tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36152503945967418552024-02-08T02:18:26.701-08:00Reflections to the RootsIn a democracy, the voice of the people matters. In a profession, expert judgment matters. When expert judgment intrudes in a legitimately democratic arena, the result is technocracy. When democracy intrudes in a legitimately expert arena, one inevitable result is bad practice. Democracy and expertise are complimentary values. They only conflict when we fail to recognize and honor the limits of their respective domains.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-8001897547350621752012-04-07T15:17:00.003-07:002012-04-07T15:47:44.886-07:00Why LieMindy Schmidt's latest missive against Corbett School (and against me) makes the untrue claim that the Cascade Locks Charter School Application was similar to that of Corbett Charter School. She goes on to say that it was denied by HRVSD and by the State of Oregon.<br /><br />This is simply false. I was hired as a consultant after the proposed school was already designed by a community group from Cascade Locks. Mindy seems to hope that by claiming that the Cascade Locks Charter Application was essentially the same as that of Corbett Charter School, the denial of the Cascade Locks application should somehow reflect badly on our school and on me.<br /><br />I almost wish that her 'claim' had been true. It would constitute evidence that Hood River Valley School Board had displayed incompetence in denying the application. After all, Corbett Charter School has since out-performed Hood River Valley School District as well as the State of Oregon in every measure of school success. To deny an application that sought to replicate CCS success would seem to be a matter of extreme incompetence.<br /><br />The fact is that it was greed, pure and simple, that blocked the establishment of Cascade Locks Charter School. The plan was not mine, but it was good. Nobody who can back up their claim to expertise with actual achievement, including the decision-makers in Hood River, ever said otherwise.<br /><br />But one has to wonder why Mindy would make such a claim. What is in it for her? My old sociology professor used to urge that we ought to constantly ask the question: who benefits? How does Mindy benefit from attempting to discredit me and Corbett Charter School? How does she benefit from her campaign of ill will toward Corbett School District? Who benefits? Interesting question.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-35442138092321106122012-04-06T19:45:00.002-07:002012-04-06T21:25:35.753-07:00Shocked! Shocked and Appalled!Nearly 13 years ago, I asked the Corbett Board and anyone else who was paying attention to provide a single advantage to maintaining Corbett School District's accreditation. I researched for weeks and couldn't find anything. Others who were interested in the question found nothing. The discussions happened in open session, and the Board room (as it was for the better part of 10 years) was usually empty except for the faithful Freund family. (The Freunds were wonderful patrons who appointed themselves to watchdog the new administration when nobody else cared enough to show up.) <br /><br />When nobody involved was able to come up with a single advantage to paying an outside agency to impose requirements upon Corbett's operation (requirements that hadn't produced results for Corbett at any time in the past), Corbett let accreditation lapse. It wasn't an accident, it was purposeful. And it wasn't done by the individual fiat of the superintendent, it was the result of an extended conversation during which input was solicited.<br /><br />For the following 10 years, Corbett School District experienced well-documented, unprecedented improvement in virtually every measure of school effectiveness. (The Accusers' version of the story is that Corbett somehow tricked really smart kids into coming to a really weak school and thereby caused test results to improve. My version is that Corbett has had really smart kids all along and that better schooling brought about better results, which then attracted students from outside. The only difference between the two versions is that one makes sense.)<br /><br />Today, nearly thirteen years after the fact (and I mean after the <span style="font-style:italic;">fact</span>, not after the made-up version), a small local group that seems only to have discovered Corbett School District during the last 15 months is scrounging about to find anything, however flimsy, with which to discredit the administration (current and past). They claim to be 'shocked' that 'then superintendent Bob Dunton' 'destroyed' Corbett's accreditation. If they are being honest (and some of the major players simply aren't in that habit) then they are admitting to having paid no attention at all to the business of the District for over a decade.<br /><br />If they are being honest, they are breaking a long streak that has included a significant string of false claims and accusations. My favorite? "Corbett's Special Education department had a $2,000,000.00 budget and that money wasn't spent on Special Education. I saw it in the budget!" That whopper probably wasn't so much a lie as it was an inability to read a budget. But it didn't slow down the perpetrator of that particular fantasy. She communicated her accusation to anyone who would listen. When it was finally pointed out to her, in a meeting, that she had misread the budget (Special Programs is not the same as Special Education, as it turns out) she was quoted as saying, "Oh." Did she go back and tell everyone that she had no idea what she was talking about? Fat chance.<br /><br />Corbett School District is under attack. At least two of the attackers are sitting on the School Board, generating an impressive string of 5-2 votes and spreading discontent in hopes of eventually forging a majority as the result of next May's board elections. Since they have no chance of winning based on the truth, they are left having to play to other 'strengths'. These 'neo-Machiavellians' do not care about the truth. They don't care about ethics. They take advantage of the fact that the Corbett administration has to follow the rules while they are free to behave with reckless abandon. They play on people's fears, their anxieties, whatever might influence them to jump on board. They use proxies to say things that even they believe to be beyond the pale for board members.<br /><br />Watching the work of the last 13 years of my life come under attack has been difficult. It will be even more painful to watch if these ham-fisted politicos are successful at undoing it. But my personal sense of loss will be nothing compared to the real loss of opportunity experienced by every single student who is left with the aftermath of their 'vision'.<br /><br />The Corbett administration is comprised of good people with remarkable expertise and experience. They keep the interests of their students at the forefront of every decision, and they behave responsibly and kindly even when they are under attack. They are polite and long-suffering, even when facing abuse. They keep confidentiality even when district patrons lie about what happens in school.<br /><br />Corbett administrators are in danger of losing a war of words to Accusers with little knowledge, no experience, and no scruples. (All they have on their side is a web mistress who is apparently unaware of the damage that she is faciilitating). The Accusers could never compete in an open debate, but they don't need to. They just keep throwing mud (using the internet as a catapult) and hoping that the 99% of Corbett residents who are bright, caring human beings won't notice what the 1% is up to. Today the 1% operates with impunity. The other 99% need to be prodded to notice, to stand up and be counted. I believe that it will happen.<br /><br />I have been hesitant to say anything that reflects badly on the parents of students that I have taught and care about. But there is a tipping point beyond which I will decide that the best interests of the hundreds of students whose educational opportunities are put at risk by this nonsense outweighs my concern for feelings.<br /><br />Education is serious business. The stakes are immeasurably high. It can't be an arena for the chronically frustrated-and-resentful to work out their issues. These people need to find a sand castle to kick and get over whatever is bothering them. <br /><br />Up next? The top 10 lies.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-45984225443719739542011-08-14T08:38:00.000-07:002011-08-14T08:55:19.062-07:00Talking Back to Yeats THE SECOND COMING
<br />
<br /> <span style="font-style:italic;"> Turning and turning in the widening gyre
<br /> The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
<br /> Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
<br /> Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
<br /> The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
<br /> The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
<br /> The best lack all conviction, while the worst
<br /> Are full of passionate intensity.
