On practically every school visit I learn something interesting. The recent board visit to Easterly Parkway Elementary was not an exception.
The District's ongoing collaboration with Penn State's College of Education through the Professional Development School program continues to benefit both our students and theirs. Five PDS students currently have internships at Easterly; part of their assignment is to spend additional time with students who don't qualify for classroom support under the federally-funded IDEA program, but who would otherwise struggle to keep up. It's a great example of creatively matching resources to need.
Another example - at the other end of the spectrum - involves students that our teachers have identified as needing opportunities for more challenging work. This past semester, several students from Penn State’s Schreyer's Honors College volunteered to be trained in leading literature discussion groups for 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders. Although this was in order to fulfill a course requirement, the university students got so much out of it that they’re staying on for another semester.
"Learning by inquiry" is central to the PDS philosophy, and it’s having an increasingly direct influence on our veteran teachers. This method of studying a particular aspect of their teaching is becoming a key part of their professional development and teacher evaluations. (These "inquiries" are usually along the lines of how well a particular teaching strategy works with certain students or circumstances.)
Although the teachers don't make formal presentations of their findings each April, as the PDS interns do, meeting informally with other teachers, sharing what they have learned, is a particularly effective form of professional development - as Easterly's principal, Brian Peters noted, more effective than having a principal periodically observing "classroom procedures" with a checklist in hand.
Over the past year at Easterly, there has been a focused effort on promoting a positive school climate. (The school motto: “Be safe. Be respectful. Be responsible. Be a Learner.”) A number of 4th and 5th graders exercise leadership by volunteering to serve on committees such as “lunch”, “playground safety” and “welcoming” - an opportunity I think could be extended to even younger students.
A final thought: a common theme was about making the most efficient use of time. I don't know if this has been formally studied, but I would be surprised if there isn't a significant dip in "learning" during the time immediately following the consumption of a highly-processed, high-carbohydrate meal (otherwise known as “lunch”). I bring this up because it is probably time for us to consider bringing school lunch menus into the 21st century.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Formative assessments and accountability
Among educators, there's a growing appreciation for the value of "formative assessments". (In fact, formative assessments are a key component of PDE's recently released and very ambitious Standards Aligned System. More on that later...)
To paraphrase our new superintendent, a formative assessment is like a "routine physical", while the more traditional "summative" (or, end-of-course) assessment is more akin to an "autopsy". The idea is that we find out how well students are learning while there's still time to do something about it.
While this may not seem like a radical idea to anyone who's experienced a pop quiz, what's different is that the results of these assessments are intentionally used to modify instruction, on either a whole-class or individual basis.
It's going to be essential that we understand this distinction as the standards movement gains momentum. If we accept the premise that some skills are critical for every student to have - no child left behind - than we can no longer watch some students "fail", shrug our shoulders, and tell ourselves that we've "done our job".
One of the insights I picked up on my recent visit to the Kettering Foundation (Kettering is the umbrella organization for Public Issues Forums) is that when average citizens and politicians talk about "accountability" in education, they mean different things. Citizens want teachers and students to be accountable - but not in the punitive sense. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, they just want results. But when politicians use the word, often they are looking for someone to blame. Hence, politicians see the value of "high-stakes" tests, while parents are horrified by them.
This leads me to a truly outstanding article from the November 10th issue of Education Week: Formative Assessments and Supportive Classroom Climates. If you read it for yourself, I can avoid quoting large sections, but here are a few key points:
1) "Formative assessments (will be more effective) when they are administered within a supportive classroom culture. When individual students - and the class as a whole - understand the benefits of assessment, the value of those measurements is increased significantly."
2) "Most assessments have become tools that are misapplied by being used to manage ... student behavior through the use of grades as punishment or reward. When properly applied, assessment data provides meaningful feedback to both teacher and student. Teachers ... can identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in their presentation. Students can use assessments to help them identify areas they need to review, discover methods of learning that are not effective in certain situations, and try different approaches to mastering the lesson."
3) "Assessments (should be) interwoven throughout all lessons. Establish a climate in which assessments are not an isolated occurrence. Students should understand (that) assessment is an on-going process. Formative assessment - checking for understanding - should be an inherent, on-going practice that is planned and incorporated throughout the day and in all lessons."
To paraphrase our new superintendent, a formative assessment is like a "routine physical", while the more traditional "summative" (or, end-of-course) assessment is more akin to an "autopsy". The idea is that we find out how well students are learning while there's still time to do something about it.
While this may not seem like a radical idea to anyone who's experienced a pop quiz, what's different is that the results of these assessments are intentionally used to modify instruction, on either a whole-class or individual basis.
It's going to be essential that we understand this distinction as the standards movement gains momentum. If we accept the premise that some skills are critical for every student to have - no child left behind - than we can no longer watch some students "fail", shrug our shoulders, and tell ourselves that we've "done our job".
One of the insights I picked up on my recent visit to the Kettering Foundation (Kettering is the umbrella organization for Public Issues Forums) is that when average citizens and politicians talk about "accountability" in education, they mean different things. Citizens want teachers and students to be accountable - but not in the punitive sense. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, they just want results. But when politicians use the word, often they are looking for someone to blame. Hence, politicians see the value of "high-stakes" tests, while parents are horrified by them.
This leads me to a truly outstanding article from the November 10th issue of Education Week: Formative Assessments and Supportive Classroom Climates. If you read it for yourself, I can avoid quoting large sections, but here are a few key points:
1) "Formative assessments (will be more effective) when they are administered within a supportive classroom culture. When individual students - and the class as a whole - understand the benefits of assessment, the value of those measurements is increased significantly."
2) "Most assessments have become tools that are misapplied by being used to manage ... student behavior through the use of grades as punishment or reward. When properly applied, assessment data provides meaningful feedback to both teacher and student. Teachers ... can identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in their presentation. Students can use assessments to help them identify areas they need to review, discover methods of learning that are not effective in certain situations, and try different approaches to mastering the lesson."
3) "Assessments (should be) interwoven throughout all lessons. Establish a climate in which assessments are not an isolated occurrence. Students should understand (that) assessment is an on-going process. Formative assessment - checking for understanding - should be an inherent, on-going practice that is planned and incorporated throughout the day and in all lessons."
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Chinese work-around
Although this year's budget did not include funds for a new course in Chinese language instruction, several of us were invited to witness a creative work-around for the benefit of a number of students who had expressed an interest.
The not-for-credit "course" is being co-taught by two State College High students (a junior and a sophomore), who are receiving well deserved credit towards their high school graduation project. The students receive occasional classroom assistance from a dedicated parent volunteer.
The dozen or so students who are taking the class are doing so under the umbrella of the Learning Enrichment program, in which students sign "contracts" with a faculty advisor that allows them to spend time pursuing an area of particular academic interest.
Most impressive was the confidence, competence - and obvious enthusiasm - that was demonstrated by the student teachers. Providing students with the opportunity for this level of leadership is, to me, one of the great benefits of this initiative.
Class time was roughly split between vocabulary and pronunciation; culture (is it polite to burp at the dinner table? to blow your nose in public? Yes, and no); and practice in writing characters.
The not-for-credit "course" is being co-taught by two State College High students (a junior and a sophomore), who are receiving well deserved credit towards their high school graduation project. The students receive occasional classroom assistance from a dedicated parent volunteer.
The dozen or so students who are taking the class are doing so under the umbrella of the Learning Enrichment program, in which students sign "contracts" with a faculty advisor that allows them to spend time pursuing an area of particular academic interest.
Most impressive was the confidence, competence - and obvious enthusiasm - that was demonstrated by the student teachers. Providing students with the opportunity for this level of leadership is, to me, one of the great benefits of this initiative.
Class time was roughly split between vocabulary and pronunciation; culture (is it polite to burp at the dinner table? to blow your nose in public? Yes, and no); and practice in writing characters.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Math Wars II
Readers: Dr. Greer has asked the candidates to once again respond to a question concerning the elementary math curriculum in State College. My response follows.
My thinking has not changed a great deal since last spring, but here are a couple of points I think are worth making.
First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect curriculum. It takes time for teachers to learn how to adapt it to meet the needs of individual students. While there may be other good math programs out there, changing the entire curriculum is the surest way to impede the academic progress of our students.
The latest edition of Investigations Math specifically addresses the aspects of the program that needed to be strengthened. One area that has been improved through the efforts of our teachers has been the issue of parents struggling to help their children with homework. One bonus is that the parents who have availed themselves of these opportunities have discovered that they can learn a new way to learn math.
Unfortunately, there are many people of my generation who think that the only correct way to learn math is to memorize the algorithms. But when you understand the concepts behind the rules, it is not only easier, it is considerably more fun. By the way, Math is supposed to be fun. The fact that generations of Americans consider Math to be tedious or boring is tragic, and a terrible waste of human potential.
According to a recent study at Vanderbilt University “teaching children the basic concept behind math problems was more useful than teaching children a procedure for solving the problems – these children gave better explanations and learned more,” And, “this adds to a growing body of research illustrating the importance of teaching children concepts as well as having them practice solving problems.”
Just this week, the nation’s largest group of math teachers urged a new approach to high school instruction, one that aims to build students’ ability to choose and apply the most effective problem-solving techniques.
Our teachers are beyond enthusiastic about the improvements they’ve seen in our students. On what basis do we dismiss their insight? University Education professors – who understand the importance of different learning styles – have been very supportive of the current approach, particularly in light of the adjustments that have been made this year.
Finally, I’m concerned about what I view as a misuse of statistical data in order to find justification for one’s point of view. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that one data point does not a trend make. Correlation does not imply causality. And basing one’s entire argument on the results of one high-stakes test is indefensible - unless we believe that the PSSA measures every important component of our students’ mathematical skills and knowledge.
This change in math instruction was long overdue. Forty years ago, it may have been ok that 20% of our students were “good at math”. This is no longer acceptable. As school board members, we have a responsibility to give every student the opportunity to succeed. In the 21st century, it is important that all our students to be able to think mathematically – not just the select few who have traditionally done well in math.
My thinking has not changed a great deal since last spring, but here are a couple of points I think are worth making.
First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect curriculum. It takes time for teachers to learn how to adapt it to meet the needs of individual students. While there may be other good math programs out there, changing the entire curriculum is the surest way to impede the academic progress of our students.
The latest edition of Investigations Math specifically addresses the aspects of the program that needed to be strengthened. One area that has been improved through the efforts of our teachers has been the issue of parents struggling to help their children with homework. One bonus is that the parents who have availed themselves of these opportunities have discovered that they can learn a new way to learn math.
Unfortunately, there are many people of my generation who think that the only correct way to learn math is to memorize the algorithms. But when you understand the concepts behind the rules, it is not only easier, it is considerably more fun. By the way, Math is supposed to be fun. The fact that generations of Americans consider Math to be tedious or boring is tragic, and a terrible waste of human potential.
According to a recent study at Vanderbilt University “teaching children the basic concept behind math problems was more useful than teaching children a procedure for solving the problems – these children gave better explanations and learned more,” And, “this adds to a growing body of research illustrating the importance of teaching children concepts as well as having them practice solving problems.”
Just this week, the nation’s largest group of math teachers urged a new approach to high school instruction, one that aims to build students’ ability to choose and apply the most effective problem-solving techniques.
Our teachers are beyond enthusiastic about the improvements they’ve seen in our students. On what basis do we dismiss their insight? University Education professors – who understand the importance of different learning styles – have been very supportive of the current approach, particularly in light of the adjustments that have been made this year.
Finally, I’m concerned about what I view as a misuse of statistical data in order to find justification for one’s point of view. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that one data point does not a trend make. Correlation does not imply causality. And basing one’s entire argument on the results of one high-stakes test is indefensible - unless we believe that the PSSA measures every important component of our students’ mathematical skills and knowledge.
This change in math instruction was long overdue. Forty years ago, it may have been ok that 20% of our students were “good at math”. This is no longer acceptable. As school board members, we have a responsibility to give every student the opportunity to succeed. In the 21st century, it is important that all our students to be able to think mathematically – not just the select few who have traditionally done well in math.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Cutting Edge Research
At last night's meeting, the Board approved two potentially exciting research proposals.
The first involves a collaboration between an assistant professor of Education at Penn State and the creative writing class in State College's (High School) Delta program. What makes the proposal interesting is that it will study a key component of "21st-century" skills: the ability to communicate in different styles to different audiences, depending on the purpose. As Dr. Whitney noted, there is a big difference between the writing skills required for a Biology class assignment, and what is involved in persuasive writing.
Traditionally, that difference has not been given enough attention, nor is it assessed by typical standardized tests.
"A key component of (writing) competence is the ability to write in different genres, discerning the particular demands of a rhetorical situation ... to produce texts appropriate to that situation and its audience. However, pedagogy and assessment efforts at the secondary level currently focus almost exclusively on writing .. in the single genre of the expository essay."
The result is that students get little experience deciding which genre to use, a fact that has been substantiated in several casual conversations I've had with university writing instructors.
...
The second proposal will study the impact of a "service-learning" project which will be designed and implemented by the students of Park Forest Elementary School. This study is notable in several respects, beginning with the idea that you can begin to develop citizenship skills in elementary age students. Particularly exciting is the idea that every student has the potential for leadership, and that those skills can be developed and nurtured.
(Traditionally, a few students will demonstrate leadership capacity - and those students are the ones who are encouraged to take on official leadership roles. It becomes self-fulfilling.)
Several questions the study hopes to answer:
The first involves a collaboration between an assistant professor of Education at Penn State and the creative writing class in State College's (High School) Delta program. What makes the proposal interesting is that it will study a key component of "21st-century" skills: the ability to communicate in different styles to different audiences, depending on the purpose. As Dr. Whitney noted, there is a big difference between the writing skills required for a Biology class assignment, and what is involved in persuasive writing.
Traditionally, that difference has not been given enough attention, nor is it assessed by typical standardized tests.
"A key component of (writing) competence is the ability to write in different genres, discerning the particular demands of a rhetorical situation ... to produce texts appropriate to that situation and its audience. However, pedagogy and assessment efforts at the secondary level currently focus almost exclusively on writing .. in the single genre of the expository essay."
The result is that students get little experience deciding which genre to use, a fact that has been substantiated in several casual conversations I've had with university writing instructors.
...
The second proposal will study the impact of a "service-learning" project which will be designed and implemented by the students of Park Forest Elementary School. This study is notable in several respects, beginning with the idea that you can begin to develop citizenship skills in elementary age students. Particularly exciting is the idea that every student has the potential for leadership, and that those skills can be developed and nurtured.
