Relevant Ed

The Time Machine

2010-07-17T08:48:00.002-04:00

I am currently at the CMI 2010 conference looking at curriculum design for the 21st Century. This is the first of a series of posts related to that process - specifically as it relates to the necessary redesign of accompanying support systems.
Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs explains how students move from the 21t Century and into the 19th Century every time they grace the halls of their local school. The charge to "upgrade" the curriculum and in order to prepare students for the world in which we live is both appropriate and necessary. However, if we neglect to think in terms of systems throughout this process we will simply engage in tinkering change. Let me explain...

Our current education system is based on an antiquated 19th Century model. We use limited networks built on proximity, linear learning models, homogeneous students and teacher grouping patterns, and we rely on physical environments. These are all in stark contrast to the realities of the 21st Century. Our world is one of global collaboration, non-linear thinking and learning, mass social production and networking, all within an interconnected virtual world. So what does this mean (here's where you come in)?

I invite your comments as I continue to explore this idea. Upcoming posts will address the ideas of system design for the 21st Century. That is, what should 21st Century school systems look like? Rather than tackling specific teacher practices, I will focus on specific structural issues surrounding this transition. I invite your ideas and comments as I move forward. Happy reading!!

UPDATE...
Check out Alan November's resources. He has a great understanding of the disconnect between system structure and 21st Century teaching and learning.

Ready... Fire... AIM!

2010-07-15T20:00:00.000-04:00

Educational reform is often a process of "Ready, Fire... AIM!" We tend to move in a direction, as well intentioned as it may be, without asking some fundamental questions first. Here's the conversation I would like to see policy-makers and educational stakeholders engage in...

Currently, what are our (collective) purposes for public education–as indicated (measured) by our stated purposes (policy), our practice, and our results (product)? We should therefore ask if we know - can we measure - the difference between our stated purpose and our results? Concomitantly, what are good indicators of our actual product - the people we output from the process of education? This is a question I have sought to answer for quite a while now.

It would seem to me that this would be an appropriate introductory conversation to any reform at any level - how we define “successful” reform across these delineations and across observed indicators of our purposes for education (purpose, practice, product). If we fail to have this conversation as a nation, state, system, or school, we will fail to achieve anything other than tinkering change. Only then can we make recommendations for reforming purpose, policy, practice and how we measure our products (before, in-process, and after), and how we course-correct based on our measure of the delta between policy and product.

Too often we have the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse.

Ed Research and Relevance

2009-10-24T10:59:00.007-04:00

Educational researchers are increasingly being forced to answer the question: what do we do now? Proponents of the scientific theory movement, have no choice but to in some way embrace more qualitative approaches to inquiry.

The resulting pluralism (big tent solution to education inquiry) seems to serve a dual purpose: satisfy the various intellectual camps deeply entrenched in the institutionalized educational research field, and serve as an indicator of the complexity of inquiry in education—perhaps more as an externality than by intention.

To the first point, this big tent solution requires educational researchers to support “proposals with contradictory goals in an effort to garner broad-based support and build winning coalitions,” (Donmoyer, 1999, p.31). For a field battling illegitimacy in the eyes of many scholars of the hard sciences and struggling to adopt a defined methodology for the purpose of establishing a knowledge base, the big tent is a convenient compromise. It appears to placate both camps, suggesting there is room enough for all. In doing so, researchers no longer have to debate the validity either method over the other establishing, instead, a “winning coalition” (Donmoyer, 1999, p.31) thereby expanding the knowledge base in one broad stroke. This thinking, however, does not advance the field’s understanding the definition of knowledge. On the contrary, it merely serves to exasperate the perception of illegitimacy haunting the field in the first place. The primary issue is that the big tent is viewed as a possible end—the solution to the quest. If this is the case, educational research falls into an abyss of irrelevancy.