<br />
<br /> Surely some revelation is at hand;
<br /> Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
<br /> The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
<br /> When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
<br /> Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
<br /> A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
<br /> A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
<br /> Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
<br /> Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
<br />
<br /> The darkness drops again but now I know
<br /> That twenty centuries of stony sleep
<br /> Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
<br /> And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
<br /> Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? </span>
<br />
<br />William Butler Yeats
<br />
<br />"The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." What more haunting words have ever been written?
<br />
<br />Is it fate? Will things fall apart? Be torn apart? Are we witnessing the ascendancy of 'the worst'? It seems possible. How? Through the lack of conviction of the best. If passionate intensity is reserved for 'the worst', the result might as well be fated. Will 'the best' find their own intensity while the question is still an open one? Or will they save it for mourning after the dust has settled? Have no illusions: there really is a 'rough beast' slouching...but it will be up to others to determine whether this is really 'its hour come round at last'. It doesn't have to be.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-37225387549300618882010-12-30T14:31:00.000-08:002010-12-30T14:45:02.035-08:00Special Education Results in Corbett, 2010Last year Corbett's students who qualified for Special Education passed the State Math Assessments at a rate that exceeded the State special education average by 27%.<br /><br />Last year Corbett's students who qualified for Special Education passed the State Reading Assessments at a rate that exceeded the State special education average by 7.6%.<br /><br />Last year Corbett's students who qualified for Special Education passed the State Science Assessments at a rate that exceeded the State special education average by 25%.<br /><br />This is true in spite of the fact that Corbett identified far fewer students, meaning that the students who did qualify had more significant barriers to learning than does the average identified student around the state. But shouldn't that sort of screening have resulted in our general student scores dropping off? <br /><br />Last year Corbett's Total Population passed the State Math Assessments at a rate that exceeded the State average by 5.6%. (The gap got considerably wider as students got older.)<br /><br />Last year Corbett's Total Population passed the State Reading Assessments at a rate that exceeded the State average by 6.3%. (The gap got considerably wider as students got older.)<br /><br />Last year Corbett's Total Population passed the State Science Assessments at a rate that exceeded the State average by 9.7%. (The gap got considerably wider as students got older.)<br /><br />So who got left behind? Not the Special Education students. Not the general population of students? Makes one wonder who might be left...Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-49694396947406992392010-12-19T10:34:00.000-08:002010-12-21T19:10:46.649-08:00A Few of My Favorite ThingsOverheard lately:<br /><br />1. Corbett Schools lack focus and have no identity. (If they did, they could perform like...oops!)<br />2. Corbett Schools leave students behind.<br />3. Corbett Schools had a $2,000,000.00 budget for Special Education last year.<br />4. "I saw it in the budget myself!"<br />5. "I'm embarrassed that Corbett students pass only 25% of their Advanced Placement exams."<br /><br />How can one possibly respond to such devastating criticism? I've given it some thought. Here goes:<br /><br />1. The earth is flat. (Come on. If it's round, why don't we fall off?)<br />2. The lights in the Middle School are powered by very quick, tiny men wearing nylon pants so that their rapid circular racing around each fixture generates static electricity. The light switches only exist to let them know when lights are needed.<br />3. The sun revolves around the earth.<br />4. "I saw it myself". No, really, it started out in the East and traveled West all day. Are you calling me a liar? Or worse?<br />5. Harvard, Reed, Sarah Lawrence, Vassar, USC, Willamette, George Fox, Baylor, U Penn, Smith, Liberty, U of O, OSU, SOU, EOU, WOU, MHCC University of Portland, Portland State, Linfield, Pacific University don't seem to be embarrassed, and neither are the families who are saving thousands (and years) during hard economic times to get their kids through school.<br /><br />That last one actually warranted a response, as it was the only one that had any basis in reality. Props for that. But the rest of the story is this...Corbett students are taking college level exams. To imagine that the 25% passing rate is embarrassing is to miss the point. How would we feel about a volleyball team that won 25% of its matches against colleges and universities around the country? Or a football team that won 25% of its games in the Pac 10? Absurd, of course. But academically, that's the league we are playing in. And we are seeing some all-star performances. <br /><br />It is dazzling to watch, if you are able to follow the game. If, on the other hand, you know schools like I know soccer, it can be a little disorienting. That's why I hardly ever complain about the soccer coach's game plan. "You only scored on 25% of your possessions? What's going on here?!"Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-72179811170364449182010-11-03T06:52:00.000-07:002010-11-09T21:05:59.313-08:00What are the oddsthat Corbett Schools will be able to maintain their current level of service to students? Looks like two-to-one against, based on last night's election results. No news, really, as it's about the same number that we've seen again and again. Good to see that the extra-curricular politics had no impact on the vote...the community remains solid as a rock.<br /><br />Congrats to the V-Ball and Soccer teams...all extending their seasons this week. Valiant efforts resulting in very windy wins last night. Nice work.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-68422016139894059602010-08-29T20:50:00.000-07:002010-08-29T21:09:44.242-07:00Do Charter Schools Skim the Best Students?Once in awhile someone thinks of a clever name to call a rival, and it sticks. So it seems that 'skimming' is a charge that sticks to charter schools...at least among those who don't stop to think about it.<br /><br />What is skimming? It's the practice of choosing only the most desirable students and screening out the others. Kind of a mean-spirited notion, that there are undesirable students out there whose access to a quality education one might want to limit.<br /><br />Do Charter Schools skim? What about other, non-charter schools? I suppose it depends to some degree on one's perspective.<br /><br />Do private schools 'skim'? Well, the easiest way into many private schools is to have enough money to pay tuition. Many private schools offer tuition assistance, and they might be considered to be skimming if they only give assistance to those students who are deemed 'worthy'...perhaps a good athlete or someone who they are sure won't cause any disruptions, or someone with a good GPA...I have no idea what they do. But I wouldn't call it skimming. I'd call it being private.<br /><br />Wealthy school districts certainly could be said to skim 'skim', if simply by virtue of the cost of moving into the district! If wealth correlates to achievement (which is what the 'skimmer' epitaph is based on) then real estate costs are probably the most ubiquitous skimming method in the country. And what about the fact that some students are tempted to 'pretend' to live in a wealthy district in order to attend a great school...is that school guilty of skimming?<br /><br />When schools allow inter-district transfers, students are usually changing districts for a very specific reason. Is that skimming? Is it skimming if a student is allowed an inter-district transfer in order to attend a great dance program?<br /><br />Some large districts allow transfers among neighborhood schools. Are the more successful schools skimming the best students from the other neighborhoods? When they are all done, do all of the schools exhibit the same demographics and the same achievement levels? Nobody from one of those districts should ever utter the 'sk...' word!