I couldn't believe that he didn't feel a tug on the steering wheel that would let him know that his left rear tire was nearly shredded. But there he was, happily driving along, gesturing back at me, evidently tryingto interpret what I was yelling from the passenger side of my Dad's car as we sped down the freeway. I couldn't have been but eleven or twelve years old, and I'm sure I looked like a lunatic waiving my arms, pointing and laughing until tears streamed down my face while trying to form words so that the hapless driver in the other lane would realize his problem.
Hard to say what made me think of that.
I just read an account in the paper of the State of Oregon's new plan for rating schools. It sounds complicated. It includes points for meeting benchmarks on the state assessments. I get that. Then there are points for how much a student improves, unless that student has already met the benchmark in which case his or her improvement doesn't count. Or unless the student is in 10th grade, in which case his or her improvement doesn't count whether or not he or she met the benchmark. With me so far? Now in the lower grades, a student can be counted as meeting the standard even if he doesn't meet the standard, so long as his score is sufficiently improved from the previous year. O.K. Points for improvement. Got it. Now if students are economically disadvantaged (about 25% of Corbett kids, for example) then they count double if they meet the benchmark in the lower grades or if they improve adequately without meeting the benchmarks in the lower grades or if they meet the benchmark at grade 10. Whew! Double! Unless they are both economically disadvantaged and on an IEP. Then they count three times! Oh, and if they fail to meet the benchmark or to make adequate progress, then that one student counts the same as three failing students! Does this mean that passing rates could exceed 100%? Or be less than zero? Stay tuned.
Those of you who follow education in Oregon remember that the argument made for dropping the CIM (during the current ODE administration) was that it was too complicated! (I said at the time that it was really dropped because too few students were earning a CIM, but ODE insisted that it was abandoned for the sake of simplicity.) What we needed was transparency! And this new system? Kafka called. He's suing for copyright infringement and insists that the new rating scheme was lifted word for word out of The Trial. The State's defense? Their plan isn't that well written. Case dismissed!
I can't pretend to be a good enough mathematician to keep up with all of this, but I have a prediction to make. At the end of this magnificent statistical extravaganza, more schools than ever will achieve a satisfactory report card rating, the differences between the highest ratings and the lowest ratings will diminish, and Oregonian headlines will announce, 'Oregon School Ratings Soar!' (they are stuck on the word 'soar' lately). The public will be invited to believe that this latest rearranging of the deck chairs marks significant progress in the Closing of the Achievement Gap, which seems to be the extent of Oregon's vision for education.
So what? What's so bad about giving double and triple points (like coupons at the local grocery store) for various categories of kids? Why not elevate the closing of the Achievement Gap to the status of an educational Holy Grail? For the same reason that the equal protection clause isn't the entirety of The Constitution. Of course equity is a core value. But it is not the only value, and it is not in itself constitutive of an adequate vision of the good life. There simply has to be more.
One of the two most troubling aspects of this costly, convoluted, mathematical maneuvering is the assumption that we have reached an acceptable level of achievement for the non-categorical kids (those who only count half as much) in the state and all that remains is to raise everyone else to their achievement level. It also makes the tacit claim that when two students meet the 10th grade benchmark, one with a score of 260 while still in the 9th grade and one with a score of 236 after three attempts in 10th grade, the achievement gap has been eliminated. A third flaw might be that it reduces academic achievement to nothing more than scores on state tests. In the twelve years that I have been watching state test scores go by, I'm not sure that we have yet administered the same battery of tests for two years in a row without a major revision or a glitch in the system. I therefor don't put much stock in using state assessment results as evidence of much at all, and I don't put any stock in the state's definition of or preoccupation with The Achievement Gap.
So here is my own version of the achievement gap. It's what keeps me up at night:
There is a gap, better yet a chasm, between what Oregon's most able and committed students are capable of creating for themselves and what schools are allowing them to achieve. Fully half of Oregon's high school students should be earning university credit prior to graduation and half of those ought to earn a full year before they cross the stage. We should be aiming for K-13 by age 18 and offering real hope of college completion even in these economically difficult times. And anyone who believes that an aggressive pursuit of this goal will not maximize achievement for all students has simply never experienced life in a real learning community.
