained a 5/4 majority on votes relating to this issue. That previous board member was chosen to chair the board, and the majority was seen as "steamrolling" their position in vote after vote, despite the concerns being raised by the community. Board meetings were turning into circuses, with protesters, petition, police, and prison incarceration becoming common occurences.
Then, last week, suddenly things shifted. The board member from Cary (where I live), claiming that she was being shut out of the decision making and was increasingly uncomfortable about the direction the new school assignment plan being designed by a closed board committee was going, swung her vote to the minority and shut down work on the current board plan. So now the whole thing has to go back to the drawing board, as they say.
It has been a nasty time, with ugly comments and insulting insinuations being flung by both sides. And now nobody knows what is going to happen (although those aligned with the formerly-minority side are happy with that right now).
But the book I encountered today put it all into a new perspective for me. David F. Larabee, a Professor of Education at Stanford University and long-time observer and writer on educational policy, has just released his latest book entitled Someone Has to Fail: The Zero-Sum Game of Public Schooling. Once again, I haven't actually read the book, other than sections through Google Preview and from reviews and comments from the author, etc. So I really can't speak to the entire contents of the book. However, one concept I picked up from what I have read has helped me reframe this entire conflict.
Larabee argues that there are two major forces that drive changes in public school: the Reformers, those who want to use the public schools for all sort of beneficial public purposes ("melting pot" integration of aliens, increasing opportunities for the poor, producing a more competitive economic workforce, and so on), and the Consumers, those who are sending their children to school for a better life (in Larabee's opinion, it seems, often by providing them a competitive edge over other children). Sometimes the interests of Consumers and Reformers overlap, as when education provides poor children with a mean to escape the poverty of their parents. Sometimes Consumers can co-exist with Reformers; they don't necessarily actively support the reform movement, but it doesn't cause them any issues so they are fine with it. But Larabee seems to indicate that if there is a run-in between the Reformers and the Consumers, the Consumers win every time.
I think that is exactly what we are seeing here in Wake County. For the past ten years, despite the issues and problems, I don't think most parents (the Consumers) were opposed to the Reformers plan for economic diversity. Unfortunately, the school system blew the implementation of that system through its inadequate planning. The school system was reassigning students on a continuing basis, so that students were going to three different elementary schools from K-5, families had siblings on completely different schedules (traditional, year round, different tracks, etc.), and neighbors were attending completely different schools. In short, the costs of the Reformers' plans were becoming too high for the Consumers. And so, they rebelled....and voted in a new slate of school board members.
But here is the crux of the latest problem....
The people on the school board who were designing the new system, although voted in by Consumers to solve their Consumer problems, were, in fact, Reformers. They were opposed to the existing Reformers, so perhaps they should be called the Anti-Reformers, but they were still Reformers. One, in particular, is not even married and doesn't have any children. This is not to say that they don't care deeply and aren't trying to do the right thing and have no right to have input to the school system--after all, since I homeschool, I'm not a consumer either--but it is to say that they aren't coming from it from a Consumer point of view.
So thing fell apart, I think, when word started getting out that this new set of Reformers/Anti-Reformers were considering creating regional zones and not assigning students to a base school. Now, who knows what they were doing, since it was closed even to other board members, and maybe it made sense in their new Reformer scheme. But that was anathema to all the Consumers who were tired of all the confusion after years of redistricting for economic diversity and who were just trying to vote in a system where they would know where their children would go to school for the foreseeable future.
So it came down to the new Cary board member, who was voted in on the new Reformers platform but who was, in reality, a Consumer (she has two children in the public schools, I believe). And beyond being a Consumer herself, she represents the community with the most vocal and active Consumer population, just given Cary's relatively high income, educational achievement of parents, and number of one-income families where spouses have the time and expertise to advocating for their children in the school system. She---and by extention, the Consumers--wasn't being listened to, and she pulled the plug.
And that, according to Laramee, is the fate of any Reformers scheme when it runs head-to-head with Consumer opposition.
Or, at least, that's what I think Laramee says. Regardless, it makes a lot of sense to me to explain the recent events from that framework.
What do you think?
Then, last week, suddenly things shifted. The board member from Cary (where I live), claiming that she was being shut out of the decision making and was increasingly uncomfortable about the direction the new school assignment plan being designed by a closed board committee was going, swung her vote to the minority and shut down work on the current board plan. So now the whole thing has to go back to the drawing board, as they say.
It has been a nasty time, with ugly comments and insulting insinuations being flung by both sides. And now nobody knows what is going to happen (although those aligned with the formerly-minority side are happy with that right now).
But the book I encountered today put it all into a new perspective for me. David F. Larabee, a Professor of Education at Stanford University and long-time observer and writer on educational policy, has just released his latest book entitled Someone Has to Fail: The Zero-Sum Game of Public Schooling. Once again, I haven't actually read the book, other than sections through Google Preview and from reviews and comments from the author, etc. So I really can't speak to the entire contents of the book. However, one concept I picked up from what I have read has helped me reframe this entire conflict.
Larabee argues that there are two major forces that drive changes in public school: the Reformers, those who want to use the public schools for all sort of beneficial public purposes ("melting pot" integration of aliens, increasing opportunities for the poor, producing a more competitive economic workforce, and so on), and the Consumers, those who are sending their children to school for a better life (in Larabee's opinion, it seems, often by providing them a competitive edge over other children). Sometimes the interests of Consumers and Reformers overlap, as when education provides poor children with a mean to escape the poverty of their parents. Sometimes Consumers can co-exist with Reformers; they don't necessarily actively support the reform movement, but it doesn't cause them any issues so they are fine with it. But Larabee seems to indicate that if there is a run-in between the Reformers and the Consumers, the Consumers win every time.