<br /><br />After even limited review, one would have to say that skimming, if that's what it should be called, is rampant. Of course there is skimming going on. Anywhere two schools are within commuting distance of the same house and one is out-performing the other, some amount of 'skimming' is going to happen.<br /><br />Is this a fair charge to level against charter schools? So far as I can see, charter schools are the only institutions in Oregon in which skimming is effectively eliminated by legal and procedural safeguards. All charter school admissions are determined by lottery! How many other schools do that? Is that how scholarships are granted? Is that how banks decide who can move into what neighborhoods? <br /><br />Charters don't have a wealthy neighborhood to do the skimming for them, they can't offer tuition breaks as incentives to attract desirable families, and they can't legally screen applicants. If we put name calling aside and just look at the facts, charters are literally the least likely 'skimmers' in the entire system!<br /><br />Skimmers. Nice piece of rhetoric for those who want to take choices away from parents. Let's not fall for it.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-24264503563166633192010-07-23T19:08:00.000-07:002010-07-23T19:49:08.834-07:00PromisesLife can be unpredictable. Still, we all want and need some degree of stability with regard to the future. So we work together, we build relationships, we make commitments and we keep them. To the degree that we maintain fidelity with one another, we are all stronger. The key to planning a future together? We make promises and we depend on each other to be faithful to our words.<br /><br />Promises are the stepping stones that we create for one another so that, one day at a time, we can navigate together those circumstances that would be vastly more treacherous were we each to strike out on our own. The more difficult the circumstance, the more essential it is that we can depend on one another.<br /><br />Promises can be an inconvenience. (That's why they have to be made and kept.) In fact, there is no real virtue in 'keeping' a promise that isn't something of an inconvenience. That's what makes a promise different from a prediction.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-72386894841356652582010-06-12T17:34:00.000-07:002010-07-21T23:39:20.375-07:00The Educator's Alphbet: EE is for Excellence...NOT!<br /><br />Excellence is a shibboleth among the movers and shakers in education. Who doesn't love excellence? Who shouldn't strive for it, recognize it, reward it, promote it? Excellence is a lot of things, all of them good...or better, or really, really great. The rub comes when one stops to ask with regard to what? And having answered the question 'with regard to what?', does the notion of excellence really add anything to the conversation?<br /><br />The source of this tomfoolery with words is that we in education are prone to want to move from worse to better, from lower to higher, from OK to really good, all without every clarifying what it is that we are working toward. Phrases like "A World Class Education" are good, I suppose, but at the end of the day we might want to be specific about what that means. What is education, by the way? Can it be reliably measured, and if so, is that measure the same thing as education or does it just stand in as a surrogate for the real thing? And if education is some 'real thing' beyond the measure, in what does it consist, and how do we know that our measures are, in fact, good surrogates?<br /><br />Excellence. An empty phrase.<br /><br />Imaginative Education takes a good run at answering the question. Want to get involved in the conversation? Read <span style="font-style:italic;">The Educated Mind</span>. Join in the conversation. It matters that we be clear about our purposes.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-86850389559249137122010-06-12T16:26:00.000-07:002010-07-10T16:16:19.990-07:00The Educator's Alphabet: DD is for Detrimental Departments<br /><br />It doesn't matter which. State Departments of Education, University Education Departments, all departures from the unity of the task at hand are detriments. Departments, divisions, commissions, associations committed to the development of one or another aspect of education as though each may be cultivated in a Petri dish and then grafted back onto the whole: all are distractions. All are industries and occasions for careerism. As such, all are understandable. But none ca be said to contribute to student achievement.<br /><br />To look at just one example: In Oregon, as soon as students are required to receive instruction from highly qualified subject area specialists (generally in 6th or 7th grades) passing rates in reading and math begin to decline. By 10th grade, after several years of departmentalized instruction, 30% of students who met the 5th Grade Math benchmark fail to pass the 10th Grade Assessment. Thirty percent! In Reading, 15% fall by the wayside as the result of departmentalization, and in Science the departmental decline is 23%.<br /><br />As for those departments of a different sort, those whose primary task is to enforce compliance with policies and procedures that have been proven ineffective, no need to dwell there. Let our motto be: <span style="font-weight:bold;"> All Departments, Depart Away!</span>Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-36203150614453882562010-06-12T15:51:00.000-07:002010-06-27T07:55:54.908-07:00The Educator's Alphabet: BB is for Bulfinch, Thomas. And for good reason.<br /><br />First, because Thomas Bulfinch organized and presented Greek mythology in a way that has resonated with generations of new readers. His contribution is immeasurable.<br /><br />Second, education is fraught with myths and legends that would fill several more volumes but, unlike those of the Greeks, they would illuminate nothing of the human condition. A collection of popular and professional misunderstandings regarding education would be more appropriate to a Reality TV show (America's Dumbest Ideas?) than to a beautifully illustrated, leather-bound volume. They really don't rise to the level of 'myth' except in its most derogatory usage. Still, I didn't have the nerve to suggest that B should be for B.S., so we are stuck with 'myths' and with the shameless exploitation of the first letter of Thomas' last name...<br /><br />Ten myths that prevent academic achievement in schools.<br />1. Children come in various types with each type constituting a unique subspecies. <br />2. All children can learn the same material at the same age and at the same rate.<br />3. Large schools are more efficient that small schools.<br />4. Students are happier when they have more choices.<br />5. Communication is more important than student achievement.<br />6. Schools should reflect the values of their respective communities.<br />7. Algebra can only be taught by a math specialist.<br />8. Math specialists can't be expected to teach English or History.<br />9. Achievement in the early grades is essential to achievement later in life.<br />10. Instruction in phonics is necessary to the mastery of reading.<br /><br />These are just 10 myths, in no particular order. There are dozens more that might have made the list. The pervasiveness of these myths makes school improvement a slow and ponderous process, as efforts are often grounded in one or more myths and too many people are unprepared to call Bulfinch.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-37227556865068680882010-06-12T15:03:00.001-07:002010-06-26T20:30:06.545-07:00The Educator's Alphabet: AA is for Anthropology<br /><br />Anthropology is the study of culture. Education is the transmission of culture. Simple. But to say what education IS necessarily implies what education is not. And the bulk of thinking and planning regarding schools is based on profound misunderstanding of the enterprise. The Education-Industrial Complex systematically prepares professionals, produces curricula, proposes policies and writes legislation based upon what education is decidedly NOT.