As bleak a picture as this analysis paints, there is a second, perhaps unintended purpose for the big tent concept—it serves to underscore the complexity of inquiry in education. That is, the perceived need for a big tent (or pluralism at all) expresses the very real need for continued debate. The true value of the big tent concept is not, therefore, in the placation of competing intellectual camps, but rather in the subsequent increased participation in the establishment of a knowledge base. In this way, the big tent solution is simply a round table discussion rather than the end of the search for acceptable methodology. The field of education and the supporting role research should play in that field is served well by a protracted debate. For scholars to assume that quantitative methods of inquiry in education can deliver concrete insight into the governing dynamics of human constructs not only disregards the complexity of human behavior but this assumption may also be dangerous. On the other hand, for scholars to disregard the notion that there may be governing dynamics inherent in human constructs (particularly within given contexts) is to also disregard the complexity of human behavior and may very well be equally as dangerous. A continued healthy spirit of discontent in the field of educational research forces the scholars and practitioners to be open to continued understanding of human behavior. The key to success in such discourse is in the academy’s willingness to continually and openly debate methodology for the purpose of finding a solution. Competing schools of thought are necessary provided the scholars within are not so entrenched that they are unwilling to shift from one to the other given new understandings. A new definition of the big tent must therefore be realized. Rather than suggesting that all methods have legitimacy, scholars must agree that all methods have a legitimate seat at the round table. Educational researchers and practitioners alike must continue to debate methodology and understand that protracted debate in the field is beneficial in the long run.

REFERENCES
Culbertson, J.A. (1999). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association, (2nd ed.). (pp. 3-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donmoyer, R. (1999). The continuing quest for a knowledge base: 1976-1998. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association, (2nd ed.). (pp. 25-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

On the Expectation of Return

2009-06-04T11:14:00.018-04:00

There is an ongoing discussion about the degree to which the educational system is a financial investment complete with the expectation of a financial return.
Ignoring the rate of return on the utility benefits of education, is it possible to use an economic consumption-good model for educational accountability systems - or, at least as a part of a larger system of accountability?

There are studies out there (I'll be happy to cite if anyone is so interested) that demonstrate correlations between dollars spent and dollars gained. These pseudo cost-benefit analyses of educational programs produce fodder for tracking specific economic returns in education. Understandably, these studies make sure to point out that correlation does not necessarily represent causality; however, these correlations should be used to help us understand education's effectiveness... right?

Given that research can now differentiate (to some degree) between financial return on specific compulsory educational programs and levels of education, the next potential step is the integration of this research into accountability. Would financial return comparisons of schools in like communities, or even schools within the same district, yield insight into how we should spend tax dollars? Some would suggest that an increased understanding of, and reliance on, the financial value of schools might positively increase community involvement, ownership, and educational efficiency. There is some merit to the argument that scores such as novice or proficient (or even "A+" or "B-") on writing tests and portfolio assessments are nebulous and disconnected to anything the paying public respects. Financial cost-benefit analyses can, on the other hand, be concretely connected to something the public respects - their tax dollars.

I think it is inherently good that tax payers begin to own the education system within the community. The question is, how do you integrate this consumer sovereignty concept into the current social system? Of course, I am working from the position that consumer sovereignty in education is necessary at all. What do you think?

Centralization v. Efficiency

2009-05-29T14:04:00.010-04:00

In an attempt to create equity, Kentucky has (as have many other states) adopted a state per pupil funding calculation. The goal is to ensure that each student receives at least the (as decided by the state) minimum amount of funding for their education.
The idea being that the quality of one’s education should not be dictated by the area in which one grows up. The lack of local funds, in many communities, dictated the poor quality of local schools. With the aid of state funds, local schools now have a guaranteed base amount of per pupil revenue to spend thus creating equity (according to this particular definition of the word). So, in the state of Kentucky for example, roughly 20 percent of rural districts’ funding comes from local revenue, while 66 percent comes from the state and 13 percent from the federal government.

Here’s the catch – centralization breeds a lack of accountability and concomitant inefficiency.

Why is it that many private schools are able to do considerably more with considerably less? I would argue it is because of accountability. Now, I’m not suggesting that the clientele is comparable; however, the fact remains that where there is an understood vested financial interest stakeholders will seek transparency and steer away from apathy. That is, they will (and do in the free market) want to know how their money is being spent and remain proactive in the pursuit of efficiency.

The idea of a common school system is in contrast to an efficient school system—we cannot have it both ways. If we seek to have uniformity in education (or as some may argue, equity) then we must sacrifice efficiency in education. If we sacrifice efficiency then we will continue to drive down the quality of the product, all the while consuming more and more resources in the process.

The solution, as far as I can tell, is to move back toward local control of schools. However, the pendulum need not swing too far to the right (i.e., total private market education). Rather, solutions such as open districting, school choice, voucher systems, and charter schools are all viable concepts. The common thread is consumer choice. And choice breeds competition, accountability, and efficiency.

Capacity?

