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:

• 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. 

An excellent definition is one that was provided by a student: service-learning is "learning while doing for others."

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?"

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.

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