<br /><br />Education is not the process by which one person at a time learns one concept at a time. Educational psychology is an oxymoron, yet the majority of what is taught to pre-service teachers regarding how learning happens is informed by various 'psychologies of learning'. Most recently this has meant a return to the Behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, though it is rarely acknowledged a such. But whether it is Skinner, Piaget, Maslow or Dewey, psychology has little to add to the conversation. And while the adherents of various psychologies of learning continue to produce brilliant tri-fold brochures and intricately-boxed revolutionary reading programs, they have produced nothing of note with regard to student achievement. Still, it's a lucrative living, so don't expect these folks to go away any time soon!<br /><br />Education is not business. It fascinates me that educators (particularly administrators) all but wag their tails in anticipation of the next volume of Wisdom Literature' due out from one business guru or another. Granted, these are bright guys (they seem all to be guys, but I don't pay that much attention) who write and speak in sweeping certainties regarding problems that have plagued educators for decades. I understand why someone would hope that they carry stone tablets to pass down from the mountain top from which they have only recently descended. But in the end, it's a new, improved Day Planner rather than the hoped-for stone tablet, and in six months it will be made obsolete by the next, brand-new breakthrough in systemic science. The only consolation for the humiliation of having hoped for something useful is that the next conference is to held in Florida in the off season...not to be missed!<br /><br />Schools are not societies, and social engineering doesn't work. I won't bother offending various folks one at a time by listing the acronyms that represent literally dozens of program the have required expensive trainings, materials, and staffing but have not improved student achievement. The acronyms survive by providing their own measures of 'improvement' that are fully aside from achievement, but their evidence is mostly a matter of re-defining reality so that what was once a discipline referral is now called an intervention and, wonder of wonders, the number of 'discipline referrals' is significantly reduced. But again, if a reduction of 'discipline referrals' doesn't result in increased student achievement, what have the results got to do with education?<br /><br />Why doesn't social engineering work? Because schools are cultures. Take note that I'm not saying that schools 'have' cultures, as though 'school culture' was an attribute of a school, subject to manipulation. The mountains of literature that address school culture in this manner are simply mistaken, and those who have taken the advice of such authors have the lack of results to prove it. Nope. Schools don't 'have' cultures. They ARE cultures. They are dense accumulations of face-to-face interactions, and their various aspects cannot be manipulated independently of the whole. And while social engineering envisions a system in which changing one sort of input can immediately impact a corresponding output, cultures change very gradually, holistically, and much more thoroughly.<br /><br />I would guess that the vast majority of educators can't name three anthropologists. Many can, on the other hand, name three prominent business theorists. (I have always suspected that this deference to business gurus is grounded in the apparent desire of educators to dress like bankers and in their tendency to look down on those who prefer to dress more like professionals doing field work.) I would also argue that of all of the social sciences, anthropology is easily the most promising for those seeking insights into schools and schooling.<br /><br />Anthropologists have one habit that educators can hardly abide. They describe cultures as they are without Utopian intent. Educators want Utopia. They want a Utopia of feeling, a Utopia of consensus, of democratic self-congratulations. But to do the hard work of influencing a culture? That's slow work, with no guarantees, no instant gratification, no strategic plan, no sure-fire, teacher-proof, Title I-approved formula. But that's the work. And Anthropology might provide the best clues regarding where to start. It certainly provides sound reasons to predict with some confidence what won't work...meaning that anthropological understanding could have saved Oregon and dozens of its districts hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few years.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-39084643527453938542010-06-12T11:34:00.000-07:002010-06-26T20:32:58.398-07:00The Educator's Alphabet: CC is for Conflict.<br /><br />We all love peace. Educators and school board members are no exception. Board members especially are prone to the utopian belief that if we are all doing our jobs, then there should be no tension, no conflict among our constituents or between constituents and ourselves. If someone is upset, the theory goes, then there must be something wrong. There is danger in this belief. Attempts to put an end to tensions, to ban conflict from the conversation, can lead only to banality. And the conflict will continue in some modified form.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tensions between the past and the future, between competing political interests, each with its favored 'history', favored 'science', favorite reality. And those are the good days.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tension between a single family's aspirations for its own child(ren) and the need to share.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the gap between the expert judgment of practitioners and the common wisdom(s) of consumers. This tension is exacerbated by competing 'expert' paradigms and wildly divergent 'wisdoms' among consumers. It reaches critical mass due to the utter certainty with which each expert as well as each consumer holds that his or her private expertise or personal wisdom is uniquely correct.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the fact that in spite of the expression of myriad varieties of expertise and wisdom, each particular school can only be a compromise among competing perspectives. It can never be anyone's ideal of 'perfect', and it will always reflect the practical reality that some folks will have more influence than will others.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tension that when some teacher, somewhere, says 'no' to some student, that student will sometimes respond as though 'no' was an entirely novel concept.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tension that results when the word 'student' is replaced by the word 'parent'.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of tension caused when the common core requirements of today are seen as a criticism of the education of previous generations. It is exacerbated by the fact that sometimes this is actually the case.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tension created when the daughter of a lawyer, who aspires to be a cowgirl, sits and a calculus class with the son of a fisherman, who wants to be a doctor.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tension created by the demand that all children be educated and the fact that little or no thought has been given to what that even means.<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the tension between our best democratic impulses (No Child Left Behind) and the reality that some children are more able than others and that there is (thankfully) no technology for eliminating those differences. (Though the vast majority of schools are currently organized so as to prevent our most able students from fully realizing their potential. At the same time, Title I and Special Education programs are typically designed to prevent our most challenged students from realizing theirs as well).<br /><br />Education is conflict, bred of the fact that even in a democratic society, there are no democratic means by which to resolve a single one of these conflicts.<br /><br />Education is conflict. Always has been. But it is not war. In education, nobody wins. Not decisively. Not finally. There may be battles, and there may be lulls. There may even be celebrations by 'victors'. But the tensions persist, even if they are below the surface for time. The tensions are the nature of the enterprise, and they are irresolvable. They are the framework within which all schools must operate, and they are ignored or denied at the expense of the mission.