(Traditionally, a few students will demonstrate leadership capacity - and those students are the ones who are encouraged to take on official leadership roles. It becomes self-fulfilling.)
Several questions the study hopes to answer:
- As a result of the project, do the students feel more empowered to make their surroundings a better place?
- Does the project impact the students' sense of belonging to their school community?
- Do the students learn new skills, (for example: the ability to explain your ideas in public) and gain a greater sense of confidence?
Recommended Reading
Without a lot of added comment from me, here are a couple recent articles I found interesting.
This article from Education Week provides a number of examples of how students can begin to take ownership and responsibility in their schools, learning some citizenship skills in the process.
Anything a Child Can Do, a Teacher Shouldn't, by Joan Goodman.
As part of their excellent series, Bridging Differences, another article from Education Week talks about the dangers of relying too heavily on a single assessment tool.
The NCLB Paradox Enters the Twilight Zone
This article from Education Week provides a number of examples of how students can begin to take ownership and responsibility in their schools, learning some citizenship skills in the process.
Anything a Child Can Do, a Teacher Shouldn't, by Joan Goodman.
As part of their excellent series, Bridging Differences, another article from Education Week talks about the dangers of relying too heavily on a single assessment tool.
The NCLB Paradox Enters the Twilight Zone
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
A better model of accountability
The last of my reports from the NSBA conferernce:
At his session on "Change and Stability" Douglas Reeves discussed the challenges of systemic change in large, complex organizations, as well as the implications of some recent research.
Reeves suggested that any organization considering a significant change should first complete an "initiative audit". His "Rule of 6" refers to "Initiative Fatigue" and the natural limit to the number of new initiatives that an organization can successfully manage at any one time. He stressed the importance of making clear to all stakeholders, at the outset, those things that will not change.
Reeves defines "teacher leadership" not by positions or titles, but as "the act of influencing the classroom practices of professional educators." His 2008 research indicated that the single greatest influence on professional practice is “advice from colleagues”, which far outweighs the impact of graduate courses or professional journal articles.
This suggests that one key to successful change is to provide opportunities for teachers to observe models of best practice, as demonstrated by these “teacher leaders”. A number of schools accomplish this by digitally capturing examples of mini-lessons and effective teacher collaborations which are then posted on the web or shared via DVD. It turns out, that the most confident teachers are generally willing to share their mistakes as well as their successes He also discussed the importance of creating a safe environment for teachers to "critically review and rehearse successful practices."
He encouraged schools to develop a culture of "hypotheses testing". Rather than beginning from an assumption of "this will never work" or "teachers will never buy in to it", Reeves argues for a culture of curiosity and accountability: let's test promising ideas and see if they actually work. He says that far too often, educators live in the culture of the untested hypothesis - such as: "if students performed poorly on a test, we need to drill them harder" – without subjecting the hypothesis to examination.
Reeves suggested that not only should we have broader, more meaningful measures of student competency, we should also measure the "antecedents of learning"; that is, we should monitor the factors that we know contribute to a positive educational environment. (This is consistent with current work being done in the development of national school climate standards.) Said another way, we should be monitoring and measuring what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.
A legitimate criticism of the accountability movement is that it defines accountability far too narrowly. If the only measures by which schools are held accountable are standardized 11th-grade math and reading scores, then that's where the instructional focus will tend to be.
A couple of his research results:
At his session on "Change and Stability" Douglas Reeves discussed the challenges of systemic change in large, complex organizations, as well as the implications of some recent research.
Reeves suggested that any organization considering a significant change should first complete an "initiative audit". His "Rule of 6" refers to "Initiative Fatigue" and the natural limit to the number of new initiatives that an organization can successfully manage at any one time. He stressed the importance of making clear to all stakeholders, at the outset, those things that will not change.
Reeves defines "teacher leadership" not by positions or titles, but as "the act of influencing the classroom practices of professional educators." His 2008 research indicated that the single greatest influence on professional practice is “advice from colleagues”, which far outweighs the impact of graduate courses or professional journal articles.
This suggests that one key to successful change is to provide opportunities for teachers to observe models of best practice, as demonstrated by these “teacher leaders”. A number of schools accomplish this by digitally capturing examples of mini-lessons and effective teacher collaborations which are then posted on the web or shared via DVD. It turns out, that the most confident teachers are generally willing to share their mistakes as well as their successes He also discussed the importance of creating a safe environment for teachers to "critically review and rehearse successful practices."
He encouraged schools to develop a culture of "hypotheses testing". Rather than beginning from an assumption of "this will never work" or "teachers will never buy in to it", Reeves argues for a culture of curiosity and accountability: let's test promising ideas and see if they actually work. He says that far too often, educators live in the culture of the untested hypothesis - such as: "if students performed poorly on a test, we need to drill them harder" – without subjecting the hypothesis to examination.
Reeves suggested that not only should we have broader, more meaningful measures of student competency, we should also measure the "antecedents of learning"; that is, we should monitor the factors that we know contribute to a positive educational environment. (This is consistent with current work being done in the development of national school climate standards.) Said another way, we should be monitoring and measuring what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.
A legitimate criticism of the accountability movement is that it defines accountability far too narrowly. If the only measures by which schools are held accountable are standardized 11th-grade math and reading scores, then that's where the instructional focus will tend to be.
A couple of his research results:
- The number of extracurricular activities in which a student is involved (up to four, where the impact begins to level off) is predictive of a student’s GPA.
- the amount of non-fiction writing done by students is predictive of achievement in all subject areas.
Friday, September 11, 2009
"Digital Cheating"
A recent national survey on "high-tech cheating" in school has produced some predictable hand-wringing on the part of education adults. The concern is not only about the numbers of students who have admitted to using their cell phone to cheat on an exam (about 35%), but the even higher number (about 50%) who think it's ok to do so.
For the benefit of the adults in the room, here are a few examples of what students have admitted to: storing information to look at during an exam (26%); warning their friends about a pop quiz (48%); downloading a paper from the internet to turn in (21%); and using the internet to find a teacher's manual that has problem solutions (32%).
To me, this is not only an issue of what it means to "cheat", it raises the question: what is the proper role of assessment in education? Today, the "real test of competency is not in a regurgitation of data; it is in applying that data to real world problems in order to create new knowledge."
What is the value in measuring whether students are able to memorize a piece of information that they could look up on the internet in a matter of seconds?
Already, students - generally on their own initiative - are using technology to find alternate explanations of material they didn't understand in class. They would also like the opportunity to record class lectures to listen to later - but the typical school policy prevents access to technology during the school day that students have at any other time. (Surprisingly, only 9% of teachers in the survey thought that cell phones were a distraction that should be banned from the classroom.)
The article concluded by calling for a national discussion on the concept of "digital ethics." I hope the adults don't turn it into a national "lecture", instead - our students may have something to teach us about the nature of learning in the digital age.
For the benefit of the adults in the room, here are a few examples of what students have admitted to: storing information to look at during an exam (26%); warning their friends about a pop quiz (48%); downloading a paper from the internet to turn in (21%); and using the internet to find a teacher's manual that has problem solutions (32%).
To me, this is not only an issue of what it means to "cheat", it raises the question: what is the proper role of assessment in education? Today, the "real test of competency is not in a regurgitation of data; it is in applying that data to real world problems in order to create new knowledge."
What is the value in measuring whether students are able to memorize a piece of information that they could look up on the internet in a matter of seconds?
Already, students - generally on their own initiative - are using technology to find alternate explanations of material they didn't understand in class. They would also like the opportunity to record class lectures to listen to later - but the typical school policy prevents access to technology during the school day that students have at any other time. (Surprisingly, only 9% of teachers in the survey thought that cell phones were a distraction that should be banned from the classroom.)
The article concluded by calling for a national discussion on the concept of "digital ethics." I hope the adults don't turn it into a national "lecture", instead - our students may have something to teach us about the nature of learning in the digital age.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Disrupting class, epilogue
Christensen made several other observations worth noting:
Future (and current!) teachers will need to know how to work with different types of learners; this should be a key component of their professional training. Continuing to train teachers to perform in a world of teacher-led content delivery - being taught to the dominant style of learner … trains teachers for the past.
Current educational research rarely produces results that are actionable; that is, “under this set of circumstances, these actions will produce the best results”. He encourages graduate students to focus their research on discovering the styles of teaching that work best with different types of learners.
And finally: Recent research indicates that nearly all the variation in the cognitive ability of students entering kindergarten can be explained by the amount of “extra talking” that parents did with their children in the first three years of life. (“Extra talking” is conversation beyond “Don’t touch that!”.) Think of the potential impact on society if every high school student learned that one additional piece of information.
He concludes that the billions of dollars that we’re investing in early childhood education may be misplaced. Instead, the author suggests that high school might be the best place to “teach the methods of early cognitive development to tomorrow’s parents.” (Let’s be honest: the next generation isn’t learning “parenting skills” anywhere else.)
Future (and current!) teachers will need to know how to work with different types of learners; this should be a key component of their professional training. Continuing to train teachers to perform in a world of teacher-led content delivery - being taught to the dominant style of learner … trains teachers for the past.
Current educational research rarely produces results that are actionable; that is, “under this set of circumstances, these actions will produce the best results”. He encourages graduate students to focus their research on discovering the styles of teaching that work best with different types of learners.
And finally: Recent research indicates that nearly all the variation in the cognitive ability of students entering kindergarten can be explained by the amount of “extra talking” that parents did with their children in the first three years of life. (“Extra talking” is conversation beyond “Don’t touch that!”.) Think of the potential impact on society if every high school student learned that one additional piece of information.
He concludes that the billions of dollars that we’re investing in early childhood education may be misplaced. Instead, the author suggests that high school might be the best place to “teach the methods of early cognitive development to tomorrow’s parents.” (Let’s be honest: the next generation isn’t learning “parenting skills” anywhere else.)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Disrupting Class, chapter 3
According to Christensen, if we are to realize the potential of digital technology to transform education, it needs to fill a need that’s not currently being met through traditional means. A recent NY Times article offers an intriguing possibility.
Chinese educational leaders have begun to recognize that in order to be globally competitive, tens of millions of their students will need to become proficient in English. They’ve also discovered what any American with two years of Spanish instruction already knows: passing a high school (or college) foreign language exam doesn’t mean that you have the skills to order a hamburger at McDonald’s. “Throughout the world people experience the same problem… (they) study languages, but cannot communicate.”
China doesn’t have the resources that would be needed to do this with traditional methods - so they developed a virtual game, initially targeted for 7-12 year-olds. After choosing an ‘avatar’, students pick a scene (such as a supermarket) in which their avatar is confronted with say, the challenge of buying a piece of fruit - in English. They advance through levels of difficulty just as you would in any virtual quest. If they get stuck, students can consult “the wizard’s library” for additional instruction.
For years we have known that our students would like to begin foreign language instruction in the elementary grades; we’re also aware of the cognitive advantages of having them start early. But within the current system, the cost is prohibitive: How many teachers would we have to hire? Where would we find them? How would we decide which languages to teach? Where would it fit in the schedule?
This is a classic opportunity for a “disruptive innovation.” Here are a couple of others.
Faced with incomprehensible lectures, college students are turning to U-tube to find subject matter explained in a way that is more consistent with their preferred style of learning
And students in Baltimore County are learning how the environment surrounding Mount St. Helens has evolved since the volcano’s 1980 eruption, using virtual technology developed at Johns Hopkins. See: Virtual 3-D lab aims to stimulate learning.
Chinese educational leaders have begun to recognize that in order to be globally competitive, tens of millions of their students will need to become proficient in English. They’ve also discovered what any American with two years of Spanish instruction already knows: passing a high school (or college) foreign language exam doesn’t mean that you have the skills to order a hamburger at McDonald’s. “Throughout the world people experience the same problem… (they) study languages, but cannot communicate.”
China doesn’t have the resources that would be needed to do this with traditional methods - so they developed a virtual game, initially targeted for 7-12 year-olds. After choosing an ‘avatar’, students pick a scene (such as a supermarket) in which their avatar is confronted with say, the challenge of buying a piece of fruit - in English. They advance through levels of difficulty just as you would in any virtual quest. If they get stuck, students can consult “the wizard’s library” for additional instruction.
For years we have known that our students would like to begin foreign language instruction in the elementary grades; we’re also aware of the cognitive advantages of having them start early. But within the current system, the cost is prohibitive: How many teachers would we have to hire? Where would we find them? How would we decide which languages to teach? Where would it fit in the schedule?
This is a classic opportunity for a “disruptive innovation.” Here are a couple of others.
Faced with incomprehensible lectures, college students are turning to U-tube to find subject matter explained in a way that is more consistent with their preferred style of learning
And students in Baltimore County are learning how the environment surrounding Mount St. Helens has evolved since the volcano’s 1980 eruption, using virtual technology developed at Johns Hopkins. See: Virtual 3-D lab aims to stimulate learning.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Disrupting Class, chapter 2
People have been trying to reform the Educational System for over a generation. Christensen cheerfully suggests that these efforts are largely doomed due to the interdependence of the system's parts.
For example, suppose someone developed an innovative way to teach 6th-grade language arts. Even if everyone thought this was a swell idea, what would it take to implement it? You would need to coordinate the curriculum with what precedes it (fifth grade) and with what follows (seventh grade and beyond) - and note that the fifth grade teachers are probably in different buildings, reporting to different administrators. If the innovation is cross-curricular (such as project-based learning) the curriculum and training for entire departments would have to be modified. Eventually, teaching colleges would have to change their curriculum, and how all this fits in with state and federal mandates and content-area "standards" is almost too complex to imagine. Did I mention teacher contracts?
By contrast, the "system" of the electric lamp is completely independent. If you want to introduce a new technology (such as the CFL light bulb) your only requirement is that you design something that can be screwed into a lamp socket. Similarly, you can pretty much do anything you want with the lamp, as long as it interfaces with (plugs in to) a 110V electrical socket. (By the way, "Windows" is another example of an interdependent system; change one line of code and you pretty much have to redesign the entire operating system.)
In order to "change the system", therefore, you need what Christensen calls a "disruptive innovation". He used the transistor to explain the concept.
Within a relatively few years, the transistor replaced vacuum tubes as the dominant technology in the production of radios, TVs, etc. But it would not have succeeded if it had challenged vacuum technology head-on. Transistors were too expensive and insufficiently powerful to be used in the large table-top radios that were then commonplace - but they were perfectly suited for small portable radios, which did not then exist. Even though the sound quality wasn't particularly good, for teenagers looking for a way to listen to the World Series in chemistry class - or to music out of earshot of their parents - this new technology was better than nothing. Having a market in which to develop without “competition”, transistor technology matured, became less expensive and eventually replaced vacuum tubes altogether.