Corbett's 9th graders are taking AP Human Geography this year. A quarter to a third of them will pass the AP exam with a score of three or higher, chalking up three credits each should they decide to submit their scores and their applications to Oregon State University (or any Oregon University or college). Last year twenty percent of 10th graders passed AP World History, which is good for six OSU credits. U.S. History? English? Add nine more credits for the two of them. Psychology, Micro Economics, Calculus (ab)? Twelve more credits. And so far no scores above a three are required. A four in Biology? Twelve credits. A four in Chem? Fifteen. We have had numerous students earn their way into their sophomore years upon graduation from Corbett High School. There are footsteps in which to follow. And none of those students had the supports that we have since put in place for students in grades nine and ten. They were trailblazers, first innovators. They proved what can be done.
There is an achievement gap in Oregon. We aspire to close it. And we believe that doing so will maximize the achievements of all of our students. But only if we recognize the 'other' achievement gap. I believe that this doesn't have to be done at the expense of our best and brightest. We should be cultivating and then emulating their success, not putting them on hold in the false hopes that this new Skinner Box will cause everyone else to catch up.
Yes, Oregon, we have a flat tire. Don't you feel the tugging on the wheel?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Say it with me: R E L A X !
Regarding life in Corbett Charter School:
Corbett Charter School was not founded with an eye toward mediocrity. There is nothing average in our aspirations for children. There is an expectation of quality in our school community, and that expectation is embodied in all of our decisions regarding life at school.
Although we have attempted to articulate our unique approach, we still hear 'the questions' from time to time: 'Where are the spelling tests?' 'When are you teaching cursive?' 'Why don't we see any homework?' 'Where are the math worksheets?' 'What about phonics?' Mind you, by the time these questions are put to teachers, they sometimes have an almost accusatory tone, sort of like "When are you going to wash those dishes?" They have the shape of questions, but somehow they don't sound like requests for information.
How to respond? Perhaps a jumping off point might be to marvel that anyone would drive all the way to Corbett Charter School in search of a classroom that slavishly duplicates the practices employed at 99% of all schools everywhere. This strikes me as an inefficient strategy, since those practices are available every few blocks throughout the metro area. We want to reward your commitment with something more.
At Corbett Charter School we believe that our time with your children is precious, and we realize that it is scarce. What is called 13 years of education is really little more than five years of working together spread across 13 calendar years. Recognizing that time is scarce, we want to put it to the best possible use, all day every day. And that means not spending our school days on activities that could be done at the kitchen table with a workbook from the local book seller. Particularly in the early grades, but also throughout our K-12 program, we want to provide experiences and cultivate understanding in ways that make use of and develop the classroom community. That is, after all, the great advantage to having more than one student in the room at a time!
There will be ample time for individual skill development in the context of doing something really interesting down the road, but that is not our focus in the early going. We believe that the quality of the learning community is critical to the long-term cultivation of intellect and that this community must be carefully established and artfully cultivated by means of our daily interactions and expectations. This is the true 'basic' of primary education.
So Corbett Charter School looks a little different. I am tempted to suggest that it simply has to be so. The primary wing could be considered a sort of mountaineering base camp. Veteran climbers don't charge up the mountain without adequate preparation. They study. They plan. They rehearse. And a successful climb is much more likely if the organizer has the patience and experience to deploy only a well-equipped, well trained team under the watchful eye of an expert guide who has already made the trip.
Corbett has five 9th graders in Advanced Placement Calculus this year. At least that many members of their graduating class will earn a full year of college during their five-and-a-third years spent in Corbett schools. Imagine that. The mountain is real. The rewards for success are tangible and substantial. We know the way up.
We appreciate the privilege of guiding your children.
Corbett Charter School was not founded with an eye toward mediocrity. There is nothing average in our aspirations for children. There is an expectation of quality in our school community, and that expectation is embodied in all of our decisions regarding life at school.