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-27723022345132133422010-06-07T22:26:00.000-07:002010-06-07T22:49:33.383-07:00New National StandardsFor those who want defer accountability for another generation, the New (Shiny!) National Standards are just the thing. We can spend months just determining, as State Board Chair Duncan Wyse recommends, whether these standards are appropriate for Oregon's children. (What would that mean, exactly? Would we compare the proposed National Standards to the Oregon standards? Or would we look at the National Standards without reference to the Oregon standards and assume that their appropriateness was unrelated to our own work of the past 20-or-so years? One has to assume that the new National Standards, in order to be appropriate for Oregon, would have to bear a striking resemblance to the Oregon standards...in which case, tell me again why there need to be National Standards? And if there truly do need to be National Standards, why are we bothering to determine whether they are appropriate to Oregon? Who is Oregon to stand in the way of this new national necessity?)<br /><br />Fun with words. And that's all any standards are. O.K. That's not all they are. They are also a colossal waste of time and money. O.K. They are more than that. They also buy time for those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep the target moving so that education will be in a constant state of retooling toward a new, re-envisioned definition of always-receding, eventual, someday success. And moments before we fail, we will shift the target again, as we did with the 10th grade math benchmarks and the now-defunct Math Problem Solving Assessment.<br /><br />This is all eerily similar to Orwell's vision in 1984, in which a constant state of war,though with ever-revolving enemies, was necessary for the economy. Some purpose is served, it seems, by keeping education in a constant state of crisis but with regard to an ever-shifting threat...economic failure, social inequity, athlete's foot...<br /><br />National Standards. A new measure against which to declare our utter failure (watch while ODE declares the silver lining is that we have now shined a light on the problem!), resulting in the need to convene committees, hire consultants, race to various tops, scramble for money, break large schools into small ones, combine small schools into large ones, put our right feet in, put our right feet out...<br /><br />Can we not get serious? Does this game of 'shuffle the money' ever get boring? Does it get embarrassing, after awhile, to continue to pretend to know the way forward while chasing after every shiny object that catches our eyes?<br /><br />National Standards. I know it's a joke, I'm just not sure who's in on it and who are its victims. I will say one thing without hesitation, though, in all seriousness. Not a single student will receive a better education as the result of our attention to this nonsense. Not one. And there is no evidence to the contrary, anywhere.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-4745554548244052082010-05-12T21:10:00.000-07:002010-05-12T21:16:37.811-07:00First, we take ManhattanA dear friend, having heard just today of my new direction, made an unexpected allusion to a favorite artist:<br /><br />"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom,<br />For trying to change the system from within.<br />I'm coming now, I'm coming to reward them..."<br /><br />You know the rest.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-50010413977036315872010-05-09T21:32:00.000-07:002010-05-09T21:36:34.131-07:00Untitled"The soul...never reasons, never proves, it simply perceives; it is vision."<br />EmersonBob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-31878498135421371862010-05-08T08:18:00.000-07:002010-05-08T09:29:16.593-07:002010 6th GradersThis is a shout out to the members of the 'The Scores are Falling!' quintet. <br /><br />I remember my delight, as a youngster, at the Chicken Little story. Her sense of urgency, her belief that she must save the farm from impending doom, the obviousness of her mistake, which was painfully evident to everyone but her...I just howled. But only recently have I pondered what the story might feel like from the perspective of our heroine. Bummer.<br /><br />In 2007, Corbett's 3rd Graders got a bad rap. They showed up poorly on the State of Oregon Assessments. Their 52% passing rate in 3rd grade math was particularly irksome to the few people who noticed. I was one of the few, and I was asked by teachers and board members what we were going to do about it. "Nothing." Of course. Wouldn't you just know it?<br /><br />And what should we have done? A new math program? Pull the kids out of recess to have them do extra math? Take away their music until they learned their fractions? (No, wait, music is a GREAT place to learn fractions, so that won't work...). Add an extra hour of math at the expense of P.E.? (Don't laugh. There are schools where this is common practice!)<br /><br />What did we do? We trusted our teachers. We trusted our practice. We trusted our past decisions. We trusted that fact that cohort ahead of them had passed at over 95% in 2006 before the benchmark was changed. We didn't panic.<br /><br />Today we still have the third grade assessment results for 47 of our current sixth graders. Some are now in the Charter School, others are in Corbett Middle School. Of those 47, 23 failed to reach the 3rd grade math benchmark in 2007. That's a 51% passing rate. Today, 17 of the 23 (74%) have met the 6th grade math benchmark. Why is that number familiar? Oh, of course, it's very close to the State passing rate for 6th grade math last year, which was 73%. And our 74% mark counts only those student who DIDN'T meet the 3rd grade benchmark. What about our entire cohort of 47 students?<br /><br />This year, taking all 47 cohort members (including those who did meet in 3rd grade) into account, their passing rate in math is 87%. Say it again: <span style="font-weight:bold;">87%</span>! They are, in fact, out-performing those students who have since joined us and for whom we have no 3rd grade results. (Private schools, of course, don't administer the assessments.)<br /><br />The class ahead of them? The one that had a 95% passing rate in 3rd grade? Last year they posted an 86% rate on the 6th grade math assessment. And this year they are running at over 80% in 7th grade math. And so it goes on.<br /><br />This year, Corbett Middle School (grades 6 through 8) has passed 80% of all of the tests taken in Reading, Math and Science combined. The class with the highest passing rate among all three cohorts? The Sixth Grade! These kids are knocking it out of the park.<br /><br />So in the spirit of free speech, I say that we let Chicken Little be Chicken Little. (I'm certainly not going to be the one to explain what is really falling on her head!) But fair warning, CL, denying reality is an uphill battle in most circles.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-16208148194579271482010-05-07T18:23:00.000-07:002010-05-07T20:27:27.531-07:00"The Research Says..."IN EDUCATION, RESEARCH IS NOTHING. RESULTS ARE EVERYTHING.<br /><br />I suppose I'm to the point in my career where it's OK to say what those who know me best have long understood. When someone says the words 'education research' to me, I lose all interest in whatever they might have to say next. Educational research is good for a laugh among the people who are informed enough to get the joke, but that's about all it's good for.<br /><br />RESEARCH IS WHERE RED-FACED ADMINISTRATORS HIDE WHEN THEIR EFFORTS PRODUCE NO RESULTS. ("GEE, WE DID IT JUST LIKE THE DIRECTIONS ON THE BOX SAID, BUT THE WHEELS ON MY NEW SUPER-SONIC BIKE STILL DON'T POINT THE SAME DIRECTION!")<br /><br />RESEARCH IS FOR WINNING ARGUMENTS WHEN NEITHER REASON NOR COMMON SENSE NOR PAST PERFORMANCE ARE ADEQUATE TO JUSTIFY ONE'S POSITION.<br /><br />RESEARCH IS FOR INTIMIDATING THOSE WHO MIGHT BE NAIVE ENOUGH TO FALL FOR IT AND WHO HAVEN'T READ THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES.<br /><br />Of course it isn't always appropriate to laugh out loud, but then I'm not always limited in my responses to only those that are deemed appropriate. And sometimes it's just too funny. But not always.