Nearly 400 years ago, the French philosopher and mathematician Pascal posited two ways of knowing about the world...two fundamental capacities of the human mind. One he called the "geometrical bent", meaning the capacity to break things down, analyze, calculate, predict with precision, and apply unalterable principles such as those that characterize mathematics and (with some limits) the physical sciences.
The second human capacity he called (pardon my French) 'esprit de finesse', which Jacques Barzun (whose essay 'Culture High and Dry' informs this posting) translates as 'intuitive understanding'. Intellectual finesse (which seems to me closer to what Pascal called it) is necessary for understanding and succeeding in those areas of human endeavor that do not lend themselves to measurement, analysis, calculation, precise prediction and the application of unalterable principles. Finesse is necessary to the apprehension of those things that can't be 'broken down' (the literal meaning of analysis), rearranged and improved through engineering.
What could be more evident than that education is an endeavor of this second sort? What could be ironic than that contemporary educators somehow became so enamored of Pascals 'geometric bent' that they continually misapply it to an endeavor that he himself would have said was clearly a matter of 'esprit de finesse'? A geometry of teaching? A science of education? An utterly preposterous, though clearly profitable, notion. Charlatans playing on the fears and anxieties of parents and governing boards are all too ready to insist that a geometry of education is not only possible but is (forever, it seems) just around the corner as the result of each year's revolutionary new scientifically-based methods of delivery! Today they even offer it over the internet!
But what about the criterion of predictability? At what point does generation after generation of abject failure add up to evidence that the 'geometry of education' possesses no predictive power and is therefor (by it's own standards) a failure? When do we admit that such an approach has borne no fruit for decades and holds no promise for the future? Why do we cling so desperately to a failed model (all in the name of Continuous Improvement!)?
I suggest that it is because the alternative is unthinkable, and perhaps in two senses of that word.
First, it is politically unthinkable because a reliance on the experience, judgment and (yes) finesse of expert teachers strips the state of the appearance of control over the process. ODE, TSPC, Schools of Education, all depend on the myth that teachers and teaching can be mass-produced in accordance with the principles of scientific management. The unfortunate thing about the current level of state control is that while government agencies have some control over the behavior of some of the adults (mostly the administrators and support staff at district offices) they clearly have no control over the quality of education or the experience of the students in our schools. Still, this appearance of control evidently plays an important role in someone's thinking about how 'the education question' ought to be addressed. (That they can only address 'the education question' and not education itself ought to be apparent from the lack of progress over the past 20 years).
Second, perhaps finesse with regard to education is simply outside the experience of the current generation of 'deciders'. The illusion of scientific management, which was born outside of education, can be learned elsewhere, imported, and easily (mis)applied to schools and schooling. It requires no knowledge of education per se. Perhaps those who (whether from inside or outside the field) understand so little about education as to imagine that it can be scientifically managed are simply incapable of rethinking schools as places where finesse drives success. Perhaps they have never seen success up close, thus their infatuation with 'improvement' and their despairing of real results.
But even given all of that, why the appeal to Pascal? What makes him a reliable guide? Is this just a case of dragging up the name of some old European because he supports my take on things? Maybe. But Pascal understood 'the geometrical bent' that drives education policy today. And he could have predicted that it's application to education would produce disastrous results. It has. And he proposed an alternative way of thinking about problems that don't lend themselves to technical/geometrical solutions. What Pascal called 'intuitive understanding' is a viable alternative to what has repeatedly proved to be a failed stance toward education. Maybe it shouldn't matter that he wrote nearly 400 years ago. Maybe it should matter more that he appears to have been on to something that we have missed to the detriment of our kids. Maybe we should take a break from planning and think instead. Every year that we delay, we misdirect hundreds of millions of dollars toward wasteful activity and we fail to keep the promise that we make to our children each time we invite them to spend a day at school.
We can do better. But if we lack the commitment to revisit some basic assumptions then we must continue to grind inevitably toward to the same failed conclusions that got us to this point. That's not going to be good enough. That's not going to be good enough even if there is adequate funding for education over the next three years. Given the more likely scenario of near-historic shortfalls, the risk represented by a commitment to the educational status quo is simply unacceptable. We may not, in either practical or moral terms, fail to change.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Ripples of Hope?
Just a few weeks ago the Oregon Department of Education announced that it has not, for some years now, had the 'time' to nominate schools for national recognition (Blue Ribbon Schools). Given that the Department has had time to sponsor banquets for schools that, according to the state assessment folks, have 'improved' their performance on State Assessments, the issue is clearly not time so much as priorities.
Along the same lines, for the past two years the Oregon Department of Education has failed to publicly recognize Oregon's Advanced Placement State Scholars...students who have set the bar for Advanced Placement achievement in Oregon. Each year one boy and one girl from Oregon are selected based on their total number of AP exams passed during high school. The College Board does all the work, even going so far as to provide sample letters of congratulations and press releases. ODE has shown no interest.