Although we have attempted to articulate our unique approach, we still hear 'the questions' from time to time: 'Where are the spelling tests?' 'When are you teaching cursive?' 'Why don't we see any homework?' 'Where are the math worksheets?' 'What about phonics?' Mind you, by the time these questions are put to teachers, they sometimes have an almost accusatory tone, sort of like "When are you going to wash those dishes?" They have the shape of questions, but somehow they don't sound like requests for information.
How to respond? Perhaps a jumping off point might be to marvel that anyone would drive all the way to Corbett Charter School in search of a classroom that slavishly duplicates the practices employed at 99% of all schools everywhere. This strikes me as an inefficient strategy, since those practices are available every few blocks throughout the metro area. We want to reward your commitment with something more.
At Corbett Charter School we believe that our time with your children is precious, and we realize that it is scarce. What is called 13 years of education is really little more than five years of working together spread across 13 calendar years. Recognizing that time is scarce, we want to put it to the best possible use, all day every day. And that means not spending our school days on activities that could be done at the kitchen table with a workbook from the local book seller. Particularly in the early grades, but also throughout our K-12 program, we want to provide experiences and cultivate understanding in ways that make use of and develop the classroom community. That is, after all, the great advantage to having more than one student in the room at a time!
There will be ample time for individual skill development in the context of doing something really interesting down the road, but that is not our focus in the early going. We believe that the quality of the learning community is critical to the long-term cultivation of intellect and that this community must be carefully established and artfully cultivated by means of our daily interactions and expectations. This is the true 'basic' of primary education.
So Corbett Charter School looks a little different. I am tempted to suggest that it simply has to be so. The primary wing could be considered a sort of mountaineering base camp. Veteran climbers don't charge up the mountain without adequate preparation. They study. They plan. They rehearse. And a successful climb is much more likely if the organizer has the patience and experience to deploy only a well-equipped, well trained team under the watchful eye of an expert guide who has already made the trip.
Corbett has five 9th graders in Advanced Placement Calculus this year. At least that many members of their graduating class will earn a full year of college during their five-and-a-third years spent in Corbett schools. Imagine that. The mountain is real. The rewards for success are tangible and substantial. We know the way up.
We appreciate the privilege of guiding your children.
The School of Education, Scientist
Is there a Science of Education? Can intellectual development be weighed, measured, counted, divided by two? If so, then a science of education might be possible. If not, then there is an emperor called 'School Improvement' that is in dire need of a wardrobe. And if so, then why are school improvement efforts largely ineffective? A gravitational law that failed again and again to produce the expected results would be abandoned or amended. An educational program that fails again and again gets repackaged, funded by the Gates Foundation, and fails again on the front page.
The problem might come down to this: The scientific method works well as an intellectual tool for understanding physical phenomena. But human beings, with a few notable exceptions, are more complex than billiard balls. And when human beings begin interpreting the world and act on their interpretations, then science (which is also a group of people interpreting the world and acting on those interpretations) has met its epistemic match and has no vantage point from which to gain distance or perspective or objectivity with regard to its would-be subject. Good scientists have recognized and wrestled with this problem for decades. They have realized that even with regard to physics the act of the scientists making observations can impact the results of an experiment. If it is problematic with inanimate objects, how much more difficult is the measurement of mental processes?
Even the proponents of 'scientific' approaches to education can't quite bring themselves to form the words. When 'No Child Left Behind' was first out, the federal and Oregon departments of education began using the phrase 'scientific practice'. As reform movements continued to stall, the vocabulary shifted somewhat to 'scientifically based practice.' Subtle equivocation, or just bad grammar? Today the phrase has morphed to become 'evidence based practice'. Evidently even the compliance police couldn't connect the words 'science' and 'education' without experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
I don't believe that a science of education any more possible than is a science of literature or of aesthetics. That is not to say that education is not worthy of study or that people can't become highly expert with regard to teaching and to operating schools. It is only to claim that education will not give up its secrets to the scientific method. Any attempts to force it to do so produce only pseudo-science and snake oil in the form of 'scientifically-based' approaches to literacy, behavior, professional development, assessment, special education, etc. (You can spot the scientifically-based products by their accompanying acronyms. Odds are, if you've heard of it, and it's not a real word, it's an expensive, 'scientifically-based', utterly ineffective, brand-spankin'-new miracle of modern education! Do they work? Keep an eye on high school achievement. That's the 'needle' that I watch, and it's not doing much over the past decade.)