2009-05-27T20:25:00.003-04:00

In conversation after conversation with educator after educator I hear a common theme – capacity, or the lack thereof.
Local systems, building administrators, teachers and staff all share the feeling of inadequacy. Not as though the system and all the individuals within it are incompetent; rather, the struggle to overcome the affective needs of the population we serve has become nearly insurmountable. We are falling farther and farther behind in our attempt to usurp the negative effects of our own culture.

OK, so where did this come from? First, let me say that I have been more than out of pocket as of late (sorry Nate, and you did not kill the blog – I did) for a myriad of reasons. I have become extremely overwhelmed this semester to say the least. But, as I wrap up the year and reflect, I feel that a portion of my weariness comes from an ever-looming feeling that we (as a system) are losing the battle. That is, I am understating more fully the extent to which I am required, as a part of my unspoken job description, to manage the affective needs (or at least minimize them) of my students so that they can learn the standards. And the fact is, we are simply not capable of overcoming these needs.

Just tonight, as I spoke with a 4th grade teacher, I was confronted with the brutal facts once again. She has a student with so much pent up rage that he is virtually unmanageable in the classroom. This child watched his mother and father as they were dragged to jail for dealing drugs out of the home. This child, who has never seen what functional families look like, has a bitterness toward the school for calling social services. Are we (the school system) designed to handle this?

I say no.

I also say we don’t have a choice. It is not this child’s fault, but it is our problem. I just wish I could manufacture capacity… for teachers and the system.

Choice

2008-11-25T11:18:00.005-05:00

Choice and the resulting competition inherent therein is a central concept of a growing school reform movement. Does this combination have positive impacts on school performance?
Does this reform movement create inequity for stakeholders? Do all stakeholders have the same choices? Will inequity drive innovation? That is, will the lack of choice create a “market” for a better product? Must, or should, school choice be coupled with merit based pay for teachers?

These are a few questions I have been pondering and I feel this elephant requires a few nibbles at a time. So here goes.

The concept of choice is fundamental in our society. It motivates innovation and inspires greatness. Choice is hope. The school choice movement seeks to afford to all families that which is currently utilized primarily by people of means. Families with resources can place their children in the schools they feel will best meet their child’s needs. People without means place their children in the schools assigned them through zoning. So why not offer vouchers?

According to the NEA, the voucher system is detrimental to student achievement. However, according to a comparative study from 2001-02 and 2005-06 by Dr. Greg Foster of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the voucher system in Florida motivated a substantial increase in student achievement. In fact, during the 02-05 years when vouchers were removed, student achievement declined.

There is also the argument of de facto segregation. Opponents of the voucher system claim that such a system encourages economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. Because there is limited space available and students must compete for a seat in private schools, those students who are the most articulate, most informed, and least in need of improving their lot tend to be favored. So what is the answer?

My argument is more choice! Econ 101 explains that where there is high demand, supply will eventually rise. These schools with limited seating will reap the benefits of government monies and that is incentive. More demand, more choice.

For my final thought (in round one), I pose the question: how does parental choice deliver rigorous standards and accountability, while centralized control of American education does not? The answers lay in the convoluted web of politics. Politicians want the appearance of rigor and accountability. Schools and teachers fight the inaccuracy and inappropriateness of said accountability. All the while the local community is silenced. The reality is that the local community has a much greater vested interest in the performance of their school and, therefore, will often demand greater rigor and accountability. The difference is in proximity.

This is, by far, a cursory discussion of the issues surrounding school choice. But the ball is rolling so let us see where it takes us. Comments?

We Should Stop Educating Everyone... Or Stop Assuming Everyone Else Does

2008-10-17T07:40:00.001-04:00

The debate last Wednesday night was capped by a question grounded in foolish logic. Bob Schieffer asked the candidates what they planned to do about America's "failing educational system" prefacing the question with the following qualifier:

The U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world.

This statement is pure foolishness and drives at the heart of some serious issues. The U.S. has a compulsory system for all students - not just those who meet certain criteria. The math and science scores from, say China, are not inclusive. Rather, they are exclusive of all students who do not show an affinity toward math or science. Those students are out in the countryside working in a rice field and excluded from the education process.

Bob, and all those out there who use the same standards for all systems of education, please remember this: the United States wants to educate everyone. Our scores represent the proficiencies of students who want to be in school as well as those who do not; students who are intellectually gifted as well as students who are intellectually challenged; students with and those without parental support, and flowing from every socioeconomic background represented in the population.

When all the other countries in the world begin to educate the entirety of their populations, expect that all students receive the same curriculum, and require that every child be measured for proficiency, then we can fairly say, "by every international measurement." Until then, stop comparing the scores, it is insulting.

