A fellow “school board blogger” from the eastern part of the state wrote to me recently; in his note he mentioned the keynote speech from PSBA’s October convention, given by Tony Wagner. I had intended to write about this, so my thanks to him for the reminder.
(There aren’t many of us, so you should check out Jim’s blog, here)
What is the ‘crisis’ in American education? What's the problem we’re trying to solve?
Wagner maintains that the education system is not so much “failing” (although there are places where it clearly is) as it is obsolete. This is due, in part, because we have failed to consistently ask this question on behalf of students: “how will this be useful to me?”
It has been true since the dawn of education that students are more likely to learn when they have an intrinsic motivation to do so.
It is also true that in order to make the best possible use of a limited resource - instructional time – we need to periodically evaluate what is important. (A couple of obvious examples: 40 years ago it was important to learn cursive writing and long division. Not so much, now.)
Wagner’s thinking is consistent with that of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which I’ve written about previously. But to P21’s “4 Cs” of critical-thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity, he adds initiative and adaptability. In this century, these will be survival skills.
Particularly useful was his refinement of the concept of Critical Thinking, which he calls “habits of mind”. In his view, critical thinking skills include:
• the ability to ask good questions
• an awareness of various viewpoints
• the ability to weigh evidence in support of different arguments
• the ability to assess social value
• an understanding of cause and effect
• an ability to use conjecture; to ask, "what if?” questions
If we want to get serious about accountability, we will have to find ways to measure the things we think are important. Wagner believes there are already some pretty good assessment tools out there; he mentioned the on-line College and Work Readiness test as one example.
Beyond that, the way to make the evaluation process more rigorous is to have teachers develop performance standards for Critical-thinking, Communication skills, etc. What does “mastery of communication skills” look like?
Clearly, this runs counter to the current movement of easily administered, mass-produced testing. But if this approach seems impractical to you, consider this: when making critical business decisions - such as whom to hire - businesses don’t rely on standardized, fill-in-the-bubble tests; they use "informed human judgment."
In addition, if we believe that collaboration is an important skill for students to have, then every teacher should be on a team for collaborative learning, as well. (This is already happening locally, as I learned on a recent board visit to Easterly Parkway Elementary.)
A couple of Wagner’s other recommendations:
• Every student should have an adult coach.
• Student and teacher video portfolios
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
There is no such thing as multi-tasking
You pre-GenXer's can stop feeling intimidated. The apparent ability of today's student to do six things at once is only an illusion. This is a key insight from the fourth chapter of “Brain Rules”: it is only possible for the brain to pay attention to one thing at a time.
"We are biologically incapable of processing (multiple) attention-rich inputs simultaneously."
Those who appear able to jump from English assignment to Facebook to iChat and back are actually disengaging and reengaging their brains at each shift, after the brain determines what is needed for the new task. This is highly inefficient.
The exception is that it is possible to do two things at once if one activity can run on 'auto-pilot' - that is, if you’re not really paying attention to it.
For example, a lot of people drive with their brain on auto-pilot, which is just fine until the person in the next lane does something unexpected. If you're going to talk on a cell phone while behind the wheel, you may as well have a couple of beers first.
But I digress.
Listening to music while studying might actually be a good idea. Apparently, this creates an association that the brain can later use to recall stored information. An interesting implication of this principle is that a stimulating classroom environment – one perhaps, with a view of the outdoors – instead of encouraging daydreaming, is actually more conducive to learning than a room with four bare walls.
There is also a danger of force-feeding more information than the brain can fully process, such as might happen in some AP courses. (Did I say that out loud?) It might be possible to retain information long enough to pass an exam, but how much will the brain retain a week later? A year later? (If the answer is "not much", how important was it in the first place? Something to think about.) Further, the brain needs periodic breaks in order to digest any new information, which is why it is necessary to build time for reflection into the learning process.
A third insight is that the brain appears programmed to ‘tune out’ after about ten minutes – humans have a low threshold for ‘boring’. So a good lecturer has to do something every ten minutes or so to reengage the audience.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the most effective way to get the brain to pay attention is to incite emotion – fear, laughter, surprise, etc.. The emotional trigger sends a message to the brain: “This is important! Remember this!”, which is why events that are associated with intense emotion can be remembered in detail many years later.
"We are biologically incapable of processing (multiple) attention-rich inputs simultaneously."
Those who appear able to jump from English assignment to Facebook to iChat and back are actually disengaging and reengaging their brains at each shift, after the brain determines what is needed for the new task. This is highly inefficient.
The exception is that it is possible to do two things at once if one activity can run on 'auto-pilot' - that is, if you’re not really paying attention to it.
For example, a lot of people drive with their brain on auto-pilot, which is just fine until the person in the next lane does something unexpected. If you're going to talk on a cell phone while behind the wheel, you may as well have a couple of beers first.
But I digress.
Listening to music while studying might actually be a good idea. Apparently, this creates an association that the brain can later use to recall stored information. An interesting implication of this principle is that a stimulating classroom environment – one perhaps, with a view of the outdoors – instead of encouraging daydreaming, is actually more conducive to learning than a room with four bare walls.
There is also a danger of force-feeding more information than the brain can fully process, such as might happen in some AP courses. (Did I say that out loud?) It might be possible to retain information long enough to pass an exam, but how much will the brain retain a week later? A year later? (If the answer is "not much", how important was it in the first place? Something to think about.) Further, the brain needs periodic breaks in order to digest any new information, which is why it is necessary to build time for reflection into the learning process.
A third insight is that the brain appears programmed to ‘tune out’ after about ten minutes – humans have a low threshold for ‘boring’. So a good lecturer has to do something every ten minutes or so to reengage the audience.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the most effective way to get the brain to pay attention is to incite emotion – fear, laughter, surprise, etc.. The emotional trigger sends a message to the brain: “This is important! Remember this!”, which is why events that are associated with intense emotion can be remembered in detail many years later.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Brain Rules and Empathy
Medina's third chapter talks about the enormous variations in how individual human brains are wired. Some of this is genetic, but much of it is experiential; the result of the constant rewiring of our brains as we process new information and experiences. Similar information is often stored in completely different parts of the brain from one person to another.
We have also known for years - since Howard Gardner, at least - that people can be 'intelligent' in very different ways (little of which, I feel obliged to add, is measured by standardized tests.)
The result of different brain wiring is that every person approaches and learns new information somewhat differently; hence, the need for 'differentiated instruction'. A good teacher understands this about his students, and that the way he learned best is not necessarily the best way to teach.
Teachers, therefore, need to have strong skills of empathy – the ability to see and understand things from another point of view.
We ordinarily don't see empathy as a skill - you either have it or you don't, to varying degrees. (This perception is probably connected to the widely held belief that teachers are born and not made - most recently articulated by Bill Gates, who should be more careful about what he says.)
But the idea of 'learning' to be empathetic becomes more plausible once you get past the idea that this is not just another way of saying "being a nice person". (Although being nice helps.) Strictly speaking, empathy is the ability to understand what another person is thinking and feeling. 'Being nice' is what you might do with that information. For example, good poker players are, in a sense, highly empathetic - but not necessarily "nice".
Another important human variation is the rate at which the brain develops. If you've ever seen a third grade class picture, you were not surprised to see some students standing fully head and shoulders above others. Why would we think there isn't similar variation in brain development?
And yet we have an educational system that has been designed on the premise that every eight-year-old "should" be at the same place in intellectual development. Perhaps we need to rethink this.
We have also known for years - since Howard Gardner, at least - that people can be 'intelligent' in very different ways (little of which, I feel obliged to add, is measured by standardized tests.)
The result of different brain wiring is that every person approaches and learns new information somewhat differently; hence, the need for 'differentiated instruction'. A good teacher understands this about his students, and that the way he learned best is not necessarily the best way to teach.
Teachers, therefore, need to have strong skills of empathy – the ability to see and understand things from another point of view.
We ordinarily don't see empathy as a skill - you either have it or you don't, to varying degrees. (This perception is probably connected to the widely held belief that teachers are born and not made - most recently articulated by Bill Gates, who should be more careful about what he says.)
But the idea of 'learning' to be empathetic becomes more plausible once you get past the idea that this is not just another way of saying "being a nice person". (Although being nice helps.) Strictly speaking, empathy is the ability to understand what another person is thinking and feeling. 'Being nice' is what you might do with that information. For example, good poker players are, in a sense, highly empathetic - but not necessarily "nice".
Another important human variation is the rate at which the brain develops. If you've ever seen a third grade class picture, you were not surprised to see some students standing fully head and shoulders above others. Why would we think there isn't similar variation in brain development?
And yet we have an educational system that has been designed on the premise that every eight-year-old "should" be at the same place in intellectual development. Perhaps we need to rethink this.
Friday, October 29, 2010
More brain rules
The second chapter of Medina's book, "Brain Rules," speaks directly to the current debate in education over whether it is more important to emphasize basic skills and knowledge, or the development of higher-order thinking skills.
The answer, of course, is not either/or, it's both. Students have to develop basic skills along with a data-base of essential information - and they have to develop the capacity to use that information in useful and creative ways.
Millions of years of evolution have developed in humans a huge capacity for improvisation – for "thinking on our feet". Our very survival as a species depended on it; in fact, our increased brain capacity, compared with other mammals, has more than compensated for a relative lack of speed and strength (and for the fact that humans have a very extended, vulnerable, childhood during which our brains continue to grow and develop.)
It is also worth noting that for the first time in history, there is more information available than the human brain has the ability to store, so it is becoming increasingly important that we learn how to access the information that is out there.
Any learning environment that develops only the database of basic knowledge, or only our improvisatory instincts, ignores half of human ability and will fail to develop children to their full potential. As the Partnership for 21st Century Skills takes pains to say: we have to figure out how to merge the traditional "three Rs" with the "four Cs" of creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical-thinking.
Another advantage of increased brain size is that it appears to have given humans a unique capacity for symbolic reasoning – which, in turn, has enhanced our ability to communicate with others, and thus to collaborate on common goals.
In evolutionary terms, there are two ways to defeat a potential predator: 1) become bigger, faster or stronger, or 2) develop cooperative arrangements with others to essentially the same effect.
93% of communication is non-verbal – and, it should be noted, not easily tested – but the ability to interpret non-verbal cues is essential to understanding the motivations of others and to the forming of useful partnerships.
Collaboration has been a big part of how we’ve survived so far, and will be a big part of how we survive in the future. We had better make sure that our children learn how to do that.
The answer, of course, is not either/or, it's both. Students have to develop basic skills along with a data-base of essential information - and they have to develop the capacity to use that information in useful and creative ways.
Millions of years of evolution have developed in humans a huge capacity for improvisation – for "thinking on our feet". Our very survival as a species depended on it; in fact, our increased brain capacity, compared with other mammals, has more than compensated for a relative lack of speed and strength (and for the fact that humans have a very extended, vulnerable, childhood during which our brains continue to grow and develop.)
