Earlier this month, State Board of Education Chairman Joseph Torsella brought forward a new "compromise" proposal concerning the Keystone Exams (known in its previous incarnation as the Graduation Competency Assessments).
Under this plan, a Keystone exam in Algebra I would replace the current math PSSA exam that is given to all 11th grade students. The 11th grade PSSA writing assessment would be replaced by a “literature” Keystone Exam; and a newly developed Biology Keystone Exam will become the high school science assessment that will soon be required under NCLB.
This appears to be a significant step backwards from the agreement that was worked out between PSBA and PDE in April.
A number of objections have been raised about this proposal, including the usual concerns about costs, the excessive use of standardized testing, and the fact that teachers and other school leaders were not part of the discussions (!), but I think there’s another issue that has not be given enough attention.
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.
For example, from my perspective, using an Algebra exam as the state math assessment is far too narrowly focused. Certainly, every high school graduate ought to have a basic understanding of algebraic concepts. But honestly, how many people in the real world need to know how to factor an equation?
On the other hand, shouldn’t students understand the core principles of geometry, trigonometry and calculus, as well? Further, the argument could be made that statistics, probability and personal finance are of greater use to the average citizen. The current recession might have been avoided if more high school graduates had understood the implications of variable interest rates.
Even worse is the proposal that a Biology Keystone Exam become the science assessment. How was it determined that Biology is more important than Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, or Astronomy? (In fact, in order to understand the science of global warming, you probably need to have a basic understanding of all those subjects.) What happened to an appreciation of a well-rounded education?
I think it’s important to say that “accountability” is not the issue. By now, nobody should be opposed to accountability. But accountable for what? So far, I’ve only talked about what students need to “know”; I haven’t addressed the complex set of skills that today’s students will need in order to be successful, such as the ability to process and use all this information. (More on that soon.)
The problem is that few politicians have a deep enough understanding of educational issues to know what should be done to improve the educational system - but they need to look like they’re doing something. So we’re left with simplistic solutions that appear to hold (someone else) accountable.
Some states, however, are heading in the right direction. West Virginia is one.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Public Conversations
Another of Wheatley’s core beliefs is that almost all significant change begins with meaningful conversations. As our public issues have grown increasingly complex, the value of these conversations has also increased; few public issues can be simply handed to an expert to resolve. Clearly, there are interesting implications for how public institutions (such as school boards) engage with the community.
While the principles that produce quality public engagement are not complicated, there are several key components. I was struck by how consistently Wheatley's ideas aligned with the Public Issues Forum model.
First, “people support what they create”; a principle we saw borne out in the development of the District-wide facilities’ master plan. (Similarly, in the PIF model, participants are encouraged to take ownership of both the process and the results of their conversation. The group agrees to, and helps enforce, the ground rules; it is the group’s responsibility to listen to one another, and work towards finding areas of common ground.)
However, community engagement that is poorly designed or poorly implemented can fail to produce the desired results. For example, PIF has discovered that it is useful to the process to have a moderator who knows how to keep the group on task; this helps ensure that the group allows sufficient time to wrestle with the pros and cons, and the tradeoffs, that are inherent within varied approaches to a complex problem.
In fact, Wheatley claims what appears to be a good community engagement practice is often counter-productive. The example she gave: many school boards - State College included - allow community members to speak for five minutes on an issue of their choosing. According to Wheatley, “while that sounds good on the surface” it “invites drama and histrionics, rather than good reflection.” (Something to think about.)
By contrast, the PIF model specifically discourages “speeches”. (A key ground rule is that “no one or two participants will dominate the conversation.”) This is critical because it is in the conversation that learning occurs. As a practical matter, if people in the group are not given the opportunity to respond to each other’s statements in a timely way, they will soon tune out the “speech” while they concentrate on their response.
In fact, in the PIF model “listening for understanding” is a central goal of the group’s work.
Another key to quality public engagement is to “continually expand the circle of inclusion”. This concept is reflected in the PIF practice of periodically asking: “Whose voice is missing?” “Who needs to be at the table?”