In 2008 Corbett was ranked #8 in the nation by Newsweek Magazine, and the Oregon Department of Education chose never to publicly acknowledge the achievement. Nor did it ever mention that Corbett was the only Oregon school to be awarded Gold Medal status (and a top 100 ranking) by U.S. News and World Report. Because of my association with Corbett, I am likely more bothered than most by these omissions. But the trend of elevating 'improvement' to the highest (only?) educational value and of repeatedly devaluing or ignoring excellence should be troubling to anyone who cares about schools.
Does their attitude matter?
Six years ago, Oregon boasted three high schools among the top 500 in the nation based on participation rates in the Advanced Placement program. Last year there was only one. Is it possible that Oregon's top schools are beginning to reflect the disregard with which the State of Oregon views its high achievers?
I am deeply concerned that Oregon seems to have given up on a vision of extraordinary education, seeking instead a comfortable 'middle' in which the narrowing of 'the achievement gap' trumps all other concerns. Equity matters, which is why we organize life in Corbett as we do. But while equity is an ethical imperative, it is not an adequate vision for Oregon's future. There simply has to be more.
Do we Oregonians have a vision for our best and brightest? For exceptional students? For exemplary schools? Is there life beyond benchmarks? Learning beyond State Standards?
Oregon has been doing educational triage to the exclusion of everything else for much too long. We need to get our heads out of the 'emergency room' paradigm and start building something really interesting with our schools. This effort requires that the State leadership and the professional organizations grow into the trust that has been place in them and do something bold for a change.
Next week's annual conference of the Oregon School Boards Association is called "Ripples of Hope". Wake me when it's over. Ripples? That's what we're shooting for? How did we regress from the President's 'Audacity' to 'Ripples'? This is just too sad. Ripples?
We need to do better. We need to lay claim to a future in which Oregon places more graduates in better schools than anyone else in the country. We need to demand more from our students than others are willing to dare, and we need for more teachers to be willing to take on the impossible and make it work. 'Audacity' on a book cover is one thing. (It is certainly better than 'Ripples', but still...) We need Audacity in action.
I believe that Oregon has the talent to be extraordinary. That talent needs to be fed, and 'ripples' won't nourish it. The goal of bringing everyone up to average won't do it. Talent wants a vision. It wants boldness. Will Oregon provide either?
Along the same lines, for the past two years the Oregon Department of Education has failed to publicly recognize Oregon's Advanced Placement State Scholars...students who have set the bar for Advanced Placement achievement in Oregon. Each year one boy and one girl from Oregon are selected based on their total number of AP exams passed during high school. The College Board does all the work, even going so far as to provide sample letters of congratulations and press releases. ODE has shown no interest.
In 2008 Corbett was ranked #8 in the nation by Newsweek Magazine, and the Oregon Department of Education chose never to publicly acknowledge the achievement. Nor did it ever mention that Corbett was the only Oregon school to be awarded Gold Medal status (and a top 100 ranking) by U.S. News and World Report. Because of my association with Corbett, I am likely more bothered than most by these omissions. But the trend of elevating 'improvement' to the highest (only?) educational value and of repeatedly devaluing or ignoring excellence should be troubling to anyone who cares about schools.
Does their attitude matter?
Six years ago, Oregon boasted three high schools among the top 500 in the nation based on participation rates in the Advanced Placement program. Last year there was only one. Is it possible that Oregon's top schools are beginning to reflect the disregard with which the State of Oregon views its high achievers?
I am deeply concerned that Oregon seems to have given up on a vision of extraordinary education, seeking instead a comfortable 'middle' in which the narrowing of 'the achievement gap' trumps all other concerns. Equity matters, which is why we organize life in Corbett as we do. But while equity is an ethical imperative, it is not an adequate vision for Oregon's future. There simply has to be more.
Do we Oregonians have a vision for our best and brightest? For exceptional students? For exemplary schools? Is there life beyond benchmarks? Learning beyond State Standards?
Oregon has been doing educational triage to the exclusion of everything else for much too long. We need to get our heads out of the 'emergency room' paradigm and start building something really interesting with our schools. This effort requires that the State leadership and the professional organizations grow into the trust that has been place in them and do something bold for a change.
Next week's annual conference of the Oregon School Boards Association is called "Ripples of Hope". Wake me when it's over. Ripples? That's what we're shooting for? How did we regress from the President's 'Audacity' to 'Ripples'? This is just too sad. Ripples?
We need to do better. We need to lay claim to a future in which Oregon places more graduates in better schools than anyone else in the country. We need to demand more from our students than others are willing to dare, and we need for more teachers to be willing to take on the impossible and make it work. 'Audacity' on a book cover is one thing. (It is certainly better than 'Ripples', but still...) We need Audacity in action.
I believe that Oregon has the talent to be extraordinary. That talent needs to be fed, and 'ripples' won't nourish it. The goal of bringing everyone up to average won't do it. Talent wants a vision. It wants boldness. Will Oregon provide either?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Damage Done
Education is a peculiar enterprise. It's expensive, it's messy, it's unpredictable, it's nearly invisible, it's mostly unmeasurable, it's mandatory (except that it isn't really), it's mysterious, it's agonizing, it's pure joy. It's a dance, a march, a ramble, a race, a rumble, a stumble, a meandering path. It's a hunch, a dazzling flash, a false start, a recurrence, three steps forward, two steps back. It's zero to 60 in hyper-drive, it's sitting still enough to hear the faintest rustle of Fall. Hear that? Can it be measured without being interrupted?
