The Student Delegate Program

At the fall PSBA conference in Hershey last week, I had the opportunity to assist Lou Ann Evans (a former PSBA president) in a presentation to the student delegates.

The Student Delegate Program has been part of PSBA conference for 30 years, and is, as far as I know, unique. Students choose a "hot topic", examine the issue and propose solutions to a "mock" school board, consisting of school board members, administrators and students in attendance at the conference. During each of five 15-minute presentations, the student presenters respond to questions from the audience and the board, which eventually votes to adopt, reject or table the students' resolution.

Although the delegate program has long been a popular and well-attended part of the conference, until this year there hasn't been a lot in the way of formal training for the students, nor have they had the opportunity to hear the perspective of actual school board members prior to their presentations. We thought that might be useful.

In our thinking, this was an excellent opportunity to encourage the development of civic skills and knowledge among students - long an important goal of education. (In fact, the primary impetus for Ben Franklin's proposal to establish the first public schools in Pennsylvania was "to the end of creating citizens who could make wise political decisions".) What better place to learn the skills for becoming an effective citizen in the larger community?

In addition, there is an increasing body of research that connects academic achievement to the students’ sense of ownership in their school.

An important piece of civic knowledge is understanding who has the authority to make the changes you want to see happen. So, part of our presentation had to do with who school boards are - what kinds of decisions do they make, and how their role differs from that of school administrators. In short, the distinction between "policy" and the implementation of policy.

We then introduced the students to the "26" process - named after the 26th amendment - which they used to develop their resolutions. Once the students identified an issue of concern to them, they brainstormed potential solutions, considering the costs and possible consequences of each. Just as importantly, they tried to identify the key stakeholders, and the concerns they would bring to the issue. (This may sound familiar to veterans of Public Issues Forums.)

Finally, we talked about how to make an effective presentation: the importance of speaking clearly, anticipating questions, and knowing your audience.

While I’m probably not the best person to judge the results, I thought our presentation made a difference. And hopefully, these students will have an opportunity to make use of this experience back in their home schools.

A not-dead horse

You might think that I'm beating a dead horse with yet another posting on the governor's proposed Graduation Competency Assessments. 

The problem is that the horse still isn't dead – in fact, he never stopped running. In spite of severe rebuffs from both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature (22-1 in the House Education committee, 48-2 in the full Senate) and in spite of the language of Act 61 "expressly prohibiting the state Board from further promulgating regulations on the GCA proposal" - as well as a rejection by the state’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission - Education Secretary Gerry Zahorchak immediately issued a letter to school districts declaring that the department would not abandon the GCA plan, and would continue to move forward.

Their stated intention is to begin implementation of the GCAs in the 2009-2010 academic year.

I bring this up in light of two recent news items.

You may have read that a commission of some of the country's most influential college admissions officials is recommending a move away from standardized tests (such as SATs) as the best way to determine a student's ability to succeed in college. Instead, there is a growing emphasis in college admissions on assessments that are more closely tied to high school curriculum and content.

Meanwhile, our next-door neighbor, New Jersey, has joined the list of states to embrace the "21st Century Skills" model for its educational system. New Jersey has become ” acutely aware that the skills needed in the context of the global economy include critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication and proficiency in both core subjects and 21st century skills.”

It seems to me that the horse is running in the wrong direction.

Get in on the ground floor

For the benefit of my handful of readers, and in the spirit of using every available resource, consider this your invitation to attend one of five community meetings, in reference to the District Wide Facilities Master Plan.

This will be an opportunity to learn more about the DWMP process, and to offer your thoughts regarding school facilities, both in your area and district-wide.

Pick a date and location that is convenient for you.

September 23: Houserville Elementary or Park Forest Elementary
September 24: Mt. Nittany Middle School or High School South
September 25: Ferguson Twp. Elementary

All meetings are scheduled from 6:30-8:00 p.m.

Also coming up is the first of three Community Dialogues - the "Futures Conference" - which is scheduled for Tuesday, October 7, from 7-9 p.m. in the Mt. Nittany Middle School cafeteria.