So what’s the disruptive innovation that will transform education?
For 25 years we have been proclaiming the computer to be the Next Big Breakthrough in education, but it hasn’t materialized. In too many classrooms, computers sit in a row, underused, because – literally - nobody knows what to do with them! The reason: too often the computer has been viewed, not as an innovation, but as an ad-on, another way to do what we’re already doing.
(State College has avoided the worst of this by gradually and systematically “rolling out” computer technology, (one grade level at a time at the elementary level). This has allowed the innovators and early-adopters to discover what could be done. As they share with their colleagues what they’ve learned, the adoption of the technology is less intimidating for those who follow.)
For example, suppose someone developed an innovative way to teach 6th-grade language arts. Even if everyone thought this was a swell idea, what would it take to implement it? You would need to coordinate the curriculum with what precedes it (fifth grade) and with what follows (seventh grade and beyond) - and note that the fifth grade teachers are probably in different buildings, reporting to different administrators. If the innovation is cross-curricular (such as project-based learning) the curriculum and training for entire departments would have to be modified. Eventually, teaching colleges would have to change their curriculum, and how all this fits in with state and federal mandates and content-area "standards" is almost too complex to imagine. Did I mention teacher contracts?
By contrast, the "system" of the electric lamp is completely independent. If you want to introduce a new technology (such as the CFL light bulb) your only requirement is that you design something that can be screwed into a lamp socket. Similarly, you can pretty much do anything you want with the lamp, as long as it interfaces with (plugs in to) a 110V electrical socket. (By the way, "Windows" is another example of an interdependent system; change one line of code and you pretty much have to redesign the entire operating system.)
In order to "change the system", therefore, you need what Christensen calls a "disruptive innovation". He used the transistor to explain the concept.
Within a relatively few years, the transistor replaced vacuum tubes as the dominant technology in the production of radios, TVs, etc. But it would not have succeeded if it had challenged vacuum technology head-on. Transistors were too expensive and insufficiently powerful to be used in the large table-top radios that were then commonplace - but they were perfectly suited for small portable radios, which did not then exist. Even though the sound quality wasn't particularly good, for teenagers looking for a way to listen to the World Series in chemistry class - or to music out of earshot of their parents - this new technology was better than nothing. Having a market in which to develop without “competition”, transistor technology matured, became less expensive and eventually replaced vacuum tubes altogether.
So what’s the disruptive innovation that will transform education?
For 25 years we have been proclaiming the computer to be the Next Big Breakthrough in education, but it hasn’t materialized. In too many classrooms, computers sit in a row, underused, because – literally - nobody knows what to do with them! The reason: too often the computer has been viewed, not as an innovation, but as an ad-on, another way to do what we’re already doing.
(State College has avoided the worst of this by gradually and systematically “rolling out” computer technology, (one grade level at a time at the elementary level). This has allowed the innovators and early-adopters to discover what could be done. As they share with their colleagues what they’ve learned, the adoption of the technology is less intimidating for those who follow.)
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Book Report: “Disrupting Class”
I spent part of a week at the beach reading “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns” by Clayton Christensen. Here’s a summary in three parts.
The great advantage of the one-room schoolhouse that was the dominant educational model of 19th-century America was that every student received what we would now call "individualized instruction." This was a necessary consequence of teaching a room of students of vastly differing ages and abilities. What followed, however - the standardized, factory-model that became prevalent in the last century - was not only a response to increased urbanization, it was seen as a desirable improvement: factories were proving to be an effective and efficient engine of economic prosperity. Why wouldn't this work for education?
But over the last forty years, two things happened. First, it became clear that having a relatively small percentage of our students educated to their full potential is no longer sufficient. (Until then, it was by design that only the elite received an education beyond high school; for example, we educated engineers who could design and manage factories in which the less educated could be successfully employed.)
The second was a growing recognition - among both educators and later, neuroscientists - that there is no single measure of intelligence; rather, people have (as first described by Howard Gardner) "multiple intelligences", or aptitudes. (The list varies, but it goes roughly like this: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Most people rate highly in only two or three areas.) We also discovered that students learn in different ways, often in alignment with their personal areas of strength. (For example, students who are high in spatial intelligence tend to learn best when they can "visualize" the concept being taught.)
This has interesting implications for math instruction, to give one example. Not only are students who do well in math typically high in "logical-mathematical" intelligence, they tend to be taught – particularly in high school and beyond - by teachers of similar aptitude. Overwhelmingly, those who go on to become math professors come from the same pool of students. In turn, they teach the next generation of math teachers using the same methods – and the cycle continues. As Christensen put it, "members of intellectual cliques are often unaware of the extent to which their shared patterns of thinking exclude those with strengths in other kinds of intelligences."
One of the ironies of No Child Left Behind is that its emphasis on standardization almost guarantees that some children will be left behind. The standardized testing that is at the heart of NCLB favors students with linguistic and mathematical intelligence, at the exclusion of others.
(The cycle breaks down, notably, when the next generation of math teachers are taught by education professors who understand the importance of different learning styles. That’s why university education and math faculties tend to see this issue differently.)
This presents educators with an big challenge: how do you educate every student if every student can’t be taught the same way? (To do this within our current system is very expensive: on average, a special education student with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) costs about twice as much to educate as a “regular” ed student.) However, it should be noted that some success has been achieved at the elementary level, when several adults are available to assist students at multiple learning stations.
While our students would clearly benefit from a customized, “student-centric” education, how do we get from here (standardization) to there (mass customization)?
The great advantage of the one-room schoolhouse that was the dominant educational model of 19th-century America was that every student received what we would now call "individualized instruction." This was a necessary consequence of teaching a room of students of vastly differing ages and abilities. What followed, however - the standardized, factory-model that became prevalent in the last century - was not only a response to increased urbanization, it was seen as a desirable improvement: factories were proving to be an effective and efficient engine of economic prosperity. Why wouldn't this work for education?
But over the last forty years, two things happened. First, it became clear that having a relatively small percentage of our students educated to their full potential is no longer sufficient. (Until then, it was by design that only the elite received an education beyond high school; for example, we educated engineers who could design and manage factories in which the less educated could be successfully employed.)
The second was a growing recognition - among both educators and later, neuroscientists - that there is no single measure of intelligence; rather, people have (as first described by Howard Gardner) "multiple intelligences", or aptitudes. (The list varies, but it goes roughly like this: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Most people rate highly in only two or three areas.) We also discovered that students learn in different ways, often in alignment with their personal areas of strength. (For example, students who are high in spatial intelligence tend to learn best when they can "visualize" the concept being taught.)
This has interesting implications for math instruction, to give one example. Not only are students who do well in math typically high in "logical-mathematical" intelligence, they tend to be taught – particularly in high school and beyond - by teachers of similar aptitude. Overwhelmingly, those who go on to become math professors come from the same pool of students. In turn, they teach the next generation of math teachers using the same methods – and the cycle continues. As Christensen put it, "members of intellectual cliques are often unaware of the extent to which their shared patterns of thinking exclude those with strengths in other kinds of intelligences."
One of the ironies of No Child Left Behind is that its emphasis on standardization almost guarantees that some children will be left behind. The standardized testing that is at the heart of NCLB favors students with linguistic and mathematical intelligence, at the exclusion of others.
(The cycle breaks down, notably, when the next generation of math teachers are taught by education professors who understand the importance of different learning styles. That’s why university education and math faculties tend to see this issue differently.)
This presents educators with an big challenge: how do you educate every student if every student can’t be taught the same way? (To do this within our current system is very expensive: on average, a special education student with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) costs about twice as much to educate as a “regular” ed student.) However, it should be noted that some success has been achieved at the elementary level, when several adults are available to assist students at multiple learning stations.
While our students would clearly benefit from a customized, “student-centric” education, how do we get from here (standardization) to there (mass customization)?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saving for a Rainy Day
Back on May 6th, I speculated as to what Secretary of Education Arne Duncan would think of the Pennsylvania Senate proposal to use the federal stimulus money to balance the state budget, instead of funding the state education shortfall, as proposed by Governor Rendell.
Well, as it turns out, not much. Since this was not widely reported, I offer the following as a public service: "I was disappointed to see that instead of tapping into the state's rainy-day fund, the Pennsylvania Senate recently chose to reduce the percentage of the overall budget being spent on education". He continued: "to cut the state appropriation for primary education by $728 million while leaving $750 million in the rainy-day surplus is a disservice to our children."
It should be noted that this has just about eliminated the possibility that Pennsylvania will receive any money from the second round of stimulus funding (which is, in large part, contingent on how the first round was spent.)
If you're not going to use the rainy-day fund when it's raining, when do you use it?
Well, as it turns out, not much. Since this was not widely reported, I offer the following as a public service: "I was disappointed to see that instead of tapping into the state's rainy-day fund, the Pennsylvania Senate recently chose to reduce the percentage of the overall budget being spent on education". He continued: "to cut the state appropriation for primary education by $728 million while leaving $750 million in the rainy-day surplus is a disservice to our children."
It should be noted that this has just about eliminated the possibility that Pennsylvania will receive any money from the second round of stimulus funding (which is, in large part, contingent on how the first round was spent.)
If you're not going to use the rainy-day fund when it's raining, when do you use it?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Ferguson charrette
Readers: what follows are some highlights, courtesy of Jim Pawelczyk, from the public "charrette" on the Ferguson Township elementary school, one of two building projects currently in the initial design phase. (This occurred shortly before I left on vacation, which accounts for the delay.) I share his enthusiasm for the work that's been done so far.
- We really do have a great group of professionals. John Boecker and David Schrader were very engaging. Our construction management team from Alexander was superb... They listened very carefully and were quick to capitalize on ideas that emerged. Some of the best contributors were the children who attended and created dozens of sketches.
- Lots of good ideas on how to use the site to support learning. An interesting example: why convey rainwater in underground pipes when it's a learning opportunity? Use troughs and swales to allow children to see, hear, and think about what happens. (This was the kids' idea.)
- There was extensive discussion about putting the new school on the soccer field vs. closer to where it is now. At the end of the day, the general consensus was to stay close to the original location of the building.
- Much consensus that the building requires extensive renovation and reconstruction. (This is a very old building.) However, retaining the front of the building or reconstructing the cupola feature was viewed as a way to fit into the character of Pine Grove Mills. It should be clear in the next month what sections might be reused. One interesting idea being considered is to reuse the current "all purpose" room as a library.
- Construction phasing will be challenging - but teachers, students and parents were more than willing to put up with the headache if it meant we could start construction in summer, 2010. One solution that received a lot of support was that administrative elements could be placed in temporary buildings while the children move into the new part of the school. "We'll make it work to get it done on time" was the spirit that pervaded the day.
- With the participants encouraging a concerted move toward sustainability, there was plenty of conversation about gardens and constructed wetlands to process gray water. The former is very much a tradition upon which the "Ferguson Family" would like to expand.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
No More Cookie Cutter High Schools?
I thought I would mention one last session from the NSBA conference because it captured many of the key ideas pertaining to high school organization and design.
Here are some of the "17 Principles for Teaching the Digital Generation" that were presented by Frank Kelly as part of his presentation, “No More Cookie Cutter High Schools”. The ones that you've heard before are worth repeating.
Learning must prepare students for a world of constant change. This might seem obvious and somewhat clichéd, but there are important implications for education, such as:
Learning must focus on 21st century thinking skills.
Learning must include 21st century fluency skills. This encompasses a number of areas, such as:
Assessments must encompass both knowledge skills and higher order thinking skills. This goes to the heart of the accountability issue: that is, are we measuring the things that are important, or just those things that are easy to measure? Fortunately, some pretty good assessment tools are being developed to measure these higher-order skills.
Learning must be connected to the outside world. (An idea that relates directly to the Service-Learning model.)
Several of these principles have implications for school design:
For example, students should have their own personal place to work. One characteristic of "Industrial Age" high schools is that only spaces within the typical high school that students own are their lockers and their backpacks - the transient nature of students is designed right into the building.
The configuration of spaces within the school building must be flexible.
Learning must be interdisciplinary. The compartmentalization of the high school faculty and curriculum is another holdover from the industrial age model.
Learning must engage students. Long before Bill Gates, educators have been stressing the importance of "relevance" - but this concept is also supported by recent brain research. To state what is obvious (but often ignored) when students perceive subject matter as important to them, their learning will be deeper, and have a longer impact.
Learning opportunities should be available 24/7. This has obvious implications for technology, but another of their recommendations was for a 12 month school year, which I think is inevitable.
Time should be flexible. One of the recommendations is for an eight-hour school day, comprised of 20-minute modules that could be combined and organized as needed. Substantial portions of each day should be unscheduled for both teachers and students.
I suspect that most people would be surprised to learn that in countries that have successfully redesigned their educational model - when compared with the U.S. - significantly higher percentages of a teacher’s day is spent in preparation and in collaboration with other teachers. These countries have come to see this as a key element of professional development, and a more effective use of a teacher’s time than spending the entire day standing in front of a classroom.
It should also be noted that our current educational model has very little time built in for “reflection” – which is, as was noted earlier, an essential component of all learning.
Learning must be shaped for the individual. Technology has made “mass customization” possible in the retail world. An Individual Education Plan for every student – hopefully, without the bureaucratic paperwork – is the likely future of education.
Every student should have a close working relationship with at least one adult in the school. Their recommendation was that every school day begin with an advisory period.
Students should assume responsibility for their own learning. Another recommendation for high school is to allow substantial time in the afternoon for project work and independent study.
Here are some of the "17 Principles for Teaching the Digital Generation" that were presented by Frank Kelly as part of his presentation, “No More Cookie Cutter High Schools”. The ones that you've heard before are worth repeating.
Learning must prepare students for a world of constant change. This might seem obvious and somewhat clichéd, but there are important implications for education, such as:
Learning must focus on 21st century thinking skills.
Learning must include 21st century fluency skills. This encompasses a number of areas, such as:
- Speaking & Listening Skills, which include the ability to speak a foreign language; non-verbal communication skills; public speaking; as well as active listening and the ability to change one’s mind.
- Reading & Writing Skills include the ability to read fiction and non-fiction for meaning; to understand & apply the principles of graphical design; the ability to read technical material manuals - as well as write technically. (There will always be jobs for people who can write comprehensible instructions.)