<br /><br />Sometimes there is a kind of sadness associated with conversations about research. When the person is earnest. When that person does something related to education for a living. Perhaps it's a person with a lot of experience (or with one year's experience 20 times over, because nothing of significance seems to accumulate over time). When that person makes an appeal to research, it's truly sad. Especially if they do it in public. I try not to be in the room on such occasions. But even then, colleagues who don't see the tragedy find it humorous to pass relate the event...and of course I laugh along, and they never notice the sadness just around the edges of my eyes...<br /><br />There's no research, for example, that 'proves' that multi-age practice increases student achievement. Still, it does. Why do I think so? Corbett's 10th graders who qualify as 'Economically Disadvantaged' have had an average passing rate of 81% in Reading over the past three years. They have never been as low as, say, 67%. And they have averaged 64% in 10th grade math, with their lowest year being 50%. They've never dropped as low as 45% in all that time. Why? They have come up through the grades in multi-age classrooms. And someone who wants to argue otherwise has a challenge that is greater than just Googling multi-age. They have to overcome the facts on the ground. (Maybe they could claim it's the self-contained 9th grade classrooms...which absolutely no research supports!)<br /><br />Research is nothing. Research in the hands of those who have never produced any results is less. And it's sad. But in a funny way. <br /><br />Results? They trump research. To produce results is to hold the trump card. Holding the trump card, always, is like always being 20 steps ahead...Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-29598553559495248702010-04-16T21:56:00.000-07:002010-04-18T13:09:37.785-07:00Oregon's New K-12 Literacy FrameworkDid you know that it is important that high school teachers understand just why primary teachers teach primary students the names and sounds of the letters of the alphabet? <br /><br />It comes as a shock to me, but so claims Oregon's new K-12 Literacy Framework! This claim is troubling for a number of reasons, the most onerous of which is that it is clearly written to mislead those who don't know anything about the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet! The implication that there is some sort of simple, direct relationship between letters of the alphabet and the sounds of the spoken language is just silly...especially to those who are learning to read. They quickly learn that almost no letters make the same sound under all circumstances, almost no sounds are always made by the same letter or combination of letters, and many letters and letter combinations hold no clue to the sounds they make until a person already knows how to pronounce words like though, through, enough, bough...<br /><br />There are a number of other reasons not to greet the publication of the New K-12 Literacy Framework as good news. <br /><br />My primary concern is that it reflects a thorough misunderstanding of how children learn to read. It drags out the National Reading Panel report and seems to accept it as other than the political enterprise that it was. Perhaps the most influential claim of the National Reading Panel, which drives much of the Literacy Framework, is that the panel identified the "Five Pillars" of reading instruction. These five 'essentials' have been uncritically published, cut and pasted into virtually every official document regarding literacy since the publication of the report. The five 'essentials' have, however, no firm basis research...ironic for a publication that places all of its eggs in a deeply flawed research basket! This 'research' generates a lot of business, and where it has been faithfully implemented, there is no conspicuous surge in reading achievement.<br /><br />The K-12 Literacy Framework includes no minority report. There is no room for thinking...only for implementation. Nothing from Richard Allington, Frank Smith, Nancie Atwell, Mem Fox, Stephen Krashen, Joanne Yatvin (who sat on the National Reading Panel and carefully articulated her concerns regarding its final report). Educators are expected simply to accept and implement this framework based, evidently, in the credentials of its authors...no, wait, that would be an argument ad hominem, that can't be right.<br /><br />Is there someone in the state who really believes that this framework will improve reading achievement? Those who want to believe so face a decidedly steep climb. Because while the document is all dressed up in scientific fashion (or, if you prefer, fad) there is no scientific evidence to support its claim that implementation of the framework will improve reading achievement for a single student. None. Zero.<br /><br />So what's the scoop? Why publish these 200-plus pages? Is it a political document? A budget document? An attempt to beef up Oregon's next federal grant application? Whatever it is, serious practitioners should consider letting the politicians make of the framework what they will while focusing their own energies on educating children. Take a break from teaching reading and let the kids read awhile. Read along with them. Giant win-win. And doesn't require a 200-page rational(e)(-ism).Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-71324079518568185742010-04-04T12:36:00.000-07:002010-04-04T13:18:09.800-07:00Great Schooling is SimpleBad schooling is extremely complex. And legislative attempts to limit the damage done by really bad schooling can make the administration of good schools fairly complex. But at its core, good schooling is simple. Not many moving parts.<br /><br />Good schools have good teachers. Those teachers are well educated, well housed, well supplied, clear about the purpose of the school and trusted to do their jobs. Simple doesn't mean easy. Good teachers work hard. But they know where they are going and they work without getting sidetracked by every shiny object that comes into their field of vision.<br /><br />Fostering this sort of simplicity in a society that suffers debilitating addictions to both complexity and immediate gratification is sometimes a challenge. Citizens want systems, programs, acronyms, committees, specialists, guarantees, progress measured on the quarter hour, and frequent numeric representations of the superiority of one child over another. They sometimes take comfort in needing a 'program' in order to know the 'players'. They expect to walk through the door and to see the newest thing. And then the next. And the next.<br /><br />We are committed to keeping schooling simple. And excellent. We hope for the patience of those who are otherwise inclined.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-45431204809901209372010-03-30T20:18:00.000-07:002010-04-01T20:54:30.469-07:00What Makes Corbett Charter School Unique?Multi-age practice is so self-evidently the smart way to organize elementary and middle schools that to do otherwise is simply wasteful. It is inefficient both educationally and fiscally. It puts equity at risk. Multiage practice is better for kids. And we do it. But it's not unique.<br /><br />Imaginative Education is a monumental breakthrough that Kieran Egan began expounding some 30 years ago. Corbett Charter School is fortunate to have had the opportunity to take up this tradition, and perhaps we will implement it more thoroughly than has been done before. But it's been done before, and on several continents. Not quite unique.<br /><br />What about the use of big, brilliant thematic units that place an emphasis on understanding the wonders of the world as well as our immediate surroundings? Highly unusual. This happens in only the best schools. But it happens.<br /><br />What's truly unique about Corbett Charter School is that it is a place where the professional teachers in the room are authorized to do the work for which they were hired. This sounds mundane enough, but more than one person has expressed surprise (and sometimes even dismay!) that the teachers are trusted to do their jobs without interference from the administration or from anyone else.<br /><br />Corbett Charter teachers have a common mission. They have a common curriculum and methods that they all embrace. But they are each entrusted, one at a time, with the hundreds of judgments and decisions that every teacher makes every day regarding the conduct of their classroom and their class activities. They are solely responsible for the school experience of their charges. This is not negotiable. Ever. That's unique.