But education is also an private industry and (in some cases) a government institution. Neither industries nor governments are very comfortable with the truth about education. They want education to be a straight path, a direct line, a graduated cylinder. (In fact, in their minds, all graduates must be cylindrical. "We'll have no 'square pegs' in this graduating class, Buster!") Governments need these incremental measures for the sake of making quarterly quotas. Industry needs them for 'quality control' for predictability, and for convincing customers of their value. How are parents to know that they are spending their tuition dollars wisely if not for daily concrete measures of unambiguous progress?
It's no mystery, then, that parents have been taught by both private and government schools to expect a quarterly evaluative Matrix that records everything from shoe size to phonemic aptitude to charm, complete with percentile rankings and prognostication regarding future achievement (by month)! Parents are taught to take great comfort in percentages (which specify that Johnny has learned 84% without every solving the puzzle of '84% of what?' or "What is the value of that particular 100%?")
BUT what if a school refuses to pretend that education occurs along a non-problematic trajectory that can be divided by 13 (years), divided again by three or four (terms or trimesters) and parsed out in intelligible increments? Well, you get something like Corbett Schools. Several years ago, Corbett Schools deferred the assignment of letter grades until students reach high school. (At this point it might be objected that many elementary schools don't issue ABC grades. Ya, OK. They issue ESN or ESU grades instead. It's the same old thing, as I knew when I received my ESN elementary report cards decades ago.)
In Corbett, we report progress. Not as a precise percentage of some false standard of perfection (100%!), but as movement in the general enterprise of becoming a reader, a writer, a mathematician, a speaker, a scientist, an artist, a musician...and if you stop to consider particularly outstanding people in any of those enterprises, the first thing that might stand out is how very different the great ones are from one another. They didn't all follow the same path and they don't all have identical qualities. They were not produced, they were nurtured. That's what we hope for. We want to nurture young people, to protect them and provoke them to do something interesting and deeply human with their lives.
Grades will come soon enough. The high school is full of them. They are necessary in order for colleges and universities and scholarship committees to make sense of how we spend our time. And Corbett's graduates leave here with a transcript that can be a ticket to virtually any school in the country, limited only by the abilities and efforts of each individual student. The evidence of Corbett's success is out there, at Harvard, at USC, at OSU and U of O. At Smith, Willamette, Vassar, Reed, UPS, PU, UP, Lewis and Clark, MHCC, Sarah Lawrence...the evidence of our success is in the successes of our students. It's not in their elementary or secondary report cards. It's in their lives.
Still, how does one know that a second grader is on track for Harvard? It can't be known. Period. But one can know with certainty that someone else got there by walking this path. Kids who grew up in these same halls are making home visits from some of the best colleges and universities in the country on both coasts. Maybe that's enough. It's the best possible evidence...real people, not test scores, report cards or other abstractions.
It's possible that in spite of the availability of first-hand evidence, of real young people, some will continue to desire the illusion of certainty that only a grade Matrix can provide. We will continue to argue that to do so constitutes a desperate case of misplaced concreteness. Worse than that, it creates an atmosphere of anxiety that could well impact children. Childhood is an anxious time as it is, having to learn to share, wait in line, take turns, do as an adult asks...the last thing that children need is to worry about whether they are growing or maturing at an 'acceptable' rate. It's how so many of us have been taught by long experience to think about education and about schools. I believe it to be a kind of cultural damage that has been done. It is 'spilled milk', and I guess that means there's no crying over it.
As it has been in the past, my only advice is that parents choose the school that suits them best and trust that they made a good choice. And if they didn't, it's always OK to change. We are all only human. Always only human, and trying together to do it well and to pass along what we learn to our children. And that's why percentages don't apply. (Or if they do, they should never be hired.)
Looks like good weather for visitors. May all your butterfingers be fresh and may none of your whoppers be hollow.
But education is also an private industry and (in some cases) a government institution. Neither industries nor governments are very comfortable with the truth about education. They want education to be a straight path, a direct line, a graduated cylinder. (In fact, in their minds, all graduates must be cylindrical. "We'll have no 'square pegs' in this graduating class, Buster!") Governments need these incremental measures for the sake of making quarterly quotas. Industry needs them for 'quality control' for predictability, and for convincing customers of their value. How are parents to know that they are spending their tuition dollars wisely if not for daily concrete measures of unambiguous progress?
It's no mystery, then, that parents have been taught by both private and government schools to expect a quarterly evaluative Matrix that records everything from shoe size to phonemic aptitude to charm, complete with percentile rankings and prognostication regarding future achievement (by month)! Parents are taught to take great comfort in percentages (which specify that Johnny has learned 84% without every solving the puzzle of '84% of what?' or "What is the value of that particular 100%?")