It is also worth noting that for the first time in history, there is more information available than the human brain has the ability to store, so it is becoming increasingly important that we learn how to access the information that is out there.
Any learning environment that develops only the database of basic knowledge, or only our improvisatory instincts, ignores half of human ability and will fail to develop children to their full potential. As the Partnership for 21st Century Skills takes pains to say: we have to figure out how to merge the traditional "three Rs" with the "four Cs" of creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical-thinking.
Another advantage of increased brain size is that it appears to have given humans a unique capacity for symbolic reasoning – which, in turn, has enhanced our ability to communicate with others, and thus to collaborate on common goals.
In evolutionary terms, there are two ways to defeat a potential predator: 1) become bigger, faster or stronger, or 2) develop cooperative arrangements with others to essentially the same effect.
93% of communication is non-verbal – and, it should be noted, not easily tested – but the ability to interpret non-verbal cues is essential to understanding the motivations of others and to the forming of useful partnerships.
Collaboration has been a big part of how we’ve survived so far, and will be a big part of how we survive in the future. We had better make sure that our children learn how to do that.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Brain Rules
Some time at the beach and airport terminals allowed me to catch up on my reading. In "Brain Rules", John Medina has consolidated the most recent research on how the human brain works, and offered some suggestions/implications for how this might affect education.
Not to state the obvious, but if education is essentially about “learning” then it makes sense to have a good understanding of how the brain processes information – how it learns – and what factors might influence that process, both positively and negatively. Wouldn’t it be something if instructional methodology was designed explicitly according to how our brains work? If future teachers understood the relevant brain science?
Fortunately, most of us have known teachers who instinctively taught according to these brain “rules”. And much of this is not new - many of these ideas will bring to mind your mother’s common sense. What’s new is the research documentation. My suggestion is to read the book for yourself, or visit the website: www.brainrules.net where you can find the research that backs up their conclusions. But allow me to share the ideas that jumped out to me.
The first chapter specifically addresses the value of physical activity. This is particularly relevant because of the recent federal proposal that would mandate thirty minutes of physical activity in each school day.
This has generated some controversy: in the current climate of NCLB and the overriding pressure of test scores, where does one find the time to meet another mandate? But to me, it is – pardon the expression – a no-brainer. And it turns out that there’s good research in support of regular physical activity for students (and other learners, as well).
“In a recent study, children jogged for thirty minutes two or three times a week. After twelve weeks, their cognitive performance had improved significantly… When the exercise program was withdrawn, the scores plummeted back to their pre-experiment levels.” (p. 15)
In other words, if you want to increase your test scores, provide students with opportunities to exercise.
“Kids pay better attention to their subjects when they’ve been active. … they are less likely to be disruptive in terms of classroom behavior... (They) have higher self-esteem, less depression, less anxiety. All of those things can impair academic performance.” (p.18)
As I mentioned during a recent board discussion – and while I’m certainly supportive of structured physical education - the proposed regulation doesn’t mandate how the students get their exercise. Several vigorous walks around the school each day might be one way to do it.
It turns out your mother was right: “exercise gets blood to your brain” (bringing it glucose for energy and oxygen to soak up left-over toxic electrons.) Also: aerobic exercise just twice a week cuts your risk of Alzheimer’s by sixty percent.
Not to state the obvious, but if education is essentially about “learning” then it makes sense to have a good understanding of how the brain processes information – how it learns – and what factors might influence that process, both positively and negatively. Wouldn’t it be something if instructional methodology was designed explicitly according to how our brains work? If future teachers understood the relevant brain science?
Fortunately, most of us have known teachers who instinctively taught according to these brain “rules”. And much of this is not new - many of these ideas will bring to mind your mother’s common sense. What’s new is the research documentation. My suggestion is to read the book for yourself, or visit the website: www.brainrules.net where you can find the research that backs up their conclusions. But allow me to share the ideas that jumped out to me.
The first chapter specifically addresses the value of physical activity. This is particularly relevant because of the recent federal proposal that would mandate thirty minutes of physical activity in each school day.
This has generated some controversy: in the current climate of NCLB and the overriding pressure of test scores, where does one find the time to meet another mandate? But to me, it is – pardon the expression – a no-brainer. And it turns out that there’s good research in support of regular physical activity for students (and other learners, as well).
“In a recent study, children jogged for thirty minutes two or three times a week. After twelve weeks, their cognitive performance had improved significantly… When the exercise program was withdrawn, the scores plummeted back to their pre-experiment levels.” (p. 15)
In other words, if you want to increase your test scores, provide students with opportunities to exercise.
“Kids pay better attention to their subjects when they’ve been active. … they are less likely to be disruptive in terms of classroom behavior... (They) have higher self-esteem, less depression, less anxiety. All of those things can impair academic performance.” (p.18)
As I mentioned during a recent board discussion – and while I’m certainly supportive of structured physical education - the proposed regulation doesn’t mandate how the students get their exercise. Several vigorous walks around the school each day might be one way to do it.
It turns out your mother was right: “exercise gets blood to your brain” (bringing it glucose for energy and oxygen to soak up left-over toxic electrons.) Also: aerobic exercise just twice a week cuts your risk of Alzheimer’s by sixty percent.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
More on Testing
This may be familiar ground, but an article by Richard Rothstein in American School Board Journal made me think it's worth repeating, particularly in light of Pennsylvania’s ongoing march towards state-wide “Keystone exams”.
An argument you occasionally hear is that schools should be "run more like a business". But as Rothstein pointed out, performance pay in the private sector is seldom based on strictly quantifiable measures of how much is produced.
In fact, he gave a number of examples of how perverse incentives are sometimes built into systems.
For example, if colleges are ranked according to how "selective" they are, they'll work at getting more students to apply, just so they can turn them down.
A classic example: factories in the Soviet Union were rewarded/punished according to how many shoes they produced. But because material was in short supply, they produced a lot of very small shoes - in sizes nobody wanted.
The consequence for education: if schools are measured strictly, and with important consequences, by the percentage of their students who reach a certain threshold (such as "proficient"), they will be tempted to devote a disproportionate share of their resources to the students just below the threshold, at the risk of ignoring everyone else.
Here’s another: in many high schools, "college-prep" English courses are designed to help students do well on the standardized tests (with their emphasis on grammar, which is easily testable) that will help them get into college - but doesn't provide the skills that will make them successful in a freshman-year English course.
What's the moral of the story? In part: not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important.
When it comes to assessment, the United States is an international outlier. As Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond has shown, many nations with better and more equitable educational outcomes test far less than we do. They typically test just one to three times before high school graduation, and use multiple-choice questions sparingly, if at all. Excessive testing wastes resources and fosters the use of cheap, low-level tests, while adding high stakes and potentially narrowing the curriculum. The results provide little instructional value to students, teachers, schools, or districts.
Arne Duncan is beginning to suggest that he understands this: “Only by moving beyond basic skills and bubble tests can children develop the critical thinking skills that will one day give them the ability to compete successfully in our increasingly global, increasingly competitive international economy." It still remains to be seen whether the policy will match the rhetoric.
So here's the question: Is it possible to assess critical thinking, innovation, and communication skills on standardized tests? If not, why are we going down this road?
An argument you occasionally hear is that schools should be "run more like a business". But as Rothstein pointed out, performance pay in the private sector is seldom based on strictly quantifiable measures of how much is produced.
In fact, he gave a number of examples of how perverse incentives are sometimes built into systems.
For example, if colleges are ranked according to how "selective" they are, they'll work at getting more students to apply, just so they can turn them down.
A classic example: factories in the Soviet Union were rewarded/punished according to how many shoes they produced. But because material was in short supply, they produced a lot of very small shoes - in sizes nobody wanted.
The consequence for education: if schools are measured strictly, and with important consequences, by the percentage of their students who reach a certain threshold (such as "proficient"), they will be tempted to devote a disproportionate share of their resources to the students just below the threshold, at the risk of ignoring everyone else.
Here’s another: in many high schools, "college-prep" English courses are designed to help students do well on the standardized tests (with their emphasis on grammar, which is easily testable) that will help them get into college - but doesn't provide the skills that will make them successful in a freshman-year English course.
What's the moral of the story? In part: not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important.
When it comes to assessment, the United States is an international outlier. As Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond has shown, many nations with better and more equitable educational outcomes test far less than we do. They typically test just one to three times before high school graduation, and use multiple-choice questions sparingly, if at all. Excessive testing wastes resources and fosters the use of cheap, low-level tests, while adding high stakes and potentially narrowing the curriculum. The results provide little instructional value to students, teachers, schools, or districts.
Arne Duncan is beginning to suggest that he understands this: “Only by moving beyond basic skills and bubble tests can children develop the critical thinking skills that will one day give them the ability to compete successfully in our increasingly global, increasingly competitive international economy." It still remains to be seen whether the policy will match the rhetoric.
So here's the question: Is it possible to assess critical thinking, innovation, and communication skills on standardized tests? If not, why are we going down this road?
Friday, July 2, 2010
What makes a good teacher?
I'd like to bring your attention to two recent articles that reflect on themes I find myself returning to periodically.
The first speaks to the importance of providing teachers with meaningful opportunities for collaboration with their peers: Teaching Commission Pushes Collaborative Learning Teams.
The second article talks about the value of incorporating the arts into daily teaching and learning: Teachers take center stage.
The first brought to mind a conversation I had this week with a seventh-grade teacher from Alabama who was distraught that her district was abandoning the team concept in her middle-school, apparently with little regard for the input of teachers.
Regarding the second, I'm thrilled that the thinking in State College is evolving from STEM to STE(A)M; that is, in the direction of Science, Technology, Engineering (the Arts) and Mathematics. Students need to see creativity and good design as essential components of good engineering.
That article also highlights the idea that effective 21st-century communication is about more than reading and writing, as essential as those skills are.
The first speaks to the importance of providing teachers with meaningful opportunities for collaboration with their peers: Teaching Commission Pushes Collaborative Learning Teams.
The second article talks about the value of incorporating the arts into daily teaching and learning: Teachers take center stage.
The first brought to mind a conversation I had this week with a seventh-grade teacher from Alabama who was distraught that her district was abandoning the team concept in her middle-school, apparently with little regard for the input of teachers.
Regarding the second, I'm thrilled that the thinking in State College is evolving from STEM to STE(A)M; that is, in the direction of Science, Technology, Engineering (the Arts) and Mathematics. Students need to see creativity and good design as essential components of good engineering.
That article also highlights the idea that effective 21st-century communication is about more than reading and writing, as essential as those skills are.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Crisis averted?
It appears that the state legislature is about to take action that will defer the worst of the pain that was about to hit school district budgets as a result of the underfunded state pension system for school employees (PSERS).
Even more remarkably, a compromise was reached – approved in the House by an astonishing vote of 199-0 - that at least begins to address some of the long-term issues. (For new members of the state retirement plan, the “multiplier” will revert to 2% from 2.5%, vesting will occur at 10 years instead of 5, and new members would be prohibited from withdrawing lump-sum contributions at retirement.)