Finally, Wheatley believes that allowing “time for reflection” is a key component of all learning. This is particularly true as it relates to community conversations. Time needs to be set aside for personal as well as group reflection. The questions that are asked in the PIF model are: As individuals, how has our thinking changed? Does anyone see the issue differently as a result of this conversation? As a group: what have we learned?, what do we still need to know?; what do we still need to talk about? What are our areas of common ground?
While the principles that produce quality public engagement are not complicated, there are several key components. I was struck by how consistently Wheatley's ideas aligned with the Public Issues Forum model.
First, “people support what they create”; a principle we saw borne out in the development of the District-wide facilities’ master plan. (Similarly, in the PIF model, participants are encouraged to take ownership of both the process and the results of their conversation. The group agrees to, and helps enforce, the ground rules; it is the group’s responsibility to listen to one another, and work towards finding areas of common ground.)
However, community engagement that is poorly designed or poorly implemented can fail to produce the desired results. For example, PIF has discovered that it is useful to the process to have a moderator who knows how to keep the group on task; this helps ensure that the group allows sufficient time to wrestle with the pros and cons, and the tradeoffs, that are inherent within varied approaches to a complex problem.
In fact, Wheatley claims what appears to be a good community engagement practice is often counter-productive. The example she gave: many school boards - State College included - allow community members to speak for five minutes on an issue of their choosing. According to Wheatley, “while that sounds good on the surface” it “invites drama and histrionics, rather than good reflection.” (Something to think about.)
By contrast, the PIF model specifically discourages “speeches”. (A key ground rule is that “no one or two participants will dominate the conversation.”) This is critical because it is in the conversation that learning occurs. As a practical matter, if people in the group are not given the opportunity to respond to each other’s statements in a timely way, they will soon tune out the “speech” while they concentrate on their response.
In fact, in the PIF model “listening for understanding” is a central goal of the group’s work.
Another key to quality public engagement is to “continually expand the circle of inclusion”. This concept is reflected in the PIF practice of periodically asking: “Whose voice is missing?” “Who needs to be at the table?”
Finally, Wheatley believes that allowing “time for reflection” is a key component of all learning. This is particularly true as it relates to community conversations. Time needs to be set aside for personal as well as group reflection. The questions that are asked in the PIF model are: As individuals, how has our thinking changed? Does anyone see the issue differently as a result of this conversation? As a group: what have we learned?, what do we still need to know?; what do we still need to talk about? What are our areas of common ground?
Monday, July 13, 2009
The third “R”: Relationships
The importance of relationships to the educational process has been a consistent component of recent school reform movements. (According to the Gates Foundation, “rigor, relevance and relationships” are the new three R’s of education.) Relationships were also the focus of Meg Wheatley’s lecture at the NSBA conference. According to Wheatley, students manifest what teachers believe them to be; it is only through relationships that student potential is realized.
One implication is that if we want to know how conducive the school environment is to learning, we should be measuring the extent to which students and teachers feel connected to one other. That is, we should be looking for ways to “measure relationships”. This is the sort of information that school climate surveys try to capture.
We heard this idea expressed at other points of the conference. In the session on “Getting Accountability Right”, it was suggested that – in addition to “student achievement” - we should also measure the “antecedents” to learning. That is, we should monitor the behaviors that are known to create a positive learning environment; what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.
Wheatley also noted that “a healthy community involves youth in decision-making.” Not only are community decisions better informed when its younger members are part of the conversation, this also helps students develop the skills for active citizenship.
As an aside, two of the best arguments that I've heard in support of official student representation on school boards came from two student members of the "100 District Leaders" who attended the NSBA conference. In their experience, full student participation provides:
A "reality check" for the rest of the board on the practical impact of board policy.
A communication bridge from students to the board, and vice-versa.
Obviously, this is not practical, nor legal, everywhere, but I thought it was an important observation.
One implication is that if we want to know how conducive the school environment is to learning, we should be measuring the extent to which students and teachers feel connected to one other. That is, we should be looking for ways to “measure relationships”. This is the sort of information that school climate surveys try to capture.
We heard this idea expressed at other points of the conference. In the session on “Getting Accountability Right”, it was suggested that – in addition to “student achievement” - we should also measure the “antecedents” to learning. That is, we should monitor the behaviors that are known to create a positive learning environment; what the adults in the school community are doing, as well as the students.
