What is "college-ready" anyway?

The following story, also picked up by the Centre Daily Times, struck a nerve.

“An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.”

This is what struck me: shouldn’t we expect students to have these skills by the time they graduate from high school?  Shouldn’t a high school graduate to be able to write a coherent paragraph? Should our education model really be that students are not exposed to “critical-thinking” until they get to college - assuming they get there at all?

While there are a handful of policy-makers who speak of education as a K-16 issue, most of the public conversation around education reform appears focused on the K-12 public school system, and specifically, whether or not students are prepared to go to college. 

But there hasn’t been much discussion about the intersection of high school and college, and what’s supposed to happen where. The two systems developed independently, seldom talk to one another, and the consequences are costly.

We already know that even a very good student from a low-performing school doesn’t have the foundation to succeed at an upper-tier university. It is not a question of whether a student is smart enough, or determined enough. While there will always be a few who defy the odds, students at poor schools are not exposed to an academic culture where critical-thinking and abstract reasoning is the norm. They’ve not been in a culture where the students push one another, not only to succeed academically, but to think.

For those fortunate enough to have gone to a good high school, however, the first year of college is often just more of the same.

This was born out in a recent study of State High graduates who went on to attend Penn State. Our ‘good’ students - those who typically had a lot of classroom exposure to these college-level skills - did very well. Our average students, however, sometimes struggle. Here was our conclusion: every student should graduate with the ability to “engage in complex thinking”; to “self-initiate, self-advocate, and organize time”; and to communicate effectively. The way to do this: the development of these skills must be integrated throughout the entire curriculum.

If this became the national standard, it might eliminate the need for the first year of college as it currently exists. It’s time to give this serious thought. Who can afford four years of college tuition anymore? And just suppose education reform ‘succeeds’: what are we going to do with all those “college-ready” students?

There’s a long-standing cultural myth that students go college to “broaden their minds” and “expand their horizons”; to learn to think, as it were. Under the mid-20th century model, college graduates would become the elite who would manage businesses and run the country. Perhaps this made sense when there were plenty of middle-class factory jobs available for high school graduates. Obviously, that’s no longer the case.

The public education system hasn’t failed as is commonly assumed; rather, it’s been slow to adapt to a changing world. Since we need to rethink high school, we ought to rethink college while we’re at it. Are we willing to do that?

Top Ten Reasons why PA Senate Bill 1 is a terrible idea

10. The voucher program proposed in Senate Bill 1 will cost taxpayers a pile of money. The proposed program is estimated to cost over $50 million in the first year, approximately $150 million in year two - when students who already attend nonpublic schools are eligible to obtain vouchers - and as much as $1.22 billion in years three and later, when all low-income students across the state become eligible. This money will come directly from the pockets of taxpayers, as they will now not only support the public education system, but also every nonpublic, private, and parochial school a voucher student attends.

It should not be necessary to point out that there’s a $4 billion hole in the state budget.

9. The proposed bill violates the State Constitution. You might think this would be important to lawmakers. Pennsylvania’s Constitution is quite clear: public funds cannot be used to fund schools that are religiously affiliated.

8. There’s no evidence that charter schools are better than regular public schools.  If the definition of “persistently lowest achieving school” is applied to charter and cyber charter schools, 27 charter schools would fall into this category! We don’t know about private schools, since they’re not required to collect that data, and if they do, it’s not public information. Shouldn’t there be some evidence before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an idea?

7. Vouchers divert resources from public education but do not significantly reduce costs. When a student leaves a school district to enroll in a nonpublic school, the costs associated with that student do not just disappear. (For example: building maintenance, utilities, technology, food service, transportation, etc., etc.)

6. Parents often choose private (and charter) schools for reasons having little to do with academics.  While the proposal is framed as providing parents with a way to send their children to a better school, parents often make this choice for reasons unrelated to the quality of the school.  One reason is obvious: parents would now be able to send their children to state-subsidized religious schools. Another: the dirty secret is that private and charter school offer after-school programs that provide free day-care!  Wouldn’t it be easier – and cheaper - to fund after-school programs?

5. Private and parochial schools are NOT open to every child. It is disingenuous to claim that vouchers open the door to “parental choice” when in fact the choice is really being given to the nonpublic school. Under Senate Bill 1, private and parochial schools are able to decide if they want to participate in the voucher program, and then if so, how many and which students they want to admit. Public schools accept and educate students regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, academic performance and special needs. Nonpublic schools are able to “cherry pick” the students, if any, they would welcome into their school.

4. The choice is only for those parents who can afford it. Even if their child is accepted, if the private school tuition exceeds the amount of the voucher, the parents are responsible for making up the difference.

3. Private schools lack transparency and are unaccountable to taxpayers. Unlike charter schools, private schools are not held to the same standards of accountability. While public schools are required to comply with ‘Right-to-Know’ and ‘Sunshine’ laws, private and parochial schools are not required to make their financial records, academic achievement data or board meetings open to the public. Furthermore, students enrolled in nonpublic schools are not subjected to state-approved academic standards and assessments.

2. Pennsylvanians do not support tuition vouchers.  Once they realize who’s paying for it, about two out of three voters oppose school voucher proposals.

1. The proposed legislation diverts us from the real issue. It is our Constitutional obligation to provide a “free and appropriate” education to every child in Pennsylvania, regardless of economic status. Although the majority of schools in Pennsylvania continue to make progress, clearly there are areas where we have not been successful.  Rather than remove a select few, disadvantaged students from a school that is under-performing, why not start working together on these issues so that all students have access to a quality education?