BUT what if a school refuses to pretend that education occurs along a non-problematic trajectory that can be divided by 13 (years), divided again by three or four (terms or trimesters) and parsed out in intelligible increments? Well, you get something like Corbett Schools. Several years ago, Corbett Schools deferred the assignment of letter grades until students reach high school. (At this point it might be objected that many elementary schools don't issue ABC grades. Ya, OK. They issue ESN or ESU grades instead. It's the same old thing, as I knew when I received my ESN elementary report cards decades ago.)
In Corbett, we report progress. Not as a precise percentage of some false standard of perfection (100%!), but as movement in the general enterprise of becoming a reader, a writer, a mathematician, a speaker, a scientist, an artist, a musician...and if you stop to consider particularly outstanding people in any of those enterprises, the first thing that might stand out is how very different the great ones are from one another. They didn't all follow the same path and they don't all have identical qualities. They were not produced, they were nurtured. That's what we hope for. We want to nurture young people, to protect them and provoke them to do something interesting and deeply human with their lives.
Grades will come soon enough. The high school is full of them. They are necessary in order for colleges and universities and scholarship committees to make sense of how we spend our time. And Corbett's graduates leave here with a transcript that can be a ticket to virtually any school in the country, limited only by the abilities and efforts of each individual student. The evidence of Corbett's success is out there, at Harvard, at USC, at OSU and U of O. At Smith, Willamette, Vassar, Reed, UPS, PU, UP, Lewis and Clark, MHCC, Sarah Lawrence...the evidence of our success is in the successes of our students. It's not in their elementary or secondary report cards. It's in their lives.
Still, how does one know that a second grader is on track for Harvard? It can't be known. Period. But one can know with certainty that someone else got there by walking this path. Kids who grew up in these same halls are making home visits from some of the best colleges and universities in the country on both coasts. Maybe that's enough. It's the best possible evidence...real people, not test scores, report cards or other abstractions.
It's possible that in spite of the availability of first-hand evidence, of real young people, some will continue to desire the illusion of certainty that only a grade Matrix can provide. We will continue to argue that to do so constitutes a desperate case of misplaced concreteness. Worse than that, it creates an atmosphere of anxiety that could well impact children. Childhood is an anxious time as it is, having to learn to share, wait in line, take turns, do as an adult asks...the last thing that children need is to worry about whether they are growing or maturing at an 'acceptable' rate. It's how so many of us have been taught by long experience to think about education and about schools. I believe it to be a kind of cultural damage that has been done. It is 'spilled milk', and I guess that means there's no crying over it.
As it has been in the past, my only advice is that parents choose the school that suits them best and trust that they made a good choice. And if they didn't, it's always OK to change. We are all only human. Always only human, and trying together to do it well and to pass along what we learn to our children. And that's why percentages don't apply. (Or if they do, they should never be hired.)
Looks like good weather for visitors. May all your butterfingers be fresh and may none of your whoppers be hollow.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Credit by Proficiency: A ruse whose time has come?
If you want to lower standards in education, all you have to do is sprinkle your proposal with words like 'rigorous' and 'standards-based'. Your slide to the lowest common denominator will be heralded as the path to closing the achievement gap. After all, the lower the standard, the narrower the achievement gap. It's simple math.
Susan Castillo has just announced that 'credit by proficiency' is the key to improving Oregon schools in the future. The first question that comes to mind is why she would believe that she knows this, given that Oregon implemented and discarded the 'credit by proficiency' nonsense during the waning years in the 1980's. (Not her fault, really, since she may not have been involved in education in the 1980's) Every high school class had a list of proficiencies as long as your arm, and every teacher was expected to check off each 'proficiency', one at a time, for every student. It fell flat. It was a phenomenal waste of time. It did nothing for student achievement. For many courses of study, it simply made no sense. But like every failed idea in education, it has waited in the wings in hopes that memories would fade, allowing it to be relabeled as an innovation.
Credit by Proficiency is just the latest rendition of the old war between 'academics' and vocational training. The 'proficiency' theory is that students should receive high school credit based on what they can do and should not receive credit just for sitting in a classroom for the designated amount of time.
The argument appears at first to be just a matter of common sense, but on closer inspection it is founded on a classic straw man. Whether they call it 'seat time', call it 'sit and get', or any number of names that are intended to discredit (in this case literally) the exchange of ideas between teachers and students, the claim is that students are currently receiving high school credit based solely on how long they sit in a chair. It's a simple claim, and it has a certain appeal to everyone who was every bored in school. But it takes very little reflection to realize that only in cases of outright fraud did 'seat time' automatically generate credit toward graduation. If it had, we wouldn't have such vivid memories of tests we didn't prepare for, papers we didn't finish on time, and failing grades. Yes, failing grades. Why? Because contrary to the myth perpetrated by the Credit by Proficiency folks, grades are not and have never been based on seat time, but on performance on several measures including classroom discussions, quizzes, tests, papers, daily math lessons, ect.