Yep, you got it. I am an unbeliever. The chief unbeliever, perhaps, as most of my Corbett colleagues are of a similar mind. Most days it doesn't matter. We just avoid the nonsense, embracing what we jokingly refer to as 'Program-Free Schooling' (or, PES, though we haven't figured out how to market it!). We simply don't do what the School Improvement Industry insists must be done, and our kids are well served. But the Industry is a distraction, and political forces in the State are constantly tempted to impose statewide 'solutions' based on the testimony of its lobbyists. So it matters, even to those of us who don't buy it, that The School of Education, Scientist, continues to advocate for practices that range from ineffective to dangerous. Keep an eye on the Oregon Legislature. Be suspicious of National Standards. Watch the Chalkboard Project. There are well-intended Oregonians who would like to 'fix' education without regard to how their 'repairs' play out in our tiny corner of the world. We need to be vigilant.
We are off to a great school year. Program free. We'll do our best to keep it that way.
The problem might come down to this: The scientific method works well as an intellectual tool for understanding physical phenomena. But human beings, with a few notable exceptions, are more complex than billiard balls. And when human beings begin interpreting the world and act on their interpretations, then science (which is also a group of people interpreting the world and acting on those interpretations) has met its epistemic match and has no vantage point from which to gain distance or perspective or objectivity with regard to its would-be subject. Good scientists have recognized and wrestled with this problem for decades. They have realized that even with regard to physics the act of the scientists making observations can impact the results of an experiment. If it is problematic with inanimate objects, how much more difficult is the measurement of mental processes?
Even the proponents of 'scientific' approaches to education can't quite bring themselves to form the words. When 'No Child Left Behind' was first out, the federal and Oregon departments of education began using the phrase 'scientific practice'. As reform movements continued to stall, the vocabulary shifted somewhat to 'scientifically based practice.' Subtle equivocation, or just bad grammar? Today the phrase has morphed to become 'evidence based practice'. Evidently even the compliance police couldn't connect the words 'science' and 'education' without experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
I don't believe that a science of education any more possible than is a science of literature or of aesthetics. That is not to say that education is not worthy of study or that people can't become highly expert with regard to teaching and to operating schools. It is only to claim that education will not give up its secrets to the scientific method. Any attempts to force it to do so produce only pseudo-science and snake oil in the form of 'scientifically-based' approaches to literacy, behavior, professional development, assessment, special education, etc. (You can spot the scientifically-based products by their accompanying acronyms. Odds are, if you've heard of it, and it's not a real word, it's an expensive, 'scientifically-based', utterly ineffective, brand-spankin'-new miracle of modern education! Do they work? Keep an eye on high school achievement. That's the 'needle' that I watch, and it's not doing much over the past decade.)
Yep, you got it. I am an unbeliever. The chief unbeliever, perhaps, as most of my Corbett colleagues are of a similar mind. Most days it doesn't matter. We just avoid the nonsense, embracing what we jokingly refer to as 'Program-Free Schooling' (or, PES, though we haven't figured out how to market it!). We simply don't do what the School Improvement Industry insists must be done, and our kids are well served. But the Industry is a distraction, and political forces in the State are constantly tempted to impose statewide 'solutions' based on the testimony of its lobbyists. So it matters, even to those of us who don't buy it, that The School of Education, Scientist, continues to advocate for practices that range from ineffective to dangerous. Keep an eye on the Oregon Legislature. Be suspicious of National Standards. Watch the Chalkboard Project. There are well-intended Oregonians who would like to 'fix' education without regard to how their 'repairs' play out in our tiny corner of the world. We need to be vigilant.
We are off to a great school year. Program free. We'll do our best to keep it that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)