I think that is exactly what we are seeing here in Wake County. For the past ten years, despite the issues and problems, I don't think most parents (the Consumers) were opposed to the Reformers plan for economic diversity. Unfortunately, the school system blew the implementation of that system through its inadequate planning. The school system was reassigning students on a continuing basis, so that students were going to three different elementary schools from K-5, families had siblings on completely different schedules (traditional, year round, different tracks, etc.), and neighbors were attending completely different schools. In short, the costs of the Reformers' plans were becoming too high for the Consumers. And so, they rebelled....and voted in a new slate of school board members.
But here is the crux of the latest problem....
The people on the school board who were designing the new system, although voted in by Consumers to solve their Consumer problems, were, in fact, Reformers. They were opposed to the existing Reformers, so perhaps they should be called the Anti-Reformers, but they were still Reformers. One, in particular, is not even married and doesn't have any children. This is not to say that they don't care deeply and aren't trying to do the right thing and have no right to have input to the school system--after all, since I homeschool, I'm not a consumer either--but it is to say that they aren't coming from it from a Consumer point of view.
So thing fell apart, I think, when word started getting out that this new set of Reformers/Anti-Reformers were considering creating regional zones and not assigning students to a base school. Now, who knows what they were doing, since it was closed even to other board members, and maybe it made sense in their new Reformer scheme. But that was anathema to all the Consumers who were tired of all the confusion after years of redistricting for economic diversity and who were just trying to vote in a system where they would know where their children would go to school for the foreseeable future.
So it came down to the new Cary board member, who was voted in on the new Reformers platform but who was, in reality, a Consumer (she has two children in the public schools, I believe). And beyond being a Consumer herself, she represents the community with the most vocal and active Consumer population, just given Cary's relatively high income, educational achievement of parents, and number of one-income families where spouses have the time and expertise to advocating for their children in the school system. She---and by extention, the Consumers--wasn't being listened to, and she pulled the plug.
And that, according to Laramee, is the fate of any Reformers scheme when it runs head-to-head with Consumer opposition.
Or, at least, that's what I think Laramee says. Regardless, it makes a lot of sense to me to explain the recent events from that framework.
What do you think?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Education Reform: Alfie Kohn's Response is "School Would Be Great If it Weren't for the D*** Kids"
Or that, at least, is the title of the latest article by one of my favorite educational writers, Alfie Kohn. This is how he characterizes the mindset that blames issues in education not on the high-level policymakers with their increasingly-restrictive regulations and mind-numbing educational practices, but on the people who are trapped in the morass those things create. Countering one pundit's theory that the problem in education is student's lack of motivation, Kohn quotes Frederick Herzberg, a critic of traditional workplace management, who says “Idleness, indifference, and irresponsibility are healthy responses to absurd work.”
You can read the article on Kohn's website at:http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/damnkids.htm
You can read the article on Kohn's website at:http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/damnkids.htm
Friday, September 17, 2010
Educational Reform Documentaries
There are two new documentaries on education that are coming out this fall. One, entitled "Waiting for Superman," is by the director of "An Inconvenient Truth." It is supposed to be a similar call to action, this time to reform the public school systems, particularly those that serve minority urban youth. It includes an interview with Michele Rhee, the iconoclastic reformer who has been rebuilding the Washington DC school system, widely seen as perhaps the worst school system in the country. (Unfortunately, she is aligned politically with the current DC mayor, Mayor Fenty, who just lost his bid for a second term in the Democratic primaries, so there is no telling what will happen to the changes she has been putting in place.)
One interesting statistic from that film: While American student rank low--and continue to decrease--on most academic skill measurements, such as literacy, math competency, science knowledge, etc.--the one category in which the US ranks #1 is....self-confidence.
See the trailer and more information at:
http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/
Another film that is coming out is called "Race to Nowhere." This movie talks about the incredible pressure put upon our children to perform by high-stakes testing, competition within classes, and the theory that their future will be determined by their success (or failure) in getting into a highly-competitive university. According to the director, this stress is resulting in ever-increasing rates of suicide, cheating, depression, and ways of rejecting the educational system.
Again, for more information and the trailer, see:
http://www.racetonowhere.com/
A friend alerted me to another film that came out last year, but that deals with similar theme. This documentary, called "The War on Kids," talks about the ways that "no tolerance" rules and other policies in public school systems are turning them into institutions that resemble prisons. The website for this movie is:
http://www.thewaronkids.com/
Full disclosure: I haven't seen any of this films. But I would like to do so. They all seem to be raising important question that we should be dealing with, both as families and as a society.
One interesting statistic from that film: While American student rank low--and continue to decrease--on most academic skill measurements, such as literacy, math competency, science knowledge, etc.--the one category in which the US ranks #1 is....self-confidence.
See the trailer and more information at:
http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/
Another film that is coming out is called "Race to Nowhere." This movie talks about the incredible pressure put upon our children to perform by high-stakes testing, competition within classes, and the theory that their future will be determined by their success (or failure) in getting into a highly-competitive university. According to the director, this stress is resulting in ever-increasing rates of suicide, cheating, depression, and ways of rejecting the educational system.
Again, for more information and the trailer, see:
http://www.racetonowhere.com/
A friend alerted me to another film that came out last year, but that deals with similar theme. This documentary, called "The War on Kids," talks about the ways that "no tolerance" rules and other policies in public school systems are turning them into institutions that resemble prisons. The website for this movie is:
http://www.thewaronkids.com/
Full disclosure: I haven't seen any of this films. But I would like to do so. They all seem to be raising important question that we should be dealing with, both as families and as a society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)