LET'S BE CLEAR. THE 'CREDIT BY PROFICIENCY' ADVOCATES' FREQUENT CLAIM THAT STUDENTS CURRENTLY EARN CREDIT BY ACCRUING 'SEAT TIME' (SIMPLY SITTING In A CLASSROOM FOR THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TIME) IS A LIE. TAKE AWAY THAT LIE AND THEY HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO OFFER.
But is it a lie, really? And if it is, is it polite to say so? Consider this. If credit is currently given just for showing up, why are so many students credit deficient? Why is the graduation rate so abysmal? One of the top reasons that students give for leaving school is that they are hopelessly behind in earning credits toward graduation. How did they get so far behind? By missing seat time? Not so. It is against the law in Oregon to withhold credit or to lower a grade based solely on lack of attendance...clearly a devaluation of seat time and a requirement that grades be based on performance and not on showing up. Kids who fail to earn credit fail to achieve.
Finally, if seat time is all that matters, how is it that some students are earning A's and B's while others are earning C's, D's and yes, even F's? Clearly there is much more than seat time going on here. And one has to believe that the proponents of 'Credit by Proficiency' know all of this.
In Corbett, which can make a claim to being a high performing program, about one in every seven grades is an 'Incomplete'. This is in a school in which 90% of sophomores pass the 1oth grade reading assessment. Clearly we don't believe that proficiency is enough. There is more to being an educated person than meeting some state-sanctioned minimal proficiency, and that 'something more' should be our priority.
So what is the goal of the 'credit by proficiency' clan? It's to create the illusion of education without having to work at the real thing. It is education by checklist, with the goal for every child being identical...put a check in every box. It's the 'field strip and M16 in 30 seconds while blindfolded' theory of learning. Ultimately, it is about education on the cheap. It's about devaluing the role of the teacher. It's about devaluing any learning that can't be reduced to a checklist.
Proficiency as a goal has it's place. In vocational training. But not in education.
Why not? Because like every permutation of the Standards Movement (credit by proficiency is just the blue collar version of the broader Standards debacle), its implementation inevitably limits student achievement. It has a leveling effect whereby the minimum standard tends to be adjusted downward (like the Oregon 10th grade assessments in Reading and Math) so that a respectable number of students will pass (it's funny how these 'standards' always wind up being normed to a curve) and it discounts excellence. Everyone gets pushed to the middle...standardized, as it were. Once a student has met a standard (and it is imperative to remember that this standard will always have to be low enough that the vast majority of students can meet it without too much effort!) then there is no need for the most able students to extend their learning. In fact, in a true proficiency model, there won't be any course material beyond the 'proficient' level...it will be time to move on and demonstrate another 'proficiency'.
A final word for you professionals: the proficiency movement, to the degree that it is internally consistent, will wind up decapitating Bloom's taxonomy and leaving little (if any) room for anything beyond application. This is the level at which the vast majority of 'proficiencies' will be targeted, since synthesis and evaluation don't lend themselves to a checklist approach. Whatever is easiest to measure is what we will always tend to measure most.
Susan Castillo has just announced that 'credit by proficiency' is the key to improving Oregon schools in the future. The first question that comes to mind is why she would believe that she knows this, given that Oregon implemented and discarded the 'credit by proficiency' nonsense during the waning years in the 1980's. (Not her fault, really, since she may not have been involved in education in the 1980's) Every high school class had a list of proficiencies as long as your arm, and every teacher was expected to check off each 'proficiency', one at a time, for every student. It fell flat. It was a phenomenal waste of time. It did nothing for student achievement. For many courses of study, it simply made no sense. But like every failed idea in education, it has waited in the wings in hopes that memories would fade, allowing it to be relabeled as an innovation.
Credit by Proficiency is just the latest rendition of the old war between 'academics' and vocational training. The 'proficiency' theory is that students should receive high school credit based on what they can do and should not receive credit just for sitting in a classroom for the designated amount of time.
The argument appears at first to be just a matter of common sense, but on closer inspection it is founded on a classic straw man. Whether they call it 'seat time', call it 'sit and get', or any number of names that are intended to discredit (in this case literally) the exchange of ideas between teachers and students, the claim is that students are currently receiving high school credit based solely on how long they sit in a chair. It's a simple claim, and it has a certain appeal to everyone who was every bored in school. But it takes very little reflection to realize that only in cases of outright fraud did 'seat time' automatically generate credit toward graduation. If it had, we wouldn't have such vivid memories of tests we didn't prepare for, papers we didn't finish on time, and failing grades. Yes, failing grades. Why? Because contrary to the myth perpetrated by the Credit by Proficiency folks, grades are not and have never been based on seat time, but on performance on several measures including classroom discussions, quizzes, tests, papers, daily math lessons, ect.
LET'S BE CLEAR. THE 'CREDIT BY PROFICIENCY' ADVOCATES' FREQUENT CLAIM THAT STUDENTS CURRENTLY EARN CREDIT BY ACCRUING 'SEAT TIME' (SIMPLY SITTING In A CLASSROOM FOR THE APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TIME) IS A LIE. TAKE AWAY THAT LIE AND THEY HAVE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO OFFER.