Values-Free is a Value

2008-10-02T20:38:00.001-04:00

Mark Baldwin has raised several relevant ethical issues in regards to values and the practice of counseling. He and I have had many conversations about this particular issue, so I am invite my readers to take a look at his post: An Ethical Aspect of Multicultural Practice

The questions he raises here also have a place in the arena of public education. Namely, should teachers purposely expose their values in the classroom? Will the act of exposing these values become the act of imposing these values because of a teacher's inherent power and influence over the students?

My answer: yes and yes.

Teachers should, in the healthy spirit of full disclosure, expose their values and world views to their students. And, by doing so, teachers will impose their values on some of their students (in as much as these students are forced to filter information through an identified bias). And if teachers sought not to impose or expose their values on their students, they would still be doing both (only without full disclosure and, therefore, in an unethical manner). The choice to remain silent or attempt a values-free classroom is, by itself, a values choice. If we are intellectually honest, the fear should not be the exposition of values, but the assessment of student achievement based on their adherence to a teacher's values as opposed to curricular benchmarks.

As educators we have a responsibility to train criticall thinkers. Is that possible without full disclosure of the lenses through which we transmit information? If we suggest that we should, or can, transmit information without filtering it through our personal lenses we are not completly honest. That, in my opinion, is unethical.

Mark, I agree. And cue the dissenters...

The FEDERAL Institution of Public Education

2008-09-16T20:47:00.001-04:00

As the September 12 Article of the Baltimore Sun points out, Obama and McCain have some differences of opinion when it comes to education. It appears to be the fundamental question of the limits of federalism (check out Josh Arrowood's comment on my Sex Ed post).

Obama contends the answer to a failing education system (if we assume the eduction system is failing), is to fully fund the currently underfunded NCLB mandate. McCain, on the other hand, suggests that less federal regulation and a greater autonomy - both on the part of the school and the parents - is the solution to any preceieved shortcommings.

By the way, I invite you to correct me if I have not sufficiently summarized the basis of each plan. Here are the candidates' proposed policies in their own words...

Both proposals take us back to the fundamental question plaguing a federal system: how much control should the federal government exert and to what degree should the federal government override the autonomy of the state for the promotion of the "common good?" The Constitution does not establish a federal education system, therefore the power and authority for any education system lies in the hands of the states. However, funding an education system without any federal funds is nearly an impossibility (although several states have tried - Minnesota, Virginia, Arizona, and Vermont to name a few). Therefore, states must adhere to federal mandates in order to recieve the minimal federal funding necessary to provide a public education.

The solutions proposed by the candidates leaves me in a quandry. On the one hand, competition and school choice would create an enviornment where the cream rises to the top. Teachers make more money, stakeholders have a greater degree of ownership, students potentialy have greater access to a broader curriculum. However, some would argume that lower socio-economic households will not take advantage of the voucher system in the same way that higher socio-economic households will. The subsequent eventuality of such an option may be de facto segregation.

The notion that de facto segregation promotes educational inequality received a boost in 1966 when the federally sponsored Coleman Report found that having middle-class classmates was more important to student achievement than was education spending. The implication, Patterson notes, was that "low-income black pupils who were enabled to mix with motivated middle-class white students would achieve more." Thurgood Marshall, when he joined the Supreme Court in 1967 as the first black justice, also emphasized the larger social goal of school integration: "Unless our children begin to learn together, then there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together."

- Richard D. Kahlenberg

Obama's plan, on the other hand, assumes that the giant cogs of the federal government will work efficiently enough to produce a progressive education system. Additionaly, his plan requires citizens to buy in to increased federal taxes and national shared responsibility - both of which require local communities to stomach the idea of gross inequity (if we define equity as getting what we deserve, which is how most Americans appreciate the term).

So I am conflicted. I am looking for input. What are your thoughts? School choice or greater federal involvement?

Sex Ed and the Purpose of Schools

2008-09-10T22:34:00.001-04:00

The issue of sex education in the public school system has been recaptured by the nomination of Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket. Sex education has always been a highly politicized issue, the answer to which most states leave up to the local community.

A quick survey of the news might indicate that most communities feel that sex education should be required by public schools. The primary argument: sex happens, therefore kids should understand it. However, while the biology of reproduction may not be a curricular disagreement in this country, teaching simple reproduction is perhaps the only point of agreement when it comes to sex education.

