What is the ‘Goal’ of Elementary School?

A couple of months back, Tim Kaine (former governor and current senator from Virginia) wrote a column for EdWeekly, describing what he and his wife had learned from their forty years’ experience with public education, particularly as parents.  I thought his observations deserved a more thorough examination, so here are my thoughts, beginning with his take on elementary school. 

First, I share Kaine’s view on the potential of early childhood education.  We are just beginning to understand the science of young brain development.  If that understanding became the basis of a national model for pre-K education, it would certainly help level the proverbial playing field. So I’m encouraged that the concept seems to be gaining momentum, but we’re a long way from consensus, and it’s important that we get it right.  

More intriguing to me, however, was Kaine’s belief that the primary goal of elementary education should be the attainment of “math and language literacy”. Is he right?  If not, what should the goal be?

I think we’re in agreement that standardized, state assessments should focus on math and language competencies. Basic skills are relatively easy to measure, and those scores can help us know whether schools are reaching some minimum threshold of  efficacy.
  
The problem - as Kaine argues - lies with our misuse of these tests, which 1) tend to measure a relatively small subset of what is ‘important’, and 2) are increasingly being used, counter-productively, as a weapon. There’s nothing wrong with testing if the purpose is to inform classroom instruction: how well do my students understand what I’m teaching, and what might I, as a teacher, do differently?  Clearly, if something is important, we should find a way to measure it. How else will we know if we’re doing an effective job? 

But that’s not how these tests are being used and, in fact, they cannot be used this way, since the results of our statewide tests are typically not known for months. This makes the time we spend on them not a particularly wise use of resources. No other civilized country does this.

But my larger point is that Kaine appears to underestimate the capacity of young students.  Sure, every student should become fluent in the basic algorithms of arithmetic: addition, subtraction, fractions, etc. But they are capable of much more. They have the potential – and, in fact, the world they are entering requires – that they become mathematical thinkers who see math as a way to solve real-world problems.  

And obviously, every student needs to know how to read and write. That’s a minimal, easily testable, standard. But even young students have the potential – and the world is insisting – that they become communicators; comfortable with expressing their ideas in various ways; speaking in front of groups; making connections with the characters of literature, etc. – none of which is easily measured with a standardized test. 

I also think that Kaine minimizes the importance of science, which he sees primarily as an adjunct to math. (This is a common misconception.). Science, however, is really about understanding how the physical world works – an area of interest to humans from almost the moment of birth.  It seems silly not to take advantage of this natural curiosity, so I view an understanding of basic science concepts as a worthwhile and attainable goal. (And while we’re at it, we should be teaching the principles of scientific investigation – that is, how science, itself, ‘works’.)  Preferably, both at the same time. 

Kaine correctly asserts that “making young kids memorize historical facts and figures…so that they can pass subject matter tests.. is counter-productive.”  There is no good reason to make an elementary student (or any student, for that matter) memorize the date of the Hoot-Smalley Tariff Act – which my 3rd-grade teacher made me do. 

The problem is that our study of history has traditionally focused more on ‘what’ happened than why it happened - which probably explains Kaine’s perspective.  But young students are deeply curious about the rest of world – other times, cultures and places -  and we should be taking advantage of that, as well. 

Beyond that, if the ultimate goal of social studies (civics) is to help students develop the skills that will prepare them for life as informed and engaged citizens, than it’s just as foundational as math and language. In fact, ‘citizenship preparation’ is the reason we established a system of public education in the first place. If students memorize a bunch of historical facts, but don’t learn how to be citizens, what have we accomplished? 

Elementary school is an ideal place for students to begin to develop an awareness of themselves; to understand the perspective of others (that is, to develop empathy), and to learn how to contribute to their community - beginning with their school community. This is the essence of citizenship; a good example of which is described here:  Democracy in Schools 

So, my ‘foundation’ of an elementary education is somewhat more expansive than Keane’s.  For me, the four cornerstones are math, ‘communications’, science and civics.

Transferring Top Teachers has Benefits (no surprise) - but is this as good an idea as it seems?

More holiday reading…    

A front page article in the Nov.13th EdWeekly reported the not particularly surprising results of a seven-year study which concluded that "elementary teachers identified as effective who transferred to low-achieving schools under a bonus-pay program helped their new students learn more, on average..." Although the logic is somewhat circular, this does seem to support the common-sense idea that we ought to find ways to get our best teachers into the schools where they're most needed.

As an aside, I would note that this a bigger concern in large districts in which resources are often unevenly distributed from one school to another. (One might ask how this is allowed to happen - one possibility is that these districts are simply too large to be managed effectively -  but that's an argument for another day.)