- Information Skills refer to the ability to analyze the context of information in order to discern its veracity, accuracy and usefulness; the ability to ask good questions; the ability to recognize and organize information needs (that is, what is and isn’t known); and the ability to shape & distribute information in ways that make it understandable and useful to others.
Assessments must encompass both knowledge skills and higher order thinking skills. This goes to the heart of the accountability issue: that is, are we measuring the things that are important, or just those things that are easy to measure? Fortunately, some pretty good assessment tools are being developed to measure these higher-order skills.
Learning must be connected to the outside world. (An idea that relates directly to the Service-Learning model.)
Several of these principles have implications for school design:
For example, students should have their own personal place to work. One characteristic of "Industrial Age" high schools is that only spaces within the typical high school that students own are their lockers and their backpacks - the transient nature of students is designed right into the building.
The configuration of spaces within the school building must be flexible.
Learning must be interdisciplinary. The compartmentalization of the high school faculty and curriculum is another holdover from the industrial age model.
Learning must engage students. Long before Bill Gates, educators have been stressing the importance of "relevance" - but this concept is also supported by recent brain research. To state what is obvious (but often ignored) when students perceive subject matter as important to them, their learning will be deeper, and have a longer impact.
Learning opportunities should be available 24/7. This has obvious implications for technology, but another of their recommendations was for a 12 month school year, which I think is inevitable.
Time should be flexible. One of the recommendations is for an eight-hour school day, comprised of 20-minute modules that could be combined and organized as needed. Substantial portions of each day should be unscheduled for both teachers and students.
I suspect that most people would be surprised to learn that in countries that have successfully redesigned their educational model - when compared with the U.S. - significantly higher percentages of a teacher’s day is spent in preparation and in collaboration with other teachers. These countries have come to see this as a key element of professional development, and a more effective use of a teacher’s time than spending the entire day standing in front of a classroom.
It should also be noted that our current educational model has very little time built in for “reflection” – which is, as was noted earlier, an essential component of all learning.
Learning must be shaped for the individual. Technology has made “mass customization” possible in the retail world. An Individual Education Plan for every student – hopefully, without the bureaucratic paperwork – is the likely future of education.
Every student should have a close working relationship with at least one adult in the school. Their recommendation was that every school day begin with an advisory period.
Students should assume responsibility for their own learning. Another recommendation for high school is to allow substantial time in the afternoon for project work and independent study.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Just when we thought we had this resolved...
Earlier this month, State Board of Education Chairman Joseph Torsella brought forward a new "compromise" proposal concerning the Keystone Exams (known in its previous incarnation as the Graduation Competency Assessments).
Under this plan, a Keystone exam in Algebra I would replace the current math PSSA exam that is given to all 11th grade students. The 11th grade PSSA writing assessment would be replaced by a “literature” Keystone Exam; and a newly developed Biology Keystone Exam will become the high school science assessment that will soon be required under NCLB.
This appears to be a significant step backwards from the agreement that was worked out between PSBA and PDE in April.
A number of objections have been raised about this proposal, including the usual concerns about costs, the excessive use of standardized testing, and the fact that teachers and other school leaders were not part of the discussions (!), but I think there’s another issue that has not be given enough attention.
There has yet to be a meaningful, public conversation about what every high school graduate ought to know, and be able to do. It seems to me that this debate ought to happen before we try to standardize state-wide or nationwide graduation requirements.
For example, from my perspective, using an Algebra exam as the state math assessment is far too narrowly focused. Certainly, every high school graduate ought to have a basic understanding of algebraic concepts. But honestly, how many people in the real world need to know how to factor an equation?
On the other hand, shouldn’t students understand the core principles of geometry, trigonometry and calculus, as well? Further, the argument could be made that statistics, probability and personal finance are of greater use to the average citizen. The current recession might have been avoided if more high school graduates had understood the implications of variable interest rates.
Even worse is the proposal that a Biology Keystone Exam become the science assessment. How was it determined that Biology is more important than Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, or Astronomy? (In fact, in order to understand the science of global warming, you probably need to have a basic understanding of all those subjects.) What happened to an appreciation of a well-rounded education?
I think it’s important to say that “accountability” is not the issue. By now, nobody should be opposed to accountability. But accountable for what? So far, I’ve only talked about what students need to “know”; I haven’t addressed the complex set of skills that today’s students will need in order to be successful, such as the ability to process and use all this information. (More on that soon.)
The problem is that few politicians have a deep enough understanding of educational issues to know what should be done to improve the educational system - but they need to look like they’re doing something. So we’re left with simplistic solutions that appear to hold (someone else) accountable.
Some states, however, are heading in the right direction. West Virginia is one.
Under this plan, a Keystone exam in Algebra I would replace the current math PSSA exam that is given to all 11th grade students. The 11th grade PSSA writing assessment would be replaced by a “literature” Keystone Exam; and a newly developed Biology Keystone Exam will become the high school science assessment that will soon be required under NCLB.
This appears to be a significant step backwards from the agreement that was worked out between PSBA and PDE in April.
A number of objections have been raised about this proposal, including the usual concerns about costs, the excessive use of standardized testing, and the fact that teachers and other school leaders were not part of the discussions (!), but I think there’s another issue that has not be given enough attention.
There has yet to be a meaningful, public conversation about what every high school graduate ought to know, and be able to do. It seems to me that this debate ought to happen before we try to standardize state-wide or nationwide graduation requirements.
For example, from my perspective, using an Algebra exam as the state math assessment is far too narrowly focused. Certainly, every high school graduate ought to have a basic understanding of algebraic concepts. But honestly, how many people in the real world need to know how to factor an equation?
On the other hand, shouldn’t students understand the core principles of geometry, trigonometry and calculus, as well? Further, the argument could be made that statistics, probability and personal finance are of greater use to the average citizen. The current recession might have been avoided if more high school graduates had understood the implications of variable interest rates.
Even worse is the proposal that a Biology Keystone Exam become the science assessment. How was it determined that Biology is more important than Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, or Astronomy? (In fact, in order to understand the science of global warming, you probably need to have a basic understanding of all those subjects.) What happened to an appreciation of a well-rounded education?
I think it’s important to say that “accountability” is not the issue. By now, nobody should be opposed to accountability. But accountable for what? So far, I’ve only talked about what students need to “know”; I haven’t addressed the complex set of skills that today’s students will need in order to be successful, such as the ability to process and use all this information. (More on that soon.)
The problem is that few politicians have a deep enough understanding of educational issues to know what should be done to improve the educational system - but they need to look like they’re doing something. So we’re left with simplistic solutions that appear to hold (someone else) accountable.
Some states, however, are heading in the right direction. West Virginia is one.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Public Conversations
Another of Wheatley’s core beliefs is that almost all significant change begins with meaningful conversations. As our public issues have grown increasingly complex, the value of these conversations has also increased; few public issues can be simply handed to an expert to resolve. Clearly, there are interesting implications for how public institutions (such as school boards) engage with the community.
While the principles that produce quality public engagement are not complicated, there are several key components. I was struck by how consistently Wheatley's ideas aligned with the Public Issues Forum model.
First, “people support what they create”; a principle we saw borne out in the development of the District-wide facilities’ master plan. (Similarly, in the PIF model, participants are encouraged to take ownership of both the process and the results of their conversation. The group agrees to, and helps enforce, the ground rules; it is the group’s responsibility to listen to one another, and work towards finding areas of common ground.)
However, community engagement that is poorly designed or poorly implemented can fail to produce the desired results. For example, PIF has discovered that it is useful to the process to have a moderator who knows how to keep the group on task; this helps ensure that the group allows sufficient time to wrestle with the pros and cons, and the tradeoffs, that are inherent within varied approaches to a complex problem.
In fact, Wheatley claims what appears to be a good community engagement practice is often counter-productive. The example she gave: many school boards - State College included - allow community members to speak for five minutes on an issue of their choosing. According to Wheatley, “while that sounds good on the surface” it “invites drama and histrionics, rather than good reflection.” (Something to think about.)
By contrast, the PIF model specifically discourages “speeches”. (A key ground rule is that “no one or two participants will dominate the conversation.”) This is critical because it is in the conversation that learning occurs. As a practical matter, if people in the group are not given the opportunity to respond to each other’s statements in a timely way, they will soon tune out the “speech” while they concentrate on their response.
In fact, in the PIF model “listening for understanding” is a central goal of the group’s work.
Another key to quality public engagement is to “continually expand the circle of inclusion”. This concept is reflected in the PIF practice of periodically asking: “Whose voice is missing?” “Who needs to be at the table?”
Finally, Wheatley believes that allowing “time for reflection” is a key component of all learning. This is particularly true as it relates to community conversations. Time needs to be set aside for personal as well as group reflection. The questions that are asked in the PIF model are: As individuals, how has our thinking changed? Does anyone see the issue differently as a result of this conversation? As a group: what have we learned?, what do we still need to know?; what do we still need to talk about? What are our areas of common ground?
While the principles that produce quality public engagement are not complicated, there are several key components. I was struck by how consistently Wheatley's ideas aligned with the Public Issues Forum model.
First, “people support what they create”; a principle we saw borne out in the development of the District-wide facilities’ master plan. (Similarly, in the PIF model, participants are encouraged to take ownership of both the process and the results of their conversation. The group agrees to, and helps enforce, the ground rules; it is the group’s responsibility to listen to one another, and work towards finding areas of common ground.)
However, community engagement that is poorly designed or poorly implemented can fail to produce the desired results. For example, PIF has discovered that it is useful to the process to have a moderator who knows how to keep the group on task; this helps ensure that the group allows sufficient time to wrestle with the pros and cons, and the tradeoffs, that are inherent within varied approaches to a complex problem.
In fact, Wheatley claims what appears to be a good community engagement practice is often counter-productive. The example she gave: many school boards - State College included - allow community members to speak for five minutes on an issue of their choosing. According to Wheatley, “while that sounds good on the surface” it “invites drama and histrionics, rather than good reflection.” (Something to think about.)
By contrast, the PIF model specifically discourages “speeches”. (A key ground rule is that “no one or two participants will dominate the conversation.”) This is critical because it is in the conversation that learning occurs. As a practical matter, if people in the group are not given the opportunity to respond to each other’s statements in a timely way, they will soon tune out the “speech” while they concentrate on their response.
In fact, in the PIF model “listening for understanding” is a central goal of the group’s work.
Another key to quality public engagement is to “continually expand the circle of inclusion”. This concept is reflected in the PIF practice of periodically asking: “Whose voice is missing?” “Who needs to be at the table?”
Finally, Wheatley believes that allowing “time for reflection” is a key component of all learning. This is particularly true as it relates to community conversations. Time needs to be set aside for personal as well as group reflection. The questions that are asked in the PIF model are: As individuals, how has our thinking changed? Does anyone see the issue differently as a result of this conversation? As a group: what have we learned?, what do we still need to know?; what do we still need to talk about? What are our areas of common ground?
Monday, July 13, 2009
The third “R”: Relationships
The importance of relationships to the educational process has been a consistent component of recent school reform movements. (According to the Gates Foundation, “rigor, relevance and relationships” are the new three R’s of education.) Relationships were also the focus of Meg Wheatley’s lecture at the NSBA conference. According to Wheatley, students manifest what teachers believe them to be; it is only through relationships that student potential is realized.
One implication is that if we want to know how conducive the school environment is to learning, we should be measuring the extent to which students and teachers feel connected to one other. That is, we should be looking for ways to “measure relationships”. This is the sort of information that school climate surveys try to capture.
We heard this idea expressed at other points of the conference. In the session on “Getting Accountability Right”, it was suggested that – in addition to “student achievement” - we should also measure the “antecedents” to learning. That is, we should monitor the behaviors that are known to create a positive learning environment; what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.
Wheatley also noted that “a healthy community involves youth in decision-making.” Not only are community decisions better informed when its younger members are part of the conversation, this also helps students develop the skills for active citizenship.
As an aside, two of the best arguments that I've heard in support of official student representation on school boards came from two student members of the "100 District Leaders" who attended the NSBA conference. In their experience, full student participation provides:
A "reality check" for the rest of the board on the practical impact of board policy.
A communication bridge from students to the board, and vice-versa.
Obviously, this is not practical, nor legal, everywhere, but I thought it was an important observation.
One implication is that if we want to know how conducive the school environment is to learning, we should be measuring the extent to which students and teachers feel connected to one other. That is, we should be looking for ways to “measure relationships”. This is the sort of information that school climate surveys try to capture.
We heard this idea expressed at other points of the conference. In the session on “Getting Accountability Right”, it was suggested that – in addition to “student achievement” - we should also measure the “antecedents” to learning. That is, we should monitor the behaviors that are known to create a positive learning environment; what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.
Wheatley also noted that “a healthy community involves youth in decision-making.” Not only are community decisions better informed when its younger members are part of the conversation, this also helps students develop the skills for active citizenship.
As an aside, two of the best arguments that I've heard in support of official student representation on school boards came from two student members of the "100 District Leaders" who attended the NSBA conference. In their experience, full student participation provides:
A "reality check" for the rest of the board on the practical impact of board policy.
A communication bridge from students to the board, and vice-versa.
Obviously, this is not practical, nor legal, everywhere, but I thought it was an important observation.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Green Schools and Student Wellness
A couple of interesting ideas to emerge from last Friday's Green School conference at the Nittany Lion Inn came from the table conversation with other attendees. Among others, I spoke with Donnan Stoicovy, principal of Park Forest Elementary, who has long been an advocate for environmental responsibility coupled with student engagement. I came away more convinced of the importance of approaching "green" issues holistically.
In particular, a lot could be gained by integrating our commitment to environmental responsibility with the district's wellness policy.
For example, should we rethink the district's busing policy, which currently provides transportation to elementary students who live more than one mile from school? (The secondary threshold is 1.5 miles; the state requirement is 1.5 miles and 2 miles, respectively.) Potentially, this could reduce vehicle emissions, save money, as well as give students a little more physical exercise.
Should we be trying to purchase more locally grown food - or perhaps, try growing it ourselves, as part of the curriculum? In addition to the environmental impact (less pollution from transportation), and the potential for a healthier diet, what would be the educational impact of having students seeing how their food is "made"? I suspect that our eating habits would change for the better overnight if our food production processes was more transparent.
(In a related note, Slow Food USA’s Central PA chapter recently announced a Labor Day “Eat In” to be held from 3-5pm at the Panorama Elementary School. The community pot-luck is in support of Slow Food’s goal of “getting real food into school lunches.”)