But is it a lie, really? And if it is, is it polite to say so? Consider this. If credit is currently given just for showing up, why are so many students credit deficient? Why is the graduation rate so abysmal? One of the top reasons that students give for leaving school is that they are hopelessly behind in earning credits toward graduation. How did they get so far behind? By missing seat time? Not so. It is against the law in Oregon to withhold credit or to lower a grade based solely on lack of attendance...clearly a devaluation of seat time and a requirement that grades be based on performance and not on showing up. Kids who fail to earn credit fail to achieve.
Finally, if seat time is all that matters, how is it that some students are earning A's and B's while others are earning C's, D's and yes, even F's? Clearly there is much more than seat time going on here. And one has to believe that the proponents of 'Credit by Proficiency' know all of this.
In Corbett, which can make a claim to being a high performing program, about one in every seven grades is an 'Incomplete'. This is in a school in which 90% of sophomores pass the 1oth grade reading assessment. Clearly we don't believe that proficiency is enough. There is more to being an educated person than meeting some state-sanctioned minimal proficiency, and that 'something more' should be our priority.
So what is the goal of the 'credit by proficiency' clan? It's to create the illusion of education without having to work at the real thing. It is education by checklist, with the goal for every child being identical...put a check in every box. It's the 'field strip and M16 in 30 seconds while blindfolded' theory of learning. Ultimately, it is about education on the cheap. It's about devaluing the role of the teacher. It's about devaluing any learning that can't be reduced to a checklist.
Proficiency as a goal has it's place. In vocational training. But not in education.
Why not? Because like every permutation of the Standards Movement (credit by proficiency is just the blue collar version of the broader Standards debacle), its implementation inevitably limits student achievement. It has a leveling effect whereby the minimum standard tends to be adjusted downward (like the Oregon 10th grade assessments in Reading and Math) so that a respectable number of students will pass (it's funny how these 'standards' always wind up being normed to a curve) and it discounts excellence. Everyone gets pushed to the middle...standardized, as it were. Once a student has met a standard (and it is imperative to remember that this standard will always have to be low enough that the vast majority of students can meet it without too much effort!) then there is no need for the most able students to extend their learning. In fact, in a true proficiency model, there won't be any course material beyond the 'proficient' level...it will be time to move on and demonstrate another 'proficiency'.
A final word for you professionals: the proficiency movement, to the degree that it is internally consistent, will wind up decapitating Bloom's taxonomy and leaving little (if any) room for anything beyond application. This is the level at which the vast majority of 'proficiencies' will be targeted, since synthesis and evaluation don't lend themselves to a checklist approach. Whatever is easiest to measure is what we will always tend to measure most.
Oregon's Race to the Middle
The State of Oregon is preparing an application for federal 'Race to the Top' funds. This is a competitive grant, and if Oregon's feeble proposal warrants financial support then the nation is in worse shape than even I believe.
What are Oregon's strategies? (See if any of this sounds familiar)
1. Merit pay for principals and teachers if their school improves. (But not for principals and teachers whose schools already perform?) This old shoe will never be implemented, though national examples of half-implementation followed by gradual abandonment abound, offering the consolation that others have been gullible before us.
2. Reshuffle teachers and administrators if schools don't perform. What does this mean, exactly? Move those supposedly low-performing teachers and principals to better schools and move teachers from better schools into the low-performing school? That's it? But doesn't that mean that the district-wide teaching staff is precisely what it was before, but is now assigned to different schools? Doesn't that just redistribute the same level of effectiveness? (And didn't Portland do this in the early days of NCLB?) How is that improvement? And for the 100-or-so Oregon districts that have only one building per grade level, it means less than nothing. It means that they are superfluous.
3. Frequently inform students how their performance compares to grade-level benchmarks. Yes, it's called 'scientifically-based nagging'. This is a clear winner, because no-one can resist the motivational power of a good nag. I suppose that this could eventually lead to merit pay for the very best nag. Maybe even a nag-of-the-year award down the road!
Conspicuously missing from the list? Anything to do with Oregon's bare tolerance of charter schools. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks enough of charter schools that he stopped by to address the national charter convention to unveil the Race to the Top program in person. Where does Oregon stand on this strategy? Out in the cold. Why? Because in the Oregon political 'verse, unions determine elections and children are too young to join unions. So charter schools, which are opposed by the NEA, the OEA, the national pTa, COSA, and every other major stakeholder in the status quo, are only grudgingly tolerated and are under attack in every legislative session. Yet charters are at the center of the federal improvement strategy. So Oregon sides against the Democratic president, his Secretary of Education, and the grant-readers who will determine the distribution of significant federal dollars. And we offer them a good old-fashioned 'nagging' in hopes that they don't real the grant too closely.
Poor, poor Oregon. We tolerate the absurdity of No Child Left Behind because of the availability of grant money...a case of bad practice tolerated in the name of fiscal necessity. And now we are essentially turning down federal dollars because we don't want to see real innovation take hold in the form of charter schools...a case of promising practice avoided in spite of urgently needed financial incentives.
