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:

• 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.

(An editorial aside: In my humble opinion, Pennsylvania will have entered the 21st century when these competencies are measured by the Keystone exams.) Which is a nice segue to:

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.

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. 

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?

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.