There are also clear benefits to actively involving students in these decisions, both for the educational value, as well as for the increased sense of student engagement in the school community. One presenter showed us four short student-made videos that were produced to encourage environmental awareness within their school. Locally, first and second graders at Park Forest recently took on the challenge of reducing paper towel consumption. - this involved some impressive math - resulting in "One or two will do" stickers being placed on every towel dispenser.
In particular, a lot could be gained by integrating our commitment to environmental responsibility with the district's wellness policy.
For example, should we rethink the district's busing policy, which currently provides transportation to elementary students who live more than one mile from school? (The secondary threshold is 1.5 miles; the state requirement is 1.5 miles and 2 miles, respectively.) Potentially, this could reduce vehicle emissions, save money, as well as give students a little more physical exercise.
Should we be trying to purchase more locally grown food - or perhaps, try growing it ourselves, as part of the curriculum? In addition to the environmental impact (less pollution from transportation), and the potential for a healthier diet, what would be the educational impact of having students seeing how their food is "made"? I suspect that our eating habits would change for the better overnight if our food production processes was more transparent.
(In a related note, Slow Food USA’s Central PA chapter recently announced a Labor Day “Eat In” to be held from 3-5pm at the Panorama Elementary School. The community pot-luck is in support of Slow Food’s goal of “getting real food into school lunches.”)
There are also clear benefits to actively involving students in these decisions, both for the educational value, as well as for the increased sense of student engagement in the school community. One presenter showed us four short student-made videos that were produced to encourage environmental awareness within their school. Locally, first and second graders at Park Forest recently took on the challenge of reducing paper towel consumption. - this involved some impressive math - resulting in "One or two will do" stickers being placed on every towel dispenser.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Small Learning Communities and Building Design
Readers: what follows is the second half of the report I gave to the Board last night. It's an extension of my April 13th post on "Professional Learning Communities"
One of the presentations I attended at NSBA's April conference was by a school district that – like State College - was facing the imperative of significant renovations to their high school facility. Marysville School District in Washington state decided this was an opportunity for them to re-vision what a 21st century high school might look like.
With a guiding committee of about 50 teachers, parents and students, Marysville began by brainstorming a "day in the life" of a high school student. This lead to the establishment of a set of guiding principles.
The central principal centered on relationships.
Their year of planning included virtual tours of successful schools, along with site visits.
One of the things they discovered was that if you ask people what they want in a new school, they'll tell you that what they want is what they've always had. This made clear the importance of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to experience successful educational systems in other communities. Most people need to see an actual example in order to imagine doing something different from what they already know.
As a result of student and faculty surveys, Marysville ended up with eight high school options: This included five "interest-area" schools of about 400 students each:
Four of these learning communities will be located in separate buildings on a new 1600 student campus, surrounding a “Community Commons” area that houses shared functions such as physical education and food service. The academic buildings are designed for future flexibility, with the load-bearing walls and plumbing located around the perimeter. This makes it easier to rearrange the interior spaces, should that become necessary.
Their Arts school and their Heritage school - this is an area with a large Native-American population - are located at a second facility. The Mountainview school, which is somewhat analogous to our Delta program, has its own building. Eventually, their original high school building will serve the approximately 1200 students who want the opportunity to explore several options.
One of the presentations I attended at NSBA's April conference was by a school district that – like State College - was facing the imperative of significant renovations to their high school facility. Marysville School District in Washington state decided this was an opportunity for them to re-vision what a 21st century high school might look like.
With a guiding committee of about 50 teachers, parents and students, Marysville began by brainstorming a "day in the life" of a high school student. This lead to the establishment of a set of guiding principles.
The central principal centered on relationships.
- Students should be known, valued and inspired to perform at their highest potential.
- Collaboration (at all levels) personalizes learning.
- Every student should have an adult advocate.
Their year of planning included virtual tours of successful schools, along with site visits.
One of the things they discovered was that if you ask people what they want in a new school, they'll tell you that what they want is what they've always had. This made clear the importance of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to experience successful educational systems in other communities. Most people need to see an actual example in order to imagine doing something different from what they already know.
As a result of student and faculty surveys, Marysville ended up with eight high school options: This included five "interest-area" schools of about 400 students each:
- Construction and Engineering
- The Bio-Med Academy
- International School of Communications
- School for the Entrepreneur
- Arts and Technology
Four of these learning communities will be located in separate buildings on a new 1600 student campus, surrounding a “Community Commons” area that houses shared functions such as physical education and food service. The academic buildings are designed for future flexibility, with the load-bearing walls and plumbing located around the perimeter. This makes it easier to rearrange the interior spaces, should that become necessary.
Their Arts school and their Heritage school - this is an area with a large Native-American population - are located at a second facility. The Mountainview school, which is somewhat analogous to our Delta program, has its own building. Eventually, their original high school building will serve the approximately 1200 students who want the opportunity to explore several options.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The budget discussion
I thought it might be useful for my readers to have the unabridged version – you can’t print everything - of my comments to the CDT in regards to its recent story on the school district’s 09/10 budget.
My concern is that we're putting a lot of unnecessary effort and administrative time into preparing for a worst-case scenario that is highly unlikely. Every state budget is a negotiation, and as I said at the last board meeting, my guess is that the eventual state appropriation is likely to be closer to the governor's proposal (which would result in a net gain to the district of about $200,000) than to what the senate passed and which the house rejected (which would have resulted in a net loss of $600,000).
The most likely outcome, therefore, is that we’ll have to cover a shortfall of $100,000-200,000. (Keep in mind that the Governor has a pretty good track record of getting what he wants.)
In the proposed budget, we have already set aside $3 million from our fund balance in preparation for the spike in the mandated contribution to PSERS that will be occurring in 2012-2013. That still leaves us with over $500,000 above and beyond the 5% that has been established by board policy - more than enough to cover any shortfall from the state. In fact, these unexpected situations are precisely the reason that you have a fund balance.
While there are savings to be found in any budget, significant cost-cutting should be approached thoughtfully, deliberately, and with consideration for all the implications. This is especially true if we are dealing with a long-term issue, which appears likely. In my opinion, this is not something we should be trying to do in the twenty days we have left to pass this year’s budget.
The long-term solution: a change in the fiscal calendar that would let school districts know the state appropriation well before they have to pass their budget. This also seems highly unlikely, but Senator Corman has indicated that he’s willing to consider it.
My concern is that we're putting a lot of unnecessary effort and administrative time into preparing for a worst-case scenario that is highly unlikely. Every state budget is a negotiation, and as I said at the last board meeting, my guess is that the eventual state appropriation is likely to be closer to the governor's proposal (which would result in a net gain to the district of about $200,000) than to what the senate passed and which the house rejected (which would have resulted in a net loss of $600,000).
The most likely outcome, therefore, is that we’ll have to cover a shortfall of $100,000-200,000. (Keep in mind that the Governor has a pretty good track record of getting what he wants.)
In the proposed budget, we have already set aside $3 million from our fund balance in preparation for the spike in the mandated contribution to PSERS that will be occurring in 2012-2013. That still leaves us with over $500,000 above and beyond the 5% that has been established by board policy - more than enough to cover any shortfall from the state. In fact, these unexpected situations are precisely the reason that you have a fund balance.
While there are savings to be found in any budget, significant cost-cutting should be approached thoughtfully, deliberately, and with consideration for all the implications. This is especially true if we are dealing with a long-term issue, which appears likely. In my opinion, this is not something we should be trying to do in the twenty days we have left to pass this year’s budget.
The long-term solution: a change in the fiscal calendar that would let school districts know the state appropriation well before they have to pass their budget. This also seems highly unlikely, but Senator Corman has indicated that he’s willing to consider it.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Rigor and relevance
Upon returning from the DWMP Community Dialogue last night, I did a little channel surfing to see whether the Penguins might still be playing. I stopped briefly at PCN, where Pennsylvania's Secretary of Education, Gerry Zahorchek, was testifying - yet again - to the benefits of a state-wide curriculum and state-wide graduation exams.
I only stayed for a moment, so perhaps I missed something. But in defense of state exams in Algebra II, I'm pretty sure that I heard him say, "students who successfully complete Algebra II are more likely to go to college, and far less likely to drop out of school."
Well, duh. Do I have to say it? Correlation does not imply causality.
What Dr. Zahorchek did, unwittingly, was make an excellent case for giving students opportunities to take probability, statistics and logic, instead of a required Algebra II course.
I recently had a conversation with a retired high school Math teacher, who told me that the standard Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-Algebra II/Calculus curriculum originated in the 1930's, in order to prepare future engineers. She questioned why everyone had to take a curriculum that was designed for less than 1% of the population. So - until the PSSAs came along - she would often teach elective courses in discrete mathematics and personal finance as a way to make math more interesting and/or relevant for students who had no intention of ever adding "PE" to their business cards.
In the national endeavor to improve public education, there is a general agreement that three critical components of educational reform are "rigor, relevance and relationship." But somehow, we've adopted a very narrow definition of "rigor" and we've applied the same definition to everyone.
For a future engineer, "rigor" might take the form of AP Physics. but for an aspiring attorney it might be a course in "Constitutional Law". Someone who wants to be an automotive technician needs to take rigorous classes that lead to industry certifications.
For what percentage of students is Algebra II relevant?
I only stayed for a moment, so perhaps I missed something. But in defense of state exams in Algebra II, I'm pretty sure that I heard him say, "students who successfully complete Algebra II are more likely to go to college, and far less likely to drop out of school."
Well, duh. Do I have to say it? Correlation does not imply causality.
What Dr. Zahorchek did, unwittingly, was make an excellent case for giving students opportunities to take probability, statistics and logic, instead of a required Algebra II course.
I recently had a conversation with a retired high school Math teacher, who told me that the standard Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-Algebra II/Calculus curriculum originated in the 1930's, in order to prepare future engineers. She questioned why everyone had to take a curriculum that was designed for less than 1% of the population. So - until the PSSAs came along - she would often teach elective courses in discrete mathematics and personal finance as a way to make math more interesting and/or relevant for students who had no intention of ever adding "PE" to their business cards.
In the national endeavor to improve public education, there is a general agreement that three critical components of educational reform are "rigor, relevance and relationship." But somehow, we've adopted a very narrow definition of "rigor" and we've applied the same definition to everyone.
For a future engineer, "rigor" might take the form of AP Physics. but for an aspiring attorney it might be a course in "Constitutional Law". Someone who wants to be an automotive technician needs to take rigorous classes that lead to industry certifications.
For what percentage of students is Algebra II relevant?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
"Real-world" skills
As part of the Career and Technical Center at the high school, the Diversified Occupations program - in a terrific partnership involving dozens of local employers - students get “real-world” work experience and marketable job skills in preparation for life after graduation. This is for students who are interested in occupations for which no specific CTC program currently exists.
In addition to their other classes, students meet one period per day in the classroom and work with employers in the afternoon or on weekends.
One of the students who was honored at last week’s Employer Appreciation ceremony talked about his experience with the classroom part of the program.
Among other things, the course syllabus included sections on budgeting (students had to develop and maintain a budget throughout the year); credit, what's involved in renting an apartment, as well as employer expectations and how to prepare for a job interview.
At the conclusion of his remarks, I turned to the high school principal who was sitting next to me, and we said in unison, "every student should take this course."
Of course, that's probably not practical, but still...
In addition to their other classes, students meet one period per day in the classroom and work with employers in the afternoon or on weekends.
One of the students who was honored at last week’s Employer Appreciation ceremony talked about his experience with the classroom part of the program.
Among other things, the course syllabus included sections on budgeting (students had to develop and maintain a budget throughout the year); credit, what's involved in renting an apartment, as well as employer expectations and how to prepare for a job interview.
At the conclusion of his remarks, I turned to the high school principal who was sitting next to me, and we said in unison, "every student should take this course."
Of course, that's probably not practical, but still...
Monday, May 18, 2009
Math Wars
A couple of weeks ago, Steve Piazza requested that the current candidates for school board respond to the following question: Do you support the recommendation of the SCASD math coordinators that the 2nd edition of "Investigations" be adopted throughout the District as the core math curriculum? He has posted the responses on his web site.
My reply follows:
I fully support the recommendation to adopt the 2nd edition of "Investigations". The new edition will allow our teachers to build on the progress that our students have made over the past few years, while specifically addressing the aspects of the program that needed strengthening.
As I’ve stated previously, I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework. I also think that more can be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. The latest edition of Investigations Math addresses both of these issues.
The parental involvement piece is very important. Our children’s success depends on a partnership of students, teachers and parents; we should do everything we can to ensure that parents are fully engaged in their children’s education. I applaud the efforts of teachers, administrators and fellow board members who have reached out to address the legitimate concerns of parents, and the parents who have reached back.
We also need to recognize that for most of our elementary teachers, this was a new approach to math instruction. As with any new teaching strategy – particularly one that is being applied across an entire organization - even with good training, there is a learning curve. (As well there should be! Educators who aren’t continually learning and getting better at what they do are in the wrong business.)
While it is important to allow teachers to adapt their strategies and resources to what works best for particular students, it's also important that we maintain curricular consistency across the district. The improvements in the new edition mean that our teachers will be less dependent on outside resources.
From my personal perspective - as someone whose best subject in school was Math - this conceptual approach to Math instruction is a very welcome change. Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I excelled at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually.
It is a crime that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”. Forty years ago, it may have been sufficient for 10-20% of our students to be “good at math”. That is no longer acceptable; maintaining the status quo would have been a disservice to our students.
People are generally resistant to change, especially when the "way we used to do it" worked just fine for them. Clearly, if you're a university math professor, the "way we used to do it" worked exceedingly well for you.
But I also think there's an important distinction between having a deep knowledge in a particular field of study - as university professors have - and knowing how to impart that knowledge to others. Universities have struggled with this conundrum for generations.
If I need the solution to a difficult math problem, I'll go to a math professor. But if I need to know how to teach a math concept, I would look first to the professor in education who has that expertise.
Finally, the evidence in support of Investigations Math – as it is taught in the State College school district – is overwhelming. It would be irresponsible for the school board to ignore that. Parents have a right and an obligation to advocate for their children. As school board members, we have the obligation to advocate for everyone’s children.
My reply follows:
I fully support the recommendation to adopt the 2nd edition of "Investigations". The new edition will allow our teachers to build on the progress that our students have made over the past few years, while specifically addressing the aspects of the program that needed strengthening.