The study also suggests that getting teachers to transfer into low-achieving schools  is easier said than done. Even with a $20,000 incentive, spread over two years, only about 5% of eligible teachers were willing to switch schools.

For me, this reinforces something I've long maintained: that for most teachers - even, and perhaps especially, the ‘good’ ones - it's not (just) about the money. A significant measure of teacher job satisfaction comes from the quality of their work environment. In fact, this was another finding of the study: it's important to teachers that they are "surrounded by like-minded peers and leaders".  Few people want to be on an island by themselves.

A conclusion worth noting: 'effective' teachers had, on average, four more years of experience than teachers overall. So experience appears to count for something.

And finally, a finding that, for me, turns the entire study on its head: the results varied significantly from one school to another, with some schools showing no improvement at all. In some schools, apparently, even the 'most effective' teachers struggle to make a difference. 

So perhaps this idea isn’t so reasonable after all.  First, few school districts - especially not where this might actually matter- have this kind of money to spend.  (Ask Philadelphia.)  Especially since not even $20,000 per teacher appears to be enough. Second, even if you could bribe (encourage) enough teachers to move, it won’t make much difference if you don’t first do something about the teaching and learning environment in the school.

As the authors concluded: "the onus is on districts to improve working conditions and make lower-performing schools attractive places to work."

It seems to me that our resources would be better spent creating school environments in which teachers feel respected and supported - such that everyone (teachers and students) wants to be there – and on quality professional development with the goal of making every teacher effective.  (This requires teamwork, not superstars.)

p.s.:  No mention in the article on the nature of the tests that were used as the basis of the study, what the tests were purported to measure, their reliability or validity.

Gates, reprised

Catching up on my EdWeekly reading over the holidays...

A series of articles intheir Nov. 6th issue spends time reexamining the impact of Gates Foundation funding on education research.  For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts: 

1)  I continue to believe that Bill Gates is trying to do the right thing. Some of the criticism his work receives (most notably by Diane Ravitch - someone with whom I’m in general agreement) strikes me as more reactive than thoughtful.  This was illustrated in one story highlighting the efforts of the Foundation to include 'teacher voice' in the development of education policy. (Quelle idea!)  The criticism that many teachers receive from their colleagues for accepting ‘Gates money' to do this work, to me, clearly misses the bigger picture.                

2)  While I agree with Gates' central premise that addressing 'teacher effectiveness' is an essential component of education reform, I would suggest that this framing fails to directly address several related and equally important issues, in particular: the quality and quantity of support that teachers receive from school administrators in terms of training and professional development. For example, does the school environment support meaningful collaboration among teachers - and does it provide the time to do it?  Perhaps this is just wordsmithing, but I would suggest we should be looking at 'teaching effectiveness' instead. The entire school community impacts a student’s classroom experience, and the various roles are highly interdependent. 

3)  But what I found most interesting - and somewhat alarming - was that in all these studies, the measure of 'teacher effectiveness' always seems to come back to standardized student test scores.  It's not testing, per se, that troubles me - you need some way to measure what you're trying to do - it's the total lack of discussion about the actual tests. Which tests are being used? What do these tests measure? What do we want them to measure? And how well do they measure what we want them to measure?

These are not trivial questions. In Pennsylvania, we're full-steam ahead on the implementation of the Keystone exams, which I believe will do an excellent job of measuring our ability to deliver a quality mid-20th century education. We need to ask if that's how we want to measure teaching effectiveness, because that's the direction Pennsylvania is heading...

Democracy and Schools

Most of my readers are probably familiar with Deborah Meier’s long-running blog conversation, which until last year she shared with Diane Ravitch. In a recent post, Democracy & Schools, Meier said:                       

“Students and faculty .. need a curriculum that can be defended in terms of the life skills and knowledge needed to be a fully informed member of the ruling class of a democratic society—as a juror, a voter, etc.” She went on to articulate a pet peeve of mine: “For example, maybe (such a curriculum) would place expertise in dealing with probability and statistics before being able to pass a test in algebra or calculus.” 

What intrigues me about Meier’s perspective is that she sees probability and statistics not in the context of a math curriculum, but primarily as civic skills. Now that I think about it, this has always been the point. To say it another way, what our children learn in school should be useful to them in the broadest sense. 

In fact, this is actually the entire point of a public education – of which ‘accumulating the skills to get a job’ is only an important subset. This has been largely forgotten in the great education debate, but to quote Ben Franklin, public schools were to be established for the very purpose of: "creating citizens who could make wise political decisions”.

The good news is that people are beginning to recognize that these two goals (job skills and citizenship) are not in conflict. The critical-thinking, problem-solving, collaborative skills that are central to becoming an engaged citizen are precisely the skills that will be essential in a 21^st-century economy. 