Wheatley also noted that “a healthy community involves youth in decision-making.” Not only are community decisions better informed when its younger members are part of the conversation, this also helps students develop the skills for active citizenship.
As an aside, two of the best arguments that I've heard in support of official student representation on school boards came from two student members of the "100 District Leaders" who attended the NSBA conference. In their experience, full student participation provides:
A "reality check" for the rest of the board on the practical impact of board policy.
A communication bridge from students to the board, and vice-versa.
Obviously, this is not practical, nor legal, everywhere, but I thought it was an important observation.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Green Schools and Student Wellness
A couple of interesting ideas to emerge from last Friday's Green School conference at the Nittany Lion Inn came from the table conversation with other attendees. Among others, I spoke with Donnan Stoicovy, principal of Park Forest Elementary, who has long been an advocate for environmental responsibility coupled with student engagement. I came away more convinced of the importance of approaching "green" issues holistically.
In particular, a lot could be gained by integrating our commitment to environmental responsibility with the district's wellness policy.
For example, should we rethink the district's busing policy, which currently provides transportation to elementary students who live more than one mile from school? (The secondary threshold is 1.5 miles; the state requirement is 1.5 miles and 2 miles, respectively.) Potentially, this could reduce vehicle emissions, save money, as well as give students a little more physical exercise.
Should we be trying to purchase more locally grown food - or perhaps, try growing it ourselves, as part of the curriculum? In addition to the environmental impact (less pollution from transportation), and the potential for a healthier diet, what would be the educational impact of having students seeing how their food is "made"? I suspect that our eating habits would change for the better overnight if our food production processes was more transparent.
(In a related note, Slow Food USA’s Central PA chapter recently announced a Labor Day “Eat In” to be held from 3-5pm at the Panorama Elementary School. The community pot-luck is in support of Slow Food’s goal of “getting real food into school lunches.”)
There are also clear benefits to actively involving students in these decisions, both for the educational value, as well as for the increased sense of student engagement in the school community. One presenter showed us four short student-made videos that were produced to encourage environmental awareness within their school. Locally, first and second graders at Park Forest recently took on the challenge of reducing paper towel consumption. - this involved some impressive math - resulting in "One or two will do" stickers being placed on every towel dispenser.
In particular, a lot could be gained by integrating our commitment to environmental responsibility with the district's wellness policy.
For example, should we rethink the district's busing policy, which currently provides transportation to elementary students who live more than one mile from school? (The secondary threshold is 1.5 miles; the state requirement is 1.5 miles and 2 miles, respectively.) Potentially, this could reduce vehicle emissions, save money, as well as give students a little more physical exercise.
Should we be trying to purchase more locally grown food - or perhaps, try growing it ourselves, as part of the curriculum? In addition to the environmental impact (less pollution from transportation), and the potential for a healthier diet, what would be the educational impact of having students seeing how their food is "made"? I suspect that our eating habits would change for the better overnight if our food production processes was more transparent.
(In a related note, Slow Food USA’s Central PA chapter recently announced a Labor Day “Eat In” to be held from 3-5pm at the Panorama Elementary School. The community pot-luck is in support of Slow Food’s goal of “getting real food into school lunches.”)
There are also clear benefits to actively involving students in these decisions, both for the educational value, as well as for the increased sense of student engagement in the school community. One presenter showed us four short student-made videos that were produced to encourage environmental awareness within their school. Locally, first and second graders at Park Forest recently took on the challenge of reducing paper towel consumption. - this involved some impressive math - resulting in "One or two will do" stickers being placed on every towel dispenser.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Small Learning Communities and Building Design
Readers: what follows is the second half of the report I gave to the Board last night. It's an extension of my April 13th post on "Professional Learning Communities"
One of the presentations I attended at NSBA's April conference was by a school district that – like State College - was facing the imperative of significant renovations to their high school facility. Marysville School District in Washington state decided this was an opportunity for them to re-vision what a 21st century high school might look like.
With a guiding committee of about 50 teachers, parents and students, Marysville began by brainstorming a "day in the life" of a high school student. This lead to the establishment of a set of guiding principles.
The central principal centered on relationships.
Their year of planning included virtual tours of successful schools, along with site visits.