Nobody can say that Oregon doesn't act on principle...but the principle seems to be that what's good for reelection is good for the kids. And reelection means avoiding real reform while talking incessantly about oh-so-incremental school improvement: the song that never ends.
Superintendent Castillo has announced that she is running for a third term. The word on the street is that nobody will bother running against her. But she's not taking anything for granted, and her campaign is clearly underway.
What are Oregon's strategies? (See if any of this sounds familiar)
1. Merit pay for principals and teachers if their school improves. (But not for principals and teachers whose schools already perform?) This old shoe will never be implemented, though national examples of half-implementation followed by gradual abandonment abound, offering the consolation that others have been gullible before us.
2. Reshuffle teachers and administrators if schools don't perform. What does this mean, exactly? Move those supposedly low-performing teachers and principals to better schools and move teachers from better schools into the low-performing school? That's it? But doesn't that mean that the district-wide teaching staff is precisely what it was before, but is now assigned to different schools? Doesn't that just redistribute the same level of effectiveness? (And didn't Portland do this in the early days of NCLB?) How is that improvement? And for the 100-or-so Oregon districts that have only one building per grade level, it means less than nothing. It means that they are superfluous.
3. Frequently inform students how their performance compares to grade-level benchmarks. Yes, it's called 'scientifically-based nagging'. This is a clear winner, because no-one can resist the motivational power of a good nag. I suppose that this could eventually lead to merit pay for the very best nag. Maybe even a nag-of-the-year award down the road!
Conspicuously missing from the list? Anything to do with Oregon's bare tolerance of charter schools. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks enough of charter schools that he stopped by to address the national charter convention to unveil the Race to the Top program in person. Where does Oregon stand on this strategy? Out in the cold. Why? Because in the Oregon political 'verse, unions determine elections and children are too young to join unions. So charter schools, which are opposed by the NEA, the OEA, the national pTa, COSA, and every other major stakeholder in the status quo, are only grudgingly tolerated and are under attack in every legislative session. Yet charters are at the center of the federal improvement strategy. So Oregon sides against the Democratic president, his Secretary of Education, and the grant-readers who will determine the distribution of significant federal dollars. And we offer them a good old-fashioned 'nagging' in hopes that they don't real the grant too closely.
Poor, poor Oregon. We tolerate the absurdity of No Child Left Behind because of the availability of grant money...a case of bad practice tolerated in the name of fiscal necessity. And now we are essentially turning down federal dollars because we don't want to see real innovation take hold in the form of charter schools...a case of promising practice avoided in spite of urgently needed financial incentives.
Nobody can say that Oregon doesn't act on principle...but the principle seems to be that what's good for reelection is good for the kids. And reelection means avoiding real reform while talking incessantly about oh-so-incremental school improvement: the song that never ends.
Superintendent Castillo has announced that she is running for a third term. The word on the street is that nobody will bother running against her. But she's not taking anything for granted, and her campaign is clearly underway.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Charter Schools, Politics and Market Forces
In some people's minds there is a 'charter school movement' that is at odds with school districts and is driven by economic theories about competition and 'market forces'. I don't put much stock in competition as a tool for improving schools. It might be useful in some instances, but I don't personally know of any cases in which competition has been a catalyst for much improvement. And I don't have much use for 'movements'. They are not, as we have seen, of much use in education.
This is why the conversation about approving or denying a particular charter application ought to have exactly one dimension: Is there a reason to think that the charter school in question will improve student achievement? If a charter school increases students' access to a better education, then it should be approved. Whatever distractions might be brought introduced to the conversation, whether they be matters of convenience, pride, annoyance, greed or embarrassment, all ought to be put aside in favor of academic achievement.
We are not acting out parts in a Clancy novel, and we ought to quit playing at political intrigue when it comes to our children's futures.
It's time for a change. While they are still children.
This is why the conversation about approving or denying a particular charter application ought to have exactly one dimension: Is there a reason to think that the charter school in question will improve student achievement? If a charter school increases students' access to a better education, then it should be approved. Whatever distractions might be brought introduced to the conversation, whether they be matters of convenience, pride, annoyance, greed or embarrassment, all ought to be put aside in favor of academic achievement.
We are not acting out parts in a Clancy novel, and we ought to quit playing at political intrigue when it comes to our children's futures.
It's time for a change. While they are still children.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
If Oregon Uses a Continuous Improvement Model...
then where is the improvement? And please don't answer that it is in the progress of our 3rd graders. Since we started saying that, 12 cohorts of 3rd graders have become fully bearded without having met the 10th grade standards in any significant numbers.
O.K. This isn't about Corbett. At any rate it's not just about Corbett. Or maybe it is, but it's also about education in general and about Oregon education in particular.