There may be an even broader issue here. We also tend to forget that a strong economy rests on the foundation of a strong civic culture. One has only to look around the world to see that you cannot have the former without the latter. Unless we intentionally work to increase the civic capacity of the next generation, we may find that ‘good’ jobs will exist for only the privileged few.  Which, come to think of it, seems to be where we’re headed. 

To the ‘four Cs’ of a 21^st-century education (Critical-thinking, Communication, Creativity and Collaboration) we need to add a fifth: Citizenship.

Communication Literacy

Perhaps the phrase strikes you as redundant, but it’s the term I use to describe the broad range of communication skills that our students will need to successfully navigate the 21st-century world. And yet, the traditional focus on the 2 Rs (reading and writing) remains the entrenched standard - partly because those skills are relatively easy to test. Sadly, we appear to have created a generation who has only learned to write the 500-word exposition, with the teacher as the only audience. But this does not serve our children well, nor society at large.

For example, we should spend more time talking about video: (e.g., Teachers look to film to foster critical thinking).  It could be argued that in the last half-century, movies have had a greater  impact on the culture and mindset of modern society than the written word - but unless you’re a college film major, video communication is not studied in any meaningful way. As a result, we are largely unaware of its power and influence. (which is why tv commercials are so effective at selling soap and everything else.)

Here’s another example: there are few good jobs today that don’t require competence in public speaking, yet that’s not an area of focus, either. (Not conducive to standardized testing?)  Many of us consider standing behind a podium a fate worse than death. But what if speaking to an audience became a standard part of the education experience, beginning in the earliest grades? I’ve seen it, and it’s impressive when done well. (Aside: what if the focus of classroom participation became less about “knowing the right answer” and more about contributing to the learning of the entire class? A subject for another day.)

As anyone who’s sat through a dreadful powerpoint presentation can attest, there is much more to effective public communication than standing up and delivering information.
    You have to get the audience’s attention in the first 20 seconds, and hold it!
    You have to know your audience, and adjust your presentation accordingly.
     - occasionally, in real time
    You have to speak in a language your audience understands
      - particularly challenging for engineers and accountants!
To think all this can be assimilated in the standard first-year college course is beyond optimistic.

But even if your audience is as a small as one or two, there is a lot of communication to which we don’t pay enough attention. It’s been estimated that over 90% of person-to-person communication is non-verbal. (That’s why phone conferencing doesn’t work as well as face-to-face.) And at least 50% of communication involves listening - which means that the development of empathy needs to become a central part of the educational experience. 

Not to be confused with sympathy, having empathy for another perspective does not require that you agree with it.  Empathy is the ability to understand why another person thinks differently.  Of course, this has always been an important part of literature – what is the character’s motivation? – but seldom do we relate it (make it relevant?) to our own communications. But consider the impact on our civic culture – not to mention personal relationships - if we had more empathy!

Communication is closely tied to all the other 21st-century skills. Without communication you can’t have collaboration, and what good is critical-thinking or creativity if you can’t communicate your ideas?  Every aspect of civic literacy – an often overlooked, yet essential component of a quality education -  involves either communicating clearly, or listening clearly.

The ability to communicate effectively is right at the top of the list of the skills our students need, and what they need goes well beyond the reading and writing that we obsessively measure and test.

The ‘Core’ of Professional Development

New wine requires new wineskins 

In Allison Gulamhussein’s outstanding article in ASBJ, “Professional Development and the Common Core”, she lays out what I believe could be a framework for broad, systemic education reform. That’s a big deal – and  doable -  but it would require effort and patience. Note: I’ve borrowed the original print title and liberally from the article itself. 

Beginning with this: “research consistently shows that teachers predominately ask students fact-recall questions, and studies analyzing classroom instruction have found that 85 percent of instruction is lecture, recitation, or seatwork, activities which often require very little critical thought.” Further, it was found that “the following were rarely seen in classrooms: student participation in meaning-making and reasoning, investigation and problem-based approaches, questioning strategies, and student generation of ideas and questions.”  

(Note: while this ‘traditional’ approach is not universal, it’s probably safe to assume that it remains most prevalent in the schools with the highest proportion of struggling students – the schools that lack the resources, both financial and in the teaching environment, to attract and support quality teachers.) But I digress.

This is the issue that the Common Core was designed to address, and the reason I continue to believe that much of the criticism of the CC is misplaced – the CC actually points us in the right direction, away from rote memorization and towards the development of critical thinking.  But it is grossly unrealistic to think that we can change a century of teaching practice overnight – especially when we haven’t put in place the kind of supports that teachers will need to make this work. 