One of the things they discovered was that if you ask people what they want in a new school, they'll tell you that what they want is what they've always had. This made clear the importance of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to experience successful educational systems in other communities. Most people need to see an actual example in order to imagine doing something different from what they already know.
As a result of student and faculty surveys, Marysville ended up with eight high school options: This included five "interest-area" schools of about 400 students each:
Four of these learning communities will be located in separate buildings on a new 1600 student campus, surrounding a “Community Commons” area that houses shared functions such as physical education and food service. The academic buildings are designed for future flexibility, with the load-bearing walls and plumbing located around the perimeter. This makes it easier to rearrange the interior spaces, should that become necessary.
Their Arts school and their Heritage school - this is an area with a large Native-American population - are located at a second facility. The Mountainview school, which is somewhat analogous to our Delta program, has its own building. Eventually, their original high school building will serve the approximately 1200 students who want the opportunity to explore several options.
One of the presentations I attended at NSBA's April conference was by a school district that – like State College - was facing the imperative of significant renovations to their high school facility. Marysville School District in Washington state decided this was an opportunity for them to re-vision what a 21st century high school might look like.
With a guiding committee of about 50 teachers, parents and students, Marysville began by brainstorming a "day in the life" of a high school student. This lead to the establishment of a set of guiding principles.
The central principal centered on relationships.
- Students should be known, valued and inspired to perform at their highest potential.
- Collaboration (at all levels) personalizes learning.
- Every student should have an adult advocate.
Their year of planning included virtual tours of successful schools, along with site visits.
One of the things they discovered was that if you ask people what they want in a new school, they'll tell you that what they want is what they've always had. This made clear the importance of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to experience successful educational systems in other communities. Most people need to see an actual example in order to imagine doing something different from what they already know.
As a result of student and faculty surveys, Marysville ended up with eight high school options: This included five "interest-area" schools of about 400 students each:
- Construction and Engineering
- The Bio-Med Academy
- International School of Communications
- School for the Entrepreneur
- Arts and Technology
Four of these learning communities will be located in separate buildings on a new 1600 student campus, surrounding a “Community Commons” area that houses shared functions such as physical education and food service. The academic buildings are designed for future flexibility, with the load-bearing walls and plumbing located around the perimeter. This makes it easier to rearrange the interior spaces, should that become necessary.
Their Arts school and their Heritage school - this is an area with a large Native-American population - are located at a second facility. The Mountainview school, which is somewhat analogous to our Delta program, has its own building. Eventually, their original high school building will serve the approximately 1200 students who want the opportunity to explore several options.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The budget discussion
I thought it might be useful for my readers to have the unabridged version – you can’t print everything - of my comments to the CDT in regards to its recent story on the school district’s 09/10 budget.
My concern is that we're putting a lot of unnecessary effort and administrative time into preparing for a worst-case scenario that is highly unlikely. Every state budget is a negotiation, and as I said at the last board meeting, my guess is that the eventual state appropriation is likely to be closer to the governor's proposal (which would result in a net gain to the district of about $200,000) than to what the senate passed and which the house rejected (which would have resulted in a net loss of $600,000).
The most likely outcome, therefore, is that we’ll have to cover a shortfall of $100,000-200,000. (Keep in mind that the Governor has a pretty good track record of getting what he wants.)
In the proposed budget, we have already set aside $3 million from our fund balance in preparation for the spike in the mandated contribution to PSERS that will be occurring in 2012-2013. That still leaves us with over $500,000 above and beyond the 5% that has been established by board policy - more than enough to cover any shortfall from the state. In fact, these unexpected situations are precisely the reason that you have a fund balance.
While there are savings to be found in any budget, significant cost-cutting should be approached thoughtfully, deliberately, and with consideration for all the implications. This is especially true if we are dealing with a long-term issue, which appears likely. In my opinion, this is not something we should be trying to do in the twenty days we have left to pass this year’s budget.
The long-term solution: a change in the fiscal calendar that would let school districts know the state appropriation well before they have to pass their budget. This also seems highly unlikely, but Senator Corman has indicated that he’s willing to consider it.