Nearly two decades after the passage of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, education statewide is experiencing a peculiar malaise. I say peculiar, because it is characterized by an almost hyper-activity regarding initiatives, programs, trainings, policies and promises all aimed at improving student achievement. Never have so many adults been so busy at 'improving' schools. But student achievement isn't budging. The achievement gap isn't appreciably narrower than it was five years ago. Where passing rates appear to have improved, most of the change is due to the State of Oregon having lowered 10th grade standards in Reading and Math, garnering what appeared to be a 10 point bump in passing rates in both of those subjects in 2007. That same year, the State increased the cutoff score for Science (the subject that doesn't count for AYP calculations) by 1 point, and passing rates have remained stable. Overall, 10th grade passing rates might be creeping upward at a rate of 1-2% per year. With the State assessments in a continual state of flux, I don't put a lot of stock in even that meager 'gain'.
So what do we, as a state, intend to do differently next year? Well, nothing at all. That doesn't mean that we won't see new initiatives, new grants, new buildings, new funding proposals, and new promises. We will. In droves. And each new idea, regardless of its merits, will be subjected to a process that has, to date, prevented any really good idea from being implemented to any significant effect. What is this amazing 'sterilizer' through which every promising idea must pass lest a good idea might survive intact? It is the ironically-named Continuous Improvement Planning Process. What does it do? It limits vision, sets parameters on 'acceptable' goals, and virtually guarantees a very safe mediocrity.
What is the alternative? What ought we to do?
What Oregon needs, and what the education establishment in Oregon will never tolerate, is outrageous aspirations. We need impossible goals, audacious undertakings. Because getting even partway to something really worthwhile represents far more progress than meeting an utterly pedestrian 'SMART' (yes, it's a real acronym, but I've never cared to know what the letters stand for) goal. What I do know about SMART goals is that they are small, cheap, easy, achievable in no time at all, and the total result of 10 years of Oregon schools meeting annual SMART goals is virtually no improvement at the high school level. We are stalled out, with plans in place to repeat this process until the federal grant money runs out.
I believe that Charter Schools represent the only possibility for rapid, meaningful school improvement. Although Oregon law goes a long way toward trying to tame the wild energy that Charters often possess, there is enough breathing room for charters to aspire to greatness. Greatness, not compliance. Inspiration, not bureaucracy. Achievement, not excuses. That's the path that Oregon needs to take, and I don't see anyone at the state level breaking trail. We need to decentralize. Scattered outbreaks of inspiration would be a vast improvement over standardized mediocrity. And today mediocrity is the only SMART goal that ever makes it through the Continuous Improvement Planning Proccess.
This cannot continue.
O.K. This isn't about Corbett. At any rate it's not just about Corbett. Or maybe it is, but it's also about education in general and about Oregon education in particular.
Nearly two decades after the passage of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, education statewide is experiencing a peculiar malaise. I say peculiar, because it is characterized by an almost hyper-activity regarding initiatives, programs, trainings, policies and promises all aimed at improving student achievement. Never have so many adults been so busy at 'improving' schools. But student achievement isn't budging. The achievement gap isn't appreciably narrower than it was five years ago. Where passing rates appear to have improved, most of the change is due to the State of Oregon having lowered 10th grade standards in Reading and Math, garnering what appeared to be a 10 point bump in passing rates in both of those subjects in 2007. That same year, the State increased the cutoff score for Science (the subject that doesn't count for AYP calculations) by 1 point, and passing rates have remained stable. Overall, 10th grade passing rates might be creeping upward at a rate of 1-2% per year. With the State assessments in a continual state of flux, I don't put a lot of stock in even that meager 'gain'.
So what do we, as a state, intend to do differently next year? Well, nothing at all. That doesn't mean that we won't see new initiatives, new grants, new buildings, new funding proposals, and new promises. We will. In droves. And each new idea, regardless of its merits, will be subjected to a process that has, to date, prevented any really good idea from being implemented to any significant effect. What is this amazing 'sterilizer' through which every promising idea must pass lest a good idea might survive intact? It is the ironically-named Continuous Improvement Planning Process. What does it do? It limits vision, sets parameters on 'acceptable' goals, and virtually guarantees a very safe mediocrity.
What is the alternative? What ought we to do?
What Oregon needs, and what the education establishment in Oregon will never tolerate, is outrageous aspirations. We need impossible goals, audacious undertakings. Because getting even partway to something really worthwhile represents far more progress than meeting an utterly pedestrian 'SMART' (yes, it's a real acronym, but I've never cared to know what the letters stand for) goal. What I do know about SMART goals is that they are small, cheap, easy, achievable in no time at all, and the total result of 10 years of Oregon schools meeting annual SMART goals is virtually no improvement at the high school level. We are stalled out, with plans in place to repeat this process until the federal grant money runs out.
I believe that Charter Schools represent the only possibility for rapid, meaningful school improvement. Although Oregon law goes a long way toward trying to tame the wild energy that Charters often possess, there is enough breathing room for charters to aspire to greatness. Greatness, not compliance. Inspiration, not bureaucracy. Achievement, not excuses. That's the path that Oregon needs to take, and I don't see anyone at the state level breaking trail. We need to decentralize. Scattered outbreaks of inspiration would be a vast improvement over standardized mediocrity. And today mediocrity is the only SMART goal that ever makes it through the Continuous Improvement Planning Proccess.
This cannot continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)