So, what is the plan?  Typically, it’s ‘professional development’ of the workshop variety. (And as recently noted in this article, not enough teachers have received even that.) 

 

But what does the research say? “Despite its prevalence, the workshop model’s track record for changing teachers’ practice … is abysmal… a comprehensive study of professional development research found that programs shorter than 14 hours (such as workshops) had no effect on student achievement.”

Why not?  “Traditional forms (of PD) are based on the assumption that the biggest challenge facing teachers is “a lack of knowledge of effective practice.” However, the challenge for teachers isn’t in “acquiring knowledge of new strategies, but in implementing those strategies in the classroom.” Which, if you think about it, is true of  learning any new, complex skill: “first attempts to integrate new skills into practice are awkward, often requiring several practices before the skill is mastered.”

Again, the research: “With traditional professional development, only 10 percent of teachers transfer the skill. However, when supported during implementation, 95 percent of teachers transferred the new skill into their classrooms.”

And what would quality support look like?  “Support takes two forms: coaching and collaboration (an example of which is) the professional learning community – a group of teachers teaching the same content who innovate together and support each other.” 

This brings up the issue of capacity. In our high school, each principal will be responsible for hundreds of quality, time-intensive teaching evaluations each year. Where will they find the time to do this in addition to their current responsibilities? - another reason why the coaching and collaboration models that Allison mentions will be so important. (The development of which will require that schools make an intentional effort to develop cultures of cooperation and trust.)  For many schools, this will be a new and time-consuming task. 

It’s also going to take years to develop reliable and appropriate assessments for these new skills – for both students and teachers. I am deeply skeptical that the ‘bubble tests’ that have been developed to measure “student achievement” (i.e., PA’s Keystone exams) are even remotely capable of this. But there is a similar issue in regards to teaching assessments.

While Pennsylvania’s adoption of the Charlotte Danielson model of teacher evaluation is clearly a step in the right direction, how much professional development have principals received?  One 2-day workshop? (See paragraph six, above.)  It’s going to take years for principals – the primary teacher evaluators  - to get this right.  In the meantime, what are the checks and balances?  Yet we are placing enormous stakes on the outcomes of  these evaluations.

As Gulamhussein notes with justifiable irony: “traditional professional development aims to show teachers how to implement a model of learning that professional development itself ignores when training teachers.”

Survey Says

Admittedly, I haven’t blogged for a while, preferring to point your attention to authors and articles that say it better. (See "Education Bookmarks" to the right.) But I recently came across a survey of registered Pennsylvania voters conducted by the Education Policy and Leadership Center - the results of which I found fascinating, and occasionally astonishing.

When asked to identify the top two issues facing Pennsylvania, 57%. of voters identified the economy (of course).  But a strong second: “increasing state funding for education”, at 40%.  Who knew?

Respondents felt that Pa. public schools do a fairly good job preparing students for college – but that they’re not quite as good at preparing them for “jobs after high school”. I think that’s worth thinking about.  As usual, ‘my local school’ fares somewhat better than schools in general.

When asked to identify the greatest challenge facing teachers, the big winner (loser) was “lack of parental involvement/support”, which has grown from 48% to 57% in just two years. But coming from way back in the pack to a close second at 50%: budget cuts to education. That surprised me.

By far, “the most important factor” in judging the success of a public school should be “student success in post-secondary education or the workforce”. While that may seem like common sense – and it is – wouldn’t it be something if that’s how schools were actually evaluated? (as opposed to test scores, graduation rates, teacher ‘performance’, etc.)

Here’s the result that stunned me: 96% agree (80%, strongly agree) that “the well-being of the Commonwealth depends upon having an educated citizenry.”  Similarly, 97% believe that “all students in Pennsylvania are legally entitled to a quality education.” When do 97% of people agree on anything??  And how well is that belief reflected in our budgetary priorities?

Good question!  The answer: by a margin of 68-20%, taxpaying voters believe that “state government should increase funding to poorer districts, even if it means less funding for wealthier districts.”

In a similar vein, here’s a result I was encouraged to see, since I’ve been making this point for years: 93% of voters agree (75% strongly) that “state government has a responsibility to ensure adequate funding for all school districts… regardless of wealth.” Again, how well is this reflected in public policy? Even more stunning: even in “poor economic times” 81% believe that “lawmakers must make politically difficult decisions concerning additional state revenues” (otherwise known as “raising taxes”).
 
In another victory for the state constitution: 66% oppose taxpayer support for non-public schools, including the religiously-affiliated.

Also notable: strong support for arts education (81%) and full-day kindergarten (73%)
And just in case you were wondering, 43% of respondents identified themselves as having “conservative” social and political views; 25% considered themselves “moderates”; 28% “liberal”.