As I’ve stated previously, I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework. I also think that more can be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. The latest edition of Investigations Math addresses both of these issues.
The parental involvement piece is very important. Our children’s success depends on a partnership of students, teachers and parents; we should do everything we can to ensure that parents are fully engaged in their children’s education. I applaud the efforts of teachers, administrators and fellow board members who have reached out to address the legitimate concerns of parents, and the parents who have reached back.
We also need to recognize that for most of our elementary teachers, this was a new approach to math instruction. As with any new teaching strategy – particularly one that is being applied across an entire organization - even with good training, there is a learning curve. (As well there should be! Educators who aren’t continually learning and getting better at what they do are in the wrong business.)
While it is important to allow teachers to adapt their strategies and resources to what works best for particular students, it's also important that we maintain curricular consistency across the district. The improvements in the new edition mean that our teachers will be less dependent on outside resources.
From my personal perspective - as someone whose best subject in school was Math - this conceptual approach to Math instruction is a very welcome change. Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I excelled at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually.
It is a crime that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”. Forty years ago, it may have been sufficient for 10-20% of our students to be “good at math”. That is no longer acceptable; maintaining the status quo would have been a disservice to our students.
People are generally resistant to change, especially when the "way we used to do it" worked just fine for them. Clearly, if you're a university math professor, the "way we used to do it" worked exceedingly well for you.
But I also think there's an important distinction between having a deep knowledge in a particular field of study - as university professors have - and knowing how to impart that knowledge to others. Universities have struggled with this conundrum for generations.
If I need the solution to a difficult math problem, I'll go to a math professor. But if I need to know how to teach a math concept, I would look first to the professor in education who has that expertise.
Finally, the evidence in support of Investigations Math – as it is taught in the State College school district – is overwhelming. It would be irresponsible for the school board to ignore that. Parents have a right and an obligation to advocate for their children. As school board members, we have the obligation to advocate for everyone’s children.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Legislative Update: Charter schools
One more item from the advocacy conference in Harrisburg.
It was enlightening to hear from the respective chairs of the state House and Senate Education Committees, Rep. James Roebuck, and Senator Jeffrey Piccola.
Among others things, Senator Piccola is a strong supporter of the charter school movement.
When the Pennsylvania charter school law was passed in 1997, it was based on the premise that it would create opportunities for experimentation with educational innovation on a small scale, without the usual red tape. The result would be another option for parents, and if the innovation proved successful, perhaps a model for broader implementation.
(State College has a couple of good examples of this theory in practice: one charter school dedicated to project-based learning and the use of technology, another to foreign language instruction for elementary students.) The objection of local school boards is not to the theory, but that charter schools are funded predominantly through the local budget, even though local boards have little control over what charter schools do.
So the comment that turned heads was Senator Piccola's assertion that "if a charter school is ineffective, the local school board has the right not to renew their charter." While that statement is technically true, what he left out was the fact that PDE (the Pennsylvania Department of Education) has to give its approval anytime a school board declines a charter school application, or fails to renew one - and except in the most egregious of situations, that never happens.
School boards understand that if the "I"s and the "T"s have been dotted and crossed, they have little recourse. State College has learned from experience that PDE will overrule their decision on appeal, so it's not worth the time and taxpayer money to fight it.
During the Q and A, a school board member suggested that local schools be allowed to create their own charter schools (under the same basic premise of encouraging innovation). To which the Senator replied, "you already can." When challenged, the senator repeated his statement.
The language of the charter school law doesn’t permit this, but it doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, either. So perhaps, it is technically possible, like the aforementioned approval process. But it seemed a bit strange that the chair of the Senate Education Committee didn't seem to understand how the charter school law works in practice.
But he did say he would look into it.
Postscript: And indeed, he has. Just this week Piccola announced the need “for a comprehensive rewrite of our commonwealth’s Charter School Law, which I have made clear is one of my legislative priorities.” So we shall see.
It was enlightening to hear from the respective chairs of the state House and Senate Education Committees, Rep. James Roebuck, and Senator Jeffrey Piccola.
Among others things, Senator Piccola is a strong supporter of the charter school movement.
When the Pennsylvania charter school law was passed in 1997, it was based on the premise that it would create opportunities for experimentation with educational innovation on a small scale, without the usual red tape. The result would be another option for parents, and if the innovation proved successful, perhaps a model for broader implementation.
(State College has a couple of good examples of this theory in practice: one charter school dedicated to project-based learning and the use of technology, another to foreign language instruction for elementary students.) The objection of local school boards is not to the theory, but that charter schools are funded predominantly through the local budget, even though local boards have little control over what charter schools do.
So the comment that turned heads was Senator Piccola's assertion that "if a charter school is ineffective, the local school board has the right not to renew their charter." While that statement is technically true, what he left out was the fact that PDE (the Pennsylvania Department of Education) has to give its approval anytime a school board declines a charter school application, or fails to renew one - and except in the most egregious of situations, that never happens.
School boards understand that if the "I"s and the "T"s have been dotted and crossed, they have little recourse. State College has learned from experience that PDE will overrule their decision on appeal, so it's not worth the time and taxpayer money to fight it.
During the Q and A, a school board member suggested that local schools be allowed to create their own charter schools (under the same basic premise of encouraging innovation). To which the Senator replied, "you already can." When challenged, the senator repeated his statement.
The language of the charter school law doesn’t permit this, but it doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, either. So perhaps, it is technically possible, like the aforementioned approval process. But it seemed a bit strange that the chair of the Senate Education Committee didn't seem to understand how the charter school law works in practice.
But he did say he would look into it.
Postscript: And indeed, he has. Just this week Piccola announced the need “for a comprehensive rewrite of our commonwealth’s Charter School Law, which I have made clear is one of my legislative priorities.” So we shall see.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Legislative Update: GCAs
The other issue to generate a lot of heat at the Harrisburg conference was the agreement between PSBA and PDE to replace the GCAs with the Keystone exams (no acronym).
To recap: there had been enormous opposition to Governor Rendell's proposal to require ten Graduate Competency Assessments as a condition for a high school diploma in Pennsylvania. Educators opposed it, school boards opposed it (including a resolution by the State College school board) and legislators opposed it by overwhelming majorities in both houses.
None of this discouraged the governor, who doggedly continued to allocate funds to move his initiative forward, in spite of current budget constraints.
Then about six months ago, PDE commissioned a study by Penn State to evaluate the extent to which the graduation requirements of individual school districts aligned with state standards.
The result - which shouldn't have surprised anyone, really - was, shall we say, uneven. Some districts aligned well, some not-so-well, some districts didn't respond at all.
PSBA saw the handwriting on the wall and decided that it was time to make a deal.
In my opinion, the deal is actually pretty good. The key differences (improvements) in the Keystone exam proposal:
Nevertheless, some school board members appeared to be upset that they hadn't been consulted. (Myself, I was happy that someone took the initiative.) Others - I would call them the purists - seemed to argue against ever using a standardized test for any reason.
I'm not sure whether those arguments are valid, but they seem to ignore the political reality that, at the very least, we needed to give the governor a way to save face. Second, we have other issues to deal with. (It would be nice to talk about something else for a change.) Finally, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Some people just don't know how to declare victory and go home.
To recap: there had been enormous opposition to Governor Rendell's proposal to require ten Graduate Competency Assessments as a condition for a high school diploma in Pennsylvania. Educators opposed it, school boards opposed it (including a resolution by the State College school board) and legislators opposed it by overwhelming majorities in both houses.
None of this discouraged the governor, who doggedly continued to allocate funds to move his initiative forward, in spite of current budget constraints.
Then about six months ago, PDE commissioned a study by Penn State to evaluate the extent to which the graduation requirements of individual school districts aligned with state standards.
The result - which shouldn't have surprised anyone, really - was, shall we say, uneven. Some districts aligned well, some not-so-well, some districts didn't respond at all.
PSBA saw the handwriting on the wall and decided that it was time to make a deal.
In my opinion, the deal is actually pretty good. The key differences (improvements) in the Keystone exam proposal:
- The Keystone exams will be voluntary: districts are free to use some, all or none of them.
- Districts may continue to use multiple types of assessments for graduation purposes.
- PDE is required to provide technical help to districts who want to develop their own assessments.
- The criteria for determining the validity of local assessments will be made by a committee comprised equally of state and local school officials.
Nevertheless, some school board members appeared to be upset that they hadn't been consulted. (Myself, I was happy that someone took the initiative.) Others - I would call them the purists - seemed to argue against ever using a standardized test for any reason.
I'm not sure whether those arguments are valid, but they seem to ignore the political reality that, at the very least, we needed to give the governor a way to save face. Second, we have other issues to deal with. (It would be nice to talk about something else for a change.) Finally, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Some people just don't know how to declare victory and go home.
Legislative Update: District Consolidation
In a more logical world, David Davare's conference presentation would have been unnecessary. (Merger/Consolidation of School Districts: Does it save money and improve student achievement?) But the issue refuses to go away.
A key part of the session was the discussion of several pre-merger studies showing the potential for savings, one of which was produced by Standard & Poor. Not included in that study: the impact of salaries, benefits, transportation or debt service.
Then, with just a touch of irony, Davare added: "no post-merger studies have documented any savings."
What explains this?
Consider a "trivial" issue such as school mascots. Just think of the controversy, the effort, the administrative time - and the money - that would be expended coming up with new mascots, logos, colors, uniforms and signs for three schools who, by virtue of physical proximity, have probably been fierce rivals for decades. (I think “Bald Raiding Rams” has a nice ring to it; don’t you?)
When the last major state-wide consolidation occurred almost forty years ago, some districts were designated NSDs (Necessarily Small Districts). The necessity was related to geography: do you really want to bus your kids over the mountain in the middle of a western Pennsylvania winter?
Then there are the more substantive issues: teacher contracts that would have to be aligned across the new district – and not just by salary. You would also have to resolve different salary scales (the degree to which experience and education are compensated), benefits, and contract expiration dates. And that’s just one of the employee contracts that would have to be renegotiated. (Which do you think is more likely: would contracts migrate towards to high end or towards the low end of the merging districts?)
On top of that, every district has its own curriculum - would you toss out half your textbooks? Try to picture a 27-member school board deciding on who the new superintendent would be.
All of this ignores the fact that school districts already have a mechanism that allows them to pool resources: Intermediate Units were created specifically for that purpose. In addition, nothing prevents PDE from assisting those districts who think consolidation might be a good idea.
Overheard at breakfast the next day: if the governor was really serious about this, he wouldn't have waited until the last two years of his administration to bring it up.
It's a waste of everyone's time that we're giving this idea any attention at all.
A key part of the session was the discussion of several pre-merger studies showing the potential for savings, one of which was produced by Standard & Poor. Not included in that study: the impact of salaries, benefits, transportation or debt service.
Then, with just a touch of irony, Davare added: "no post-merger studies have documented any savings."
What explains this?
Consider a "trivial" issue such as school mascots. Just think of the controversy, the effort, the administrative time - and the money - that would be expended coming up with new mascots, logos, colors, uniforms and signs for three schools who, by virtue of physical proximity, have probably been fierce rivals for decades. (I think “Bald Raiding Rams” has a nice ring to it; don’t you?)
When the last major state-wide consolidation occurred almost forty years ago, some districts were designated NSDs (Necessarily Small Districts). The necessity was related to geography: do you really want to bus your kids over the mountain in the middle of a western Pennsylvania winter?
Then there are the more substantive issues: teacher contracts that would have to be aligned across the new district – and not just by salary. You would also have to resolve different salary scales (the degree to which experience and education are compensated), benefits, and contract expiration dates. And that’s just one of the employee contracts that would have to be renegotiated. (Which do you think is more likely: would contracts migrate towards to high end or towards the low end of the merging districts?)
On top of that, every district has its own curriculum - would you toss out half your textbooks? Try to picture a 27-member school board deciding on who the new superintendent would be.
All of this ignores the fact that school districts already have a mechanism that allows them to pool resources: Intermediate Units were created specifically for that purpose. In addition, nothing prevents PDE from assisting those districts who think consolidation might be a good idea.
Overheard at breakfast the next day: if the governor was really serious about this, he wouldn't have waited until the last two years of his administration to bring it up.
It's a waste of everyone's time that we're giving this idea any attention at all.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Legislative Update
As one might expect, the greatest interest at last month's advocacy conference in Harrisburg was generated by discussions about how Pennsylvania school districts would be impacted by the federal stimulus package.
Governor Rendell has proposed to use the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" (SFSF) portion of the stimulus money to fund years two and three of his "six-year plan to adequacy." (If you recall, the state released a study last year which indicated that the majority of Pennsylvania school districts were significantly underfunded, in terms of what it would take to provide a "free and adequate education" for every student. He proposed a six-year plan to make up the shortfall.)
This seems consistent with the spirit of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (i.e., the stimulus package). However, the state senate just voted in support of the "Rollback Plan" (as it was called then), which essentially uses the money to balance the state budget. Another proposal from the house side of the hill would set these funds aside to help pay down the upcoming pension spike. I suspect that neither idea is likely to meet with the approval of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
In any event, most school districts - as usual - are not likely to know how much money they will or won't get until after they have passed their budgets for next year.
All of this is moot for State College, which would see very little of this money under the governor's proposal, because our average spending per pupil is already just about where the costing-out study says it should be.
Governor Rendell has proposed to use the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" (SFSF) portion of the stimulus money to fund years two and three of his "six-year plan to adequacy." (If you recall, the state released a study last year which indicated that the majority of Pennsylvania school districts were significantly underfunded, in terms of what it would take to provide a "free and adequate education" for every student. He proposed a six-year plan to make up the shortfall.)
This seems consistent with the spirit of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (i.e., the stimulus package). However, the state senate just voted in support of the "Rollback Plan" (as it was called then), which essentially uses the money to balance the state budget. Another proposal from the house side of the hill would set these funds aside to help pay down the upcoming pension spike. I suspect that neither idea is likely to meet with the approval of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
In any event, most school districts - as usual - are not likely to know how much money they will or won't get until after they have passed their budgets for next year.
All of this is moot for State College, which would see very little of this money under the governor's proposal, because our average spending per pupil is already just about where the costing-out study says it should be.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The budget vote
As my readers probably know, I was one of two dissenters in the 7-2 vote in favor of the "proposed final budget" early Tuesday morning.
Because this issue has so many moving parts, it might not be entirely clear why a person voted as they did. Even if you voted "yes", it is likely that there are parts of the budget that you would like to change. If you voted "no", it is likely that there are large parts of the budget that you support. So an explanation might be useful.