Although I am surprised at the speed with which this deal was struck - in the thick of the annual budget debate - I always considered it politically inevitable. There was never any possibility that the legislature would allow the 29.3% increase in the employer retirement contribution that was projected for fiscal year 2012/13 to go into effect. School boards and taxpayers would have revolted (and blamed the legislature).
More to the point, without legislative action, the Commonwealth – which is responsible for half of the employer cost of PSERS and for all of SERS – would have had a hard time producing balanced state budgets given the projected increases of 10.6%, 29.2% and 32.1%. The corresponding increases are now expected to be 8.7%,12.2%, and 16.7%. (Next year’s rate is still up in the air.)
But before we get too happy, it should be noted that under this proposal, most of the pain will be diverted until sometime after most current legislators have left office. That’s a fair criticism - but it’s not quite as bad as its being made out to be.
(a little math..)
Some of you business/finance majors will recall the concept of “present value”. In short, what that means is that $10 in your pocket today is more valuable than having it 10 years from now. The reason is that you could invest your pocket money at 2% annual interest, and in 10 years you would have about $12.20. So the “present value” of having $12.20 10 years from now is: $10.00. Of course, this calculation depends entirely on what interest rate is used.
In the case of a school district that is likely to borrow hundreds of millions of building construction dollars over the coming decades, the better analogy is this: having 10 dollars in your pocket today is 10 dollars you won’t have to borrow. Assuming a conservative borrowing rate of 4%, $10 today is worth $14.80 ten years from now – and $30.80 thirty years from now.
What are the implications? The proposed changes to the retirement contribution rate would result in districts spending considerably less in the “near years”, but considerably more in the out years. When you add up all the numbers, under this legislation, State College could end up spending an additional $44 million dollars in retirement costs over the next 30 years.
But that doesn’t take into account present value. When you do the math, assuming a conservative 4% borrowing rate, the difference between the savings in the early years and the additional costs in the out years is about $3.3 million in 2041 dollars, or about $1 million in current dollars. (I did this by converting each year’s savings/costs into 2041 dollars, and adding them up.)
It’s not $44 million, but a million dollars is still real money. With a little more “front-loading” we might have broken even.
Even more remarkably, a compromise was reached – approved in the House by an astonishing vote of 199-0 - that at least begins to address some of the long-term issues. (For new members of the state retirement plan, the “multiplier” will revert to 2% from 2.5%, vesting will occur at 10 years instead of 5, and new members would be prohibited from withdrawing lump-sum contributions at retirement.)
Although I am surprised at the speed with which this deal was struck - in the thick of the annual budget debate - I always considered it politically inevitable. There was never any possibility that the legislature would allow the 29.3% increase in the employer retirement contribution that was projected for fiscal year 2012/13 to go into effect. School boards and taxpayers would have revolted (and blamed the legislature).
More to the point, without legislative action, the Commonwealth – which is responsible for half of the employer cost of PSERS and for all of SERS – would have had a hard time producing balanced state budgets given the projected increases of 10.6%, 29.2% and 32.1%. The corresponding increases are now expected to be 8.7%,12.2%, and 16.7%. (Next year’s rate is still up in the air.)
But before we get too happy, it should be noted that under this proposal, most of the pain will be diverted until sometime after most current legislators have left office. That’s a fair criticism - but it’s not quite as bad as its being made out to be.
(a little math..)
Some of you business/finance majors will recall the concept of “present value”. In short, what that means is that $10 in your pocket today is more valuable than having it 10 years from now. The reason is that you could invest your pocket money at 2% annual interest, and in 10 years you would have about $12.20. So the “present value” of having $12.20 10 years from now is: $10.00. Of course, this calculation depends entirely on what interest rate is used.
In the case of a school district that is likely to borrow hundreds of millions of building construction dollars over the coming decades, the better analogy is this: having 10 dollars in your pocket today is 10 dollars you won’t have to borrow. Assuming a conservative borrowing rate of 4%, $10 today is worth $14.80 ten years from now – and $30.80 thirty years from now.
What are the implications? The proposed changes to the retirement contribution rate would result in districts spending considerably less in the “near years”, but considerably more in the out years. When you add up all the numbers, under this legislation, State College could end up spending an additional $44 million dollars in retirement costs over the next 30 years.
But that doesn’t take into account present value. When you do the math, assuming a conservative 4% borrowing rate, the difference between the savings in the early years and the additional costs in the out years is about $3.3 million in 2041 dollars, or about $1 million in current dollars. (I did this by converting each year’s savings/costs into 2041 dollars, and adding them up.)
It’s not $44 million, but a million dollars is still real money. With a little more “front-loading” we might have broken even.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Alert Citizens ... and the Budget
I appreciate that the Centre Daily Times thought to print a couple of the on-line comments concerning their story on the property tax refunds that were recently awarded to the Village at Penn State.
One writer wondered how it was possible that said property could be assessed for less than it cost to build it.
Another got more to the point: "Why would Penn State ever pay its fair share of taxes?"
I feel compelled to say: it has ever been thus. (Recall SCASD's ill-fated attempt in 1997 to tax the profit-making components of the Penn State empire? A futile effort, to be sure.)
The obvious should be noted, however: the difference comes directly out of your pocket, dear taxpayer.
But it's good to see that someone's paying attention.
About the budget..
For a process that resulted in over $3.4 million in cuts, I thought the development of next year's budget went remarkably smoothly. And considering that my only significant disagreement represents less than 1% of that total, it can't be considered more than a quibble. However...
The $30,000 in question represents the required school supplies that the district will no longer provide to elementary school students.
My first argument against eliminating this from the budget is that there won’t be any actual "savings" - more accurately, this is a cost-shift from district taxpayers to parents. In fact, since the district can buy supplies in bulk, parents will end of spending more, in total, than the district would have. Not to mention the environmental impact of a couple of thousand additional trips to Wal-Mart. (Though I suppose one could argue that this would be a stimulus to the local economy..)
Second, although the amount involved is modest, there will be a few families for whom this will be a hardship. Since it has long been our practice that 'inability to pay' should not be a barrier to students, making sure that doesn’t happen will become an administrative chore for somebody.
Finally, there's the philosophical argument: If the community has a civic obligation to provide an education to its children - which it does, both constitutionally, and, I believe, morally - that ought to include required supplies.
For what it's worth.
One writer wondered how it was possible that said property could be assessed for less than it cost to build it.
Another got more to the point: "Why would Penn State ever pay its fair share of taxes?"
I feel compelled to say: it has ever been thus. (Recall SCASD's ill-fated attempt in 1997 to tax the profit-making components of the Penn State empire? A futile effort, to be sure.)
The obvious should be noted, however: the difference comes directly out of your pocket, dear taxpayer.
But it's good to see that someone's paying attention.
About the budget..
For a process that resulted in over $3.4 million in cuts, I thought the development of next year's budget went remarkably smoothly. And considering that my only significant disagreement represents less than 1% of that total, it can't be considered more than a quibble. However...
The $30,000 in question represents the required school supplies that the district will no longer provide to elementary school students.
My first argument against eliminating this from the budget is that there won’t be any actual "savings" - more accurately, this is a cost-shift from district taxpayers to parents. In fact, since the district can buy supplies in bulk, parents will end of spending more, in total, than the district would have. Not to mention the environmental impact of a couple of thousand additional trips to Wal-Mart. (Though I suppose one could argue that this would be a stimulus to the local economy..)
Second, although the amount involved is modest, there will be a few families for whom this will be a hardship. Since it has long been our practice that 'inability to pay' should not be a barrier to students, making sure that doesn’t happen will become an administrative chore for somebody.
Finally, there's the philosophical argument: If the community has a civic obligation to provide an education to its children - which it does, both constitutionally, and, I believe, morally - that ought to include required supplies.
For what it's worth.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
A framework for a 21st-century education
So what is the framework for a 21st-century education? As it happens, for the past eight years a group of business leaders and educators known as the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has been working on this very question. (You will note some real heavyweights on this list.) Here’s a synopsis of what they've come up with.
Their work is based on the growing recognition that a mastery of course content (such as is measured by your typical standardized test) is no longer sufficient for success in the 21st century. This is because most of the jobs - including, increasingly, many 'white collar' jobs - that used to be the gateway to a successful middle-class life involve routine work that has, or will soon be, automated, computerized or out-sourced.
So the next generation of graduates will need more than mastery of the ‘3 Rs”. When the Partnership asked employers which skills should receive additional emphasis in school, this is what they heard: Economy
• The ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing 89%
• Critical Thinking/Analytical Reasoning Skills 81%
• The ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-world settings 79%
• The ability to analyze and solve complex problems 75%
• The ability to connect actions to ethical decisions 75%
Similarly, another survey, referring specifically to high school graduates, identified these deficiencies:
• Written Communication 81%
• Leadership 73%
• Work Ethic 70%
• Critical Thinking & Problem Solving 70%
• Self-Direction 58%
This lead the Partnership to identify the following framework of essential thinking skills (the “four C’s”)
• Critical thinking and problem solving
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Creativity and innovation
Of course, mastery of core subjects - reading and language arts, world languages, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government, civics and the arts – continues to be important. “Critical-thinking” and collaboration don’t occur in a vacuum.
But in addition, students need to develop life and career skills such as: Flexibility, Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility. It will also become increasingly important for students to develop literacy in Global Awareness; Finance and Business; Civics; Health; the Environment; and Information and Media
It should be noted that very little of this is currently “tested”.
The good news for State College is that we have long recognized the importance of 21st century skills, as evidenced by the “10 characteristics of a State High grad”:
• a responsible and involved citizen
• a clear and effective communicator
• a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
• a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
• one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
• a user of evolving technologies
• a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
• an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
• a responsible steward of the environment
• a participant in the arts
The challenge for us continues to be: how do we go about this admirable goal in an intentional and deliberate way?
The key is integration. There isn’t time in the school day to teach a course in critical-thinking, so schools will need to find ways to intentionally embed these skills within the core curriculum.
And here’s the question for school leadership: will we commit ourselves to helping students develop the capacity for critical-thinking, citizenship and creativity - even if these skills are not measured on The Test?
Their work is based on the growing recognition that a mastery of course content (such as is measured by your typical standardized test) is no longer sufficient for success in the 21st century. This is because most of the jobs - including, increasingly, many 'white collar' jobs - that used to be the gateway to a successful middle-class life involve routine work that has, or will soon be, automated, computerized or out-sourced.
