I was personally thrilled by Monday's board work session on curriculum development with Jay McTighe, who has worked with State College for a number of years.
I have long believed that the district was ahead of the curve with its list of "characteristics of a State High graduate" that so closely parallels the 21st century skills that are such a large part of the national education conversation.
While this list has informed the work of the district’s faculty for over a decade, Mr. McTighe challenged the district to be more intentional, and explicit, in tying these characteristics to our curriculum, and finding ways to measure whether we have succeeded. While some of the things on this list are easier to measure than others, just asking the question (to give one example) “what does ‘a responsible steward of the environment’ look like?” is a good place to start.
From the conversations I heard, there is a general recognition that by focusing on these “higher order” skills, we will continue to be successful on standardized test scores (as we heard about later in the meeting.) That vision appears to be shared around the table.
FYI, the list:
• 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
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
School climate
"School climate" was the subject of Jonathan Cohen's keynote address at July's PSBA educational symposium in Gettysburg.
Defined most broadly, school climate refers to the environment that makes possible, enhances, or hinders learning by students. At the physical level, this is about proper lighting, adequate air ventilation and classroom acoustics, in addition to safety.
But typically, it refers to social and emotional safety, the result of a complex interaction of the school's rules, norms and values; teaching practices; and the quality of interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers.
Does everyone is the school - students, teachers and administrators - feel a responsibility to contribute to the physical, social and educational environment of the school? Does everyone have the opportunity to do so? Does everyone feel respected and valued?
The greatest barrier to learning is fear - when your brain is in a state of fear, new, complex learning is next to impossible. The degree to which students (and teachers, for that matter) feel "safe" is a critical component of the learning environment.
An illustration to which I expect most readers can relate: does every student feel emotionally safe enough to raise one's hand to say "I don't understand; could you explain that again?" What can teachers do to create that environment? (An idea to consider: what if teachers had their students practice saying those words? Once a day - or as necessary - have each student in the class raise his or her hand and say, "I don't understand” – or some variation - until it begins to feel normal for every student. Just a thought.)
Recent research on school climate has established the connection between positive school climate and academic achievement, as well as teacher retention.
Obviously, measuring school climate is not a simple as a PSSA score, but the significance of its impact on how well students learn makes a compelling case for developing a mechanism that tells school officials and the public how well they're doing.
Defined most broadly, school climate refers to the environment that makes possible, enhances, or hinders learning by students. At the physical level, this is about proper lighting, adequate air ventilation and classroom acoustics, in addition to safety.
But typically, it refers to social and emotional safety, the result of a complex interaction of the school's rules, norms and values; teaching practices; and the quality of interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers.
Does everyone is the school - students, teachers and administrators - feel a responsibility to contribute to the physical, social and educational environment of the school? Does everyone have the opportunity to do so? Does everyone feel respected and valued?
The greatest barrier to learning is fear - when your brain is in a state of fear, new, complex learning is next to impossible. The degree to which students (and teachers, for that matter) feel "safe" is a critical component of the learning environment.
An illustration to which I expect most readers can relate: does every student feel emotionally safe enough to raise one's hand to say "I don't understand; could you explain that again?" What can teachers do to create that environment? (An idea to consider: what if teachers had their students practice saying those words? Once a day - or as necessary - have each student in the class raise his or her hand and say, "I don't understand” – or some variation - until it begins to feel normal for every student. Just a thought.)
Recent research on school climate has established the connection between positive school climate and academic achievement, as well as teacher retention.
Obviously, measuring school climate is not a simple as a PSSA score, but the significance of its impact on how well students learn makes a compelling case for developing a mechanism that tells school officials and the public how well they're doing.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Legislative update, part 2
The other significant issue addressed last week was, of course, the governor's proposal for state-wide Graduation Competency Assessments. The good news is that the GCA initiative has been postponed for a year, but like Jason from "Friday the 13th", I'm certain that we've not seen the end of it.
Over the last few weeks, the House Education Committee voted 22-1 to send a letter to the State Board of Education asking them to "re-evaluate" their proposal; the Senate Education Committee voted 11-1 to prevent the State Board from adopting the proposal without authorization of the General Assembly.; and the full Senate passed that bill by a vote of 48-2. 48-2! The governor, however, does not appear discouraged.
But what got my attention was how the story was covered in the press. According to the AP, opponents of the proposal are primarily concerned with the loss of "local policy making authority."
Frankly, this is typical (lazy?) reporting that frames every political issue as a turf war. Personally, I could care less about the loss of local authority - if I thought that the state had come up with a good idea to improve education, I would be all for it.