<br /><br />Why are we so adamant about this? It's what works. Or, more precisely, its opposite is what doesn't work in schools across the country. Teachers have an incredibly demanding job. It is demanding both intellectually (assuming that they don't teach from zip-locked, prefab programs) and emotionally (as the result of managing literally dozens of relationships simultaneously) and they don't need the distraction of wondering at every turn whether some moment in time, some drop of water in the stream, is going to be taken out of context, scrutinized, and found wanting. In Corbett Charter School they have no such worries. And that, as some poet somewhere once said, makes all the difference. Our teachers are remarkable. And they can only be fully remarkable when they know that they are fully trusted.<br /><br />Why are we so adamant? Because too many cooks spoil the broth.<br /><br />Why so insistent? Because a survey of 100 concert pianists confirms that 94 of them don't believe that they benefit from someone else wanting to help out with that C# in measure 74...it tends to disrupt their performance.<br /><br />Why so inflexible? Because marathoners have been known to trip when a spectator attempts, out of kindness, to tie their shoes mid-race.<br /><br />Why so sure? Because we hold teachers responsible for educating the children in their little classroom communities. Solely responsible. Because we take very seriously our charge to provide the best possible education for every child who walks through the door and is willing to take instruction. Because we believe that each child's education is our obligation. Because we don't pass the responsibility off on others. We take it to ourselves. And responsibility entails, necessarily, the ability and authority to respond.<br /><br />Teachers own their classrooms at Corbett Charter School. We promise. And that is perhaps our most unique attribute. It is also perhaps our greatest strength. It is our best guarantee that every child in our care will receive the best possible education. That's what we are here for. Nothing else. O.K., that might be unique as well.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-65872411605062138692010-03-26T15:43:00.000-07:002010-03-27T18:23:34.759-07:00How to Make K-12 Schools 20% more effectiveOver the past three years, Corbett has had a number of students enter college with sophomore standing. Many others have earned at least a portion of their freshman credits prior to graduating from high school. (About 60% of the Class of 2009, in fact). This isn't just about saving parents tens of thousands of dollars (which is has, by the way) but is also about encouraging students to make the most of their opportunities. I think this is a great life lesson.<br /><br />Last year 20% of Corbett's 10th graders passed the Advanced Placement World History exam. If they take their scores to Oregon State University, they will receive six credit hours for History 104 and 105. A passing score on either AP English exam is worth three more credits (and they get two tries). A score of four on an AP Government exam is worth four more credits. A three in Environmental Science? Four more credits. A four in Biology? Twelve more credits. A three in U.S History is worth eight credits. A three in Spanish? Twelve more. A three in Calculus (ab)? Four credits. A four in BC? That's worth twelve. A three in Psych? Four credits.<br /><br />Last year 13% of Corbett's seniors had passed AP Calculus (bc) as well as AP Stats. Those exams were worth between eight and sixteen credits (up to a third of a year), depending on whether students scored threes or fours. In no case does earning credit require a score of five, but several exams require fours. <br /><br />Most private schools do want fours, by the way, and Harvard wants fives. The rubric that I have been describing is the law for Oregon Higher Ed members.<br /><br />A person wouldn't have to be all that prolific, really, to benefit tremendously from this program. A Corbett graduate could score fours on the right <span style="font-weight:bold;">four</span> exams and enter OSU with sophomore standing. Just two as a junior and two as a senior would do it. We've had plenty of students earn fours on more than four exams. It can be done.<br /><br />In a time when everyone seems to want to talk about efficiencies and how we spend education dollars, it's clear to me that we could increase our output by anywhere from 8% (if you are only talking about time) to 20% (if you include the cost of a freshman year in a public college or university) by simply supporting our students' efforts to do well on their AP exams.<br /><br />Exams are coming up again during the first two weeks of May. Encourage someone you know to do well.<br /><br />There is no reason to limit ourselves to being a K-12 school. We can just as easily be K-13.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-53411794267041665402010-03-13T19:08:00.000-08:002010-03-20T10:28:28.284-07:00Why Winning MattersThere's a reason they call it winning. But is winning the end-all, be-all for schools? I don't believe that it is. But there are times when winning matters. The last decade in Corbett has been one of those times.<br /><br />Ten years ago, 4% of Corbett's students were leaving the district in order to pursue a better education elsewhere. Other schools were winning and we were losing. Losing our own kids. Losing 4% of our revenues. Losing. So, for awhile at least, winning mattered.<br /><br />What did we start with? A number of things. Some actions were aimed at reducing costs. Some were aimed at enhancing revenues. But all were also aimed at improving student achievement. Lackluster student achievement was the reason that we were losing students, and improved student achievement seemed like the best way to win them back.<br /><br />Up until 11 years ago, Corbett High School 10th graders had posted three consecutive years of math passing rates that were below 20%. Below 20%. Less than one in five. We were losing. Losing kids. And we were failing to serve those kids who stayed. Among those who stayed to graduate in 1997, 1998 and 1999, about 25% were taking the SAT (a few more than the number who were passing the 10th grade math assessments) and they were posting an average score of 1005. Statewide participation rates were about 50%, and the statewide average score was about 1015. We were losing.<br /><br />We were losing students to transfers out of district, and we were losing students to the rural population trend by which were were graduating more seniors, year after year, than we were gaining new kindergartners. By the year 2000, Corbett's student population had dropped from a previous level of 700 to only 580. <br /><br />Budgets were tight, because of which Corbett had decided, in 1998, to initiate a 4-Day school week. Morale and confidence were faltering. During the 1998-1999 fiscal year, Corbett lost its superintendent (in mid-year), its high school principal (also mid-year), its counselor, its maintenance director and its music teacher. None retired. All left for other positions. <br /><br />What did we need to do? A lot. What did we need to change? Almost everything. How quickly did we need to do it? Almost immediately. During the month of July, 1999, I discovered that the 1999-2000 budget was out of balance and that we needed to cut about $150,000.00. That meant cutting staff. And we had to do it during the summer, when most of the staff was off for the summer and believed that the plan for 1999-2000 was already set.<br /><br />Beginning in 2000, we launched simultaneous changes across the grades, across the curriculum and across the district. We did it with frequent, intense staff involvement through dozens of meetings, and every move was discussed and approved in public board meetings. At 90% of those board meetings, only the board and one or two faithful community members were present. <br /><br />Over the course of the first two years, we reduced administrative staffing by 50%, the teaching staff by 17% and classified staff by about 30%. And, little by little, we improved.<br /><br />Today, Corbett means quality. It means achievement. It means opportunity for kids after graduation. And for that reason, it has become a destination district for the region. And because of its image as a Winner, Corbett Charter School is attracting far more students than it is able to accommodate. Because it is seen as a Winner, Corbett avoided the reductions in staff and school days that have plagued (and will continue to plague) other districts around the state.