So the next generation of graduates will need more than mastery of the ‘3 Rs”. When the Partnership asked employers which skills should receive additional emphasis in school, this is what they heard: Economy
• The ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing 89%
• Critical Thinking/Analytical Reasoning Skills 81%
• The ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-world settings 79%
• The ability to analyze and solve complex problems 75%
• The ability to connect actions to ethical decisions 75%
Similarly, another survey, referring specifically to high school graduates, identified these deficiencies:
• Written Communication 81%
• Leadership 73%
• Work Ethic 70%
• Critical Thinking & Problem Solving 70%
• Self-Direction 58%
This lead the Partnership to identify the following framework of essential thinking skills (the “four C’s”)
• Critical thinking and problem solving
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Creativity and innovation
Of course, mastery of core subjects - reading and language arts, world languages, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government, civics and the arts – continues to be important. “Critical-thinking” and collaboration don’t occur in a vacuum.
But in addition, students need to develop life and career skills such as: Flexibility, Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility. It will also become increasingly important for students to develop literacy in Global Awareness; Finance and Business; Civics; Health; the Environment; and Information and Media
It should be noted that very little of this is currently “tested”.
The good news for State College is that we have long recognized the importance of 21st century skills, as evidenced by the “10 characteristics of a State High grad”:
• a responsible and involved citizen
• a clear and effective communicator
• a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
• a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
• one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
• a user of evolving technologies
• a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
• an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
• a responsible steward of the environment
• a participant in the arts
The challenge for us continues to be: how do we go about this admirable goal in an intentional and deliberate way?
The key is integration. There isn’t time in the school day to teach a course in critical-thinking, so schools will need to find ways to intentionally embed these skills within the core curriculum.
And here’s the question for school leadership: will we commit ourselves to helping students develop the capacity for critical-thinking, citizenship and creativity - even if these skills are not measured on The Test?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Raise Your Hand if You Know the Answer
A core principle of the Professional Development School (the teaching intern partnership between the State College School District and Penn State’s College of Education) is that "inquiry" is an essential component, not only of learning, but of quality teaching.
The PDS philosophy of teacher inquiry is based on the idea that classroom teachers can, and should, generate knowledge about their practice; and that this research – what works, what doesn’t, and why - is a natural extension of good teaching.
That's why I look forward each year to the PDS Inquiry Conference where over seventy interns present the results of their inquires. I've never been disappointed, but this year I came away even more impressed by their professionalism; more appreciative for what they bring to their classrooms; and with a greater expectation for their future in education.
A little hyperbolic perhaps, but entirely justified.
My morning began with a presentation by first/second-grade intern Margaret Morton, whose inquiry originated with this "wondering": why are some students reluctant to participate in class, even those who are otherwise good students?
As you would expect, a large part of the answer has to do with the fear of being wrong, which afflicts a lot of people, regardless of academic ability. But what to do?
Margaret tried several approaches, but one strategy that proved particularly effective was the “buddy system”. Allowing pairs of students a little time to first discuss their thinking with each other gave them confidence that they were on the right track, and made them more comfortable about “going public” with their answer.
As good research tends to do, this lead me to a more fundamental wondering: why should students participate in class? This has been a part of education for so long that the question is seldom asked.
A common reply is that “class participation will be 10% of your grade”, which is a terrible answer in that it only serves to externalize the motivation to learn. A better answer is the one Margaret offered: in order to contribute to the class.
However, the value of a student’s contribution depends a lot on what kind of answer you’re looking for. “1776” and “93 million miles” do little to contribute to the learning of other students in the class, except to further demonstrate who the “smart” kids are.
Rather, it’s those questions for which there aren’t any “right” answers that provide the best opportunities for authentic student contribution. (By the way, this is especially true – or should be – in math class. What strategy did you use to approach this problem? Why? What other strategies could be used?)
A good answer (or question) is one that “contributes” to the class by provoking additional thinking, and learning, in other students.
Knowing how to generate and encourage authentic class participation – what kinds of questions to ask, and how to ask them - is a key part of how teachers create a classroom climate that is conducive to learning.
The PDS philosophy of teacher inquiry is based on the idea that classroom teachers can, and should, generate knowledge about their practice; and that this research – what works, what doesn’t, and why - is a natural extension of good teaching.
That's why I look forward each year to the PDS Inquiry Conference where over seventy interns present the results of their inquires. I've never been disappointed, but this year I came away even more impressed by their professionalism; more appreciative for what they bring to their classrooms; and with a greater expectation for their future in education.
A little hyperbolic perhaps, but entirely justified.
My morning began with a presentation by first/second-grade intern Margaret Morton, whose inquiry originated with this "wondering": why are some students reluctant to participate in class, even those who are otherwise good students?
As you would expect, a large part of the answer has to do with the fear of being wrong, which afflicts a lot of people, regardless of academic ability. But what to do?
Margaret tried several approaches, but one strategy that proved particularly effective was the “buddy system”. Allowing pairs of students a little time to first discuss their thinking with each other gave them confidence that they were on the right track, and made them more comfortable about “going public” with their answer.
As good research tends to do, this lead me to a more fundamental wondering: why should students participate in class? This has been a part of education for so long that the question is seldom asked.
A common reply is that “class participation will be 10% of your grade”, which is a terrible answer in that it only serves to externalize the motivation to learn. A better answer is the one Margaret offered: in order to contribute to the class.
However, the value of a student’s contribution depends a lot on what kind of answer you’re looking for. “1776” and “93 million miles” do little to contribute to the learning of other students in the class, except to further demonstrate who the “smart” kids are.
Rather, it’s those questions for which there aren’t any “right” answers that provide the best opportunities for authentic student contribution. (By the way, this is especially true – or should be – in math class. What strategy did you use to approach this problem? Why? What other strategies could be used?)
A good answer (or question) is one that “contributes” to the class by provoking additional thinking, and learning, in other students.
Knowing how to generate and encourage authentic class participation – what kinds of questions to ask, and how to ask them - is a key part of how teachers create a classroom climate that is conducive to learning.
Friday, May 7, 2010
School climate and school "reform"
Creating an environment in which everyone - not just the teachers - feels valued and respected is not a “once-and-done” project; it needs to become part of the organizational DNA. This begins with the school board, who collectively set the tone for the entire district.
The reason this has to start at the board level is that you cannot begin the necessary conversations about school environment unless you establish a climate in which such conversations are possible.
If school officials – administrators and teachers - sense that the results are going to be used against them, this is the surest way to prevent the honest conversations that are essential to the process. People have to know that they will not be penalized for speaking honestly.
The logical first step is to find out where you “are”; that is, you need to make an honest assessment of your organizational, or school “climate”. What is the level of trust throughout the organization? Said another way, how do students, teachers, administrators and parents feel about their school and each other?
Most importantly, how conducive is that climate to learning? Here are a few questions to which you’d want answers:
Do students feel physically - and emotionally - safe? (Is bullying an issue?)
· Intellectually safe? (Is it ok to be “smart”? Is curiosity encouraged?)
· Do students feel connected to their teachers? Are their classes challenging and engaging?
Do teachers feel supported? Are their opinions valued?
· Is it safe to expose their practices to administrators and other teachers for critical review?
· Is “risk-taking encouraged? (Is it ok to try something new, even if it doesn’t work?)
· Are there sufficient opportunities for collaboration?
Do the parents feel welcome in the school?
· Are they encouraged to participate in their child’s education?
· Do they receive adequate feedback from teachers?
Do principals have the skills needed in an educational leader?
· Do they recognize good teaching, and can they offer constructive criticism?
· Do they feel micro-managed by the school board?
Principals are the educational leaders of a school; more than anyone else, they are responsible for the school’s climate. Is that part of their evaluation process?
Does everyone feel that they have a say in how “their” school is run?
How these questions are answered will vary widely from one school to another - as will the actions the school community chooses to take in response - which is why a one-size-fits-all approach to school reform cannot work.
This brings me back to where I started this series: struggling to understand the Obama administration’s re-authorization blueprint. Why does the administration remain committed to a few approved strategies (including charters and school closings) for turning around low-performing schools?
The common thread is that each of their strategies requires a change in school leadership. But their reasoning is what’s important – Duncan and Obama see a change in school leadership as the key to changing the underlying issue of a toxic school culture.
On the importance of school culture, they are absolutely correct. The problem is there’s no evidence that any of the proposed interventions are effective! (To me, they have an aroma of desperation.)
If you want to change the school climate, you have to go about it deliberately and patiently, with the full participation of all stakeholders. There are no quick fixes.
Next: If school climate is the foundation of school reform, then what’s the framework for the building?
The reason this has to start at the board level is that you cannot begin the necessary conversations about school environment unless you establish a climate in which such conversations are possible.
If school officials – administrators and teachers - sense that the results are going to be used against them, this is the surest way to prevent the honest conversations that are essential to the process. People have to know that they will not be penalized for speaking honestly.
The logical first step is to find out where you “are”; that is, you need to make an honest assessment of your organizational, or school “climate”. What is the level of trust throughout the organization? Said another way, how do students, teachers, administrators and parents feel about their school and each other?
Most importantly, how conducive is that climate to learning? Here are a few questions to which you’d want answers:
Do students feel physically - and emotionally - safe? (Is bullying an issue?)
· Intellectually safe? (Is it ok to be “smart”? Is curiosity encouraged?)
· Do students feel connected to their teachers? Are their classes challenging and engaging?
Do teachers feel supported? Are their opinions valued?
· Is it safe to expose their practices to administrators and other teachers for critical review?
· Is “risk-taking encouraged? (Is it ok to try something new, even if it doesn’t work?)
· Are there sufficient opportunities for collaboration?
Do the parents feel welcome in the school?
· Are they encouraged to participate in their child’s education?
· Do they receive adequate feedback from teachers?
Do principals have the skills needed in an educational leader?
· Do they recognize good teaching, and can they offer constructive criticism?
· Do they feel micro-managed by the school board?
Principals are the educational leaders of a school; more than anyone else, they are responsible for the school’s climate. Is that part of their evaluation process?
Does everyone feel that they have a say in how “their” school is run?
How these questions are answered will vary widely from one school to another - as will the actions the school community chooses to take in response - which is why a one-size-fits-all approach to school reform cannot work.
This brings me back to where I started this series: struggling to understand the Obama administration’s re-authorization blueprint. Why does the administration remain committed to a few approved strategies (including charters and school closings) for turning around low-performing schools?
The common thread is that each of their strategies requires a change in school leadership. But their reasoning is what’s important – Duncan and Obama see a change in school leadership as the key to changing the underlying issue of a toxic school culture.
On the importance of school culture, they are absolutely correct. The problem is there’s no evidence that any of the proposed interventions are effective! (To me, they have an aroma of desperation.)
If you want to change the school climate, you have to go about it deliberately and patiently, with the full participation of all stakeholders. There are no quick fixes.
Next: If school climate is the foundation of school reform, then what’s the framework for the building?
Friday, April 30, 2010
The "so-what"
We could continue down this road of simplistic and too-narrowly focused solutions – charter schools, “higher standards”, state graduation exams, pay for performance, the elimination of tenure, etc.. And while there may be some merit to each of these ideas, none of them will get us where we want to go.
As I said last time, so what?