My concern is that we're putting a lot of unnecessary effort and administrative time into preparing for a worst-case scenario that is highly unlikely. Every state budget is a negotiation, and as I said at the last board meeting, my guess is that the eventual state appropriation is likely to be closer to the governor's proposal (which would result in a net gain to the district of about $200,000) than to what the senate passed and which the house rejected (which would have resulted in a net loss of $600,000).
The most likely outcome, therefore, is that we’ll have to cover a shortfall of $100,000-200,000. (Keep in mind that the Governor has a pretty good track record of getting what he wants.)
In the proposed budget, we have already set aside $3 million from our fund balance in preparation for the spike in the mandated contribution to PSERS that will be occurring in 2012-2013. That still leaves us with over $500,000 above and beyond the 5% that has been established by board policy - more than enough to cover any shortfall from the state. In fact, these unexpected situations are precisely the reason that you have a fund balance.
While there are savings to be found in any budget, significant cost-cutting should be approached thoughtfully, deliberately, and with consideration for all the implications. This is especially true if we are dealing with a long-term issue, which appears likely. In my opinion, this is not something we should be trying to do in the twenty days we have left to pass this year’s budget.
The long-term solution: a change in the fiscal calendar that would let school districts know the state appropriation well before they have to pass their budget. This also seems highly unlikely, but Senator Corman has indicated that he’s willing to consider it.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Rigor and relevance
Upon returning from the DWMP Community Dialogue last night, I did a little channel surfing to see whether the Penguins might still be playing. I stopped briefly at PCN, where Pennsylvania's Secretary of Education, Gerry Zahorchek, was testifying - yet again - to the benefits of a state-wide curriculum and state-wide graduation exams.
I only stayed for a moment, so perhaps I missed something. But in defense of state exams in Algebra II, I'm pretty sure that I heard him say, "students who successfully complete Algebra II are more likely to go to college, and far less likely to drop out of school."
Well, duh. Do I have to say it? Correlation does not imply causality.
What Dr. Zahorchek did, unwittingly, was make an excellent case for giving students opportunities to take probability, statistics and logic, instead of a required Algebra II course.
I recently had a conversation with a retired high school Math teacher, who told me that the standard Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-Algebra II/Calculus curriculum originated in the 1930's, in order to prepare future engineers. She questioned why everyone had to take a curriculum that was designed for less than 1% of the population. So - until the PSSAs came along - she would often teach elective courses in discrete mathematics and personal finance as a way to make math more interesting and/or relevant for students who had no intention of ever adding "PE" to their business cards.
In the national endeavor to improve public education, there is a general agreement that three critical components of educational reform are "rigor, relevance and relationship." But somehow, we've adopted a very narrow definition of "rigor" and we've applied the same definition to everyone.
For a future engineer, "rigor" might take the form of AP Physics. but for an aspiring attorney it might be a course in "Constitutional Law". Someone who wants to be an automotive technician needs to take rigorous classes that lead to industry certifications.
For what percentage of students is Algebra II relevant?
I only stayed for a moment, so perhaps I missed something. But in defense of state exams in Algebra II, I'm pretty sure that I heard him say, "students who successfully complete Algebra II are more likely to go to college, and far less likely to drop out of school."
Well, duh. Do I have to say it? Correlation does not imply causality.
What Dr. Zahorchek did, unwittingly, was make an excellent case for giving students opportunities to take probability, statistics and logic, instead of a required Algebra II course.
I recently had a conversation with a retired high school Math teacher, who told me that the standard Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-Algebra II/Calculus curriculum originated in the 1930's, in order to prepare future engineers. She questioned why everyone had to take a curriculum that was designed for less than 1% of the population. So - until the PSSAs came along - she would often teach elective courses in discrete mathematics and personal finance as a way to make math more interesting and/or relevant for students who had no intention of ever adding "PE" to their business cards.
In the national endeavor to improve public education, there is a general agreement that three critical components of educational reform are "rigor, relevance and relationship." But somehow, we've adopted a very narrow definition of "rigor" and we've applied the same definition to everyone.
For a future engineer, "rigor" might take the form of AP Physics. but for an aspiring attorney it might be a course in "Constitutional Law". Someone who wants to be an automotive technician needs to take rigorous classes that lead to industry certifications.
For what percentage of students is Algebra II relevant?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)