I have two primary concerns with this budget.
Rather than using an "all-at-once" strategy, State College has been very deliberate in its approach to technology. As we've gradually increased the access that students and teachers have to computers in the classroom, teachers have had opportunities to develop and share ideas for improving instruction, and our students have benefited.
While it was never realistic for us to "fully-fund" our technology budget this year, I think it is important to do enough to maintain our momentum, which I believe the administration's modest recommendation would have accomplished.
My second concern was about the additional 1 1/2% tax increase, to be set aside for future payments into the retirement fund.
This is almost certainly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Unless the stock market has an amazing recovery (thereby boosting the value of the state pension fund), we will be facing a substantial increase in the district's contribution to employee pensions, beginning with FY2013.
I would normally be on the other side of this issue (that is, on the side of putting money aside that will be needed later) but given the current state of the economy, this strikes me as one of those times when it might be better to "pay me later." If the economy doesn't begin to improve by next year, then I think we'd have to begin to bite the bullet. But given all the effort that was made to minimize this year's tax increase, it strikes me as counter-productive to almost double that increase in order to pre-fund PSERS.
But reasonable people can disagree, and they did.
Because this issue has so many moving parts, it might not be entirely clear why a person voted as they did. Even if you voted "yes", it is likely that there are parts of the budget that you would like to change. If you voted "no", it is likely that there are large parts of the budget that you support. So an explanation might be useful.
I have two primary concerns with this budget.
Rather than using an "all-at-once" strategy, State College has been very deliberate in its approach to technology. As we've gradually increased the access that students and teachers have to computers in the classroom, teachers have had opportunities to develop and share ideas for improving instruction, and our students have benefited.
While it was never realistic for us to "fully-fund" our technology budget this year, I think it is important to do enough to maintain our momentum, which I believe the administration's modest recommendation would have accomplished.
My second concern was about the additional 1 1/2% tax increase, to be set aside for future payments into the retirement fund.
This is almost certainly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Unless the stock market has an amazing recovery (thereby boosting the value of the state pension fund), we will be facing a substantial increase in the district's contribution to employee pensions, beginning with FY2013.
I would normally be on the other side of this issue (that is, on the side of putting money aside that will be needed later) but given the current state of the economy, this strikes me as one of those times when it might be better to "pay me later." If the economy doesn't begin to improve by next year, then I think we'd have to begin to bite the bullet. But given all the effort that was made to minimize this year's tax increase, it strikes me as counter-productive to almost double that increase in order to pre-fund PSERS.
But reasonable people can disagree, and they did.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Technology, Citizenship, Learning
Several highlights from a recent board visit to Houserville Elementary School.
First, an example of the impact that technology is having on education:
Because the 5th grade class was reading “No Talking” by Andrew Clements, the school’s librarian thought it would be worthwhile to arrange for a visit by the author. Although that proved impractical due to weather and distance, Mardi persevered, and eventually arranged for a “Skype call” between the students and the author in the school library, with Mr. Clements projected onto the overhead screen. (Only a few years ago, this kind of video-conferencing was very expensive.) The students were thrilled, and the entire event took only an hour of everyone’s time (except, of course, Mardi’s).
A good example of student engagement/citizenship/leadership from a trio of 5th-grade students, who saw a big need for improvement in one of the community’s track facilities. They documented the problems with the track, complete with visuals, and presented their findings to the school’s PTO. Money was raised, the township was approached, and within a few months, repairs were completed.
And then there was the Math class...
First, an example of the impact that technology is having on education:
Because the 5th grade class was reading “No Talking” by Andrew Clements, the school’s librarian thought it would be worthwhile to arrange for a visit by the author. Although that proved impractical due to weather and distance, Mardi persevered, and eventually arranged for a “Skype call” between the students and the author in the school library, with Mr. Clements projected onto the overhead screen. (Only a few years ago, this kind of video-conferencing was very expensive.) The students were thrilled, and the entire event took only an hour of everyone’s time (except, of course, Mardi’s).
A good example of student engagement/citizenship/leadership from a trio of 5th-grade students, who saw a big need for improvement in one of the community’s track facilities. They documented the problems with the track, complete with visuals, and presented their findings to the school’s PTO. Money was raised, the township was approached, and within a few months, repairs were completed.
And then there was the Math class...
... Learning
And then there was the Math class...
…which began with the teacher saying to the students assembled on the carpet:
the number of sides in a pentagon, times
the number of sides in a square, plus
the number of days in a week
rounded to the nearest ten
What 2 numbers, when multiplied together, give you this result?
The hands in the room went up, and then in rapid succession: "2x15!" "3x10!" "5x6!"
A couple of things worth noting, for context:
These were 3rd graders
We saw neither paper nor pencils; all these calculations were done mentally, and quickly.
This was the warm up; the following exercises were harder and faster.
I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework. I also think that more could be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. (I believe the latest edition of “Investigations Math” addresses this issue.)
However, I have to say, as someone whose best subject in school was Math, this conceptual approach to Math instruction that began in State College a couple of years ago is the best thing since sliced bread.
Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I was good at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually. The only time I struggled (briefly) was with multiplication, until someone explained why you “carried the one”.
(I also had good teachers. My high school Calculus teacher spent the first day of class demonstrating how the theory of calculus was developed. Very cool. Woe to the student whose first exposure to calculus is the mechanics of derivatives.)
It is a crime against all that is good that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”.
An idea to consider: a Continuing Education course in “Investigations for Adults”.
You do the Math.
…which began with the teacher saying to the students assembled on the carpet:
the number of sides in a pentagon, times
the number of sides in a square, plus
the number of days in a week
rounded to the nearest ten
What 2 numbers, when multiplied together, give you this result?
The hands in the room went up, and then in rapid succession: "2x15!" "3x10!" "5x6!"
A couple of things worth noting, for context:
These were 3rd graders
We saw neither paper nor pencils; all these calculations were done mentally, and quickly.
This was the warm up; the following exercises were harder and faster.
I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework. I also think that more could be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. (I believe the latest edition of “Investigations Math” addresses this issue.)
However, I have to say, as someone whose best subject in school was Math, this conceptual approach to Math instruction that began in State College a couple of years ago is the best thing since sliced bread.
Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I was good at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually. The only time I struggled (briefly) was with multiplication, until someone explained why you “carried the one”.
(I also had good teachers. My high school Calculus teacher spent the first day of class demonstrating how the theory of calculus was developed. Very cool. Woe to the student whose first exposure to calculus is the mechanics of derivatives.)
It is a crime against all that is good that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”.
An idea to consider: a Continuing Education course in “Investigations for Adults”.
You do the Math.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Wikis and K12-university partnerships
In spite of the weather, I was glad I attended Saturday's "Symposium for Teaching and Learning with Technology" at the Penn Stater.
A highlight was a presentation by Dr. Kira Baker-Doyle of Penn State-Berks on the "Wiki Collaboration Project", in which she provided oversight for a partnership between ten elementary education interns from the University and ten classroom teachers in Cornwell Terrace Elementary School.
Kira saw this as a way to demonstrate the concept of the University as "an incubator of civic participation and democracy". For her students, this was an opportunity for service-learning: a way for them to apply their theoretical knowledge with active community involvement.
Hopefully, this project would help these pre-service teachers to develop a network of professional support before they entered the workforce; this would become a resource for their future professional development. (There's a growing recognition that an effective way for teachers to receive meaningful, ongoing professional development is for them to be connected to a diverse body of peers.)
For the university, this was a chance to see "education theory put into practice" and to address the disconnect between emerging research and the practical aspects of what's "on the ground."
It's an opportunity for K-12 schools to "get outside" of their school community and connect to information about emerging trends in the field; to experiment with different ways of delivering curriculum; and for teachers to generate ideas on how technology might be used in their classroom. (Teachers appreciated having a chance to partner with students who were clearly more digitally literate than they were.) For some teachers, it was an opportunity to become familiar with new theories of "21st century literacy".
The students began by observing the classroom, looking for practices that supported literacy. They posted their observations in a "wiki" that was edited by their fellow students, with comments added by the classroom teachers. The importance of "reflection" - the chance to compare notes with others on "what we have learned" - was a common theme throughout the conference.
For many of her students, collaborative writing was a new concept; they struggled with trying to merge different styles, with writing in the third person, and with wanting to maintain authorship/ownership of what they had written.
A highlight was a presentation by Dr. Kira Baker-Doyle of Penn State-Berks on the "Wiki Collaboration Project", in which she provided oversight for a partnership between ten elementary education interns from the University and ten classroom teachers in Cornwell Terrace Elementary School.
Kira saw this as a way to demonstrate the concept of the University as "an incubator of civic participation and democracy". For her students, this was an opportunity for service-learning: a way for them to apply their theoretical knowledge with active community involvement.
Hopefully, this project would help these pre-service teachers to develop a network of professional support before they entered the workforce; this would become a resource for their future professional development. (There's a growing recognition that an effective way for teachers to receive meaningful, ongoing professional development is for them to be connected to a diverse body of peers.)
For the university, this was a chance to see "education theory put into practice" and to address the disconnect between emerging research and the practical aspects of what's "on the ground."
It's an opportunity for K-12 schools to "get outside" of their school community and connect to information about emerging trends in the field; to experiment with different ways of delivering curriculum; and for teachers to generate ideas on how technology might be used in their classroom. (Teachers appreciated having a chance to partner with students who were clearly more digitally literate than they were.) For some teachers, it was an opportunity to become familiar with new theories of "21st century literacy".
The students began by observing the classroom, looking for practices that supported literacy. They posted their observations in a "wiki" that was edited by their fellow students, with comments added by the classroom teachers. The importance of "reflection" - the chance to compare notes with others on "what we have learned" - was a common theme throughout the conference.
For many of her students, collaborative writing was a new concept; they struggled with trying to merge different styles, with writing in the third person, and with wanting to maintain authorship/ownership of what they had written.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Go Green
Friday’s symposium opened with a presentation from Rachel Gutter of the U.S. Green Building Council on the Go Green Initiative. She began by defining a “green school” as one that “creates a healthy environment, conducive to learning, while saving energy, resources and money”. This will sound familiar to anyone who heard last August’s presentation by John Boecker of the 7group.
Among her other points:
By the way: afterwards, I shared with her the link to the State College “Board Resolution on Sustainability”. She later told me, “this is the best district green schools resolution I have ever seen, hands down.”
Among the recent developments on LEED certification, the twenty categories by which projects are measured are now weighted according to their relative impact on the environment, with regional climate variations taken into consideration. There are also new standards for renovations to existing buildings that recognize the tradeoff between the environmental options that are available with new construction versus the impact on the environment that comes from the manufacture of all new materials and the disposal of demolition waste.
The symposium concluded with several presentations that addressed opportunities of integrating the physical facility with academic curriculum.
As a salesman for Lucent (a lighting controls company), several years ago Steve Beede attended a school demonstration expecting to see how the newly installed system was saving the school energy and money. Instead, he saw a demonstration of innovative teaching: a science teacher with a hand-held device who could show her class, in real-time, the impact of opening and closing the blinds on energy consumption. (Adjusting the blinds automatically adjusted the lights.) He immediately redirected his career to the development of school energy curriculum. The video is worth watching.
Trung Le expounded on this idea of school buildings becoming the Third Teacher. Entire curriculum based on this premise now exist, some of which can be found at Greenovations.
Among her other points:
- Schools should be statements of the community's commitment to the environment.
- Building design should make it easy for the occupants to “act green."
- Just as today’s students are thought to be “digital natives” they are also “sustainability natives”; our children are growing up with a commitment to the environment that didn’t exist a generation ago.
- An important aspect of sustainability is durability. We should be asking "how many generations should a school last?" instead of "how many years?"
By the way: afterwards, I shared with her the link to the State College “Board Resolution on Sustainability”. She later told me, “this is the best district green schools resolution I have ever seen, hands down.”
Among the recent developments on LEED certification, the twenty categories by which projects are measured are now weighted according to their relative impact on the environment, with regional climate variations taken into consideration. There are also new standards for renovations to existing buildings that recognize the tradeoff between the environmental options that are available with new construction versus the impact on the environment that comes from the manufacture of all new materials and the disposal of demolition waste.
The symposium concluded with several presentations that addressed opportunities of integrating the physical facility with academic curriculum.
As a salesman for Lucent (a lighting controls company), several years ago Steve Beede attended a school demonstration expecting to see how the newly installed system was saving the school energy and money. Instead, he saw a demonstration of innovative teaching: a science teacher with a hand-held device who could show her class, in real-time, the impact of opening and closing the blinds on energy consumption. (Adjusting the blinds automatically adjusted the lights.) He immediately redirected his career to the development of school energy curriculum. The video is worth watching.
Trung Le expounded on this idea of school buildings becoming the Third Teacher. Entire curriculum based on this premise now exist, some of which can be found at Greenovations.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Building (design) basics
Several speakers at the school symposium addressed school design from the perspective of the individual classroom.
Any conversation about the impact of school climate on learning needs to consider the physical aspect. As important as good soil is to a farmer, a good learning environment requires:
Except in auditoriums, or when the teacher is especially soft-spoken, sound amplification systems are not the answer. If room acoustics are poor to begin with – a lot of hard surfaces that cause sound to reverberate - an amplification system only serves to amplify the problem.
One strategy is carpeting. The acoustical advantages of carpeting are obvious; a major concern has been the affect on air quality.
Granted, one has consider the source, but a spokesman for the carpet industry argued that much of the evidence against carpeting is the result of poor cleaning products (many of which act as a glue for dust, etc.) and inadequate or poorly maintained equipment. It would not surprise me if his claim turned out to be true: that many vacuum cleaners suck dirt out of the carpet only to release it right back into the air. A properly maintained carpet should act as an air filter. Something to think about..
Any conversation about the impact of school climate on learning needs to consider the physical aspect. As important as good soil is to a farmer, a good learning environment requires:
- comfort (furniture that encourages good posture and in which it is possible to sit for extended periods of time. It should be noted that some of the best classroom furniture I’ve experienced has been made primarily of plastic);
- natural, evenly diffused lighting that eliminates glare;
- temperature controls;
- good room acoustics.
Except in auditoriums, or when the teacher is especially soft-spoken, sound amplification systems are not the answer. If room acoustics are poor to begin with – a lot of hard surfaces that cause sound to reverberate - an amplification system only serves to amplify the problem.
One strategy is carpeting. The acoustical advantages of carpeting are obvious; a major concern has been the affect on air quality.