<br /><br />For Corbett, winning is a fiscal policy. It is a financial strategy. It has worked. Everybody in Corbett is better off for it. It matters that we continue. For those whose sensibilities or self-confidence make them adverse to competition, adverse to working, adverse to winning, or adverse to bragging about it, I suggest that they keep an eye on the budget cuts that will occur around the state this coming year. The stories are already in a paper about Beaverton School District deliberating over whether to cut staff or school days for 2010-2011. That conversation will be echoed throughout the state, throughout this budget season.<br /><br />Do we have to win? Do we have to be number one? Absolutely not, so long as we are willing to live with the consequences of being average...larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, less preparation for college and careers, and two parking spaces for every student and parent.<br /><br />Winning isn't everything. But for now it's necessary.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-62228980678754379472010-03-13T14:20:00.000-08:002010-03-20T10:55:18.673-07:00National Standards?For some decades now, the Standards Movement has produced no measurable improvements in American public education. It has worn many guises, has been repackaged innumerable times, but always with the same result...a declaration that it is time to start over and to purchase new books, materials and services from the developers of the next new redesigned one best way to educate children.<br /><br />When No Child Left Behind was enacted, two responses captured the mood of most school practitioners. My own response was to argue that NCLB was ill-conceived, that it suffered internal contradictions that doomed it to failure, and that school leaders should resist it at every turn. There were those who agreed, but it seemed that we were few. There was another school of thought...those who believed that if we supported NCLB, bought the new books and the new trainings, filled out the new reports and executed the new mandates, the system would eventually collapse under its own weight and we would be none the worse for it. Well, it has indeed collapsed. (When Diane Ravitch came out against NCLB, that had to be the final nail.) But in Oregon alone, we have wasted millions of dollars and thousands of school days in a program that never showed any potential for success.<br /><br />And now the move is toward national standards. And because the feds will attach money to them, the lemming-like states will line up and march toward to sea. Oregon? We'll scramble to be first. Incredible.<br /><br />If the result of <span style="font-style:italic;">statewide</span> standards in Oregon is wildly disparate achievement between two schools in the same Oregon district (Portland comes to mind), who in their right mind would imagine that national standards will create parity among schools in Mobile, Minneapolis and Manhattan? There is simply no reason to think so. On the other hand, there are billions of reasons to <span style="font-style:italic;">say</span> so. There are new committees, new documents, new curriculum mapping projects, new staff development conferences, books and tapes. There are new textbooks to publish and sell, new formative assessments to develop. And sell, sell, sell. Shiny brochures will flood my office, all promising to move every student up to 'national standards'. Guaranteed.<br /><br />National standards will be to the Publishing-Education-Technology complex what World War II was to American manufacturing interests. Profits falling from the sky. The goal? It seems to be to lead the world in the production of college graduates by the year 2020. President Obama seems to have endorsed the goal. Like the 2014 goal set by President Bush, it conveniently pushes any real accountability out beyond the life expectancy of the current administration. <br /><br />2020? It used to stand or perfect vision. Now it stands for perfect deferral. Which of the big decision-makers will still be in their positions of authority when 2020 comes and the national standards movement bears no fruit? Not the President or Secretary Duncan. Not the Oregon Superintendent. Not the superintendents of the large districts who will jump on board and echo the promises of the Administration. Ten years from now? It's doubtful that they will still be paying into PERS. Some people will make careers and others will extend them by getting on board with National Standards, just as they did with NCLB. Most of them will be far beyond any accountability by 2020. And billions will have been spent. And a good percentage of those billions will have been wasted.<br /><br />It was either Frank Smith or Richard Allington who said that no reading program had yet been invented that could prevent all students from learning to read. NCLB didn't put a complete halt to student achievement. Neither will the dive to National Standards. But like every commercial reading program yet published, it will dampen the results that would be possible without this noisy, time-consuming, distraction from the task of educating the next generation. It will line the pockets of gurus and produce very little added value. The opportunity costs will go unmeasured, but they will be tremendous.<br /><br />Public education's addiction to fads and to empty 'visions' is its Achilles' heel. National Standards are just the latest delusion. In 2020 I'll open this blog for comments and you can explain how wrong I was...I promise.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3615250394596741855.post-46833663763332294062010-03-06T08:36:00.001-08:002010-03-07T15:45:27.903-08:00Corbett, Washington?Over the past ten years, Corbett School District has achieved the dramatic improvement that has eluded the State of Oregon. The State of Oregon, for its part, has kept quiet as Corbett has been recognized by various national agencies and media. Far from embracing Corbett's achievement as its own, the Oregon Department of Education has kept Corbett at arms length. Why? I'm not certain that they want it known that improving student achievement has nothing to do with State Standards, DDDM, PLC's, RTI, AVID, CIP, CDIP, NCLB, Scientific, Scientifically-Based, Evidence-Based, or VooDoo Based Evidence, or any of the highly profitable rituals that are the mainstay of the current educational practice. They don't want to celebrate the achievements of a district that openly expresses concern that TSPC is on the wrong track, that their definitions of Highly Qualified Teachers and quality professional development are wrong-headed. They don't like that we don't embrace the recommendations of the Chalkboard Project, the PTA, OSBA, the FBI... or that we believe the OEA to be a significant barrier to school improvement. And they certainly don't want it known that a district with Corbett's record of achievement has embraced a Charter School.<br /><br />During a recent private meeting with the President of The College Board, he wondered aloud regarding Oregon's lack of acknowledgment of Corbett School District's astounding performance in the Advanced Placement program. I fumbled for an answer. What I landed on was this: in order for Corbett to produce improvements that were unlike those posted by any other Oregon district during the same decade, we had to approach education in ways that were fundamentally different from the Oregon orthodoxy that produced almost nothing. And when I say different, I mean 'in opposition' to. And when I say 'in opposition to', I mean that we believe that Oregon's approach to school improvement has been, on every level, disastrous. And it has been disastrously expensive. It is no secret that our practices, in direct opposition to every prescription from the State and Federal department, have produced unparalleled results. So it makes some sense that they ignore us.<br /><br />The occasion of the above meeting was the College Board's Western Regional Forum in San Diego. We were invited to speak and to meet the President of the Board. The College Board published a special announcement in recognition of those schools in the Western Region that were recognized by Newsweek Magazine as being among the top 100 high schools in the nation. It was an elite list, and Corbett was on it. Right there in black and white. Well, almost. The College Board, those same folks who wondered why Oregon ignored us, listed us as Corbett, Washington.<br /><br />Corbett, Washington. That would explain a lot. And it would let Oregon off the hook.Bob Duntonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06220357719570846496noreply@blogger.com