Several weeks ago, I stumbled across a segment on the Newshour that described the Easton, PA school district’s effort to connect teacher compensation to student test scores. (This was in order to meet one of the criteria of the federal “Race to the Top” grants.) This went along predictably, with the teacher’s association responding less than enthusiastically to the school board’s initiative. But what struck me was this comment by a school board member: “the problem is, there’s just not enough trust.”
There’s the so-what.
If we’re going to succeed at the highly complex and interconnected undertaking of reforming America’s schools, it’s going to require all the stakeholders – teachers, students, parents, administrators, community members and policy-makers – to push in the same direction. And that’s going to require a level of trust that cannot be imposed from Washington or Harrisburg. Trust has to be built locally.
As Anthony Cody put it in his terrific blog, The Missing Ingredient in School Reform, “Trust is perhaps the single most important element in a successful school.”
For me, the issue of school reform – perhaps “transformation” is the better word – boils down to how we answer two questions:
· What does every student need to know and be able to do in order to be successful?
· How do we create the best learning environment for that to occur?
As I see it, the learning environment – or “school climate” - is the obvious, but often overlooked foundation for everything else. And if a positive school climate is the foundation of school reform, then trust is the cornerstone.
In many places, that would require a different way of thinking.
Take, as just one example, contract negotiations. The traditional view is that the teacher’s association sits on one side of the table, trying to get the best deal for their members, while the school board sits on the opposite side, trying to give away as little as possible.
The problem with the traditional – confrontational - approach is that it doesn’t help to create an atmosphere in which teachers will feel inspired to go above and beyond the call of duty for their students. (In this sense, it is neither cost-effective nor aligned with organizational goals.)
But in highly-functioning school districts, the goal is to come to an agreement that everyone sees as fair - admittedly, easier said than done, and an unrealistic expectation unless you’ve spent time working on the foundation. In order for any “side” to think beyond its own self interest, there has to be a fairly significant level of trust – enough that people begin to believe that we’re all actually on the same side.
This atmosphere needs to be developed and sustained throughout the entire organization. In fact, developing a climate of trust and collaboration around a common goal is the central task of school leadership.
As I said last time, so what?
Several weeks ago, I stumbled across a segment on the Newshour that described the Easton, PA school district’s effort to connect teacher compensation to student test scores. (This was in order to meet one of the criteria of the federal “Race to the Top” grants.) This went along predictably, with the teacher’s association responding less than enthusiastically to the school board’s initiative. But what struck me was this comment by a school board member: “the problem is, there’s just not enough trust.”
There’s the so-what.
If we’re going to succeed at the highly complex and interconnected undertaking of reforming America’s schools, it’s going to require all the stakeholders – teachers, students, parents, administrators, community members and policy-makers – to push in the same direction. And that’s going to require a level of trust that cannot be imposed from Washington or Harrisburg. Trust has to be built locally.
As Anthony Cody put it in his terrific blog, The Missing Ingredient in School Reform, “Trust is perhaps the single most important element in a successful school.”
For me, the issue of school reform – perhaps “transformation” is the better word – boils down to how we answer two questions:
· What does every student need to know and be able to do in order to be successful?
· How do we create the best learning environment for that to occur?
As I see it, the learning environment – or “school climate” - is the obvious, but often overlooked foundation for everything else. And if a positive school climate is the foundation of school reform, then trust is the cornerstone.
In many places, that would require a different way of thinking.
Take, as just one example, contract negotiations. The traditional view is that the teacher’s association sits on one side of the table, trying to get the best deal for their members, while the school board sits on the opposite side, trying to give away as little as possible.
The problem with the traditional – confrontational - approach is that it doesn’t help to create an atmosphere in which teachers will feel inspired to go above and beyond the call of duty for their students. (In this sense, it is neither cost-effective nor aligned with organizational goals.)
But in highly-functioning school districts, the goal is to come to an agreement that everyone sees as fair - admittedly, easier said than done, and an unrealistic expectation unless you’ve spent time working on the foundation. In order for any “side” to think beyond its own self interest, there has to be a fairly significant level of trust – enough that people begin to believe that we’re all actually on the same side.
This atmosphere needs to be developed and sustained throughout the entire organization. In fact, developing a climate of trust and collaboration around a common goal is the central task of school leadership.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Ed Policy, part 3
The last decades’ rhetoric on standards has also allowed us to ignore the important impact that “equity” has on educational quality –conveniently giving politicians an excuse from having to make tough decisions. Politicians, after all, are responsible for how our resources are distributed.
(To his credit - on this issue - Governor Rendell has been an exception.)
But it is ridiculous to suggest that educational quality is unaffected by money. Upper-middle class suburban taxpayers don’t enjoy paying taxes more than anyone else, but they’re willing to do it because they believe good facilities and well-paid teachers give their children a competitive advantage. And they’re right.
Children learn better – or more accurately, they have better opportunities to learn – in classrooms with adequate heat, good air ventilation, indirect lighting and good acoustics. On the other hand, money alone won’t fix anything. Well-paid teachers and great facilities won’t compensate for the lack of engaging, focused instruction and supportive parents.
Still others have suggested that the “solution” is to “pay for performance”. Well, maybe – but here’s the problem with that, as I see it. For teachers - particularly the good ones - it’s not about the money. Numerous teacher surveys – most recently by the Gates Foundation – have come the same conclusion: “supportive leadership” and “time to collaborate” are more important to teachers than “higher salaries”.
While teachers should be treated as professionals, and paid accordingly, the vast majority of teachers are motivated intrinsically – whose life did I change today? - not extrinsically.
Plus, to think that you could create an accountability system without input from teachers (i.e., NCLB) is just crazy. It’s not that teachers don’t want to be held “accountable”; they want to be accountable in ways that are meaningful.
Finally, I should mention the two ideas that have been the core of NCLB: “higher standards” and “highly qualified” teachers. First, the research has been clear: so-called higher standards hasn’t improved education for most students. As Darling-Hammond recently put it, “just telling schools that they (have to reach a certain standard) is not going to get them to do it better. We’re assuming they’re able to do better, but are unwilling.”
This is particularly problematic when the “standards” are unconnected to the skills and knowledge that students will actually need to be successful employees and citizens.
Unfortunately, “highly qualified” was all about teaching credentials, not teaching skills. Sure, it’s important for teachers to “know the material” - but being a Math major in college doesn’t prepare you to teach math to a group of fourth-graders of varying interests, abilities and learning styles.
And so, I’ve come to this sobering but somewhat obvious conclusion: providing every child with a quality education is a highly complex undertaking, one that defies easy and simplistic solutions.
Well, so what?
(To his credit - on this issue - Governor Rendell has been an exception.)
But it is ridiculous to suggest that educational quality is unaffected by money. Upper-middle class suburban taxpayers don’t enjoy paying taxes more than anyone else, but they’re willing to do it because they believe good facilities and well-paid teachers give their children a competitive advantage. And they’re right.
Children learn better – or more accurately, they have better opportunities to learn – in classrooms with adequate heat, good air ventilation, indirect lighting and good acoustics. On the other hand, money alone won’t fix anything. Well-paid teachers and great facilities won’t compensate for the lack of engaging, focused instruction and supportive parents.
Still others have suggested that the “solution” is to “pay for performance”. Well, maybe – but here’s the problem with that, as I see it. For teachers - particularly the good ones - it’s not about the money. Numerous teacher surveys – most recently by the Gates Foundation – have come the same conclusion: “supportive leadership” and “time to collaborate” are more important to teachers than “higher salaries”.
While teachers should be treated as professionals, and paid accordingly, the vast majority of teachers are motivated intrinsically – whose life did I change today? - not extrinsically.
Plus, to think that you could create an accountability system without input from teachers (i.e., NCLB) is just crazy. It’s not that teachers don’t want to be held “accountable”; they want to be accountable in ways that are meaningful.
Finally, I should mention the two ideas that have been the core of NCLB: “higher standards” and “highly qualified” teachers. First, the research has been clear: so-called higher standards hasn’t improved education for most students. As Darling-Hammond recently put it, “just telling schools that they (have to reach a certain standard) is not going to get them to do it better. We’re assuming they’re able to do better, but are unwilling.”
This is particularly problematic when the “standards” are unconnected to the skills and knowledge that students will actually need to be successful employees and citizens.
Unfortunately, “highly qualified” was all about teaching credentials, not teaching skills. Sure, it’s important for teachers to “know the material” - but being a Math major in college doesn’t prepare you to teach math to a group of fourth-graders of varying interests, abilities and learning styles.
And so, I’ve come to this sobering but somewhat obvious conclusion: providing every child with a quality education is a highly complex undertaking, one that defies easy and simplistic solutions.
Well, so what?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Ed Policy, part 2
A recent Newsweek article suggested another approach to education reform: we should make it easier to fire incompetent teachers. That’s a reasonable and probably necessary idea, but we haven’t thought this through, either.
First, most schools have some really good teachers, some poor teachers, and a lot who fall somewhere in between (since human behavior generally conforms to that normal curve distribution). Making it easier to fire “bad” teachers may fix the problem at one end of the curve, but it does nothing to address the skills of all the teachers in the middle - the ones who teach most students. Plus, the fact that some schools appear to have far more than their share of “bad” teachers points to a systemic issue that has little to do with the teachers, themselves.
(A good example is the recent case in Rhode Island where the entire faculty of a school was fired. Is it possible that all fifty of those teachers were “bad”? Where does one find fifty good teachers to replace them? If those teachers are so good, why don’t they already have jobs? If we don’t fix the system, where will these teachers be in five years?...)
The vast majority of teachers enter the profession wanting to be successful. But the profession’s 50% five-year “drop-out” rate is largely the result of a long tradition of placing teachers in classrooms, on their own and without adequate support - or preparation, a whole other issue.
Then there’s the widely held belief that “good teachers are born and not made”, which the authors seem to blindly accept. This, however, is nonsense; in what other profession is it true?
In fact, Teach for America has spent years studying the issue of teacher effectiveness. They’ve concluded that the two best predictors of an effective teacher are 1) perseverance, and 2) the willingness to change when a strategy doesn’t appear to be working. In other words, teachers become “good” teachers by continuing to work at it.
This doesn’t occur in a vacuum. “Quality teaching depends … on the environment in which teachers work; a curriculum focused on higher-order thinking; opportunities for teachers to plan with and learn from one another; and regular occasions to evaluate the outcomes of their practices.” (Linda Darling-Hammond)
More on this later.
First, most schools have some really good teachers, some poor teachers, and a lot who fall somewhere in between (since human behavior generally conforms to that normal curve distribution). Making it easier to fire “bad” teachers may fix the problem at one end of the curve, but it does nothing to address the skills of all the teachers in the middle - the ones who teach most students. Plus, the fact that some schools appear to have far more than their share of “bad” teachers points to a systemic issue that has little to do with the teachers, themselves.
(A good example is the recent case in Rhode Island where the entire faculty of a school was fired. Is it possible that all fifty of those teachers were “bad”? Where does one find fifty good teachers to replace them? If those teachers are so good, why don’t they already have jobs? If we don’t fix the system, where will these teachers be in five years?...)