Sex education raises a myriad of questions that must be answered. To what degree should the school system teach about sex? What means of protection should the school system promote? Should sex education focus solely on the physical components or should it include emotional components? What assumptions should we allow our schools to make about young people today?

But perhaps the most important question that arises is found within the answers to the above questions. That is, what values and world views are inherent within the answers to the above questions? Better still, what is the purpose of public education and who decides?

It is important to understand that, while sex education is a polarizing issue, it is not the only issue that fosters this discussion. Ultimately all decisions in education are, in some way, based on the answers to the above questions.

So there it is. Policy is driven by the answer to the foundational question of public school’s purpose and role in society. So my question is, have we come up with an acceptable answer to the fundamental question of purpose, or are we still answering that question? If we’ve not yet concluded the purpose discussion, then any policy discussions will be premature.

What Happened to Accurate and Appropriate?

2008-09-05T14:25:00.003-04:00

So the state of Kentucky has decided to add the ACT to its testing accountability system. Let me first address those who do not live in the world of the Kentucky state testing system (known as CATS: Commonwealth Accountability Testing System). Students are not held accountable for their performance on the CATS test. This means a student could receive a novice score (in essence, fail) and this would in no way impact the student.
If a student receives a distinguished score (aced the test), it would in no way benefit the student. The scores are used to determine the quality of the school and the teachers. I will not go in to all of the inherent problems with this system, you get the idea.

So what's the big deal about the ACT being added to the accountability system? Well, the problem is simple. The ACT is not an assessment tool nearly as much as it is a predictor of future success. It is based on national norms rather than state standards and is designed to predict the probability that a student would finish his or her first year of college. While it is a decent indicator to that end, it is neither accurate nor appropriate at assessing a student's mastery of state-specific standards. Yet it is going to be used to measure teacher and school effectiveness.

The goal of this added measurement is to force some accountability on the students and better prepare them to take the test their senior year (CATS ends with the juniors). And it does. These scores are used for college placement and scholarships nation wide. So now students are accountable, just like teachers, right?

Wrong. What this really means is that students can (and will - I'll explain in a later post) blow off the portion of the test for which they are not accountable, and work hard on the portion for which they are (even though the entirety of the test will be used to determine school and teacher effectiveness). But only those students who plan on going to college will have incentive to perform on either portion of the test, and that translates to about 60% of the student body state wide. Furthermore, these students have the option of re-taking the ACT to improve their scores for college entrance. Concomitantly, the slightly motivated 60% now has even less incentive. And, while the ACT may effect their college application, it will in no way effect their high school graduation.

So, 100% of students will take a test designed for 60% of the population and intended to measure future success rather than mastery of state standards. These results will be used to measure how effectively teachers and schools taught standards (you know, the ones the test was not designed to measure).

What happened to accurate and appropriate assessments? Priceless.

Producing Sheep

2008-09-04T21:57:00.001-04:00

I am amazed by the gross lack of individual thought fostered by the classroom. I wanted to start an open dialogue with my classes about the state of politics in America today. This year has proven historical, not only because of the candidates, but also because of the scope and scale of the campaigns. And given the amount of media coverage received by the DNC and the RNC, I figured it impossible for any American with a television NOT to form an opinion. And so I asked a simple question, "What are your thoughts about the presidential race so far?" Cue the crickets.

I probed and prodded and finally solicited a response. This response was not the response for which I had hoped. Rather, it was the regurgitation of media talking-points as if memorized from a script. When I asked a student what he meant by "neo-conservatism" he responded by saying he heard the word on the news. So I took a different route. I asked about specific issues, starting with the economy. Nearly every one of my students stated that the economy was in the dumps right now. When I asked how they knew that, they said they heard it on the news... or from their parents who heard it on the news.

While I am their teacher, I am only a tiny gatekeeper of the enormous amount of information through which these young people must sift. So, should I teach them information or the process by which they should analyze this information? The former is far less important because the future of our country relies not on the ability of the masses to regurgitate knowledge, but on their ability to make wise decisions. This demands that citizens analyze the merits of the source and widen the gate through which they receive information. They must become smart consumers of the media.

So what is my point? Well, if we churn out students with a wealth of knowledge but who are grossly deficient in their willingness to question the source, we will have created a population of intelligent sheep, dangerously apathetic about current events and their role in democracy and social justice. So, the question for me is, can I teach the content - the base knowledge - while providing an environment where students can practice the art of skepticism? I guess I'll find out sometime during the next election cycle.