So here's the heart of the argument: it seems to me that if you are going to put this much weight on a high-stakes test, you would want to make sure that the test actually measures what it's supposed to - but there is absolutely no evidence that a standardized, fill-in-the-bubble test is a reliable and accurate measurement of whether an individual student has learned - and is able to apply - the material that is being tested.
And - this really disturbs me - there has been no public discussion over what that material should be! How was it decided that every high school student needs to know algebra, but not statistics; geometry, but not probability; chemistry, but not astronomy?
Here's a radical, but perhaps more honest idea. When I picture the set of skills that every high school student ought to have, what I see actually lines up pretty well with our 8th grade curriculum. (When business leaders talk about the lack of "basic skills", this is what they're actually talking about.) If the state wants to implement an assessment of these skills, as an addition to local high school graduation requirements, I'm all for it.
Here's something else the state board could do: take a good look at schools that are successful, and give some thought as to how what they do could be replicated state-wide.
Over the last few weeks, the House Education Committee voted 22-1 to send a letter to the State Board of Education asking them to "re-evaluate" their proposal; the Senate Education Committee voted 11-1 to prevent the State Board from adopting the proposal without authorization of the General Assembly.; and the full Senate passed that bill by a vote of 48-2. 48-2! The governor, however, does not appear discouraged.
But what got my attention was how the story was covered in the press. According to the AP, opponents of the proposal are primarily concerned with the loss of "local policy making authority."
Frankly, this is typical (lazy?) reporting that frames every political issue as a turf war. Personally, I could care less about the loss of local authority - if I thought that the state had come up with a good idea to improve education, I would be all for it.
So here's the heart of the argument: it seems to me that if you are going to put this much weight on a high-stakes test, you would want to make sure that the test actually measures what it's supposed to - but there is absolutely no evidence that a standardized, fill-in-the-bubble test is a reliable and accurate measurement of whether an individual student has learned - and is able to apply - the material that is being tested.
And - this really disturbs me - there has been no public discussion over what that material should be! How was it decided that every high school student needs to know algebra, but not statistics; geometry, but not probability; chemistry, but not astronomy?
Here's a radical, but perhaps more honest idea. When I picture the set of skills that every high school student ought to have, what I see actually lines up pretty well with our 8th grade curriculum. (When business leaders talk about the lack of "basic skills", this is what they're actually talking about.) If the state wants to implement an assessment of these skills, as an addition to local high school graduation requirements, I'm all for it.
Here's something else the state board could do: take a good look at schools that are successful, and give some thought as to how what they do could be replicated state-wide.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Legislative update
The fact that the state budget (almost) passed on time last week is unfortunately noteworthy. But this budget represents a significant step towards state-wide educational equity, so one ought not to complain.
The legislature did well by expanding the governor's proposed minimum increase (for "wealthier" districts) of 1.5%, since local school districts, including State College, had already built the standard 2% increase into their budgets.
However, by raising the minimum to 3% (resulting in a "windfall" for State College of about $90,000) it seems to me that they missed the point - which was, after all, to begin to address the issue of how widely financial resources vary for schools across the state.
What the state giveth, however, the state also taketh away. The smaller increase in special education funding (from 3.1% to 1.7%) will cost State College about $98,000 - but since we only budgeted for 2%, the actual shortfall is about $11,000. (Note: according to PDE, that number is actually $28,000. And - the state increased it's reimbursement for charter school costs from 25% of costs to 28%. This will result in a $174,000 increase for State College, due to our high charter school expenses.)
Also, funding for the governor's Classrooms of the Future grant was cut in half. It's too soon to know whether that will affect the next phase of State College's laptop initiative.
The legislature did well by expanding the governor's proposed minimum increase (for "wealthier" districts) of 1.5%, since local school districts, including State College, had already built the standard 2% increase into their budgets.
However, by raising the minimum to 3% (resulting in a "windfall" for State College of about $90,000) it seems to me that they missed the point - which was, after all, to begin to address the issue of how widely financial resources vary for schools across the state.
What the state giveth, however, the state also taketh away. The smaller increase in special education funding (from 3.1% to 1.7%) will cost State College about $98,000 - but since we only budgeted for 2%, the actual shortfall is about $11,000. (Note: according to PDE, that number is actually $28,000. And - the state increased it's reimbursement for charter school costs from 25% of costs to 28%. This will result in a $174,000 increase for State College, due to our high charter school expenses.)
Also, funding for the governor's Classrooms of the Future grant was cut in half. It's too soon to know whether that will affect the next phase of State College's laptop initiative.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Classrooms for the Future
State College was in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the governor's "Classrooms for the Future" grant that supplied 569 laptops to the classrooms of 46 English and Social Studies teachers at the high school this past school year. Hopefully, the next year will see the initiative extended into math and science classrooms, as well.