The vast majority of teachers enter the profession wanting to be successful. But the profession’s 50% five-year “drop-out” rate is largely the result of a long tradition of placing teachers in classrooms, on their own and without adequate support - or preparation, a whole other issue.
Then there’s the widely held belief that “good teachers are born and not made”, which the authors seem to blindly accept. This, however, is nonsense; in what other profession is it true?
In fact, Teach for America has spent years studying the issue of teacher effectiveness. They’ve concluded that the two best predictors of an effective teacher are 1) perseverance, and 2) the willingness to change when a strategy doesn’t appear to be working. In other words, teachers become “good” teachers by continuing to work at it.
This doesn’t occur in a vacuum. “Quality teaching depends … on the environment in which teachers work; a curriculum focused on higher-order thinking; opportunities for teachers to plan with and learn from one another; and regular occasions to evaluate the outcomes of their practices.” (Linda Darling-Hammond)
Friday, April 23, 2010
National Education Policy, part 1
For the last few weeks I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the Obama Administration’s “blueprint” for the re-authorization of ESEA (known formerly as No Child Left Behind). Their proposal has generated a lot of conversation about what direction school reform should be taking – which has, to me, the look of the proverbial seven blind men trying to describe an elephant: many people have a piece of the puzzle, but we seem to lack a vision of a coherent whole.
This is important because it will probably be another seven years before we get another shot at this.
Among educators, the general consensus appears to be “encouraged but cautious”. The President and Secretary Duncan have said the right things - they’ve acknowledged the need for balanced assessments, and the importance of the arts and sciences – but there’s a concern that the federal role will continue to be more coercive than helpful. However well-intentioned, no one’s quite sure that they can trust the Obama plan.
Hold that thought.
For starters, the administration appears committed to promoting “charter schools” as a key component of school reform. I’m not opposed to this conceptually - on the theory that relieving charter schools from some bureaucratic requirements allows them to explore educational innovation that could replicated elsewhere.
A well-designed charter school encourages parental involvement, is run by a relatively small group of committed educators and has the appeal of being smaller, and more manageable, than most urban public schools.
But we haven’t thought this through. Suppose Chicago were to create 1,000 charter schools, all of them excellent. (We know this won’t happen because the research is pretty clear that charter schools are not a panacea; some charter schools have been very successful, but many have not. But just suppose.) Under the best scenario, you will have drained financial resources (vouchers?) educational resources (the most motivated teachers) as well as the most engaged parents away from the public system – leaving what? Separate, but unequal?
The problem is that there’s no mechanism for taking what you’ve learned from these experiments, and bringing them to scale. (Under Pennsylvania law it’s not even possible.) This suggests a missed opportunity. There are a lot of successful public schools that have the resources and will to innovate. Why not give them the same freedom?
And then there’s this problem: when given the charter school option, relatively few parents make that “choice”; they don’t want their kids to go to another school, they want their school to be better!
Finally, a lot of people have pointed to KIPP charter schools as a great success story, particularly noting that KIPP does not “select” their students – which conveniently overlooks the fact that KIPP is actually very selective: only students having the good fortune of highly engaged and committed parents are admitted. That’s a big deal.
This is important because it will probably be another seven years before we get another shot at this.
Among educators, the general consensus appears to be “encouraged but cautious”. The President and Secretary Duncan have said the right things - they’ve acknowledged the need for balanced assessments, and the importance of the arts and sciences – but there’s a concern that the federal role will continue to be more coercive than helpful. However well-intentioned, no one’s quite sure that they can trust the Obama plan.
Hold that thought.
For starters, the administration appears committed to promoting “charter schools” as a key component of school reform. I’m not opposed to this conceptually - on the theory that relieving charter schools from some bureaucratic requirements allows them to explore educational innovation that could replicated elsewhere.
A well-designed charter school encourages parental involvement, is run by a relatively small group of committed educators and has the appeal of being smaller, and more manageable, than most urban public schools.
But we haven’t thought this through. Suppose Chicago were to create 1,000 charter schools, all of them excellent. (We know this won’t happen because the research is pretty clear that charter schools are not a panacea; some charter schools have been very successful, but many have not. But just suppose.) Under the best scenario, you will have drained financial resources (vouchers?) educational resources (the most motivated teachers) as well as the most engaged parents away from the public system – leaving what? Separate, but unequal?
The problem is that there’s no mechanism for taking what you’ve learned from these experiments, and bringing them to scale. (Under Pennsylvania law it’s not even possible.) This suggests a missed opportunity. There are a lot of successful public schools that have the resources and will to innovate. Why not give them the same freedom?
And then there’s this problem: when given the charter school option, relatively few parents make that “choice”; they don’t want their kids to go to another school, they want their school to be better!
Finally, a lot of people have pointed to KIPP charter schools as a great success story, particularly noting that KIPP does not “select” their students – which conveniently overlooks the fact that KIPP is actually very selective: only students having the good fortune of highly engaged and committed parents are admitted. That’s a big deal.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Policy 122: to fee, or not?
The many comments that we've received concerning the proposed changes to Policy 122 - which would allow the district to begin charging fees for co-curricular activities - have been a terrific example of public comment providing the board with information and perspective we would not otherwise have had.
Many people indicated their opposition to the policy change even though they would be personally unaffected, since their children were no longer in school. Particularly impressive were the soon-to-graduate State High seniors who spoke to the issue.
Some of the most articulate arguments and insights came from students. One of the first to speak began with a particularly astute question: what is the history of the current policy?
Delving deep into institutional memory, we elicited help from a former board member: ”Policy 122 is (consistent) with the district mission … of educating the whole child. Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities provide opportunities for students to develop skills that are important for life-long success, (including) leadership, collaboration, communication, goal setting, the ability to address complex issues, and citizenship skills. (These) activities provide a different venue…for students to feel connected and explore different activities to help them find their talents and passions.”
In addition, “Policy 122 is part of the overall wellness … initiative of our district. We want students to be physically active ... Studies show students engaging in high risk behaviors during after school hours when they are home alone with little or no supervision. We also know (that) students who most need these after school activities are the ones who can least afford to pay a fee.”
These ideas were echoed in the many comments that we received: extra-curricular activities provide opportunities for students to demonstrate leadership, to interact with students of different grades, to establish or maintain connections to the school - and, as the saying goes, to "unite talent and passion" Sports, in particular, promote the health and well-being of students, and provide a chance for students to challenge themselves in a safe environment. Several people wondered what "activities" students would be engaged in without these opportunities.
How would this change affect participation in "charitable" clubs? Should students be charged for an activity that provides a public service? One argument that particularly resonates with me is the impact this would have on the ability of students to explore new interests. Several students told us how they "stumbled" into an activity that they didn't know they liked until they got there - and probably wouldn't have tried if they were required to pay for it.
But probably the most common concern about the impact this would have on students without means.
The argument could be made that while approving this policy permits the district to charge fees, it doesn't actually put fees in place - but as I said at the last meeting, school board policy is a statement of district philosophy; a statement of what we believe to be important.
Around the table, no one believes that a student should be prevented from participating in extra-curricular activities because they don’t have the money, so that's not the issue. But as a number of people have pointed out, creating a system that that adequately addresses this concern creates additional administrative responsibility and expense.
This is the practical side of the argument. Although the Cost Control Committee suggested a potential savings of $250,000, that number is based on several assumptions that are probably overly optimistic. One student, using an elegant reference to calculus and cost/supply curves, made the point that you cannot assume that participation rates will remain the same. When you increase the cost of something you essentially reduce demand. (As the price increases, fewer people will participate.)
Another assumption is a per-activity fee of $50, which seems to strike most people as excessive. If a student is involved in multiple activities, would they be charged for each one? What about families with more than one student? Every accommodation you make further reduces the economic benefit - until you reach the point where it's probably just not worth it.
Plus, how would one implement such a procedure without stigmatizing some students?
A better approach, I think, would be to begin by recognizing that we probably have more offerings than we really need. Until now, we have not had a mechanism for evaluating every activity, in order to weed out those that are underused or no longer serve their original purpose. In other words, rather than charging students for participation, perhaps we don't have to offer quite so many options.
Many people indicated their opposition to the policy change even though they would be personally unaffected, since their children were no longer in school. Particularly impressive were the soon-to-graduate State High seniors who spoke to the issue.
Some of the most articulate arguments and insights came from students. One of the first to speak began with a particularly astute question: what is the history of the current policy?
Delving deep into institutional memory, we elicited help from a former board member: ”Policy 122 is (consistent) with the district mission … of educating the whole child. Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities provide opportunities for students to develop skills that are important for life-long success, (including) leadership, collaboration, communication, goal setting, the ability to address complex issues, and citizenship skills. (These) activities provide a different venue…for students to feel connected and explore different activities to help them find their talents and passions.”
In addition, “Policy 122 is part of the overall wellness … initiative of our district. We want students to be physically active ... Studies show students engaging in high risk behaviors during after school hours when they are home alone with little or no supervision. We also know (that) students who most need these after school activities are the ones who can least afford to pay a fee.”
These ideas were echoed in the many comments that we received: extra-curricular activities provide opportunities for students to demonstrate leadership, to interact with students of different grades, to establish or maintain connections to the school - and, as the saying goes, to "unite talent and passion" Sports, in particular, promote the health and well-being of students, and provide a chance for students to challenge themselves in a safe environment. Several people wondered what "activities" students would be engaged in without these opportunities.
How would this change affect participation in "charitable" clubs? Should students be charged for an activity that provides a public service? One argument that particularly resonates with me is the impact this would have on the ability of students to explore new interests. Several students told us how they "stumbled" into an activity that they didn't know they liked until they got there - and probably wouldn't have tried if they were required to pay for it.
But probably the most common concern about the impact this would have on students without means.
The argument could be made that while approving this policy permits the district to charge fees, it doesn't actually put fees in place - but as I said at the last meeting, school board policy is a statement of district philosophy; a statement of what we believe to be important.
Around the table, no one believes that a student should be prevented from participating in extra-curricular activities because they don’t have the money, so that's not the issue. But as a number of people have pointed out, creating a system that that adequately addresses this concern creates additional administrative responsibility and expense.
This is the practical side of the argument. Although the Cost Control Committee suggested a potential savings of $250,000, that number is based on several assumptions that are probably overly optimistic. One student, using an elegant reference to calculus and cost/supply curves, made the point that you cannot assume that participation rates will remain the same. When you increase the cost of something you essentially reduce demand. (As the price increases, fewer people will participate.)
Another assumption is a per-activity fee of $50, which seems to strike most people as excessive. If a student is involved in multiple activities, would they be charged for each one? What about families with more than one student? Every accommodation you make further reduces the economic benefit - until you reach the point where it's probably just not worth it.
Plus, how would one implement such a procedure without stigmatizing some students?