Steering the conversation

Another “duel-hat” post

What strikes me about the process being used to develop the District Wide Master Plan are the similarities to Public Issues Forums. In several respects, the role of the DWMP steering committee corresponds to that of a task force for an issues forum.

The most important thing about putting together a PIF task force is getting all the stakeholders to the table. This accomplishes two things. Because the various stakeholders are likely to have different connections in the larger community, they are individually well-positioned to encourage community participation.

Just as importantly, having the right people at the table helps to ensure that every perspective of the issue is considered. If an issue has been well-framed, acknowledging the consequences and trade-offs associated with each potential course of action, then the public will be able to make informed choices. Deciding what should be done about an issue is not the task force’s responsibility.

Likewise, the steering committee’s role will be primarily two-fold: to encourage community participation, and to provide the tools to help the community make an informed decision; that is, to “steer” the community conversation (or at least help it to stay on track).

At the conclusion of public deliberation at a forum, the moderators – who are often members of the task force – help participants identify areas of common ground, or the lack thereof. The task of the DWMP steering committee will be somewhat different, in that their job will not be complete until that common ground is reached and identified.

Steering the DWMP

Sometimes a motion is so complicated, or contains so many components, that when a board member votes "no", the rationale for that vote is not entirely obvious. So I thought it might be useful to explain why I voted against the motion at the August 25th meeting that established the make-up of the steering committee for the District Wide Master Plan.

Most of the proposed adjustments to the steering committee list passed unanimously, but there were a couple of exceptions. I thought it was a mistake to eliminate the seats for the three building principal representatives (one from each level: elementary, middle school, and high school).  In my view, the experience of principals is unique, in that they understand building issues - including curriculum, staffing and space allocation - from the broader, building-wide perspective; a point-of-view you're not likely to get from anyone else. Principals also receive, as part of their job, a significant amount of community input - they hear both sides of practically everything.

I also think there is value in having a representative from the law enforcement community at the table. Their specialized understanding of safety and security issues would, I believe, greatly inform the community's conversation.

Those two issues were the basis of my "no" vote.

It’s not about the money

Perhaps the last in a series on national education policy.

I have long been of the opinion that when it comes to teacher compensation, for the most part, it’s not really about the money - although compensating those willing to work in particularly challenging circumstances seems like a good investment.

What we pay our teachers, however, is not unimportant - teachers ought to make enough money to live comfortably and have status in the community in which they teach. But the cliché is true: few educators go into the field because it’s a steady job, or because they get the “summers off”. So we ought to be skeptical of the idea that financial rewards for teachers who produce higher test scores are going to accomplish as much as one might hope

Having said that, I’m not opposed to rewarding good teachers for results: perhaps “master teacher” status – and, along with some additional responsibilities for mentoring younger teachers, etc., an appropriate increase in compensation

The big question is: how do we measure those results?  If we base teacher incentives strictly on standardized test scores, then what we’ll get are better scores, but not necessarily better students.

The other point: if we are going to start rewarding teachers for performance – or penalize them for the lack thereof – then teachers ought to have a central role in deciding what criteria we’re going to use to measure their effectiveness. If we’re not going to give teachers at least that much respect, our efforts will be doomed from the start.

Teach for America

I lifted the following, almost in its entirety, from the July issue of Atlantic Monthly, because of its relevance to current proposals regarding national education policy.

Critics of the Teach for America program, which recruits top college graduates to teach in poorly performing public schools, have long questioned whether the program’s instructors are properly prepared, citing evidence that links teacher effectiveness to experience. However, the first study to examine Teach for America at the secondary-school level, recently released by the Urban Institute, finds that its teachers are in fact more effective than those with traditional training—at all levels of experience.

The study measured performance on state exams and found that students of Teach for America instructors did significantly better in all subject areas tested, and especially in math and science. The authors found that even though the program’s teachers are assigned to “the most demanding classrooms,” they’re able to compensate for their lack of experience with better academic preparation and motivation. As a result, the authors say, students are better off with Teach for America instructors “than with fully licensed in-field teachers with three or more years of experience.”

-“Making a Difference?: The Effects of Teach for America in High School,” by Zeyu Xu, Jane Hannaway, and Colin Taylor, the Urban Institute and the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.