At Monday night's presentation to the board, both students and teachers spoke to the value of collaborative tools such as Google.docs, and the impact on writing skills. It used to be that one or two edits of a writing assignment were about the limit of what teachers could expect. Technology, however, has created an "anytime" paradigm, with the result that student collaboration and multiple drafts have become the norm, and students can add to their learning by editing one another's work. (A lot of teachers are also discovering that student blogs are an excellent way to encourage writing.)
Discussions that in the past would have occurred only in the classroom – where often, only about a third of the class participates consistently - can now also occur on-line, where participation often reaches 90%.
Access to technology is also expanding the definition of "literacy": to be literate in today's society means being able to "read" a movie or a website, as well as the newspaper. (What's that?)
A terrific example of a service learning project that was enhanced by access to technology was Deb Poveromo’s "Local Sites of Memory" assignment, for which her students researched a local historical site to learn its significance - as well as determine the extent to which the "story" is accurate. As the students described it, technology greatly enhances the ease and potential depth of their research.
Another example of technology’s impact on research was a project that asked students to examine African history from the African perspective (rather than from the European point-of-view, as it’s traditionally taught.) In the past, such an assignment would have been extraordinarily time-consuming.
As you well know from experience, such assignments typically conclude with a "report" that makes use of the traditional communication skills of writing (and occasionally, speaking) - but students are beginning to ask themselves: "what is the most effective way to communicate my message?" The answer often involves the creative use of iMovie, Powerpoint and music. In the process, we incorporate another important 21st century emphasis: the integration of the arts into the curriculum - while we demonstrate the principal that there are multiple ways for students to exhibit their learning.
With tight schedules and departments stretched across two buildings, opportunities for collaboration are often hard to come by, so the professional development that was provided as part of this initiative was essential. Particularly noteworthy was the enthusiasm that was generated among the faculty by the opportunities that technology provides for collaboration both within and across departments.
At Monday night's presentation to the board, both students and teachers spoke to the value of collaborative tools such as Google.docs, and the impact on writing skills. It used to be that one or two edits of a writing assignment were about the limit of what teachers could expect. Technology, however, has created an "anytime" paradigm, with the result that student collaboration and multiple drafts have become the norm, and students can add to their learning by editing one another's work. (A lot of teachers are also discovering that student blogs are an excellent way to encourage writing.)
Discussions that in the past would have occurred only in the classroom – where often, only about a third of the class participates consistently - can now also occur on-line, where participation often reaches 90%.
Access to technology is also expanding the definition of "literacy": to be literate in today's society means being able to "read" a movie or a website, as well as the newspaper. (What's that?)
A terrific example of a service learning project that was enhanced by access to technology was Deb Poveromo’s "Local Sites of Memory" assignment, for which her students researched a local historical site to learn its significance - as well as determine the extent to which the "story" is accurate. As the students described it, technology greatly enhances the ease and potential depth of their research.
Another example of technology’s impact on research was a project that asked students to examine African history from the African perspective (rather than from the European point-of-view, as it’s traditionally taught.) In the past, such an assignment would have been extraordinarily time-consuming.
As you well know from experience, such assignments typically conclude with a "report" that makes use of the traditional communication skills of writing (and occasionally, speaking) - but students are beginning to ask themselves: "what is the most effective way to communicate my message?" The answer often involves the creative use of iMovie, Powerpoint and music. In the process, we incorporate another important 21st century emphasis: the integration of the arts into the curriculum - while we demonstrate the principal that there are multiple ways for students to exhibit their learning.
With tight schedules and departments stretched across two buildings, opportunities for collaboration are often hard to come by, so the professional development that was provided as part of this initiative was essential. Particularly noteworthy was the enthusiasm that was generated among the faculty by the opportunities that technology provides for collaboration both within and across departments.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
GCAs, again
Of the several interesting topics discussed at Monday's board meeting, the most urgent dealt, once again, with the governor's proposal for new state-wide Graduation Competency Assessments (read: exams).
The public comment period to the State Board of Education runs until June 16th. (Comments should be sent to: Jim Buckheit, at: jbuckheit@state.pa - you are welcome to borrow from my comments, here.)
That, however, has become almost irrelevant. Since the state Board of Education appears to be firmly committed to approving the GCA proposal beginning with the fiscal year that starts in July, (the money for it is already in the governor's budget), it is actually more important that citizens contact their state representatives as soon as possible concerning recently introduced legislation that would give the Legislature the sole right to impose the new graduation requirements.