A better approach, I think, would be to begin by recognizing that we probably have more offerings than we really need. Until now, we have not had a mechanism for evaluating every activity, in order to weed out those that are underused or no longer serve their original purpose. In other words, rather than charging students for participation, perhaps we don't have to offer quite so many options.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Keystones, again
It’s been a awhile since I’ve talked about the proposed Keystone exams; in fact, it’s been awhile since anyone’s talked much about them, which I think is unfortunate, since this issue has the potential to have a profound impact on what happens in Pennsylvania classrooms.
Most people are familiar with the standard objections to the standardized testing that would be embodied and institutionalized by the implementation of these exams (beginning with the requirement in the 2013-14 academic year that a student pass four Keystone exams in order to graduate, increasing to six exams in 2016-17; two in English, two Math, one Science and one Social Studies).
First, these would be very high-stake tests. (A score of less than “proficient” would contribute a grade of 0 (zero!) to one-third of a student’s grade in a course that would be a state-wide graduation requirement. Essentially an academic death sentence.
While useful in the aggregate, standardized tests are a very uneven (and therefore - given the stakes - unfair) measure of any individual student’s mastery of course content. (Almost unmentioned is the ironic fact that the switch to the Keystone exams will mean that we will lose ten years of accumulated data from the PSSAs, which educators are just now beginning to figure out how to use in a meaningful way.)
Then there’s the “narrowing of the curriculum“ concern - under the premise that “what you test is what you get” - and how that might limit student exposure to the arts and every other “un-tested” subject.
Nor would these exams even pretend to measure many of the skills that will be essential to the future success of our students: the ability to think critically, to learn independently, to communicate, to work with others. (But they’ll get good at taking tests!)
Good points, all, which ought to be enough to give us pause before committing our limited resources to heading down this road. In addition, these exams were proposed in response to the requirements of No Child Left Behind, which is almost certain to undergo significant changes this year. Wouldn’t it make sense to wait and see what happens?
But I have another objection.
As I’ve said previously, “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. Honestly, how many people in the real world need to know how to factor an equation?”
For example, the "Biology-Chemistry-Physics" paradigm was designed more than 40 years ago. (I know this from personal experience.) The same can be said for "Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-and-maybe- Calculus". (By the way, one might assume this is universal, but the French begin with Geometry.) These traditional sequences were established at a time when a high school diploma wasn't even an expectation for many students, let alone a necessity.
Why then, are we building - in metaphorical stone - an accountability system based on a model that is generations old, and almost certainly obsolete? (Part of the answer is “to get into college.” But that’s an important conversation for another day.)
Primarily for the convenience of adults, we have constructed an educational system built and housed in academic silos. But increasingly, the real world doesn’t operate that way. Tomorrow’s citizens will need a deep understanding of the core principles – scientific, mathematical and otherwise - that govern the universe, and how these principles interact with one another. We need to design an accountability system that encourages that understanding.
Because the Keystone exams have moved forward entirely by gubernatorial edict, it will be interesting to see what happens under the next administration. Good questions to ask the candidates…
Most people are familiar with the standard objections to the standardized testing that would be embodied and institutionalized by the implementation of these exams (beginning with the requirement in the 2013-14 academic year that a student pass four Keystone exams in order to graduate, increasing to six exams in 2016-17; two in English, two Math, one Science and one Social Studies).
First, these would be very high-stake tests. (A score of less than “proficient” would contribute a grade of 0 (zero!) to one-third of a student’s grade in a course that would be a state-wide graduation requirement. Essentially an academic death sentence.
While useful in the aggregate, standardized tests are a very uneven (and therefore - given the stakes - unfair) measure of any individual student’s mastery of course content. (Almost unmentioned is the ironic fact that the switch to the Keystone exams will mean that we will lose ten years of accumulated data from the PSSAs, which educators are just now beginning to figure out how to use in a meaningful way.)
Then there’s the “narrowing of the curriculum“ concern - under the premise that “what you test is what you get” - and how that might limit student exposure to the arts and every other “un-tested” subject.
Nor would these exams even pretend to measure many of the skills that will be essential to the future success of our students: the ability to think critically, to learn independently, to communicate, to work with others. (But they’ll get good at taking tests!)
Good points, all, which ought to be enough to give us pause before committing our limited resources to heading down this road. In addition, these exams were proposed in response to the requirements of No Child Left Behind, which is almost certain to undergo significant changes this year. Wouldn’t it make sense to wait and see what happens?
But I have another objection.
As I’ve said previously, “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. Honestly, how many people in the real world need to know how to factor an equation?”
For example, the "Biology-Chemistry-Physics" paradigm was designed more than 40 years ago. (I know this from personal experience.) The same can be said for "Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-and-maybe- Calculus". (By the way, one might assume this is universal, but the French begin with Geometry.) These traditional sequences were established at a time when a high school diploma wasn't even an expectation for many students, let alone a necessity.
Why then, are we building - in metaphorical stone - an accountability system based on a model that is generations old, and almost certainly obsolete? (Part of the answer is “to get into college.” But that’s an important conversation for another day.)
Primarily for the convenience of adults, we have constructed an educational system built and housed in academic silos. But increasingly, the real world doesn’t operate that way. Tomorrow’s citizens will need a deep understanding of the core principles – scientific, mathematical and otherwise - that govern the universe, and how these principles interact with one another. We need to design an accountability system that encourages that understanding.
Because the Keystone exams have moved forward entirely by gubernatorial edict, it will be interesting to see what happens under the next administration. Good questions to ask the candidates…
Thursday, February 25, 2010
SWAP, revisited
An 8-1 vote should be explained – especially if you’re the “1”. In the spirit of “a mathematician does not understand his work until he can explain it to the first man he meets in the street”, it’s clear that I need to take another run at this.
The Board’s intent, with Monday’s resolution to terminate our Interest Rate Swap agreement if it the cost drops to $5.5 million, was an attempt to minimize financial loss to the district.
The reason a resolution could be valuable is that interest rates tend to be volatile. (In particular, 10-year Treasury rates, which appear to have an inverse relationship to the cost of ending the SWAP agreement) Since the board only meets twice a month, having the resolution in place allows the administration to act quickly should a predetermined trigger point be reached.
The question is: at what point should that trigger be set?
Everything is a “gamble”. If we do nothing between now and the end of the year, we’re “gambling” that interest rates won’t decrease, which would add to the cost of ending the agreement, perhaps significantly. On the other hand, were we to decide to end the agreement right now, we would be “gambling” that rates won’t increase – with the result that we would have spent more than necessary. The resolution is an attempt to balance those risks.
What’s going to happen? Of course, nobody knows. What’s likely to happen? Well, again, nobody really knows. But we have some educated guesses from the 60 financial firms that were surveyed by Bloomburg. Of course, these educated guesses are all over the map, but on average they project that the 10-year Treasury rate will rise to 4.15% by the end of the year. Under that assumption - not very solid, but that’s the information we have - the cost of ending the SWAP agreement at that point would be about $5 million..
So how does one decide where to set the trigger? From a strictly mathematical perspective, you would start with the $5 million figure – the point at which the risk of “spending more than necessary to get out early” exactly balances the probability of “waiting too long”, and then pick a number that’s slightly lower.
(Why, lower? Volatility. If the expectation is that rates will reach a certain number, there’s a good chance that you’ll reach a slightly higher peak at some point along the way, and you want to catch that if you can. Keep in mind that without volatility – if the swap termination value moved smoothly - there would be no reason to have the resolution at all; you could just wait until interest rates plateaued.) *
But here’s the problem with this analysis – we don’t make decisions from a strictly mathematical perspective, and for good reason. Here’s an example.
Say that a person you know to be trustworthy (and rich) offers you the following deal: flip a coin, heads – you pay him $10, tails – he pays you $15. A pretty good deal, and one that you’re likely to take. But suppose the numbers are $10,000 and $15,000, respectively. Unless you’re pretty well off – or desperate - you’re not going to take that deal. The reason is quite rational: a $10,000 loss has a greater “value” to most of us than a $15,000 gain. (This is why you should never play high-stakes poker with a wealthy person; they value risk differently.)
There have been a number of studies demonstrating that human beings place a higher “value” on what they stand to lose than on what they might gain, even if when the extrinsic values are exactly the same.
The danger lies in applying this thinking to an organization as large as the school district, where the value of “losing $500,000” and “failing to save $500,000” are exactly the same, particularly when the entire amount will be amortized over ten or twenty years.
I said I’d take another run at it. Persuasive or not, there it is.
*p.s. Particularly astute readers will recognize that termination agreement such as this is useful primarily in a volatile, flat market. If interest rates are projected to go down, you should get out now. If they're projected to go up (as is the present case) you should hold tight for a while longer.
The Board’s intent, with Monday’s resolution to terminate our Interest Rate Swap agreement if it the cost drops to $5.5 million, was an attempt to minimize financial loss to the district.
The reason a resolution could be valuable is that interest rates tend to be volatile. (In particular, 10-year Treasury rates, which appear to have an inverse relationship to the cost of ending the SWAP agreement) Since the board only meets twice a month, having the resolution in place allows the administration to act quickly should a predetermined trigger point be reached.
The question is: at what point should that trigger be set?
Everything is a “gamble”. If we do nothing between now and the end of the year, we’re “gambling” that interest rates won’t decrease, which would add to the cost of ending the agreement, perhaps significantly. On the other hand, were we to decide to end the agreement right now, we would be “gambling” that rates won’t increase – with the result that we would have spent more than necessary. The resolution is an attempt to balance those risks.
What’s going to happen? Of course, nobody knows. What’s likely to happen? Well, again, nobody really knows. But we have some educated guesses from the 60 financial firms that were surveyed by Bloomburg. Of course, these educated guesses are all over the map, but on average they project that the 10-year Treasury rate will rise to 4.15% by the end of the year. Under that assumption - not very solid, but that’s the information we have - the cost of ending the SWAP agreement at that point would be about $5 million..
So how does one decide where to set the trigger? From a strictly mathematical perspective, you would start with the $5 million figure – the point at which the risk of “spending more than necessary to get out early” exactly balances the probability of “waiting too long”, and then pick a number that’s slightly lower.
(Why, lower? Volatility. If the expectation is that rates will reach a certain number, there’s a good chance that you’ll reach a slightly higher peak at some point along the way, and you want to catch that if you can. Keep in mind that without volatility – if the swap termination value moved smoothly - there would be no reason to have the resolution at all; you could just wait until interest rates plateaued.) *
But here’s the problem with this analysis – we don’t make decisions from a strictly mathematical perspective, and for good reason. Here’s an example.
Say that a person you know to be trustworthy (and rich) offers you the following deal: flip a coin, heads – you pay him $10, tails – he pays you $15. A pretty good deal, and one that you’re likely to take. But suppose the numbers are $10,000 and $15,000, respectively. Unless you’re pretty well off – or desperate - you’re not going to take that deal. The reason is quite rational: a $10,000 loss has a greater “value” to most of us than a $15,000 gain. (This is why you should never play high-stakes poker with a wealthy person; they value risk differently.)