Granted, one has consider the source, but a spokesman for the carpet industry argued that much of the evidence against carpeting is the result of poor cleaning products (many of which act as a glue for dust, etc.) and inadequate or poorly maintained equipment. It would not surprise me if his claim turned out to be true: that many vacuum cleaners suck dirt out of the carpet only to release it right back into the air. A properly maintained carpet should act as an air filter. Something to think about..
Monday, April 13, 2009
Notes from NSBA: Professional Learning Communities
I was glad that my schedule allowed me to attend the pre-conference “schools symposium”, sponsored by McGraw-Hill. A mix of architects and educators heard a series of presentations on the impact that new educational and environmental initiatives are having on school building design.
Small (or Professional) Learning Communities was a relatively new concept when I first heard it about seven years ago. The idea is now well enough established that we have many good examples of new and renovated schools in which the building design supports the SLC concept. (Our facilities planner, Bill DeJong, is an advocate – he refers to them as “pods”.) Several board members visited Mason, Ohio last year to see one example for themselves.
The central idea is to make a school feel smaller to its students - and faculty - through organizational and building design, without sacrificing all the advantages of a comprehensive school. The intent is to create educational environments in which “the students all know one another” (they are missed when they are absent) and "all the faculty are able to sit around one table." This concept has been particularly helpful in large urban school districts that struggle with discipline, high dropout rates, and a lack of family support.
In response to these issues, research by the Gates Foundation concluded that the components of a successful high school experience are: rigor, relevance, and especially, relationships - the development of personal connections between and among students and faculty.
What resulted was the “small schools” concept: breaking large schools into pieces of 400-600 students each, in order to create more personalized environments. But as the Gates Foundation now acknowledges, reducing the overall size of a school is a strategy, not the final goal. We now see a spectrum of solutions tailored to individual communities, particularly at some traditionally successful suburban schools.
At one end of the spectrum are autonomous career academies housed in separate buildings, with student course selection limited to the offerings within their school. At the other end, students choose to identify with faculty and students of similar interest, but they are free to take classes from any of the “schools”. Under this design, it is emphasized to parents that their children are not choosing a career; rather, the choice of an “interest area” is intended to increase the student’s engagement to his/her education.
Beyond that, there is a great deal of variation. In many schools, the science labs are scattered throughout the "schools" so that science teachers have the opportunity to work with faculty from different subject areas. (One way to provide for collaboration within the science department is to locate labs near the "core".) Typically, but not always, there remains one football team and one drama club.
The architects were clear that there is no one "best" solution; each community must decide for itself. Also: flexibility is essential, so that the organization can continue to evolve as the school community learns what does, or doesn’t, work. (As part of their design plans, one school identified "one-year", "five-year" and "twenty-year” walls.)
The speakers noted that there is almost always some resistance to organizational change, driven by both personal and professional experience (especially when “the way we've always done it" has been mostly successful). The best way to create faculty enthusiasm for a different approach is to have them visit schools where these changes have been effectively implemented.
Small (or Professional) Learning Communities was a relatively new concept when I first heard it about seven years ago. The idea is now well enough established that we have many good examples of new and renovated schools in which the building design supports the SLC concept. (Our facilities planner, Bill DeJong, is an advocate – he refers to them as “pods”.) Several board members visited Mason, Ohio last year to see one example for themselves.
The central idea is to make a school feel smaller to its students - and faculty - through organizational and building design, without sacrificing all the advantages of a comprehensive school. The intent is to create educational environments in which “the students all know one another” (they are missed when they are absent) and "all the faculty are able to sit around one table." This concept has been particularly helpful in large urban school districts that struggle with discipline, high dropout rates, and a lack of family support.
In response to these issues, research by the Gates Foundation concluded that the components of a successful high school experience are: rigor, relevance, and especially, relationships - the development of personal connections between and among students and faculty.
What resulted was the “small schools” concept: breaking large schools into pieces of 400-600 students each, in order to create more personalized environments. But as the Gates Foundation now acknowledges, reducing the overall size of a school is a strategy, not the final goal. We now see a spectrum of solutions tailored to individual communities, particularly at some traditionally successful suburban schools.
At one end of the spectrum are autonomous career academies housed in separate buildings, with student course selection limited to the offerings within their school. At the other end, students choose to identify with faculty and students of similar interest, but they are free to take classes from any of the “schools”. Under this design, it is emphasized to parents that their children are not choosing a career; rather, the choice of an “interest area” is intended to increase the student’s engagement to his/her education.
Beyond that, there is a great deal of variation. In many schools, the science labs are scattered throughout the "schools" so that science teachers have the opportunity to work with faculty from different subject areas. (One way to provide for collaboration within the science department is to locate labs near the "core".) Typically, but not always, there remains one football team and one drama club.
The architects were clear that there is no one "best" solution; each community must decide for itself. Also: flexibility is essential, so that the organization can continue to evolve as the school community learns what does, or doesn’t, work. (As part of their design plans, one school identified "one-year", "five-year" and "twenty-year” walls.)
The speakers noted that there is almost always some resistance to organizational change, driven by both personal and professional experience (especially when “the way we've always done it" has been mostly successful). The best way to create faculty enthusiasm for a different approach is to have them visit schools where these changes have been effectively implemented.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Seeing the future
Some of the things that could be seen at Park Forest Elementary School today:
During a morning set aside for professional development, the art teacher demonstrated how regular classroom teachers could incorporate art into the environmental curriculum at each grade level. This was an example of professional development that was both dynamic (the teachers were enthusiastic) and relevant - particularly so, because the groundbreaking ceremony for the school's wetlands project would be held that afternoon.
This is exciting on several levels.
First, educators are beginning to recognize the importance of art instruction, not just for its own merits, but for how it enhances and improves learning in the more "traditional" areas.
For example, research is starting to show that opportunities for music instruction improve student academic achievement in other areas. Even more interesting, by incorporating the arts within traditional instruction, more pathways in the brain are engaged during the learning process. As a result, the subject material is learned more deeply. (It was not an accident that you learned your "ABCs" to music.)
This is also a good example of service- and project-based learning. Students will be actively involved in both the creation and the study of the wetlands. By having their learning placed within the context of "meaningful" work, not only are they acquiring important civic skills and community awareness, their learning is enhanced due to their heightened level of engagement.
At the conclusion of the ground-breaking ceremony, an all-school meeting was held that was organized and run - almost entirely - by fifth graders. These meetings, which are held every week, are a vehicle for creating school community, as well as an excellent opportunity for the fifth-graders to learn and exercise leadership skills.
These all-school meetings also a key part of a school climate that encourages and values input from all its "citizens". (Several years ago, dissatisfaction with how the lunchroom was run was resolved by soliciting input from everyone in the school community. Representatives from each grade level continue to meet with the principal regularly in order to monitor progress.)
During a morning set aside for professional development, the art teacher demonstrated how regular classroom teachers could incorporate art into the environmental curriculum at each grade level. This was an example of professional development that was both dynamic (the teachers were enthusiastic) and relevant - particularly so, because the groundbreaking ceremony for the school's wetlands project would be held that afternoon.
This is exciting on several levels.
First, educators are beginning to recognize the importance of art instruction, not just for its own merits, but for how it enhances and improves learning in the more "traditional" areas.
For example, research is starting to show that opportunities for music instruction improve student academic achievement in other areas. Even more interesting, by incorporating the arts within traditional instruction, more pathways in the brain are engaged during the learning process. As a result, the subject material is learned more deeply. (It was not an accident that you learned your "ABCs" to music.)
This is also a good example of service- and project-based learning. Students will be actively involved in both the creation and the study of the wetlands. By having their learning placed within the context of "meaningful" work, not only are they acquiring important civic skills and community awareness, their learning is enhanced due to their heightened level of engagement.
At the conclusion of the ground-breaking ceremony, an all-school meeting was held that was organized and run - almost entirely - by fifth graders. These meetings, which are held every week, are a vehicle for creating school community, as well as an excellent opportunity for the fifth-graders to learn and exercise leadership skills.
These all-school meetings also a key part of a school climate that encourages and values input from all its "citizens". (Several years ago, dissatisfaction with how the lunchroom was run was resolved by soliciting input from everyone in the school community. Representatives from each grade level continue to meet with the principal regularly in order to monitor progress.)
Friday, March 20, 2009
School "climate"
I went a bit out of my way to attend the panel discussion on school climate at the Federal Relations Network conference in Washington, but it was encouraging to see “climate” become a component of the national legislative agenda. For me, this was additional evidence that a national education consensus is emerging.
Broadly speaking, “school climate” refers to “the character and quality of school life”; that is, the educational environment that encourages – or inhibits – learning in school. It is as important, and should be given as much attention, as a farmer gives to the quality of his soil.
However, the national data on school climate should concern us:
Other ways to recognize a positive school environment:
Broadly speaking, “school climate” refers to “the character and quality of school life”; that is, the educational environment that encourages – or inhibits – learning in school. It is as important, and should be given as much attention, as a farmer gives to the quality of his soil.
However, the national data on school climate should concern us:
- Less that 50% of students believe their teachers care about them as individuals.
- Less that 50% feel that they have a teacher who they can talk to if they have a problem.
- 2 out of 3 students believe that students do not respect one another.
- 20% of students feel that they are never recognized for their accomplishments.
- As students move from middle to high school, all of these problems get worse.
- the norms, goals, values of the school (What is acceptable? What are the expectations?)
- the quality of interpersonal relationships (student/student, student/teacher, teacher/teacher)
- teaching and learning practices
- the school’s leadership and organizational structure
Other ways to recognize a positive school environment:
- students – and teachers - are engaged and respected;
- students, families and educators are working towards shared, and jointly developed, goals;
- nearly everyone is contributing to the school and the care of the physical environment.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The "Junk Food" Dilemma
Senator Tom Harkin, the keynote speaker at last month’s FRN conference, has long been an advocate for public education, particularly in his support for "full-funding" of IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act). So it was not a surprise that the delegates at the convention received him enthusiastically.
But the room got quiet when he began to talk about federal nutrition standards for all food sold in school – including vending machines, which is a source of income for many school districts.
A similar dynamic occurred several years ago when former President Bill Clinton addressed the National School Board Association’s annual conference. Instead of providing the delegates with the “give-the-administration-hell” speech they expected, he spent most of his time talking about childhood obesity, and what role school boards might have in addressing the issue. He received polite applause.
Part of Harkin’s proposal is a significant expansion of a program he initiated some years ago, which gives school children exposure to locally-grown and creatively-prepared fresh fruit and vegetables. State College is one of a relative handful of schools nationwide that has had an opportunity to participate – to rave reviews, particularly from the students.
The principle behind school board resistance to federal nutrition standards – which Harkin acknowledged – is “local control”. In short, local boards don’t like being told what to do by the federal government.
It should be noted, as Harkin did, that this principle has merit. A top-down, one-size-fits-all approach (NCLB, for example) often results in bad policy because it ignores the experience and insight of the people who are the closest to the issue, as well as the fact that every school is different. Local school boards are more likely to understand and are in better position to respond to the concerns of the community.
But I think it is possible to take even a good principle too far. To my knowledge, “local control” is not carved in stone, and shouldn’t be. The deeper principal: what is in the best interest of our students?
It could be argued that schools should be a safe haven from exposure to “junk”, hi-fat, hi-sugar foods. It is certainly true that the quality of food that children eat has an effect on their ability to learn. So perhaps federal legislation is needed to remove from school boards the temptation to balance their food service budgets with the sale of potato chips.
I think it’s at least worth a discussion, which is why I was one of the few who applauded.
But the room got quiet when he began to talk about federal nutrition standards for all food sold in school – including vending machines, which is a source of income for many school districts.
A similar dynamic occurred several years ago when former President Bill Clinton addressed the National School Board Association’s annual conference. Instead of providing the delegates with the “give-the-administration-hell” speech they expected, he spent most of his time talking about childhood obesity, and what role school boards might have in addressing the issue. He received polite applause.
Part of Harkin’s proposal is a significant expansion of a program he initiated some years ago, which gives school children exposure to locally-grown and creatively-prepared fresh fruit and vegetables. State College is one of a relative handful of schools nationwide that has had an opportunity to participate – to rave reviews, particularly from the students.
The principle behind school board resistance to federal nutrition standards – which Harkin acknowledged – is “local control”. In short, local boards don’t like being told what to do by the federal government.
It should be noted, as Harkin did, that this principle has merit. A top-down, one-size-fits-all approach (NCLB, for example) often results in bad policy because it ignores the experience and insight of the people who are the closest to the issue, as well as the fact that every school is different. Local school boards are more likely to understand and are in better position to respond to the concerns of the community.
But I think it is possible to take even a good principle too far. To my knowledge, “local control” is not carved in stone, and shouldn’t be. The deeper principal: what is in the best interest of our students?
It could be argued that schools should be a safe haven from exposure to “junk”, hi-fat, hi-sugar foods. It is certainly true that the quality of food that children eat has an effect on their ability to learn. So perhaps federal legislation is needed to remove from school boards the temptation to balance their food service budgets with the sale of potato chips.
I think it’s at least worth a discussion, which is why I was one of the few who applauded.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Petitioning the government
Tuesday, Mar 3, 2009
I spent the first weekend of February – only ten days after the inauguration and just as negotiations were beginning over the economic stimulus package - at the Federal Relations Network (FRN) conference in Washington, D.C.. It was an extraordinary time to be in the capitol.
The FRN is the branch of the National School Boards Association that is responsible for influencing federal education policy. Having school board members from across the country speaking with nearly every legislator, on the same day, is a good way to have an impact.
School board members make unusual ‘lobbyists’ in that they don’t typically speak as partisans or on their own behalf. Because they are seldom endorsed by political parties when they run for office, they are not beholden to a particular political perspective.
For example, school board members are not necessarily aligned with the teacher unions, with whom they have to negotiate every few years. Rather, they represent the entire education community, students in particular.
It’s essential that our representatives in Harrisburg and Washington hear from constituents who are not only well-informed, but who also understand the impact that state and federal policy has at the level of the local school. It doesn’t hurt that we share with them the perspective and experience of being an elected official. Considering the overwhelming spectrum of issues about which our representatives need to be knowledgeable, I don’t think you can overstate the value of providing them with an opportunity to hear a perspective that is relatively unbiased.
I’m of the opinion that while school board members are primarily accountable to their local communities, we are also citizens – as is everyone - of the broader community, and therefore we have a responsibility to be engaged at the state and national level. It’s part of how we create an informed national education policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)