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.

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?"

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.

GCAs and “basic skills”

The two hot topics of the recent PSBA legislative conference were, of course, the GCAs, as well as the governor's proposal to overhaul the state funding formula for school districts. The speaker at one session was Dave Broderic, assistant to Senator James Rhoades (probably the strongest advocate for public education that we have in Harrisburg.)

Mr. Broderic was quite eloquent in his comments concerning the GCAs, which the senator opposes, and then quite incoherent on the proposed funding formula, which the senator also opposes, being a Republican.

But be that as it may, he caught my ear when he mentioned that part of the justification for the GCAs are comments of business leaders who claim that high school graduates lack "basic skills". Afterwards, I asked him what they mean by that. What are the basic skills that high school graduates appear to lack? (He told me he rarely got an adequate answer to that question.)

It was in this context that I read a recent Newsweek article on the lack of financial literacy, even among the highly educated. They gave this example: you have $200 in an investment earning 10 percent per year, compounded annually. How much would you have at the end of two years? (Answer below!) Only 18% of adults were able to answer correctly.

And so it struck me: This is what business leaders are referring to when they complain about the lack of basic math skills – along with the inability to balance a checkbook, read a profit/loss statement, or understand the terms of a credit card or mortgage.

Allow me to point out the obvious: none of this will be solved by requiring every student to take algebra II. As Newsweek noted, somewhat sarcastically, “some principals resist adding personal finance instruction to schedules already crowded with really useful classes, like trigonometry.”

What I find so disturbing in this rush to “add rigor” to the high school curriculum is that there has been no discussion about which specific skills and knowledge high school graduates actually need for them to be successful.  (To which I would include a basic understanding of statistics - how many adults understand the meaning of “+/- 3 percentage points”?  I would guess less than 18 %.)

(By the way, the answer to the question is $242.)

Rule Change Assignment

Last week I was privileged to receive an invitation from one of Kathy Yingling's 11th grade English students to hear a presentation on a proposal to allow junior and senior students to go off-campus for lunch.

In fact, I was the target audience.

The concept of the “Rule Change Assignment” was to have each group of students pick a rule they would like to see changed, do the appropriate research, arrive at a solution, and then present their proposal to someone with the authority to do something about it.

One group suggested having more cafeteria registers open for students getting breakfast in the morning, in order to avoid students having to choose between eating or being late for class. This was presented to the food service coordinator, and will, in fact, be implemented next year.

Other presentations were made to building administrators, and even the superintendent, involving rules about hats, cell phones, and parking.

Not only is this another good example of service learning – embedding curricular content within a project initiated and “owned” by the students, with implications for the wider community – it was an outstanding example of how to teach practical civic skills.

In my mind, civics education is not just about understanding “the three branches of government” (although that’s good to know), it’s about having the skills and knowledge to bring about positive change in your community, however that’s defined. (As I have argued previously, the school community is a logical place for students to become civically-engaged.)

Some of the civics issues that we discussed: What is the history of the current policy?  Why was it implemented?  Have conditions changed since its initial implementation?

Where is the policy; that is, is this a school policy, within the discretion of the principal, or is a district policy, which would require action from the school board?

The students had done a pretty good job of reaching out to the various “stakeholders”. Not only had they discussed this with the principal, they talked to business owners who might be affected. They had also given some thought to issues of liability, how infractions might be handled, and what parents would think of it.

Importantly, they framed their proposal as a solution to a problem that is of interest of the entire school: over-crowding in the cafeteria.

We also discussed who else they might want to try to bring on board, and how the involvement of student government might give their idea more weight. And finally: change seldom comes easily or quickly. Did they have the persistence to see it through, even if it would be their younger brothers and sisters who reap the benefit? 

Young Scholars/ world language instruction

One of the last sessions I attended at the NSBA conference addressed the issue of developing “global competency” from a somewhat different perspective. This presentation spoke primarily to the value of teacher exchange programs – both from exposing our students to teachers from other countries, as well as giving American teachers the experience of study abroad.

But the speaker really got my attention when he began by saying, “the traditional high school foreign language program is a failure.”

My response was to cry “uncle”. This was about the sixth person at the conference to emphasize the importance of foreign language instruction at the elementary level – something our own students have told us they support. And so I have come to the conclusion that the question is no longer whether this should be done, but how.

And you have to admit he has a point. How many of us took four years of foreign language in high school – primarily because college applications required it - and it’s now almost a point of pride that “we can’t remember a word of it.” 

If foreign language study doesn’t result in fluency, what exactly is the point?


Which brings me to today’s board visit to the Young Scholars charter school.

When the Pennsylvania charter school legislation was first passed, the concept was that this would provide an alternative to the “regular” school system, where these new schools – funded by, and still part of, the public system - would have the freedom to try different approaches to education. The expectation was that if these experiments worked, some of those ideas might be incorporated into the larger system.

It has not often worked out that way. In practice, the state provides very little oversight, and there is almost no insistence that these schools do anything differently from what the public school is already doing.

Young Scholars is clearly an exception. We had the opportunity to speak with a half-dozen articulate fifth and sixth graders, who told us what the liked - and didn’t (“not enough time for lunch”) about their school.

High on the list of what they appreciated was the opportunity to learn two additional languages – Spanish and Chinese. By second grade, each student receives 45 minutes of daily instruction in each. (Part of how this is accomplished within a very full curriculum is by teaching art in a foreign language.)

The school board has been sufficiently impressed by the success of Young Scholars that they were approved to expand into the seventh and eighth grades.

Civic Engagement through Service Learning

An important aspect of the presentation at NSBA by the NCLC (the National Center for Learning and Citizenship) concerned how service learning projects could be used to enhance civic engagement.

One of the recurring themes of the conference was the growing public recognition that the teaching of citizenship skills is central to the mission of public schools. In recent surveys, “citizenship” ranked behind only basic academic and critical-thinking skills in relative importance, and about even in importance with employment preparation. 

From the recently published, “Still at Risk” (the sequel to “Nation at Risk”): “the first mission of public schooling in a democratic nation is to equip every young person for the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.”  And from Sandra Day O’Connor: “As civic learning has been pushed aside, society has neglected a fundamental purpose of American education, putting the health of our democracy at risk”.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the generation currently in school is more distrusting of the political system, and has little knowledge of civic and political affairs.

Here are some relevant findings from the NCLC’s research on the effects of service learning projects:

• Service based learning develops a connection between students, community and schools.
• Students reported feeling that they had an impact on their community.
• There was an increased sense of personal and social responsibility.
• The largest increases in student engagement were found in “at risk” students.

There were also some results relating to academics:

• Improvement in language arts, social studies and writing.
• Positive trends in standardized testing.
• Students were more cognitively engaged.
• Higher scores on attitude toward school.

And finally, relating specifically to civics:

• Students were more likely to indicate an intention to vote.
• Students acquired more civic knowledge (the understanding of what it takes to make a difference).

One point that was emphasized and re-emphasized: the quality of the project is critical. A project that is seen as “busywork” or lacks student ownership may actually have negative effects on student engagement and academics. This is the one of the risks inherent in community service projects that are not directly connected to instructional goals.