There have been a number of studies demonstrating that human beings place a higher “value” on what they stand to lose than on what they might gain, even if when the extrinsic values are exactly the same.
The danger lies in applying this thinking to an organization as large as the school district, where the value of “losing $500,000” and “failing to save $500,000” are exactly the same, particularly when the entire amount will be amortized over ten or twenty years.
I said I’d take another run at it. Persuasive or not, there it is.
*p.s. Particularly astute readers will recognize that termination agreement such as this is useful primarily in a volatile, flat market. If interest rates are projected to go down, you should get out now. If they're projected to go up (as is the present case) you should hold tight for a while longer.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Elementary service-learning
I was glad for the invitation to attend the teacher in-service on Service-learning that was held at Park Forest Elementary school on Martin Luther King Day.
Service-learning is still a relatively new idea, so some time was spent clarifying the differences between service-learning, community service and community-based learning.
Almost everyone understands “community service”, a certain amount (20 hours) of which is one element of the State High graduation requirement. What differentiates community service from service-learning is that it lacks an intentional curricular component - community service is not typically connected to what students are learning in the classroom.
"Community-based learning" is teacher-directed learning that happens outside the classroom (field trips, for example).
What makes service-learning worth the added effort is that it makes learning more meaningful and engaging for students. Several PFE teachers who have used this strategy in the past noted that these projects have such an impact that students will talk about them years later.
When done well, service-learning is a teaching strategy that helps prepare students for civic and democratic life, in part by giving them the tools - and the confidence - to effect change in the community, however narrowly (the classroom) or broadly (the global environment) that is defined.
One comment heard Monday - in reference to elementary school students: "put students in charge and leadership pours out of them."
The following standards address the key components of an effective service-learning project, which is one that:
I should also note that service-learning is an excellent strategy for developing the “21st-century” skills of critical-thinking, collaboration, communication and leadership.
Last year's effort was funded by a $10,000 award from State Farm. If this year's grant application is approved, it would help PFE to create a service-learning model that could be used throughout the district.
I think the District has the right approach to this. Rather than creating another mandate from the top, the administration is offering encouragement and support to teachers who are interested. Individual teachers are to decide for themselves "is this worth it? and "can we do it?"
Service-learning is still a relatively new idea, so some time was spent clarifying the differences between service-learning, community service and community-based learning.
Almost everyone understands “community service”, a certain amount (20 hours) of which is one element of the State High graduation requirement. What differentiates community service from service-learning is that it lacks an intentional curricular component - community service is not typically connected to what students are learning in the classroom.
"Community-based learning" is teacher-directed learning that happens outside the classroom (field trips, for example).
What makes service-learning worth the added effort is that it makes learning more meaningful and engaging for students. Several PFE teachers who have used this strategy in the past noted that these projects have such an impact that students will talk about them years later.
When done well, service-learning is a teaching strategy that helps prepare students for civic and democratic life, in part by giving them the tools - and the confidence - to effect change in the community, however narrowly (the classroom) or broadly (the global environment) that is defined.
One comment heard Monday - in reference to elementary school students: "put students in charge and leadership pours out of them."
The following standards address the key components of an effective service-learning project, which is one that:
- actively engages students in meaningful and personally relevant service activities.
is intentionally used as an instructional strategy to meet learning goals and/or content standards.
encourages students to reflect on what they've learned and on their connection to community and society.
helps participants develop interpersonal skills in conflict resolution and group decision-making.
provides youth with a strong voice in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the experience.
should be done in partnership with the community to address community needs.
I should also note that service-learning is an excellent strategy for developing the “21st-century” skills of critical-thinking, collaboration, communication and leadership.
Last year's effort was funded by a $10,000 award from State Farm. If this year's grant application is approved, it would help PFE to create a service-learning model that could be used throughout the district.
I think the District has the right approach to this. Rather than creating another mandate from the top, the administration is offering encouragement and support to teachers who are interested. Individual teachers are to decide for themselves "is this worth it? and "can we do it?"
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
GT and IDEA
When we met with Congressman Thompson at last year’s FRN conference, it was clear that he does not support "full-funding" of the "Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act" (IDEA). (This is perennially a key item in the NSBA legislative agenda.) However, when the issue was raised at our meeting earlier this month, GT gave a surprising - although very qualified - endorsement of the idea.
The Congressman’s general reticence is understandable. Historically, Republicans have been less inclined than Democrats when it comes to supporting federal funding of “social” programs. But the question isn't whether this is a worthwhile expenditure - that was decided when IDEA's predecessor was passed in 1975, mandating a "free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities" - along with the promise that the federal government would pick up 40% of the tab. (A 40% federal share would be considered "full-funding".)
The key word, of course, is mandating. So the question isn't whether the money should be spent, it's out of which pot the money should come. Does it matter?
The argument for a larger federal share is the equity issue: The greater the federal share of IDEA funding, the less of a burden it is on individual school districts, some of whom are in far better position than others to bear that burden. The current formula for the distribution of IDEA funds only marginally takes into account the relative wealth of school districts.
It can also be very expensive to provide for an individual child with severe disabilities. The relative impact of just one such child on a small district can be substantial. It should be noted that there are a lot of small, rural school districts in the PA 5th Congressional.
But I am personally of the opinion that there are more important things to talk about. At our next meeting, I hope to spend some time discussing the emerging idea of School Climate Standards – for which I believe there is an appropriate federal role.
The Congressman’s general reticence is understandable. Historically, Republicans have been less inclined than Democrats when it comes to supporting federal funding of “social” programs. But the question isn't whether this is a worthwhile expenditure - that was decided when IDEA's predecessor was passed in 1975, mandating a "free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities" - along with the promise that the federal government would pick up 40% of the tab. (A 40% federal share would be considered "full-funding".)
The key word, of course, is mandating. So the question isn't whether the money should be spent, it's out of which pot the money should come. Does it matter?
The argument for a larger federal share is the equity issue: The greater the federal share of IDEA funding, the less of a burden it is on individual school districts, some of whom are in far better position than others to bear that burden. The current formula for the distribution of IDEA funds only marginally takes into account the relative wealth of school districts.
It can also be very expensive to provide for an individual child with severe disabilities. The relative impact of just one such child on a small district can be substantial. It should be noted that there are a lot of small, rural school districts in the PA 5th Congressional.
But I am personally of the opinion that there are more important things to talk about. At our next meeting, I hope to spend some time discussing the emerging idea of School Climate Standards – for which I believe there is an appropriate federal role.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Meeting with GT
Earlier this month, superintendents and school board representatives from several Centre County districts had an opportunity for an extended chat with our Congressman from the PA 5th district, Glenn (GT) Thompson, at his office in Bellefonte.
I knew from prior conversations that the Congressman - himself a former school board member from Bald Eagle Area - appreciates the fact that if we are going to prepare our students for the future, they need a different education than the one most of us received forty years ago. He understands the importance of integrating “21st century skills” such as critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration into every school’s curriculum.
This again became relevant as a federal issue with the recent release of a draft of the Common Core Standards, which are intended to standardize what it means to have a high school diploma from state-to-state across the country. Hearings on these standards were recently held by the House Education and Labor Committee, on which Rep. Thompson is the ranking minority member.
In his comments preceding the hearing, GT acknowledged the broad support that exists for the creation of common standards - but he expressed a concern about the “coercive” nature of the Education Department’s proposal. Because state adoption of these standards has been tied to the “Race to the Top” funds, they will, in effect, be federally mandated. Few states or districts can afford to turn down federal money.
On this point, I think the Congressman is exactly correct. At our meeting, he reiterated his support for the concept of “local control”, based on the premise that local education leaders have a clearer understanding of the educational needs of the children in their communities.
One problem with education thinking at the national level is that it appears to be tied to the idea that we need to “prepare every child for college”. If you changed that to read “post-secondary education”, I would agree. As a perfect example of this, GT argues that using some of these “Race to the Top” funds in the support of trade and technical schools would be an effective way to create jobs in central Pennsylvania.
I suggested that part of the problem with federal educational policy is that it tends to focus on “fixing the problems of struggling urban schools”. This is understandable, particularly since both President Obama and Ed Secretary Arne Duncan have had a lot of experience with the Chicago public school system. But to me, this points out the danger of a one-size-fits-all federal education policy.
Another issue with the Common Core Standards, as they are presently drafted, is that they fail to explicitly address 21st-century skills – possibly because of how hard it is to measure them with standardized tests.
This lead to a brief discussion on the highly controversial issue of teacher “pay-for performance”.
No teacher wants to be evaluated on the basis of a single standardized test that measures just a fraction of what happens in a good classroom. But if teachers had input into the components of their evaluations, we might have a foundation for moving this issue forward.
Interestingly, a similar position was recently advocated by the president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT): AFT: Education must change to move forward
I knew from prior conversations that the Congressman - himself a former school board member from Bald Eagle Area - appreciates the fact that if we are going to prepare our students for the future, they need a different education than the one most of us received forty years ago. He understands the importance of integrating “21st century skills” such as critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration into every school’s curriculum.
This again became relevant as a federal issue with the recent release of a draft of the Common Core Standards, which are intended to standardize what it means to have a high school diploma from state-to-state across the country. Hearings on these standards were recently held by the House Education and Labor Committee, on which Rep. Thompson is the ranking minority member.
In his comments preceding the hearing, GT acknowledged the broad support that exists for the creation of common standards - but he expressed a concern about the “coercive” nature of the Education Department’s proposal. Because state adoption of these standards has been tied to the “Race to the Top” funds, they will, in effect, be federally mandated. Few states or districts can afford to turn down federal money.
On this point, I think the Congressman is exactly correct. At our meeting, he reiterated his support for the concept of “local control”, based on the premise that local education leaders have a clearer understanding of the educational needs of the children in their communities.
One problem with education thinking at the national level is that it appears to be tied to the idea that we need to “prepare every child for college”. If you changed that to read “post-secondary education”, I would agree. As a perfect example of this, GT argues that using some of these “Race to the Top” funds in the support of trade and technical schools would be an effective way to create jobs in central Pennsylvania.
I suggested that part of the problem with federal educational policy is that it tends to focus on “fixing the problems of struggling urban schools”. This is understandable, particularly since both President Obama and Ed Secretary Arne Duncan have had a lot of experience with the Chicago public school system. But to me, this points out the danger of a one-size-fits-all federal education policy.
Another issue with the Common Core Standards, as they are presently drafted, is that they fail to explicitly address 21st-century skills – possibly because of how hard it is to measure them with standardized tests.
This lead to a brief discussion on the highly controversial issue of teacher “pay-for performance”.
No teacher wants to be evaluated on the basis of a single standardized test that measures just a fraction of what happens in a good classroom. But if teachers had input into the components of their evaluations, we might have a foundation for moving this issue forward.
Interestingly, a similar position was recently advocated by the president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT): AFT: Education must change to move forward
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)