Yesterday, the Senate Education Committee voted 11-1 to approve this legislation, sponsored by Sen. James Rhoades. The full Senate could vote on the bill as early as Wednesday. Similar legislation is also under consideration in the House Education Committee, on which local representative Scott Conklin sits.
Astonishingly, the chairman of the State Board has taken offense to the proposed legislation, "it's unfortunate they are doing this rather than continuing to engage in the debate."
Can you say "chutzpah?"
The public comment period to the State Board of Education runs until June 16th. (Comments should be sent to: Jim Buckheit, at: jbuckheit@state.pa - you are welcome to borrow from my comments, here.)
That, however, has become almost irrelevant. Since the state Board of Education appears to be firmly committed to approving the GCA proposal beginning with the fiscal year that starts in July, (the money for it is already in the governor's budget), it is actually more important that citizens contact their state representatives as soon as possible concerning recently introduced legislation that would give the Legislature the sole right to impose the new graduation requirements.
Yesterday, the Senate Education Committee voted 11-1 to approve this legislation, sponsored by Sen. James Rhoades. The full Senate could vote on the bill as early as Wednesday. Similar legislation is also under consideration in the House Education Committee, on which local representative Scott Conklin sits.
Astonishingly, the chairman of the State Board has taken offense to the proposed legislation, "it's unfortunate they are doing this rather than continuing to engage in the debate."
Can you say "chutzpah?"
Monday, June 2, 2008
Teacher of the Year
A recent American School Board Journal interview with national Teacher of the Year, Mike Geisen, reinforced what are becoming some familiar arguments regarding the limited value of standardized testing and the impact the "standards movement" is having on the development of 21st century skills.
A seventh-grade science teacher in Oregon, Geisen began the interview talking about the importance of relationships; that in order to create a quality atmosphere for learning, students need to feel that they “belong” in the classroom, regardless of their natural aptitude for science - and they need to see science as fun.
He went on to claim that the typical approach to science education – with its emphasis on the logical and the analytical - is like “forced right-handedness”. Not all of his kids come to him with mathematical inclinations; some students seem to have brains better wired for creativity. (Personally, I think every student is potentially both “left” and “right”-brained, and that we need to do a better job of developing and integrating the two approaches.)
Explaining why art and creativity have such a prominent place in his classroom - he regularly plays his guitar - he said students need to understand that the most influential scientists and inventors have (also) been right-brained.
Speaking specifically about his role as a science educator, he said "we've got to educate people to be whole-minded thinkers" - as opposed to Jeopardy contestants (not that there's anything wrong with that).
He also talked about how we tend to define achievement too narrowly, constrained, in part, by the tools we have to measure it. Standardized testing is effective at measuring skills - knowledge, primarily - that were important in the 20th century, whereas the critical skills for the 21st century will include innovation, empathy and synthesis. (Empathy - the ability to see things from another person's point of view - is becoming a recurring "21st century" theme.)
Echoing the argument of Daniel Pink, Geisen noted that these are the skills "that are not going to be replaced by a machine overseas." And as Tom Freidman would say, the United States is in prime position to capitalize – if we don’t get carried away by the current craze for testing.
A seventh-grade science teacher in Oregon, Geisen began the interview talking about the importance of relationships; that in order to create a quality atmosphere for learning, students need to feel that they “belong” in the classroom, regardless of their natural aptitude for science - and they need to see science as fun.
He went on to claim that the typical approach to science education – with its emphasis on the logical and the analytical - is like “forced right-handedness”. Not all of his kids come to him with mathematical inclinations; some students seem to have brains better wired for creativity. (Personally, I think every student is potentially both “left” and “right”-brained, and that we need to do a better job of developing and integrating the two approaches.)
Explaining why art and creativity have such a prominent place in his classroom - he regularly plays his guitar - he said students need to understand that the most influential scientists and inventors have (also) been right-brained.
Speaking specifically about his role as a science educator, he said "we've got to educate people to be whole-minded thinkers" - as opposed to Jeopardy contestants (not that there's anything wrong with that).
He also talked about how we tend to define achievement too narrowly, constrained, in part, by the tools we have to measure it. Standardized testing is effective at measuring skills - knowledge, primarily - that were important in the 20th century, whereas the critical skills for the 21st century will include innovation, empathy and synthesis. (Empathy - the ability to see things from another person's point of view - is becoming a recurring "21st century" theme.)
Echoing the argument of Daniel Pink, Geisen noted that these are the skills "that are not going to be replaced by a machine overseas." And as Tom Freidman would say, the United States is in prime position to capitalize – if we don’t get carried away by the current craze for testing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)