A Better School Lunch

I almost always find our periodic board visits to the schools enlightening.  This week’s visit to Corl Street Elementary (the alma mater for my three children) was no exception.  What struck me most was a subject that in my opinion, has not always received enough attention:  lunch.

I was able to choose milk (flavored or not), fruit (grapes or an apple), and two vegetables (fresh broccoli and carrots).  A chef’s salad, with or without meat, was one of the entrée choices.  I thought to myself, “You know, this is really quite good!”

It has not always been so. (Way back when I went to school, lunch was typically dreadful, and not the least bit healthy.)

Tossing irony to the wind, I eschewed the salad for a cheesesteak sandwich.  But I wondered, why not a whole wheat bun for my cheesesteak?

Turns out, there’s an answer to that question.  In order to save money, the district purchases much of its food through a food service consortium based in Pittsburgh.  This year, the consortium failed to write a whole wheat option in its specifications for bread, so, of course, white bread came in as the low bid.

It appears the consortium will address that issue for next year; the District is waiting to see before it signs on.  But either way, students will see a whole wheat sub roll next year.  I find this very encouraging.

Meanwhile, the USDA recently proposed nutrient regulations that will require all bread products to be whole grain rich within 2 years.  Kudos to the USDA!

On another note, I learned that all the leftover food that used to be tossed in the trash is now picked up and composted by the Borough.  And the students are thrilled to do their part.

More kudos

Though it pains me somewhat to say it, Bill Gates has gotten so much right lately that I need a second post to get it all down. Most of what follows is courtesy of a recent "Newsweek" interview with him and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers(!) They are mostly in agreement (!!), so we ought to pay attention.

For starters, Weingarten makes the point that education in America is not 'in decline'; rather, it’s that much of the rest of the world has caught up to us. That's an important distinction. She believes a large part of the problem is that our education system was designed for the industrial age rather than our current knowledge economy.

A key issue from Gates' perspective begins, importantly, with the recognition that we already have a lot of very good teachers. His question - the question, really - is how do we transfer the skills and knowledge of the best teachers to the rest of the profession?  As he sees it, the problem is that "for 90 percent of the teachers in America there’s no (meaningful) feedback."

He goes on to make the fair point that the use of student test scores for measuring student and teacher performance is "better than nothing" - but that we need to develop a group of measures such as "videotaping classrooms, peer interviews, and student interviews" that will help to determine best teaching practices while providing meaningful feedback.

Similarly, Weingarten noted that the current testing paradigm is similar to the "drive-by evaluation" that was common when she was a teacher: neither is particularly useful for helping teachers improve or kids learn. 

But here's a key point: the work of developing a better evaluation model has to get done collaboratively. It cannot be imposed by outsiders with little or no classroom experience. And as Weingarten points out, students, parents, teachers and policymakers all have important roles in that process. But the problem is: "school systems by and large do not work collaboratively. They basically work on conflict. Conflict is the status quo in education."

What struck me is that it doesn't matter to Gates whose fault it is that it got this way. By the way, they both made the point - egregiously ignored by "Waiting for Superman" - that the most educationally successful countries are all unionized! But “if you create a collaborative environment where teachers are trusted, you break out of … the factory model, which is what a lot of these contracts are. In places where the schools are working, people never look at the contract.”

Finally, this point: “if you actually look at some work in Japan or in Singapore on mathematics, kids really understand fractions. They don’t just memorize what a fraction is. They don’t just say one half equals 50 percent; they understand how you get there.”

Kudos to Mr. Gates

Having recently slammed Bill Gates for his comments on where good teachers come from ("Brain Rules and Empathy"), it's only fair to point out when he gets something right.

His recently-released Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) survey got a lot of things right.

For example, it turns out that "student perception" is an excellent predictor of teacher effectiveness. Students know good teaching when they see it.

The National Council of Teacher Quality put it nicely: "It seems we might all save ourselves a whole lot of time, money, and aggravation now being invested in fixing teacher evaluations by just turning the job over to kids. Heck, that sure would save states and districts an awful lot of money."

This really shouldn't be surprising. Almost everyone can identify the teachers who had the greatest impact on them, and in whose classes they learned the most.

The following student responses were highly correlated with teacher 'value-added' scores
•    My teacher really tries to understand how students feel about things.
•    Students in this class treat the teacher with respect.
•    My teacher has several good ways to explain each topic.
•    My teacher makes lessons interesting.
•    Students speak up and share their ideas about class work.
•    The comments I get on my work help me understand how to improve.

The Gates’ study also looked at the robustness of value-added measures themselves, looking at questions such as whether state tests--from which most value-added scores are determined--correlate with other types of tests, including tests with open-ended responses; and whether a teacher's high performance one year will predict the next. (They do.)

On the other hand, "State tests measuring students' language arts achievement seem to be least able to identify the full range of teacher ability, raising some concerns among the research team about what these tests are measuring.” The researchers concluded that these may just be lousy tests, which is what teachers have said for years.

And then there’s this really good news: "teachers whose students report that they spend a lot of time in the class practicing for the state test are by no means the better teachers." Apparently, ‘teaching to the test’ is not an effective teaching strategy.

Another “school board blogger”?

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

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.